PE discontinued at the site of the Beavis case! (Alleged overstay, Equality Act defence)

drellix

I'll update once the Court makes a decision on my Costs, though this might take a while, as I'm out of the country for February.

Coupon-mad

drellix said:

Defendants Cost Application

1. CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not 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)(g))."

2. On this basis, I would like to request a Costs Order to be made against the Claimant, given that they have behaved unreasonably by their conduct: starting from the very point of issuing a spurious parking charge without providing clear Particulars of Claim nor any material supporting evidence from a human witness, instead relying solely on ANPR “evidence” of entering and leaving the car park in question, knowing full well that this cannot constitute evidence without accompaniment by physical human checks.

3. Then, sending a copy-pasted and templated Response to Defence wherein they did not check either their evidence or even get the costs demanded from their initial PCN/NTK correct, which was received by myself long-after the deadline demanded by the Courts;

4. Then, after nearly twenty months of harassment via the Courts – in which, due to a tsunami of cases such as this one submitted by both the Claimant and other private parking operators in the interim, amounting to a third of all Small Claims cases in 2023 alone, caused multiple significant delays resulting in an original hearing date set several months after the six month time period specified by the Courts in the N180 Directions Questionnaire at question E5, and forcing me to send a N244 to the Court specifying a requirement to change this hearing date and therefore potentially incurring additional costs –  doing precisely the same thing with a copy-pasted and late-received Witness Statement;

5. And, finally, culminating in the final insult of sending an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance, immediately after having received my own Witness Statement.

6. The Defendant avers that this poorly pleased Claim – with spurious to no detail in the Particulars, near-total reliance upon the landmark ruling of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which concerned the same Claimant and the same retail park, but is otherwise entirely distinguished due to time and lack of care and attention by the Claimant to this car park, and, despite updating both their signage and max stay period as tacit proof of their acknowledgement of the illegitimacy of their Claim, still advancing it to the Witness Statement stage anyway – and then the extremely late discontinuance (after I had chosen to submit the N244 to change the hearing date and therefore pay the £275 charge to do so for an in-person hearing, though luckily no payment had been made)), amounts to an obvious attempt to ambush, at multiple stages, a litigant in person with allegations never specifically pleaded in the Particulars, nor properly outlined in either their Response to Defence or Witness Statement, then abandon that Claim leaving the Defendant with the burden of costs.

7. This is a gross abuse of process; sanctions ought to be imposed upon the Claimant. The Defendant relies upon para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and asks for costs on the indemnity basis.

8. Costs Schedule attached.

Defendant’s Schedule of Costs

Ordinary Costs:

£95.00 – Loss of Earnings/Leave for the original hearing date (capped at £95, latest payslip attached, at approx. £XXX daily, £XX hourly)

£95.00 SUBTOTAL

Ordinary Costs (applicable only if the Court still requires payment)

£275.00 – Cost of N244 order to change the original hearing date

£275.00 SUBTOTAL

Further Costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g):

£228.00 – Research, preparation and drafting of documents (6 hours for Defence, 6 hours for Witness Statement, at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour)

£15.00 Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage

£243.00 SUBTOTAL

 

£613.00 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED (IF THR COURT STILL REQUIRES PAYMENT)

£338.00 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED (OTHERWISE)

Good luck!

Re this notorious Retail Park going back to 3 hours, has that happened? Can you show pics please?

And well done on your win.

And please do this - below - yes please come back after your February break and join us whenever you can, maybe for any ParkingEye claims especially, given that half of what we do is about giving new posters confidence

I will make a point of sticking around and offering advice where I can. Now that I know that even Claims at Beavis can be effectively countered with a solid Defence and WS, it feels right to pass that knowledge on.

We need people like you.

Also there is planned to be a final Public Consultation (hopefully coming soon) from the DLUHC in order to get the new Code of Practice over the line - at last - and we need you to respond to that, too.