QDR Solicitors - Claim for multiple parking charges.

Harbmeister

KeithP said:

@Harbmeister, don't lose sight of the last sentence of that Order...


That means you will need to supply a costs schedule a few days before the hearing.

Thanks and no I am currently estimating those in order to request a discontinuance from the C. Will post that soon.
The set I supply to the Court will be actuals.

Coupon-mad

Great that the court made a written finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimants, which gives you leverage to push now and suggest they may wish to 'drop hands' by {SHORT DEADLINE} to avoid your daily rate of costs.

Why des the Order say 'BY CONSENT'? Were you asked at the hearing and put under pressure to consent to all that? Or is 'BY CONSENT' an error in the Order, do you think?

Harbmeister

Coupon-mad said:

Great that the court made a written finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimants, which gives you leverage to push now and suggest they may wish to 'drop hands' by {SHORT DEADLINE} to avoid your daily rate of costs.

Why des the Order say 'BY CONSENT'? Were you asked at the hearing and put under pressure to consent to all that? Or is 'BY CONSENT' an error in the Order, do you think?

The hearing was a bit of a blur and so I can't say I was/wasn't asked to consent.
I would say that I wasn't specifically that I recall (using that term).

If I say my costs are:

1 hour for reading Claimants’ new submissions
2 hours for compiling and submitting a new defence
6 hours for compiling a new Witness Statement bundle
... all at (the permitted) £19 ph

Printing costs of £10.

Rearranging work for attendance at a second hearing (half day of leave taken)
... 3.7 hours at a rate of £XX ph

Does that sound fair?

There's no paid car parking and the court is a reasonable distance so as not to warrant fuel charges.

This would be a total of £370. The total being claimed is £440 (including 2 x £70 admin fees).

Coupon-mad

all at (the permitted) £19 ph

No - do it at ALL at your hourly paid rate.

You already have a finding of unreasonable conduct so you are disadvantaged and being put to significant extra work by a Claimant who failed to explain the reasons for their cumulative behaviour and delays.

Quote this as an addendum attached to your costs assessment (SIGNED & DATED) along with proof of your usual hourly rate and state what your profession is.

Make an effort to prove financial loss.


Addendum:  In support of the court allowing the Defendant's usual hourly rate for this extra work:

The Court has already made a finding of unreasonable conduct against the Claimant, found that the Defendant was disadvantaged and the learned Judge held that a claim for costs by the Defendant is allowable.

This will be the case, regardless of final outcome or discontinuance (unless the Claimant agrees to discontinue immediately and before I start work on the amendments, next week, in which case - in the interests of proportionality and because there was no paid car parking and the court is a reasonable distance so as not to warrant fuel charges.- I will accept £95 for attending the application hearing where the finding of unreasonable conduct was made).

I urge the Claimant to discontinue and pay me £95 within 48 hours of receiving this costs assessment.  Otherwise, the costs as listed for the extra work and inconvenience caused to me will apply on the indemnity bases Any denial of bad practice and unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant is impossible in this case, due to the recent Order.

As such, the Defendant will be seeking their costs (CPR Rule 27.14(2g) on an indemnity basis.

In the event that the Claimants point to the £19 per hour Guideline Rates, these were originally provided to judges when the Civil Procedure Rules arrived in April 1999 and the concept of summary assessment of costs first came into being. They were not intended to replace a more thorough consideration of appropriate hourly rates in detailed assessments and certainly not in cases with findings against one party, of unreasonable conduct. 

"In assessing the reasonableness of the incidence and amount of the costs incurred, the Court will have regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the value of the claim, the importance of the matter to the parties, the complexity of the issue, and the skill, time and effort spent.." - CPR 44.4.

Costs - Special cases:
Litigants in person

46.5

(1) This rule applies where the court orders (whether by summary assessment or detailed assessment) that the costs of a litigant in person are to be paid by any other person.

(2) The costs allowed under this rule will not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been represented by a legal representative.

(3) The litigant in person shall be allowed –

(a) costs for the same categories of –

(i) work; and

(ii) disbursements,

which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements had been made by a legal representative on the litigant in person’s behalf;

(b) the payments reasonably made by the litigant in person for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and

(c) the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim.

(4) The amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work claimed will be –

(a) where the litigant can prove financial loss, the amount that the litigant can prove to have been lost for time reasonably spent on doing the work; or

(b) where the litigant cannot prove financial loss, an amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at the rate set out in Practice Direction 46.

----------------



See this case where they pushed a roboclaim solicitor to discontinue because the D was claiming their full hourly rate (not £19 per hour) due to unreasonable conduct:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6160146/court-papers-received-draft-abuse-of-process-defence/p13

This person (below) listed the conduct in such a damning way that they got over £700 granted in costs on 'the indemnity basis' that you must ask for too:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75807521#Comment_75807521

Harbmeister

Coupon-mad said:

all at (the permitted) £19 ph

No - do it at ALL at your hourly paid rate.

You already have a finding of unreasonable conduct so you are disadvantaged and being put to significant extra work by a Claimant who failed to explain the reasons for their cumulative behaviour and delays.

Quote this as an addendum attached to your costs assessment (SIGNED & DATED) along with proof of your usual hourly rate and state what your profession is.

Make an effort to prove financial loss.


Addendum:  In support of the court allowing the Defendant's usual hourly rate for this extra work:

The Court has already made a finding of unreasonable conduct against the Claimant, found that the Defendant was disadvantaged and the learned Judge held that a claim for costs by the Defendant is allowable.

This will be the case, regardless of final outcome or discontinuance (unless the Claimant agrees to discontinue immediately and before I start work on the amendments, next week, in which case - in the interests of proportionality and because there was no paid car parking and the court is a reasonable distance so as not to warrant fuel charges.- I will accept £95 for attending the application hearing where the finding of unreasonable conduct was made).

I urge the Claimant to discontinue and pay me £95 within 48 hours of receiving this costs assessment.  Otherwise, the costs as listed for the extra work and inconvenience caused to me will apply on the indemnity bases Any denial of bad practice and unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant is impossible in this case, due to the recent Order.

As such, the Defendant will be seeking their costs (CPR Rule 27.14(2g) on an indemnity basis.

In the event that the Claimants point to the £19 per hour Guideline Rates, these were originally provided to judges when the Civil Procedure Rules arrived in April 1999 and the concept of summary assessment of costs first came into being. They were not intended to replace a more thorough consideration of appropriate hourly rates in detailed assessments and certainly not in cases with findings against one party, of unreasonable conduct. 

"In assessing the reasonableness of the incidence and amount of the costs incurred, the Court will have regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the value of the claim, the importance of the matter to the parties, the complexity of the issue, and the skill, time and effort spent.." - CPR 44.4.

Costs - Special cases:
Litigants in person

46.5

(1) This rule applies where the court orders (whether by summary assessment or detailed assessment) that the costs of a litigant in person are to be paid by any other person.

(2) The costs allowed under this rule will not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been represented by a legal representative.

(3) The litigant in person shall be allowed –

(a) costs for the same categories of –

(i) work; and

(ii) disbursements,

which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements had been made by a legal representative on the litigant in person’s behalf;

(b) the payments reasonably made by the litigant in person for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and

(c) the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim.

(4) The amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work claimed will be –

(a) where the litigant can prove financial loss, the amount that the litigant can prove to have been lost for time reasonably spent on doing the work; or

(b) where the litigant cannot prove financial loss, an amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at the rate set out in Practice Direction 46.

----------------



See this case where they pushed a roboclaim solicitor to discontinue because the D was claiming their full hourly rate (not £19 per hour) due to unreasonable conduct:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6160146/court-papers-received-draft-abuse-of-process-defence/p13

This person (below) listed the conduct in such a damning way that they got over £700 granted in costs on 'the indemnity basis' that you must ask for too:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75807521#Comment_75807521

Ok thanks.

Just a little confused so please bear with me.

I considered the message to C to be in letter format, stating that I will be claiming £X costs (and a breakdown) and requesting that they discontinue.

What you have also given me here is the content and reasoning to accompany my claim for costs to submit to the Court. So that is in place of any letter I was going to email. I therefore submit this to the Court and copied in the C as the only thing I send just now?

Thanks and sorry for my confusion.

Coupon-mad

I would prepare it worded as above, as if it's the finished article for the court. Including the addendum and CPR quotes as the rationale for you being able to claim more than £19 per hour.

But email it tonight or tomorrow only to QDR along with your proof of your hourly rate and really press them to discontinue.

Head the email:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS

Entirely up to you if you leave in the bit I wrote there about accepting a nominal £95 from them for wasting your time at the first hearing or if you in fact state a clear 'let's both drop hands, no costs on either side' offer that gives them maybe until Tuesday 4pm to discontinue and walk away without the costs exposure.

Harbmeister

Hi All,
Ok well NO word from C as at my deadline of 4pm yesterday to discontinue.
As per the Order the deadline for my amended defence is 19th June.
Witness Statement and supporting docs by 3rd July.
My new hearing date is 31st July.

Coupon-mad

OK.

So with an amended defence, what you do is get the old defence in a Word Doc and strike through anything you are removing in view of their amended pleadings.

e.g. (assuming you used the template defence in 2023) you will no longer be saying the POC were late/fail to state the facts.

Then add what you want to add in red.  Anything new or different in response to the case now pleaded.

The conclusion about costs should remind the court that there has already been a finding of unreasonable conduct, per the Order of DJ xxxx dated xx/05/24, therefore your costs relating to the new submissions (and second hearing costs) will be claimed on the indemnity basis at the D's hourly rate which - as the C has already been informed in writing by the D - is £xx per hour.

The amended defence then looks exactly like that (full of strike-throughs and red additions) but newly signed & dated.

Harbmeister

Hi All,

Does anyone know what to base my hourly rate on?

I did work it out taking gross salary only (and using thesalarycalculator.co.uk).

I have salary (yes), car allowance payment (I think yes), and a variable annual bonus (don't know). 

I previously sent what I intend to submit off to the C only in the attempt to get them to discontinue ... but that shouldn't be binding and has not been submitted yet to the court ... which I will do as 'actuals' when I submit WS.

Thanks,

Harbmeister.

Umkomaas

Itemise them all, then let the judge decide. He/she will be much better placed to tell you what's acceptable than a simple parking forum. If you don't ask, you don't get, if you ask for too much, it will be trimmed back if thought excessive. Don't over-egg it though. Take proof with you of each item to any hearing. There's no pre-determined formula to my knowledge.