Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one. View the full article
    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

First MCOL Claim: Can I include MCOL fees in my claim?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1270 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I'm making a (very!) small claim through MCOL on a point of principle - to recover just £5.

That amount is dwarfed by the £25 MCOL fee - I'll make the claim anyway as I want to hold the other party to account, but can I include the £25 MCOL fee in my claim - or is that disallowed? (I seem to remember than the previous Small Claims Court arrangement, part of the deal was each side paying their own fees - but I can't find any reference to this in MCOL documentation)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes ofcourse and court costs

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm making a (very!) small claim through MCOL on a point of principle - to recover just £5.

That amount is dwarfed by the £25 MCOL fee - I'll make the claim anyway as I want to hold the other party to account, but can I include the £25 MCOL fee in my claim - or is that disallowed? (I seem to remember than the previous Small Claims Court arrangement, part of the deal was each side paying their own fees - but I can't find any reference to this in MCOL documentation)

 

There is a risk (albeit a very small one!) that the court will consider that you have 'behaved unreasonably' by issuing proceedings with a cost of £25 for a £5 claim.

Are there any associated issues that make it more reasonable for you to do so (such as where you are claiming nominal damages but also to seek an injunction?)

 

If not, you might "win the battle but lose the war" (or both, if you lose the case!), as if the court finds "unreasonable behaviour" they can make a costs award (which don't usually feature in small claims track cases)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To give you the experience you need, the £25 fee is automatically added during the latter steps of the claim form process online with MCOL. Just put in £5 as your claims (plus interest if you are claiming but that will be negligible).

 

There is no such thing as a small claims court - its only becomes a small claim once the claim is allocated to track and it could be well over a month from submitting your claim to that happening.

 

To echo other posters, watch what you are doing because England and Wales CPR give district judges (and nosey & spiteful court staff) a lot of power so make sure of your pre-action protocol.

 

In the meantime, an application to strike out your case could go in landing you with £thousands in costs.

 

Perhaps you should put in a FOI to find out many £5 claimants there are per month?

 

Good luck!

Edited by miteaide
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...