hushpuppy - ** SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION**

[hushpuppy]

Hi gh,

 

Spot on really with the costs, put in a very detailed costs sheet everything was dated, what the costs were for and time it took on that particular date. DJ looked at the costs, then awarded £250 for that case day, said to other side they were not entitled to any costs as they had discontinued.

 

I think I have a stong case with the O/D. what I have put in W/S and argued is roughly

 

I tried to pay back O/D at £20 per week shortly after they had defaulted me for no reason, payed in £20 next week when I went to pay another £20 my card was taken off me, I could not pay full amount and got no response from bank about how to pay in installments, this was in 06. (this £20 shows up in sar d account transaction)

 

Bank brought in General T & C, I disputed them as not relevant as I still have my terms and conditions which state-

 

if at the end of that period you have not closed the account, we will be entitled to refuse to accept any more payments into the account (exept such payments as are necessary to repay any debt and outstanding interest and charged on the account)

Despite requests at local branch I received no statements or communication from them till 08, which was a letter stating the last 2 months interest, put this in as evidence.

 

I wrote back to them saying they had not contacted me or sent any statement for 2yrs 3months and had refused to give me any way to pay and that I could afford at this point in time to pay £30 a month, and to send me way to pay it, or a painy in book ( cant dispute this copy of the letter came back in sars).

 

They sent back a standard letter with 2 months interest and a standard letter in accordance with CCA regulations.

 

My argument was that they had refused from the outset to allow me to pay it back, there was approx £80 on the account transaction that shouldn't have been there (had evidence that amounts put on was incorrect) as I had not defaulted and was in my O/D limit and there was a £30 default this should not have been there, I should not pay any interest as they had not allowed me to make payments.

 

D/J said to the solicitor if the bank was willing to take a reduced amount in the light of their bad behaviour, solicitor said there had been in negotiations, although the negotiations had been very late, but that he didn't have the authority to do that now (D/J disagreed with him, said he was their representative).

 

I don't know how credit account information works but on my credit file they have this O/D balance at £700 more than what the total amount is even with interest.

 

Their costs now out-weigh anything they are going to get back, seems madness.

 

 

 

 

[hushpuppy]

Hi.

Bit more news today, had letter from solicitors, (quickest reply from the whole of the case) firstly they want to delay the next hearing until after the middle of Jan, because their client operates an 'amnesty period' from early December until mid Jan, my first thought on this is what a load of cr----- never heard of a bank having an amnesty period, learn something new every day. They have enclosed a copy of the letter they have written to the court, saying the same, just adding Christmas period, goodwill etc, and can use the extra time for settlement/negotiations or mediation, (well for mediation, they can book that now with the court, why extra time?)

 

Then goes on to say they have informed their client about mediation, but do not know if it wishes to incur cost of preparing for and attending mediation, (well, they have to pay £300 for the small claims court, and DJ mediation should be a rep from bank and not anyone legal).

 

Then goes on to say they propose that parties use the time productively (this must be their new neutral role) and invite me to put my proposals for settlement so they can take instructions to bring a conclusion.

 

They know full well what I propose if they were compliant with that, the DJ wouldn't have put mediation in the order. Don't quite know what to make of this new twist, they could be getting fed up of the costs.

[manchestman]

Sounds like you've hit the nail on the head, HP.

 

'Amnesty Period' my left foot! - but it seems like a good way for them to grant your full wishes/proposal without actually losing face or creating precedent etc.

 

I know it's a long wait till next year, but it does sound as if they don't want another bloody nose. Well done, HP.

[hushpuppy]

Hi Manchestman,

 

well they havn't come out well in the last two cases, but talk about creative with 'Amnesty Period'. My proposals will not be a surprise to them, just what I have been fighting in court-

 

Amend adverse data on my credit file credit file.

 

Pay my costs on discontinued loan minus what is owed on O/D less interest.

 

Every Tomlin order they have sent me includes a gagging order, wont be doing that. But they have not agreed to my proposals so far, (thus the reason it is still going, they thought I'd give in but I've got caggers on my side)

Rang the court regarding mediation, they said they would write to them giving them 10 days to reply if they were willing for mediation, and will sent an email to me so I had proof of contact for mediation, hmm

[gh2008]

Hi gh,

 

Spot on really with the costs, put in a very detailed costs sheet everything was dated, what the costs were for and time it took on that particular date. DJ looked at the costs, then awarded £250 for that case day, said to other side they were not entitled to any costs as they had discontinued.

 

 

Have you had your £250 yet? ISTR that was costs for that day and therefore should be paid - whereas the rest of the costs were reserved until the conclusion. (Or is that wrong)

If the £250 was awarded for THAT DAY then they were punitive costs IMHO and a real kick in the ..... for them.

 

If you've not had it I would write a firm letter demanding their payment without delay

[hushpuppy]

Hi gh,

 

What the order said was The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of the discontinued claim to be assessed on the conclusion of these proceedings pursuant to CPR 38.6.1 The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of today assessed in the sum of £250 not to be paid until conclusion of these proceedings.

 

Then in the last case the DJ would not accept their costs, presuming because the case has not concluded, I am a bit in the dark with regard to costs, I was thinking the costs would be sorted out in the SCC if it goes there.

 

They are asking for my proposals I was thinking -

1. Remove data from credit file (but been down this street so often)

 

2. All my costs to be payed by them minus the admitted over-draft

 

Its just window dressing them asking for my proposals not as if they don't know them, but think I need to be seen as reasonable.

 

Have had to write to the court for an order reflecting the amount of the discontinued claim, as full amount is still on file and mediation cannot progress until this is done.

[hushpuppy]

Feels like Ground Hog Day again,

 

I wrote with my proposals which were

 

1. That your client removes the default from my credit file

 

As DJ stated to your representative in court 'there is no loan agreement, so if there is no loan agreement then the loan does not exist, so how can you default on a loan that does not exist'

 

2. I propose that your client pay my costs for the discontinued claim as proposed on the order by DJ ----

 

The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of the discontinued claim to be assessed on conclusion of these proceedings pursuant to CPR 38.6.1. The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of today assessed in the sum of £250 not to be payed until conclusion of these proceedings.

 

My costs of which you have a copy are £1551 plus £250, total £1801.94. The sum owed in respect of the over-draft of £519 is deducted from this total amount.

 

(Well I though go in at the top) however our letters must have crossed, either that or they have completely ignored my letter.

 

They have had the case adjourned because of their amnesty, then go on to give their proposals but not without saying first they are confident of its prospects of sucess and believes they will obtain a ccj at the final case (they also said this in the last two)then go on to say that as the judge explained a ccj with remain on your credit file for 6 years.

 

But (being the really nice people they are) they want to bring the matter to a swift conclusion and are prepared to accept £250 in full and final setlement, commercial etc, etc, the sum offered is calculated deducting the award for costs made to me by the court (conveniently forgotton the £1500 to be assessed)

 

Should I accept their offer my credit file will be marked 'partially satisfied', but draw my attention to the fact I would be entitled to write to CRA to request a note be placed next to any entry on my file.

 

So thats it so far, not going to accept the CRA bit, will go down the Data Protection Act with them, I will see if there is any reaction to my letter. If it does get to the final hearing do I have to put in another WS to the court or does it go on what has been submitted before? not sure about this, the case is down for 2 hours.

 

Just can't see them forking out £300 and more legal fees, but hey this is RBS we are talking about, they went this far with no agreeement. Any thoughts?????

[gh2008]

Well, IMHO, your proposals are very fair - and TBH I would think a DJ would say the same.

 

The £250 was costs *for the day* weren't they - (and they are punitive costs against them as well) - this means the DJ wasn't happy with them, normal 'appearance' costs are £90 or so

 

If it was me, I would hold my ground ..... and be prepared for another Court appearance and watch them squirm - after all, you are not denying (or ever have) you owe the OD are you - therefore all costs were pretty much on teh loan side of things, so it will be a very interesting to see their reasonings lol

 

It was their choice to try and take you to Court without having a signed agreement - you pointed that out to them on numerous occasions - they gambled (that you would cave in)- they lost.

 

jmho though

[hushpuppy]

HI gh,

 

Your right, I'm not going to back down on my proposals now, already preparing myself for the next case. In my next letter to them I will let them know I will be going down the 'Data Protection' route on the CRA reporting, found some really good stuff on here which I can adapt, give them something to think about.

 

All they have at the moment is the over-draft, and as you say I have never denighed that, but the points I brought up in court were -

1. I intended to pay it back at £20 a week, after the first payment they took away my card so I had no way to pay it back into the bank

2. Asking for a way to pay at the local branch just resulted in 'you'll be informed'

3. Never sent any statements until 2 years 9 months.

4. Ignored the letter I then sent them that pointed out they had not sent statements and my request to pay it back in installements.

 

Interesting that they appear to have accepted that I will not pay the interest.

 

Just don't know if I need to put anything into the court before the next case or everything will automatically go to small claims?

 

Mediation is a bit of a mess at the moment, they need an order stating the amount of the discontinued loan before they can attempt to arrange any mediation, I have written to the court for this, rang up yesterday to see if the court got my letter and they are so far behind with paperwork they will not get to my letter for another month, which leaves it a bit late for mediation to be arranged, but at least I can say if necessary in court I have tried for mediation and I will still keep on with it.

 

I will give them a week or so to see if they reply at all to my proposals then send another letter.

[hushpuppy]

Well didn't have to wait long for the other side to reply, just the same old thing again, still I suppose it is all money for them to repeat over and over, just can't believe its the same cxxxxx each time, anyhow this is what they wrote -

 

we respond to the points raised in your letter as follows.

 

1. We have covered the isue of the registration of default notices in our earlier letter. However, we also draw your attention to the decision of Phillip McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (2009) EWHC 2386 (Comm) in which the Honourable Mr Justice Flaux held at paragraphs 77 to 82 of his judgement that reporting to credit Reference agencies was not held to be enforcement. Therefore, whilst our client is unable to comply with the provisions of s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 at present, it is entitled to report any default to the credit Reference agencies. We also repeat the points made in our previous letter with regards to the placing of a note on your credit file.

 

2. With regards to your letter for costs, we make the following two points

 

a. We draw your attention to CPR 27.14. The standard rule for any case allocated to the Small Claims Track is that there be no order as to costs or each party bear their own costs. The court is restricted in terms of what it can order a party to pay in repect of costs.

 

b. In respect of the Order of DJ, your costs have already been assessed by the court in respect of our clients discontinuance of its claim in relation to the account. Therefore, it is our position that you are therefore not entitled to any further costs in respect of this issue, as your costs have already been determine by the court. In the circumstances, we feel our clients offerof each party bear their own costs is a reasonable one and we ask that you give our clients offer serious consideration.

 

We strongly suggest you take independant legal advise on the agorementioned points and we look forward to recieving your response to our clients offer.

 

 

 

 

 

You would think they had come out really well in the last two cases, the only case they seem to know is McGuffick, their whole case was on this and the DJ in the last case wouldn't let them even bring it up. I am going to reply and use the data protection act, the RBS have also been twice into my Credit file this year with no permission what-so-ever from me and into my O/H's.

The order quite clearly states that cost are to be assessed on conclusion of these proceedings, and that days costs were £250. The DJ explained that she would not assess the costs that day as the o/d could be ofset against costs awarded, and the writer of the letter was the solicitor in court that day (the only time they havn't sent agency) maybe she should get a trans-script. Don't really know what they are playing at.

So thats the latest really, couldn't really say it was negotiations, same old, same old.

[gh2008]

Have a read up on the Default removal threads for info. You will need to write to the CRA in the first instance, then I think ICO, then it's a Letter before Action and then an N1 issued against them. You could PM Car2403 - he has had lots of experience (and success)

 

As there is and never was any agreement for this account they have therefore NEVER had permission from you to process your data.

There is a strong possibility for damages as per the 'normally quoted case against Woolwich that I have lost the reference to'

 

You have made your position clear, you have repeated what the DJ said. If the £250 was payable forthwith then I'd be tempted to make an application for them to pay up ..... that will upset them

 

But yes you are right £250 on the day imho as punitive costs for being so silly and costs to be assessed for the discontinued part. At the point of discontinuance it was NOT allocated to SCT either was it?

 

It may well be now, but then the costs on a claim that you admit the value of which is less that the costs you will be owed won't be very much (that is unless they insist going to trial where the DJ will NOT be happy at all!!)

 

You *COULD* get formal advice on an app for the costs to be paid as that would be reclaimable from them ..... within that advice you could encompass the discontinued claim.

 

In some ways you need to concentrate on the discontinued claim as those costs are still ongoing and still reclaimable from them. Leave the O/D for them to witter on about.

[hushpuppy]

Hi gh,

 

No, at the point of discontinuance it had not been allocated to small claims, they DJ made a new date for the last court hearing, but I don't think she thought there would be another one as she said to o/s, she strongly recommended that they use the next 28 days to negotiate a settlement. She said to me that costs were to be on the conclusion of the case because any over draft amount would in all probability be minus from costs awarded. (so I feel a bit stuck on this with the order saing on conclusion) as we know they did go for another court hearing and DJ there brushed aside the costs they wanted to put in and said the case was not over, again strongly recommended mediation.

 

I will write to the CRA on the default removal, DJ said in last hearing the Data Protection Act would probably be the best way to go. I will write in reply to their letter, to be seen to doing the correct thing, then go from there, pm Car 2403 see if can offer any advise. I wonder what all this is costing RBS in sol fees. I will post up my letter to them when done.

[hushpuppy]

Hi again,

Been looking for hours, I know I read it but can't find it again and need to copy it, on where the costs on an order still stand when it is transfered to SCC, wish I had printed it when I read it, sure it was on this forum can you point me in the right direction gh, please.

Had another thought as well even if the costs were only £250 with £300 they have to pay before going to small claims, they will still be on the loosing side:roll:

[hushpuppy]

This is my return letter to o/s, don't think I can make things any clearer than this, just not sure whether I should put the last paragraph.

 

Dear repetative

 

With the issue of the registration of default notices and your constant reference to the Phillip McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland, this case is of no relevance as in this case there was an enforceable agreement in place and the issue was a default notice not an agreement issue.

Had this case been at all relevant I am sure DJ xxx would have allowed this issue to be pursued in court on xxxxx which he did not.

 

May I also remind you of Data Protect guidance:

1. Any default record should be accurate

2. We normally expect a lender to keep records that are necessary to show an agreement exists and to support a default.

3. we would also expect a lender to be able to produce evidence to justify a default record they had placed on a credit reference file.

4. Not having any supporting records may indictate a breach of the Data Protection principle requiring personal data to be adequate and relevant

 

You stated in your letter that your client was entitled to report any default to the CRA, this is not the case although contractual law allowed your client to process my data, I no longer have a contract with your client thus your client has no legal right to collate, process or disclose my data without my permisssion and my permission expired on the termination of the contract.

I am also in the process of writing to your client as to why they carried out two searches on my credit file on the xxxxx without my consent.

 

You made two points with regard to costs:

a. We draw your attention to CPR 27.14 The standard rule for any case allocated to the sc track is that there be no order as to costs or each party bear their own costs. The court is restricted in terms of what it can order a party to pay in respect of costs.

 

I do not believe the point you have made above is fitting for purpose, you must be aware of 44.11 in the light of this any costs order made up to re-allocation will not be affected.

 

Costs following allocation and re-allocation

 

44.11

(1) Any costs orders made before a claim is allocated will not be affected by allocation

(2) where

(a) a claim is allocated to a track; and

(b) the court subsequently re-allocates that claim to a different track

 

Then unless the court orders otherwise, any special rules about costs applying

(i) to the first track, will apply to the claim up to the date of re-allocation and

(ii) to the second, will apply from the date of re-allocation

 

With regard to the second point you made:

 

(b) In respect of the order of DJ xxxx ,your costs have already been assessed by the court in respect of our clients discontinuance of its claim in relation to the loan account. Therefore, it is our position that you are therefore not entitled to any further costs in respect of this issue

 

I disagree with you completely the order states;

 

2) The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of the discontinued claim to be assessed on the conclusion of these proceedings pursuant to cpr 38.6.1 the costs have not been assessed yet as the case is not over, this was made perfectly clear by DJ xxxx, however I draw your attention to

 

Liability for costs

38.6

(2) If proceedings are only partly discontinued

(a) the claimant is liable under paragraph (1) for costs relating only to the part of the proceedings

which he is discontinuing

(b) unless the court orders otherwise, the costs which the claimant is liable to pay must not be assessed until the conclusion of the rest of the proceedings.

 

I therefore maintain my costs of £xx are still to be assessed by the court despite your position. Furthermore the part of the order that states " The claimant shall pay the defendants costs of today assessed in the sum of £250" was the sum awarded by DJxxx for just what it says the case on that day. Which will be added to the costs still to be assessed.

 

I believe my proposal for settlement in my letter dated xxxx was fair, I have spent considerable time on a case that was discontinued by your client, who in fact proceeded to court despite not having any agreement. Your reason for delaying the case on the xxxxx was to allow time for discussions/negotiations it would be more constructive in your letters if you appreciated that I am not totally ignorant of Practice Direction and then perhaps issues could move forward.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Not as stupid as you thought.

 

I was going to put a remark about their advise at the end of their letter strongly recommending me to seek independant legal advise, but I couldn't remember how many caggers on here:???: and I thought be nice.

[gh2008]

Looks good to me.

 

I would change "this is not the case although contractual law MAY HAVE allowed your client to process my data IN THE PAST, I no longer have a contract with your client thus your client has no legal right to collate," and should collate actually be collect?

 

gh

[hushpuppy]

Great gh,

changed that, and it will be in the post tomorrow, one wonders what they will come up with next, going to send this recorded so they cannot ignore it, does seem never ending, but happy in the thought the longer it goes on its costing them more.

[hushpuppy]

Had a reply to thread #314, they write that this is one final attemt to reach a settlement before hearing, they put on;

 

Defaults.

They have put exactly same about Phillip McGuffick, then-

 

We respectfully do not agree with your point that DJ would have referred to this in the hearing on xxxxx as this was an application hearing and not a final hearing.

 

(did not say he referred to it, said he did not allow the issue to be persued in court, which I believe is quite different, no mention of Data Protection Guidance)

 

Allocation

We note your point in relation to allocation and we write to inform you that at no point this matter has been re-allocated. The matter was first allocated by DJ xxx at the hearing on xxxx and he allocated the matter to the small claims Track. In the light of this your points on re-allocation and references to CPR 44.11 are not relevant in this matter.

 

(better let the Ministry of Justice know their General rules about costs are not relevant then according to Cobbetts)

 

Costs

We have reviewed the order of xxxx and this states that you are entitled to your costs in relation to the discontinued claim at the conclusion of the proceedings. It also states that you are entitled to your costs summarily assessed in the sum of £250.00 on conclusion of the proceedings.

 

(at last, apologies accepted?????)

 

We note that you have not provided us with a breakdown of your costs in dealing with the part of the claim in relation to the loan account, When preparing this, we draw your attention to CPR 27 as the matter was allocated to the small claims track.

 

(so the lletter they sent on 1st July about my costs and they were wholley excessive was a fantasy on my part)

 

Summary

If this matter proceeds to the small claims hearing on xxxxx, as you have admittted the sum of xxx in relation to the current account this means that judgement will be entered against you in this sum and this will remain on your credit file for 6 years, This was drawn to your attention by DJ at the hearing xxxx

 

(its already on been on my credit file for past 3 years, I shall fight this on the fact that they refused to allow me to pay it back, breaking the terms and conditions, which state they had to)

 

By way of summary, you have admitted that you owe £519.62 on the Current account aspect of the claim. Our client has been ordered to pay you £250.00 of your costs, which have been summarily assessed, on the conclusion of the claim. Our client has also been ordered to pay you your costs in relation to the discontinued Claim.

 

(so far, good, But -)

 

In the light of the above, we propose a settlement that we agree to withdraw the claim by consent (which now only relates to the current acccount) and there be no order as to costs. This effectively equates to a payment of £269.62 towards your costs, in dealing with the loan element of the claim.

 

(this just does not make any sense to me, very confusing, cannot make any sense of their reasoning here, help)

 

If you are not prepared to accept this reasonable offer, then please can you provide us with a breakdown of your costs in dealing with the part of the claim in relation to the loan agreement. To reiterate stating your figure of xxxxx will not suffice as these are all your costs to date and include the £250 which is dealt with seperately.

 

(where do these people come from? where ever they don't appear to be able to read a letter correctly I never stated any lump figure)

 

 

Well thats about it really, they appear to be using the owed over draght as a payment figure, cannot understand this.

[gh2008]

Smoke & Mirrors

 

The loan part of the claim was never allocated ...... although the claim, as a whole was, BUT I would say that you are still entitled to full costs of that part as ordered (these costs were given to you as a 'punishment' as strictly speaking you should have got £80 total!!)

That shows you what the DJ thought of them though so let's see them try to take this back to Court ......

 

Have you looked at BOS -v- Mitchell re costs - you'll find it interesting - Cobbetts won't

 

Problem is you are at stalemate

 

You need to submit your itemised costs though and re-iterate your points. You also need to re-iterate that you have never denied owing the OD only that they have never justified the amount claimed.

 

You may also want to start looking at making a claim against them re the CRA info - there are a few threads on here CAR2403 was especially successful ISTR

 

There is no way I would agree to their consent order because of the reasons you've already given them.

[hushpuppy]

Hi GH,

brilliant, love BOS v Michell, thankyou. I don't really understand what you mean about they have not justified the amount owed, the DJ was not happy with them on the OD and said to their rep 'on the one hand there is a duty for debts to be paid but how can these debts be paid if the bank give no means for the debtor to pay the debt' thats when he said in the light of the banks bad behaviour he suggested mediation to come to a resolution over the OD. Also been reading car2403 think this is the way to go.

[gh2008]

Sorry, my mistake - I got confused with another case - but yes, that was the point I meant.

 

When doing your costs, I would enclose a covering letter to remind them of the fact that there were little or no costs associated with the OD as you have never disputed the original amount owing, just that you were given no option to pay it.

 

Re. costs - NGEddie had a thread - I think it was titled 'Help with N150' or something which towards the end went into costs in a big way with all the forms etc as required.

Probably said this before, but your costs are £9.25 (I think - you better check) per hour LiP rate capped at 2/3 of what it would cost to have been represented. Check with CPR

 

Now, with the complications of this case I am sure that you would have been well into £3k+ for representation so keep your costs under £2k + disbursements (i.e. actual costs inc SAR postage copying etc etc)

Your costs start from the moment you received the claim form - maybe even the LBA - if there was a proper one.

[hushpuppy]

Hi gh,

I based my cost sheet on the one you done for NGEddie, this was ages ago, so you see I was paying attention:-)

 

Below is my reply to their FINAL OFFER, but not very happy with it, would have liked to incorporate BOS v Mitchell somehow, and not sure that its not too long.

 

Your proposed settlement offer which you state 'equates effectively to the amount of £269 falls far short of my costs for the part of the claim which relates to the discontinued alleged Loan Agreement claim. A claim that you took to court and pursued, despite the absence of any Loan Agreement and chose only to discontinue on the day of the case.

I have enclosed a breakdown of my costs relating to the discontiued claim, the total of which is xxxx.xx should I have sought legal representation these would be far in excess of this.

These costs only relate to the discontinued claim as I have never refuted owing the over-draft and have from the outset tried to repay this to your clients. It has been due to your clients actions that this has not been accomplished, and I shall continue should this case go to the SC hearing on xxxx with my argument that;

 

1. I attempted to pay back the over-draft by instalments having been defaulted whilst still within my agreed over-draft limit. I attempted a second installment to re-pay the over-draft and your client took away my only method of payment.

 

2. Terms and Conditions quite clearly state payments into the account can be refused 'except such payments as are necessary to repay any debt and outstanding interest and charges on the account'

 

3. On further visits to the bank to sort out the issue I was told the collection dept would get in touch.

 

4. I received no communication/statements on this account until xxxxx which was two years and nine months later

 

5. Your client ignored a letter sent on xxxxxx for an arrangement to pay the over-draft and how.

 

6. It took a Data Subject Access request to get an account transaction list from your clients.

 

My proposed settlement is that your clients pay my costs of xxxx.xx in relation to the discontiued claim, the summmarily assessed costs of £250.00, minus the xxx.00 in relation to the currant account.

 

I enclose a breakdown of my costs in relation to the discontinued claim.

 

 

Not really sure.

[gh2008]

If you refuse my offer of settlement, which I consider very fair and reasonable, then at trial I will be seeking costs on an indemnity basis for the discontinued claim. I will also be seeking costs on an indemnity basis for the overdraft portion of the claim due to your unreasonable behaviour in the matter.

 

Wouldn't worry too much about BOS -v- Mitchell - they will know about it

 

Head the letter up "Without Prejudice Save as to Costs" which basically means that they cannot use the letter BUT you can produce it in Court when it comes to deciding costs in the matter.

Now, as you have admitted the claim IF they still insist on taking you to Court the DJ will tear them apart and award costs on the admitted part as well.

 

I would also threaten taking the costs to Court - I am sure the info re how to do that is on NGE's thread an assessment or something - that will cost them dear as they have already had punitive costs of £250 against them FOR ONE DAY!!! remember that they were charged £250 for 1 DAY of your time - that is massive (normally £80 for a barrister!! if you lose an application hearing)

 

Have you found out how much a solicitor would charge to finish this off for you? I am sure a sigle letter would finalise it, especially if the letter was purely sorting out costs and therefore included in those costs....) i.e. ignore the o/d part which is already admitted. I would also remove the o/d part in the above letter and send that part separately as again that letter would be 100% claimable as part of the discontinued proceedings IYSWIM

[hushpuppy]

Thanks gh, will re-do it minus over-draft part, I will check out the cost of a solicitors letter if all this fails, just really would like to see it through to the end now, they will have to be pretty bloody-minded to continue with the small claims hearing as well as it costing them another £300, but then again you never know.

[gh2008]

By the response of the DJ last time - if they took it to trial they would lose far more than £300 !!!

 

Have a re-read from here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?237396-N150-assistance-needed...please-**WON**/page23 and look carefully at how you get the costs assessed by the Court as you need to threaten that now. (Which will cost them another £300+++ for being unreasonable)

 

If you go to a local solicitor, pretending you are at the beginning of the case they will quote a minimum £5k to trial and £3k to SJ hearing - at that would be for a straightforward case !!

 

You need to deliver the KO blow now

[hushpuppy]

Hi gh,

well don't know if below letter is enough, had a letter from them today saying I have not replied to their letter (written 7 days ago) twice in succession they have done this, could they be getting jittery I ask myself, nice to think they were.

 

How does this look.

 

Your proposed settlement offer which you state 'equates effectively to the amount of £xxx.xx falls far short of my costs for the part of the claim which relates to the discontinued claim. As your client decided to discontinue with the claim, I am therefore pursuant to CPR 38.6

 

My proposed settlement is that your client pays my costs of £xxxx.xx in relation to the discontiued claim, the summarily assessed costs of £250, minus the £xxx.xx in relation to the current account.

 

Should your client refuse my offer of settlement, which I consider very fair and reasonabe then at trial I will be seeking costs on an indemnity basis for the over-draft portion of the claim due to your clients unreasonable behaviour in the matter.

 

I enclose a breakdown of my costs in relation to the discontinued claim should I have sought legal representation these would be far in excess of this as you are aware.

 

I also note you have never confirmed as to what your clients instructions were with regard to mediation (your letter dated xxxxx 2010) suggested by District Judge xxxxxxxx at the xxxxxx hearing.

 

do you think this will hit the spot?