Small claims court

chenyu

She said that would-be claimant like to go back to his client to check if they would still like to sue me or if the right person is being sued and that she would postpone the proceedings and both parties have till the 4th August to say how we would like to proceed. They agreed and we left the court they tried to make an offer we rejected but said we were open to negotiation. We have not heard anything from them or the courts .

Coupon-mad

chenyu said:

She said that would-be claimant like to go back to his client to check if they would still like to sue me or if the right person is being sued and that she would postpone the proceedings and both parties have till the 4th August to say how we would like to proceed. They agreed and we left the court they tried to make an offer we rejected but said we were open to negotiation. We have not heard anything from them or the courts .

Then email the court and state that you have not heard anything regarding the case from the Claimants (except pressure to settle, which was refused). The deadline was 4th August and the Defendant did reply to the court in time.

The Claimant did not, therefore the Defendant kindly asks that the case be referred back in box-work to the previous Judge, because the Claimant has now breached the Order of the court.

This Defendant firmly believes this meets the high bar for wholly unreasonable conduct (the Dammerman test) and is not excused by any possible 'reasonable explanation'. This comes on top of already dragging a registered keeper to court who they knew was not the driver, and inflating the parking charge by £70 in an attempt to sidestep the capped £50 legal fees rule and despite indisputably knowing that the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 at para 4(5) states that the maximum that a keeper may be pursued for, is the original parking charge as it stood on the material date, further confirmed in the Act's Explanatory Notes at 221 here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3

As such, the Defendant asks for the court to strike out the claim and assess the Defendant's costs. Costs are due on the indemnity basis, even if the Claimant now discontinues, given this was anticipated at the end of the Defendant's defence.   Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

A copy of the costs assessment is attached and was served upon the Claimant on DATE (before the hearing). 

chenyu

Wow, this is great I will do this tomorrow and send it off thank you for ur help with this it's been most appreciated.

Jenni_D

Might be better to do it on Monday ... emails sent during working hours are less likely to disappear into a black hole.  

chenyu

So I have had a letter from the courts finally, notice of hearing. What died this mean and what do I do ?

Jenni_D

It will be a Notice of Allocation? Read it carefully - is the hearing at the court you specified when you did your DQ?

When does it say that you need to file and serve "documents upon which you will rely" (or similar wording)? (That is your deadline for sending in your Witness Statement).

All steps of the court process can be found in/linked from the NEWBIES thread - the 12 steps that you were following previously. (And which were probably mentioned earlier in this thread).

Scratch that - I can see on page 9 that you've already had your NoA and filed your WS. Is it merely a letter confirming the hearing date, and the type? (e.g. if a remote hearing then the login details etc.)

Why not post up a redacted copy of it (all sides) so we don't have to guess?

KeithP

So not only do you continue to show us your Claim Number - is that now four times you've shown that, I've lost count - but this time Danielle, your full name is clearly visible.

Do you have no privacy concerns?

Jenni_D

And that notice is simply telling you that your hearing is in a queue (same judges hearing lots of cases consecutively) so your hearing time/judge is subject to change.

chenyu

Ok I didn't realise you could see it I have removed it 

chenyu

Hi everyone, so today I lost my case☹️. They just decided that because I entered onto private land it didn't matter if I parked I had entered the private land and that meant I entered into a contract to pay and display, nor did it matter if I was the driver or not I was the owner of the vehicle so I would be held responsible for it. I feel the judge had made this decision before I even entered the room. I know the justice system sucks but this just shows how injustice and how the poor are always made to suffer more if I could have afforded a lawyer maybe this wouldn't have happened.