Claim for cost of N244 Reinstatement

[IanRoberts]

I recently brought a small claims court moneyclaim again an ex girlfriend who had borrowed £1,000 from me. Later developments led me to the conclusion this was always a scam and she never intended to pay it back. Shortly before the CCJ was due to come into effect I had a string of messages from the defendant, saying she had just got out of hospital for trying to take her own life and the stress of the impending court case was too much for her to deal with. She pleaded with me to drop the case, and promised to pay me back. I, maybe foolishly did. It again became clear she had no intention of paying me back. So I took out a N224 Reinstatement to get the claim reinstated at the cost of £100. I also uncovered evidence that the defendant had lied to get the loan from me so went to the police in an attempt to get her prosecuted for fraud by false representation. The police visited the defendant, they obviously threatened her with something as she immediately paid me back the £1,000. The police wouldn't discus why they visited the defendant, citing data protection but refused to prosecute, citing variety of vague reasons such as "not proportionate" "not in the public interest" "That I didn't have absolute 100% evidence she'd lied". Anyway in the meantime my N244 Reinstatement was granted, the CCJ wasn't quite settled as there was still the matter of my court costs for the initial moneyclaim of £60. The defendant finally paid this back 2 days before the CCJ would have been issued. However I still find myself £100 out of pocket for the cost of the reinstatement. My question is can I file a new small claims court moneyclaim against the defendant for £100 the cost of the N244 as I feel she should pay it as the claim was halted at her demand.

[pt2537]

Short answer..

No

[IanRoberts]

Short answer..

No

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and reply. Obviously, not the answer I was looking for. Can you please point me at the legislation that backs up your answer, as from my own searches I've been unable to find anything either way so assumed it was maybe a grey area and might come down to the courts discretion as to whether or not the claim was 'reasonable' which I believe it is.

[Guest]

My opinion. Just be thankful you got most of your money back, there are many others who don't, and never will.

[pt2537]

Hi there

On what basis do you believe that you are entitled to costs?

If judgment was entered in your favour of your claim and you didn't ask the court to make an order that your ex had to pay costs It seems to me that this was your error.

Costs are always at the courts discretion This is clear from the civil procedure rules in particular the cost provisions which are found at rule 44 to 45

I would also refer you to civil procedural part 27 in particular part 27.14 the stills with costs in the small claims track it seems to me that your claim is likely to be a small claim given the value.
Therefore it seems to me that you are unlikely to be entitled to costs in any event unless of course you can show the court that your ex partners conduct was unreasonable. I do have to be clear that just because you believe they behaved unreasonably would not get you over the bar and unreasonable conduct is an extremely high bar to over come and crucially just like in all of the other points raised above the rules of the court clear that the court has discretion on costs, total discretion


When you realise the costs are at the courts discretion and you realise that you have no automatic entitlement to recover your costs when you realise that you have no cause of action without a cause of action you have no claim

If you were to pursue your ex for this 100 pound and if your ex Decided to instruct me to represent themThen let me be clear I would be making an immediate application on the civil procedure rule 3.4 and under part 24 On the basis that your claim was wholly without merit Fundamentally flawedHaving 0 prospects of successAnd being nothing more than an abuse of the court process

I would also cite the fact that there is no cause of action. When you realise you do not have any right to costs as a basic starting point then you very quickly realise that you have no claimIf you did perceive such a claim and if I were instructed to do with it I would also be seeking cast against you your hundredpound claim could end up costing you over a 1000 in legal costs

My advice to you would be simply take what you have recovered put it down to experience and move on

[pt2537]

Apologies for typos this was done using voice dictation

[IanRoberts]

My opinion. Just be thankful you got most of your money back, there are many others who don't, and never will.

I'll take what I got as a victory, she tried to scam me out of £1000 and ended up paying back £1060. That will bite, big time. I was always gonna get it back one way or the other.

[IanRoberts]

Hi there

On what basis do you believe that you are entitled to costs?

If judgment was entered in your favour of your claim and you didn't ask the court to make an order that your ex had to pay costs It seems to me that this was your error.

Costs are always at the courts discretion This is clear from the civil procedure rules in particular the cost provisions which are found at rule 44 to 45

I would also refer you to civil procedural part 27 in particular part 27.14 the stills with costs in the small claims track it seems to me that your claim is likely to be a small claim given the value.
Therefore it seems to me that you are unlikely to be entitled to costs in any event unless of course you can show the court that your ex partners conduct was unreasonable. I do have to be clear that just because you believe they behaved unreasonably would not get you over the bar and unreasonable conduct is an extremely high bar to over come and crucially just like in all of the other points raised above the rules of the court clear that the court has discretion on costs, total discretion


When you realise the costs are at the courts discretion and you realise that you have no automatic entitlement to recover your costs when you realise that you have no cause of action without a cause of action you have no claim

If you were to pursue your ex for this 100 pound and if your ex Decided to instruct me to represent themThen let me be clear I would be making an immediate application on the civil procedure rule 3.4 and under part 24 On the basis that your claim was wholly without merit Fundamentally flawedHaving 0 prospects of successAnd being nothing more than an abuse of the court process

I would also cite the fact that there is no cause of action. When you realise you do not have any right to costs as a basic starting point then you very quickly realise that you have no claimIf you did perceive such a claim and if I were instructed to do with it I would also be seeking cast against you your hundredpound claim could end up costing you over a 1000 in legal costs

My advice to you would be simply take what you have recovered put it down to experience and move on

Evening,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to send me such a long and detailed answer, I really do appreciate it.

To answer your first question, not a legal answer but in terms of reasonableness.

I believe I am entitled to costs as the claim was halted at her request/demand with the promise I'd be paid back, which proved to be false. Therefore I incurred these expenses at her request.

However I had a long ready of the civil procedural parts you sent me. Particularly part 27.14 (2) which states:-

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

(i) are payable under Part 45; or

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

(c) any court fees paid by that other party; - Would this one not apply ? Is the reinstatement fee not a court fee ? Or even (a) issuing or reissuing the claim, would this not apply ?


As I replied to the post above. I already feel I have a victory, which IS a victory for the good guys. She tried to scam me out of £1,000 and ended up having to pay back £1,060, that will really bite. She put a lot of time and effort in for a loss. So I can happily take the victory and walk away. I'm just exploring options to put some icing on the cake.

[pt2537]

Hi

I hear your point, and yes 27.14(2) does say fees are recoverable, but the key wording is that "The Court may not order" THE COURT not the claimant or defendant. Its the Courts gift only to make a costs order.

That is my point, if you sue your ex using part 7 proceedings you have no entitlement to costs because you have no order. No order means no cause of action and no claim.

The only way I can see you could get costs would be to make an application to the court, trouble is it costs 255.

The other problem is that we dont know what happened to the case, if it was settled by consent order for example then you will struggle to overturn that, if the court made an order after a hearing then again you should have made an application for costs then.

You are going to potentially spend more than you will recover and that cannot be sensible

[IanRoberts]

Hi

I hear your point, and yes 27.14(2) does say fees are recoverable, but the key wording is that "The Court may not order" THE COURT not the claimant or defendant. Its the Courts gift only to make a costs order.

That is my point, if you sue your ex using part 7 proceedings you have no entitlement to costs because you have no order. No order means no cause of action and no claim.

The only way I can see you could get costs would be to make an application to the court, trouble is it costs 255.

The other problem is that we dont know what happened to the case, if it was settled by consent order for example then you will struggle to overturn that, if the court made an order after a hearing then again you should have made an application for costs then.

You are going to potentially spend more than you will recover and that cannot be sensible

Good morning,

Thank you again for clarifying. I can see that the devil is in the detail as I guess it often is with legal wording, the word "may"
becomes a grey area and gives discretion to the court. I guess I read "may" as "will" but that is incorrect.

I can tell you that the case never made it as far as court. The reinstatement was granted, the defendant received a letter from the court
telling her she had to pay me back my £60 costs by a certain. To avoid the CCJ she paid me back the balance she owed me a couple
of days shy of the date.

I totally get what you are saying, makes no sense to spend £255 to recover £100.

I'm gonna try a bluff. Send her a letter requesting payment of the £100 costs, telling her if she doesn't pay within 14 days I will take out another moneyclaim against her, which will then cost her £125. I believe I can send something pretty convincing and I'm guessing she's had enough of letters from the court and paying court costs. That way I'm only risking the cost of a stamp against potentially getting £100 back with a fair chance of success and if nothing else it will raise her anxiety levels.

[IanRoberts]

Hi

I hear your point, and yes 27.14(2) does say fees are recoverable, but the key wording is that "The Court may not order" THE COURT not the claimant or defendant. Its the Courts gift only to make a costs order.

That is my point, if you sue your ex using part 7 proceedings you have no entitlement to costs because you have no order. No order means no cause of action and no claim.

The only way I can see you could get costs would be to make an application to the court, trouble is it costs 255.

The other problem is that we dont know what happened to the case, if it was settled by consent order for example then you will struggle to overturn that, if the court made an order after a hearing then again you should have made an application for costs then.

You are going to potentially spend more than you will recover and that cannot be sensible

Just to let you know, I received my money back today, at no cost. Sent a very official sounding letter with an n252 form, totally bluffed it. Feels very sweet to scam a scammer. Merry Christmas :-)

[ploddertom]

Way to go, well done.