Biting back with a vengeance

GettingOnInYears

OH -oh. I just got a copy of her N260 for expenses that was addressed to the court. Complete bull—it.

She's claiming 45p per mile for over a 450 mile round trip, then £70 for overnight accommodation.

So lets take this step by step - or as MSN Co-Pilot says -

1. Defendants in small claims cannot recover travel or hotel costs

Under CPR 27.14, a defendant can only recover:

• their loss of earnings (capped at £95)
• their witness travel (if they are a witness giving evidence)
• their expert fees (rare)
• and only if they win

They cannot recover:

• hotel
• mileage
• subsistence
• representative costs
• admin time
• preparation time
• advocacy fees

None of these are allowed.

⭐ 2. She is not a witness — she is the defendant’s representative

This is crucial.

If she is:

• an employee of the parking company
• a litigation officer
• an in‑house representative
• or a hired advocate

…then she is not a witness.

Only witnesses can claim travel.

Representatives cannot.

So even if she travelled 1,000 miles, the recoverable amount is £0.00.

⭐ 3. 45p per mile is irrelevant and not recoverable

Even if she were a witness (she isn’t), 45p/mile is:

• an HMRC employee reimbursement rate,
• not a litigation cost,
• not a recoverable small‑claims cost,
• and absolutely not applicable to company cars.

If she used a company car, then:

• she incurred no personal cost,
• so claiming 45p/mile is double recovery.

Judges shut this down instantly.

⭐ 4. Overnight accommodation is never recoverable

Hotel costs are not recoverable in small claims.

Not for claimants.
Not for defendants.
Not for witnesses.
Not for representatives.

They are treated as voluntary business expenses.

⭐ 5. Remote attendance was available — so any travel/hotel is self‑inflicted

This is the knockout point.

If the court offered:

• video hearing
• telephone hearing
• hybrid attendance

…then any travel or hotel costs were voluntary.

Courts do not reward unnecessary expenditure.

Your line to the judge:

“Sir/Madam, the Defendant’s representative had the option of remote attendance. Any travel or accommodation costs were incurred voluntarily and are therefore unreasonable and unrecoverable.”

Coupon-mad

Beware of planning this like you're Rumpole of the Bailey. Judges don't like it - this is only a small claim not a criminal trial.

Don't use the phrase "I put it to you…"

Beware of annoying a judge. You want him/her on side.

It won't go as you plan it (never does). In my experience as an armchair lawyer, I've found winning in small claims is about reading the room & judge's expressions and winging it on your best point only.

Car1980

Careful, because 45p a mile is actually a standard measure, along with £24 per hour.

Costs are usually permitted only in cases of unreasonable behaviour, so there is no outright ban as such. You always have a judge's discretion. If one party didn't attend and the other had driven a long way I wouldn't say a hotel stay would be out of the question. Sometimes winning parties do have costs awarded against them too, due to behaviour.

So you'd need to argue about costs generally not being permitted on the small claims track, and then only in cases of unreasonable behaviour.

But obviously they're trying it on too, as an intimidation tactic.

ChirpyChicken

If anything matches "over egging the puddding" then this must surely be it

GettingOnInYears

This time tomorrow, it'll all be over. Happily.

Just going through all of the stuff in the defence statements, I noticed another crucial piece of info regarding the breach of the DPA and UKGDPR. The defence statement of Ranger Services claimed that the lack of response to my SAR request was because everything was responded to by CP Plus T/A GroupNexus and that Ranger services is under the same umbrella group of GroupNexus. Which of course is impossible as it's only a trading name, not a legal entity in its own right. As a consequence the use of a shared database between both CP Plus Ltd and Ranger Services Ltd is unlawful as both companies have their own ICO registration and operate as independent companies. It was also mentioned that CP Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus incorporated Ranger Services Ltd. Again that's impossible. To incorporate a ltd co, into another, it would need to close down then have it registered at Co's House as CP Plus Ltd having significant control. Which of course hasn't happened.

Umkomaas

Report it to the ICO. A ‘lowly’ DDJ won’t deal with that. Don’t let it distract you from your main contentions.

GettingOnInYears

I already have that in mind. Time for a quick cuppa then prepare to take on the world of GroupNexus

ChirpyChicken

I have a feeling this may not go as you expect

Car1980

It won't, but let's be optimistic! It sounds like our poster is up for talking the talk, which is half the battle.

Good luck!

GettingOnInYears

What a day.

The Judge took an hour and a half to go through all of the submissions before I was called in. Yates was on video,

She then asked a series of questions at Yates who had to confirm that no sign was in existence at the site and that this is something that should have been picked up on by the site warden. She then scolded them for poor site inspections and got agreement that they weren't compliant to the BPA Code of Practice and therefore were non compliant with the KADOE contract. These were all admitted by Yates.

Then it was scrutinising the DPA and UKGDPR failures which were also pretty well agreed.

Due to time constraint, as this had already taken around 5 hours up until 4.40pm, she declared that this would be a reserved judgement so she could look at all the submitted case law etc. She expects to be able to call next Wednesday afternoon with the results.

The only real bone of contention was that Yates said that there had to be evidence of how the data breach personally affected me. In other words what new distress or injury had occurred as a result. She said that the eggshell skull principle wasn't of itself an indication of what further distress the data breach had caused- albeit the judge seemed pretty up to date with the principle but still sought an answer to how the breach had caused more distress. The answer to that was that the breach was swiftly followed by the PCN at a time when I was in deep financial straits due the enormous cost of the care home fees for my wife and the loss of income from having to sell her shop. Yates then said that the PCN was cancelled by POPLA so that didn't equate to any ongoing personal injury/distress to which I responded that the financial demand for payment of the PCN was still active for many months afterwards until the appeal process by themselves and latterly POPLA found in my favour.

So it's a wait and see situation now.