IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

fluttering ticket going to court

11819202224

Comments

  • bargepole
    bargepole Posts: 3,231 Forumite
    Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post First Anniversary
    bargepole, do you know what happened with this case in the end?
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/c3gf78fe-parking-property-management.html

    It went back to court before a different Judge, and upon closer examination of the full lease document, it turned out that the parking space was not demised under the lease, so the primacy of contract argument was less persuasive than originally thought.

    The Judge advised the parties to go outside and try to agree a settlement, which they did, so no order or judgment was made.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
  • claxtome
    claxtome Posts: 628 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 28 March 2018 at 9:06PM
    Just phoned court. Was told the case had been settled. Will check one final time in the morning but starting to believe it has been discontinued. :)

    Thank you for the recent posts about claiming "unreasonable costs". I will certainly try to get the maximum out of it. Particularly as it looks like a DPA breach may have occurred due to ESPEL signing a contract with an unknown company who was supposedly linked with landowner..
  • Lamilad
    Lamilad Posts: 1,412 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    I agree with LOC but I suspect the judge will tell you that you must apply for a costs hearing.

    It's not right (IMHO) but it's what seems to happen.

    This case may be of those rare occasions where it is actually worthwhile submitting the application and making your case, based on what LOC had said above.

    It's, obviously, a risk but one that I, in your shoes, would take with some confidence. I just wouldn't be ok with them putting me through all this then shrugging their shoulders and walking away unscathed.
  • There's nothing to be lost by trying, since the precedent documents were already created on peperlini's thread anyway. Claxtome has now adapted them with some input from me, and will no doubt post them. He will send them to the PPC inviting them to agree costs before he submits it to the court (and claxtome, in your letter to them point out the issue over the wrong entity entering into the contract, and that the entity didn't even have the required legal personality to enter into any contract because it was not a limited company or a person).
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
  • claxtome
    claxtome Posts: 628 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Thanks Lamilad and LoC for your further comments; have taken note.

    I will be sending off, via email, to the Claimant's solicitor Gladstones either tonight or tomorrow the Costs Schedule claiming "Unreasonable Behaviour" when ready. I will post a link to it to my dropbox account and will probably cut and paste it here to for those who can't access it.

    This forum has been fantastic to me and having a little compensation for all my efforts would be the icing on the cake.

    BTW Phoned the court again this morning and definitely it has been discontinued so won't be brushing the moths off my suit... :):rotfl:

    Time to enjoy my weekend. :beer:
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    claxtome wrote: »
    Thanks Lamilad and LoC for your further comments; have taken note.

    I will be sending off, via email, to the Claimant's solicitor Gladstones either tonight or tomorrow the Costs Schedule claiming "Unreasonable Behaviour" when ready. I will post a link to it to my dropbox account and will probably cut and paste it here to for those who can't access it.

    This forum has been fantastic to me and having a little compensation for all my efforts would be the icing on the cake.

    BTW Phoned the court again this morning and definitely it has been discontinued so won't be brushing the moths off my suit... :):rotfl:

    Time to enjoy my weekend. :beer:

    And if you have to serve an LBA against Gladstones,
    make sure you don't use a "pimped out" letterhead and
    copy the Gladstones rubbish
  • claxtome
    claxtome Posts: 628 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 10 April 2018 at 10:23PM
    Due to a family emergency I have had other things to focus on unfortunately.

    Today I emailed Gladstones my Costs Skeleton, claiming "unreasonable behaviour", an ultimatum either reply to me email by end of Friday otherwise I will submit with court my Costs Skeleton.

    Will post any update when I hear it.

    Will also update my Dropbox with what I sent gladstones when I can.
  • claxtome
    claxtome Posts: 628 Forumite
    First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    I got the following reply from Gladstones today:
    Dear Xxxxxx,

    As I am now handling this case, there is no need to copy any other member of the team into emails.

    Without prejudice and with respect, as alluded to in your e-mail dated 10 April 2018, CPR 38.6 (3) is unequivocal - "This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.". It was safe in this knowledge that our client was in a position to discontinue its claim.

    If you proceed with the course of action set out in your letter we will advise our client to:

    (a) Insist the matter only be dealt with if the correct application fee is submitted to the court;

    (b) Robustly oppose the application for among other reasons, the rule set out above; and

    (c) Ask for its costs on the basis that should you proceed despite the clear and unequivocal CPR on this point, you would be acting unreasonably.

    We trust this matter concluded.

    Kind Regards,
  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Seems clear enough that they will be asking for unreasonable behaviour costs for your asking for unreasonable behaviour costs.

    You can then in turn double-up etc.

    Wonder who let them pass their law exams.
  • Well they are right insofar as 38.6 contains the exemption it does. However, I rather fear they missed the point, since my understanding is that the o/p was coming after part 27 costs.

    You probably will need to apply to set this down for a costs hearing.

    Do bear in mind that discontinuance is not of and by itself a good reason/entitlement to unreasonable conduct costs. Were it otherwise noone would discontinue and the system wants to encourage the abandonment of unmeritorious claims.

    Just a puerile observation: I note Gladstones really don't like emails sent to multiple staff members.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards