Jump to content


VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster


Recommended Posts

Yes, legal costs are capped at £50 for the amount VCS are claiming.

 

They could only be awarded further costs if the judge decided the OP had behaved unreasonably in litigation.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I see that under CPR 45.2 Table 1. While the court has the authority to cap the costs, I'm not sure that means the claimant is obliged to claim in accordance with table 1. It is simply that whatever they seek is likely to be capped except in the circumstances you state. VCS likely see it as a free bite of the cherry to claim £220, after all the defendant may - although probably not - act unreasonably and their claimed costs may - although probably not - get awarded.

Anyway minor point and unlikely to affect the outcome - good luck.

 

I think it is only fair to make a suggestion - which can be freely disregarded and perhaps this is splitting hairs.

 

13. Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’

 

I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in accordance with CPR 45.2 (Table 1). The fact the Claimant made no reference or justification for seeking legal costs above this cap - despite being legally trained - leads me to believe the letter was instead a deceitful attempt to intimidate the Defendant into payment rather than a justified claim for costs.

 

I believe this omission, be it negligent or deliberate is evidence the Claimant has acted unreasonably towards the Defendant and the Defendant is therefore justified to make their own request to the court in accordance with CPR 27.14 (2) (g) to award their full costs outlined below to be paid by the Claimant.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sign it yes.

 

Dx

 

 

 

 

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

10 hours ago, FruitSalad1010 said:

"the Defendant is therefore justified to make their own request to the court in accordance with CPR 27.14 (2) (g) to award their full costs outlined below to be paid by the Claimant."

sounds brilliant but though I like the idea, I am not sure what full costs to ask the court for here and what costs to outline.

20 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

You can sign it yes.

 

Dx

 

 

 

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs under CPR 27.14 (2) g are by way of summary assessment and not really applicable...otherwise any costs (out of pocket) are fixed costs within Small Claims Track apart from 27.14 . ( 2 )  d

 

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;


Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would start with litigant in person costs at £19 per hour as provided for by CPR 46.5 (4) (b) and detailed in Litigants in persons: rule 46.5 (3.4).

 

VCS are willing to threaten you with costs over and above a cap. In essence they have opened the door to the subject of costs in excess of the cap by broaching the subject first and provided you have sufficient justification I see no reason why you cannot simply ask the judge to award your costs. If it is denied then nothing lost, nothing gained, the same game they play but this time to your benefit not theirs.

 

I imagine you have spent several hours already preparing to defend this case, I would certainly document this time.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
Link to post
Share on other sites

dont forget if you have to take time off work even on a phone court appearance you can claim £90 loss of earnings

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Case has been adjourned to the next available date as some supplementary WS was served to the courts but not to me. Claimant instructed to mail the supplementary WS within 24 days by post that they claim they sent to me but which I never received. Judge says costs are reserved.

 

Cheeky VCS wanted to "email" me the supplementary WS during the hearing and I refused to give them my address and told them I would not like to receive any emails from them and that they have been harassing me... so I was not interested. The judge said that without me having that document which they wanted to rely on then the case could not proceed if he was to be fair!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrewed judge

bet the sws is total bs and lies or fake paperwork

 

Dx

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

Well done for not allowing them to email you during the hearing. That is why we ask our members not to allow them the use of your email address precisely because they will try and ambush you.

Your WS obviously worried them hence the supplementary WS  so you are best to study what they say in the new WS that may conflict with their original and how to refute it. And in the middle of a Court hearing is not the place to do it.

But it might mean that in your supplementary WS we can slip in that VCS have  reecntly been fined £1000 for ssuing a PCN on a Council maintained road.

 

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confident that my WS would have knocked them out! Maybe I should have left it for the last minute and sent it via a disposable email address last Friday by 12 noon! They would have been left without a chance to mess around and try to build supplementary nonsense!

I am sure with you guys backing me up we shall defeat them with their extortion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...