Charge Private Firms for correspondance

[Yorky2008]

Yes which is what we have said all along!

 

You have been talking about LIP rates.

[buzby]

No I haven't, and I've no idea who 'we' is either.

[Yorky2008]

Erm....

 

£9 is the rate for a letter sent by the complainant, along with £9 per hour for research, but it all has to be reasonable or it is easily challenged in the other party claims you are feather-bedding.

 

That might help legitimise the action of claiming, but not the amount - which is already well established for litigants in person at £9 per hour for research or a letter, up to the relevant cap.

 

You have repeatedly mentioned the LIP £9 rate! Stop back peddling like you have tried to do on other threads when giving incorrect info.

 

And we is the other posters who have suggested stating what you will charge them in a letter, as the previous poster has successully done and the poster (on another thread), who charged them for 'training' - non of it at LIP rates or process!

[Al27]

PPCs have been trying this recently. They like to stick on '(unspecified) additional fees' on their signage and then sticking on an extra £25 or £50 onto claims.

 

Which begs the question, why doesn't every single claimant in the country slap on £50 just because they feel like it?

[buzby]

Erm...

 

You have repeatedly mentioned the LIP £9 rate! Stop back peddling like you have tried to do on other threads when giving incorrect info.

 

And we is the other posters who have suggested stating what you will charge them in a letter, as the previous poster has successully done and the poster (on another thread), who charged them for 'training' - non of it at LIP rates or process!

 

Irrelevant - and I can assure you if there's any back-peddling, it is in your own mind.

 

The £9 rate - is not set in stone, it is a guide for a 'reasonable' appreciation of costs. Be both know the actual cost is considerably less - time taken isn't chargeable and apart from a few pence to print and post, that's it. It is this that makes the suggested charges of £20-£50 per letter laughable in the extreme.

 

The danger - which you fail to appreciate - is that it is foolish to be shown to issue unreasonable demands IF it does end up in court, and you attempt to quantify your 'losses' with these inflated figures an an action, you'll be destroyed by the other party, if not the judge.

 

I can only assume you see nothing wrong in charging (say) £25 for 5 letters, then suing them for £125 because your claim was not met? Or perhaps when they start dealing with the complaint, forgetting to pursue the £125 because the matter has been dealt with?

 

The reality is all credibility is lost. Apart from not being able to ENFORCE these charges makes them a point of negotiation only. So providing you don;t mind coming across as a nutter with no hope, by all means - but lets not fool others who want to ensure their actions are reasonable and will be supported by the courts if need be.

[Yorky2008]

Irrelevant - and I can assure you if there's any back-peddling, it is in your own mind.

 

The £9 rate - is not set in stone, it is a guide for a 'reasonable' appreciation of costs. Be both know the actual cost is considerably less - time taken isn't chargeable and apart from a few pence to print and post, that's it. It is this that makes the suggested charges of £20-£50 per letter laughable in the extreme.

 

The danger - which you fail to appreciate - is that it is foolish to be shown to issue unreasonable demands IF it does end up in court, and you attempt to quantify your 'losses' with these inflated figures an an action, you'll be destroyed by the other party, if not the judge.

 

I can only assume you see nothing wrong in charging (say) £25 for 5 letters, then suing them for £125 because your claim was not met? Or perhaps when they start dealing with the complaint, forgetting to pursue the £125 because the matter has been dealt with?

 

The reality is all credibility is lost. Apart from not being able to ENFORCE these charges makes them a point of negotiation only. So providing you don;t mind coming across as a nutter with no hope, by all means - but lets not fool others who want to ensure their actions are reasonable and will be supported by the courts if need be.

 

What absolute rollocks Buzby! I havenot done any back peddling what-so-ever but you as usual are changing your story! You are again quoting £9, which as we all know is LIP rates if you were claiming research costs, etc, if you went to court. However, as has been repeatedly said, where an agreement is in place for more than £9 that would be your recoverable costs. If the agreement states £25 then that is what is paid, have you made an agreement with someone for more then offered them £9/hr afterwards? No, thought not!

 

As regards reasonable, I have billed British Gas for my hourly rate and they have paid, a previous poster here has also billed and receieved recompense. if you takes you 30mins then you charge 30mins, so thankyou but yes I do know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable!

 

Otherwise everything would cost £9 an hour by your reasoning!

[buzby]

I have billed British Gas for my hourly rate and they have paid, a previous poster here has also billed and receieved recompense. if you takes you 30mins then you charge 30mins, so thankyou but yes I do know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable! Otherwise everything would cost £9 an hour by your reasoning!

 

Only you seem to think this £9 is in tablets of stone. You can come up with any figure you like as part of your negotiation/settlement and it is up to the firm to decide (usually without any liability) whether they will accept or not. If they tell you they're not interested and you pursue through the courts, you'd be wrung out to dry - and I've seen it happen countless times. Call it the 'compo culture' if you like. I've negotiated rates in excess of this based on my time, effort and inconvenience as part of a settlement and they are free to agree or reject.

 

It is when they reject, you;re left holding the baby, and have to puyt up or shut up.

 

As for British Gas - I got £1,200 out of them and my last Bill waived (at £180) but to get to this I exposed their in-house Solicitor as a fraud, their inability to respond to 8 letters (ficticious people were writing to me), and I involved my MP. The difference is, it would have cost BG much more to deal with me in court, than settle. If it went to court, I'd only have got around £500.

 

As for your ongoing insults, shame you cannot have a debate without resorting to dissing folk you don't agree with - but then, it makes you look unhinged and I've no argument with that.

[Yorky2008]

Only you seem to think this £9 is in tablets of stone.

 

So why did you quote this previously?

 

which is already well established for litigants in person at £9 per hour for research

 

Make you mind up!

 

As for your ongoing insults, shame you cannot have a debate without resorting to dissing folk you don't agree with - but then, it makes you look unhinged and I've no argument with that.

 

Aha so by disagreeing with you that is now insults and makes me unhinged does it?

I think the shame is on yourself!

[Yorky2008]

OP, this is the original thread I was thinking of:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?88437

[buzby]

Nurse!

[dw190]

What hourly rate or other rate is it reasonable to apply in respect of time reasonably spent by the litigant in person?

 

Unless financial loss can be shown the rate allowed is £9.25 per hour under CPD Section 52.4

[buzby]

If a Small Claims Action - whist you could genuinely spend 20 hours gainfully preparing your case, a claim of £180 would not be allowed, due to the fact the costs are capped for BOTH parties, leaving the loser to pay the 'capped' cost of the other party.

[afcwben]

If a Small Claims Action - whist you could genuinely spend 20 hours gainfully preparing your case, a claim of £180 would not be allowed, due to the fact the costs are capped for BOTH parties, leaving the loser to pay the 'capped' cost of the other party.

 

But if the capped costs are less than provable charge rates can you not argue the loser should pay the losses which are greater than the capped costs

[buzby]

Er, no. That's why they are 'capped'.

 

The whole point of the Small Claims track is to ensure the costs are manageable and reasonable for all - claimant AND defendant. In my action wiry Royal Mail, they didn't attempt to exceed the cap, butvtold the judge their costs were in excess of £3k so had been instructed to seek the full amount available (which was £80).

 

The judge said that as RMs handling of my complaint had been unreasonable, not only was she rejecting their request, but finding that both parties meet their own costs. (So I had nothing more to pay, despite losing).