*WON* 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

[R0b]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Just to add to M1's post, sending a letter to PE is more out of courtesy than an official procedure. However if you are going to email PE I would suggest also inserting the UKSC Case Willers v Gubay and explaining that you object to their discontinuance without any liabiity and considering claiming costs back. Referring them to the UKSC that damages can be brought without reasonable grounds and is considered malicious therefore you invite them to offer a reaosnable sum of costs incurred.

I've attached an example schedule of costs you can use to send to them and the court. If you send to PE give them 7 days to reply if not write to the court.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Work out what you want including £19 an hour and email PE and ask for that (7/14 days to respond). In the likely event they refuse then try something like what i posted before the LIP rate went from £18 to £19 so edit where required.

M1

Parking Eye were coming after you for an £85 penalty, right? If you ask them for even 5 x £19 per hour LIP of your preparation/ time on this case, this is £95. It's simply therefore in their interest to pursue the case whether continuation or start from afresh, albeit based on the same claimant statement.

Is it such a good idea though to disturb the hornet's nest. I think I agree with Rob insofar as you got the result you wanted in the end. It may be better to let sleeping dogs lie just in case in principle they decide to open up a new can of worms so to speak. Is it worth all the continued hassle, stress?

[mystery1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

What are PE going to do ? They discontinued. they're screwed. It's not like Penny is making an actual application with the associated costs risk.

M1

[des8]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

A simple letter application to the court will not stir up PE.
If that failed to gain the court's support an official application might be a different matter in that they could (and probably would) contest the application.

My own experience of submitting a letter in a similar situation was directions to submit an application for a court order ( which eventually failed to move the judge)
However a letter costs virtually nothing, so nothing ventured nothing gained.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

PE & their ilk seem to think that muttering the magic word 'Beavis' is some kind of all-powerful incantation by which everyone will capitulate & pay their exorbitant (penalty) fees.


Not sure why, the companion word 'Butt-head' springs to mind!

:biggrin1:

Nice words, incantation/ capitulate. Passionate Charity makes for a wordsmith

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Hi everybody,

I think I will email the courts stating that I wish to pursue PE for costs due to them behaving unreasonably; they knew this had no chance of winning in court. (Using the template provided by mystery1).

I think around £200 is reasonable. I've still had to book the day off work (which is the bulk of the money I want to recoup). Printed off loads of pages of documents and pictures. Time spent researching into all this is barely even taken into account!

Is it really worth emailing PE aswell? I don't even want to give them the time of day...but if that is what you all advise is the correct procedure then I will do so reluctantly


Love Penny x

Penny, if a party withdraws or discontinues without permission from the court, under CPR they're entitled to all their costs, actually. You don't need to rely on the malicious prosecution type claim against Parking Eye, to recover your costs therefore. Parking Eye simply instituted proceedings against you then dropped the case at their whim/ leisure. How many hours have you put in on this case? I think you've put in a lot more than 10 hours. I think it's unfair anyway that a litigant in person is only worth £18 or £19 an hour when a lawyer could paid several hundred pound an hour for their costs, especially in these type of actions.

[des8]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

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

[mystery1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Penny, if a party withdraws or discontinues without permission from the court, under CPR they're entitled to all their costs, actually. You don't need to rely on the malicious prosecution type claim against Parking Eye, to recover your costs therefore. Parking Eye simply instituted proceedings against you then dropped the case at their whim/ leisure. How many hours have you put in on this case? I think you've put in a lot more than 10 hours. I think it's unfair anyway that a litigant in person is only worth £18 or £19 an hour when a lawyer could paid several hundred pound an hour for their costs, especially in these type of actions.

Really ? Which cpr would that be ?

Even if the CPR applied as you state, it would not be the party who withdrew who were entitled to their costs. Basically what you said was that PE are entitled to their costs from Penny because they withdrew. Err, no.

M1

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Hey,

I feel like we are now progressing well on this final stage

Thanks Rob for that document on costs. I will use that and quote UKSC Case Willers v Gubay in email to PE. Plus the CPR points the des8 mentioned...for good measure lol.
I will then give them 7 days to reply.

If that does not work then I will email courts using M1 template...

Then we wait with bated breath...

Love Penny1 x

[R0b]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Penny, the CPR rule Des8 supplied does not apply to small claims. If the claim has been allocated to the small claims track already then you cannot rely on that rule and the rule you can only rely on is CPR 44.2 (4) and (5) which says that a court has discretion to award costs for unreasonable conduct and factors to be taking into account.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

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

Good spot, Des8. Ok, Penny's case is a small claim and won't benefit this continuance which is unfair. Moving on, back to reliance on the recent Supreme Court case citing a malicious prosecution as I said initially.

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Really ? Which cpr would that be ?

Even if the CPR applied as you state, it would not be the party who withdrew who were entitled to their costs. Basically what you said was that PE are entitled to their costs from Penny because they withdrew. Err, no.

M1

No, am saying if it would have applied in Penny's case, that since Parking Eye discontinued/ withdrew without court permission she would normally have been entitled to recover her costs against Parking Eye. It doesn't apply for her though as shown by CPR 38.6.

[mystery1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

No, am saying if it would have applied in Penny's case, that since Parking Eye discontinued/ withdrew without court permission she would normally have been entitled to recover her costs against Parking Eye. It doesn't apply for her though as shown by CPR 38.6.

I knew what you meant to say but that's not what you DID say and i knew it was also incorrect as you would have if you'd have read post 162.

M1

[Openlaw15]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

I knew what you meant to say but that's not what you DID say and i knew it was also incorrect as you would have if you'd have read post 162.

M1

In the second part - were it to apply to Penny - that she would be entitled to costs. In the first statement it was stated to the contrary, which is a contradiction.

I really thought I said the opponent of the party who discontinues is entitled to costs, ie if it applied in Penny's case she would be so entitled. I am dyslexic. It seems some things I write although actually appearing to me verbatim are simply not there, even when I read it back. So, it's not just a case of being confused, I knew what I wanted to say and believed I had written it, albeit it never happened. At the time I am so certain I typed what I intended. Amethyst noticed this problem too.

[Penny1]

Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!! - won

Maybe I got a little ahead of myself...

I've still had no confirmation from the courts stating that they recieved a discontinuance letter from PE...do i still have to turn up to court as a precaution?

I have also noticed on the discontinuance letter that they posted to me...that they have spelt my name wrong...instead of Penny it says Panny!

Could they pull a sly one and say the discontinuance letter was not addressed to myself because a letter in my name is wrong? (surname and address is correct)

Now im worried again...