Help please - CCJ & Debt Recovery – from unknown Parking fine

Jack5656

@Coupon-mad said:

Also append a costs assessment. Remind me...you got your £275 back already?  If not, the whole lot goes on your updated costs assessment.

I'm struggling to know what to put down for costs - can I have some pointers please?

Can I claim a full day or only half day off work ( I will probably book the whole day as hearing is around midday).

What about unreasonable conduct - hard to get/prove? I found some details on another thread and have darfted the below costs but would appreciate feedback especially for the claim for costs for unreasonable behaviour  -  is this worth pursing, and at what amount?

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

In the matter of costs pursuant to CPR 27.14 the Defendant ask for:

(a) Loss of earnings for attendance at court £95

(b) Research, preparation and drafting documents for this hearing (8 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour): £152

(c) Compensation under rule 27.14.2 (g) for Claimant’s unreasonable  behaviour by pursuing a claim without proper checks of the Defendant’s current address, adding inflated debt costs that were not incurred, and causing undue distress: £500.

The above does not include the time taken to research, prepare and draft documents for the hearing on xx xxxx 2022 such as defence and witness statement, which took a minimum of 20 hours. If this was added (20 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) this amounts to £380.   

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED: £747

The Defendant humbly requests that these costs be considered.

Jack5656

I'm guessing no feedback means what I have put above is ok?

Coupon-mad

You won't get the £500 compensation sadly.

Jack5656

OK thanks - I thought it was unlikely, so do you recommend I lower the amount and leave it in just to 'make the point', or just remove this part entirely?

Coupon-mad

You could ask that the court considers an uplift of such percentage as the Judge deems fit, under rule 27.14.2 (g) to reflect the court's dissatisfaction for this Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour...blah blah

But I doubt you'd get it.

Johnersh

I've not read the history on this, so here's my random musing. You must raise points you are comfortable with and which are correct to the facts of the case. 

If the court has set aside on the basis of failed service, but the claimant has not applied to retrospectively request either that service is dispensed with or that there has been service by alternative means, that's conceivably an issue. 

Given that the cpr is clear that the claim form expires, if no permission is sought for the claim to remain live, doesn't it follow that it is now dead?

See also piepenbrock v associated news para 72.

Coupon-mad

https://lexlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dr-Theodore-Piepenbrock-v-Associated-Newspapers-Limited-DMG-Media-of-Daily-Mail-General-Trust-plc-The-London-School-of-Economics-and-Political-Science-Joanne-Hay.pdf

Interesting case law.  New one on me.

And great paragraph 72, which even explains that normally - if the limitations deadline had not expired - the Claimant could (of course) serve a fresh claim. So the court is not preventing anything and in fact has no power at all to somehow let the C have another go with this one and declare 'long live the claim!' If it's dead then it's dead. Too late.

The CPRs dictate the rules and deadlines and THIS particular claim is dead, and cannot be resuscitated*

*not even by CPR...!

Anyway go with @Johnersh's lawyerish phraseology, not mine:

If the court has set aside on the basis of failed service, but the claimant has not applied to retrospectively request either that service is dispensed with or that there has been service by alternative means, that's conceivably an issue. 

Jack5656

Johnersh said:

Given that the cpr is clear that the claim form expires, if no permission is sought for the claim to remain live, doesn't it follow that it is now dead?

Thanks very much @Johnersh - I was confused by the ruling in the first heating where the Judge ordered:

"Upon the court coming to the view that the Claimant should have taken steps to establish, prior to attempting service of the Claim form that the address given them in xxxx was still current, and upon the Court coming to the view that the Claim form was not effectively served IT IS ORDERED THAT the judgement dated xxxx be and is hereby set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 and the Claimant must notfiy the court by xxxx what directions if any it seeks as a consequence. In default of the Claimant doing so the claim should be struck out."

The issue I have with this order is giving 'C' the chance to ask for some new direction to take which they did by asking for:

"The Claimant confirms that they would like the Claim to be restored and allocated to the Small Claims Track."

To my simple logic if the Judge has stated the claim was not served then how can claim carry on and be resurrected to the small claims track?! So is the main quesition now whether 'C asked for the claim to remain live - which I guess they have above? But surely CPR 7.5 says is can't be live if now past 4 months?

Jack5656

Coupon-mad said:

https://lexlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dr-Theodore-Piepenbrock-v-Associated-Newspapers-Limited-DMG-Media-of-Daily-Mail-General-Trust-plc-The-London-School-of-Economics-and-Political-Science-Joanne-Hay.pdf

And great paragraph 72, which even explains that normally - if the limitations deadline had not expired - the Claimant could (of course) serve a fresh claim. So the court is not preventing anything and in fact has no power at all to somehow let the C have another go with this one and declare 'long live the claim!' If it's dead then it's dead. Too late.

The CPRs dictate the rules and deadlines and THIS particular claim is dead, and cannot be resuscitated*

Are you saying then that a new claim starts afresh now - and by that do you mean start from scratch with the original PCN to the correct address, which to my mind seems the logiclal approach ratrher than tryng to revive a dead Claim?

Coupon-mad

No. Potentially a Claimant can file and serve the claim afresh (not the PCN...nothing rewinds that far).

The point is (supported by case law including the new one that Johnersh gave us and I linked) that the court need have no concerns that by striking out THIS claim, they are denying a valid Claimant a lawful remedy.

A claimant can file a fresh claim if they want, if still within the 6 year limitation.

But as a matter of fact and CPR and case law, THIS particular claim is dead and the Claimant should never have been handed that lifeline from the previous Order, to let them dictate to the court that they want new life breathed into a dead claim.  Case law says they can't.