Hilesden securities court papers received ** Discontinued ***

[john]

vicky:-

 

Good news the discontinuance eh

 

yes it is great news. It has been very draining especially over christmas and I don't know what I'll do with my time now!!!! Mbna has made an agreement in my personal credit card problem, and paid me £50 compo, I've sorted my daughters court summons and mitigating circumstances for a speeding fine non-payment and got it reduced to less than the original fine??? John's is now over, bar the costs, and I can't thank everyone enough, so thank you citizenB.

[gh2008]

Everything that you have had to pay out for comes under your disbursements, your time to and from Court is also chargeable together with your time researching, preparing etc etc

 

and yes, send it to Alpins (or whoever was quoted on the N1 for service)

 

You are entitled to your costs by way of CPR, at this stage the case was not allocated therefore SCT costs do not apply.

 

The slight 'downer' is that it has not gone away - with permission, they could issue a new N1 and start again BUT keep all your paperwork for this claim as you would use that to object to them obtaining permission to have another go.

 

Saying that, the Court may well ignore the discontinuance and throw the claim out which would be even better for you (but I doubt it )

[john]

Thanks gh. Is there anything specific I need to put any reasons/legal entitilements in the letter accompanying my claim, or just that its my claim for wasted costs?

[gh2008]

Strictly speaking (well not even strictly actually) they are liable to your costs under CPR38.6(1)

It is not a wasted costs application which is something else entirely and is only really needed if the claim had been allocated to Small Claims Track as then CPR38.6 doesn't apply

 

 

Liability for costs

 

38.6

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

 

(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; and

 

(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.

 

(3) This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.

 

(Rule 44.12 provides for the basis of assessment where the right to costs arises on discontinuance and contains provisions about when a costs order is deemed to have been made and applying for an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007)

 

So you just write to them asking for your costs under CPR38.6(1)

 

detail your 'reasonable' costs

 

Assure them, that if they refuse your reasonable costs then you will not hesitate to make an application to Court for your full costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis

[john]

Thanks gh2008. Do I send this to Aplins or Hillesdens? Also what does "assessed on an indemnity basis" involve? Would that be worse for them?

[gh2008]

you send it to the solicitors - and yes, very much so - Google it

[john]

just a quick update - phoned court yesterday and nothing from aplins yet. Told to ring back friday.

[john]

Vicky:-

 

Discontinuance recieved by court now. Is that it? Apart from filing everything and submitting costs does anything else have to be done, please?

 

Off topic but is there anywhere/one on CAG to give advice on a conveyancing surveying issue? Thanks

[gh2008]

That's it - you don't have to contact the Court again now at all

 

The costs go straight to the other side - they are not wasted costs, just normal costs of the action which they are fully liable for.

Nothing to stop you getting some quotes from local solicitors and then pitching your costs at 2/3rd of that.

 

Remember, these are not 'wasted costs' these are the costs the losing party pays to the winning party for no other reason other than they have lost, so there is no need to prove any vexatiousness or anything like that.

 

If they refuse they will generally come back with an offer, then negotiate an agreed settlement - if that doesn't happen then you can apply to Court for a detailed assessment which will give the Court the opportunity to show their displeasure at their time being wasted by the Claimant as well.

 

cant's help with the other though.

 

NGEddie's case has got good detail - I think he got £650 - another recent discontinued case got a 4 figure settlement of costs for a LiP but also a gagging order so I can't say more, but you get the picture.

The latter case was more complicated than yours I think NGEddies was similar although even that had progressed a little further.

[john]

Thanks again for the help and advice. Will probably pitch it similar to NGeddies and see what they come back with.

[john]

Vicky:-

 

I have claimed the taxi fare to court and back. I have a regular driver as I am disabled so know it is a reasonable cost for the distance. Can I also claim for the time taken to do this, as it is at least an hour of my time every time I have had to go? Thanks.

[john]

Phone call from hillesdens this morning, will it be about my costs claim? Is it normal for them to ring? Thanks

[john]

Rang back Hillesdens as requested. Eventually put through to DLC. They say they will never pay the costs I have submitted, they know nothing about any N244 application, and they are not liable for any costs after the allocation questionnaire. They offered £100. I said I will not accept that, (my out of pocket expenses are more) and I am quite willing to go back to court. They said they don't want it to go to court and want to come to some agreement. I said to put everything in writing as I do not want to communicate by telephone. Any ideas?

[gh2008]

They are liable for full costs. Write back to them (and you could cc the Court Manager) explaining that you find their offer of £100 derisory and insulting and clearly trying to take advantage of you as a LiP.

 

Reiterate that your costs were reasonable and fall well short of what they would have had to pay had you been represented.

 

I would PM Undercover Elsa, for the letter writing she does some brilliant ones

[john]

Thanks GH2008 will do that.

[john]

have a receipt for the N244 submission, and handed 3 copies in at court. Was it my responsibility to send one to the claimant?

[gh2008]

nope and, of course they knew about it - why do you think they discontinued? because they couldn't comply with the Order from your application!! where do they think the Order came from

[john]

whoever John spoke to appeared to think it was something to do with the allocation questionnaire as they dont think they need to pay costs after the aq is done?????? However it never got to the AQ stage, but obviously we didn't know that and did a lot of research on aq's, for which they have been charged.

[gh2008]

IF the case had been allocated to SCT then no they would not have had to pay costs (although you would have asked to Court to Order them for their behaviour) HOWEVER you made your app before AQ stage and you may remember from my posts that one of the reasons for that timing is that it remains trackless and therefore full costs have to be paid when they discontinue.

 

Stick to your guns, and don't be afraid of taking it back to Court, they will be afraid as the Court will hammer them (and they know it - they will NOT want it back in Court)

[Undercover-Elsa]

Just been reading through from day one. Great thread, and well done everyone!!!! Brilliant help and advice. What a great example of CAG in action.

Gh, you make me blush, LOL.

I'll happily put something tasty together, will be back later with that after lunch.

Shall I post it up here or send by PM for checking?

 

Elsa x

[gh2008]

I am rubbish at letter writing or even post writing come to that - I tend to state/argue facts rather than constructing a proper flowing argument

 

Post it up at least they will have prior warning to what's dropping on their doormat 8-)

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ok here goes, feel free to amend/correct etc

 

Case Reference:

Dear Sirs,

Further to our telephone conversation on 3rd March 2011 in relation to costs for the above case, I write to confirm the elements of the conversation and reiterate that all further discussions on this matter should be in writing. Furthermore I will copy all correspondence to the Court.

In précis, you state that you would never pay the costs I have submitted, have no knowledge of my submission of an N244 and that you are not liable for costs after the Allocation Questionnaire. You made an offer of £100, which I declined and stated I was quite willing to go back to Court. In response you stated you did not wish this to go to Court and wished to come to some agreement.

I believe this is an accurate summary of the conversation.

 

Further to my verbal response, I would reiterate that I feel your offer of £100 is derisory and unrealistic to the point of insult. Indeed, it could be construed as an attempt to take advantage of the lack of knowledge of a Litigant in Person.

 

I have followed the recommended guidelines and clearly and fairly calculated my costs. Obviously your offer would not even cover out of pocket expenses, let alone reflect the many hours of work and research involved in dealing with your attempted claim as a Litigant in Person. Had I engaged Legal representation my costs would have been significantly higher.

 

Turning to your belief that you are not liable for costs after the AQ, as I’m sure you must be aware, this only applies once a track has been allocated. The case was trackless when you discontinued, hence full costs are payable, as I’m sure the Court will agree.

 

Hence unless we can come to a more realistic and fair agreement based on my submitted figures, I am quite prepared to apply to the Court. This will obviously incur further costs, and I reserve the right to appoint legal representation in this matter.

 

I look forward to a satisfactory response within 7 days,

Edited March 4, 2011 by Undercover-Elsa

[gh2008]

Excellent

 

I would change "I am quite prepared to apply to the Court" to "I am quite prepared to apply to the Court for costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis due to your conduct both up to and following your discontinuance of your ill-conceived claim"

 

But there again that would be really sticking the boot in

[gh2008]

For info

 

 

SECTION 15 COSTS ON THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK AND FAST TRACK: RULE 44.9

 

15.1

 

(1) Before a claim is allocated to one of those tracks the court is not restricted by any of the special rules that apply to that track.

 

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hehe sounds a good amendment to me. They deserve the boot.

 

 

Why isn't there an boot up the ass smiley on here?