Costs Judgments in Form 4 complaints

[Milo]

Re: Costs Judgments in Form 4 complaints

This particular Judgment is very serious indeed.

Firstly, the contents of the Judgment are vitally important but as can be seen, all 3 pages are copied from a particular website.

It is sadly the case that the website in question have continually claimed that it is a "myth" that Courts have ever ordered claimants to pay costs if a Form 4 Complaint is dismissed.

From reading the final paragraph on Page 2 and the small paragraph on Page 3 it is very clear that His Honour Judge Butler is confirming that costs have indeed been ordered and, as an example he confirm that in one "recent case" at Southampton County Court a cost order of £10,000 had been ordered against the person making the Form 4 complaint.

The Form 4 Complaint for Mr Kirk (the complainant) had been drafted by the website in question and this was confirmed on the thread started by Mr Kirk. It is significant to note that within a few hours of Mr Kirk displaying this damning judgment on the website in question on 29th May 2013 that the entire thread was removed from public view.

This Judgment needs to be available to the public and there are many reason for this:

Mr Kirk had initially posted a query on Consumer Action Group and he advised in no uncertain terms that he should not consider a Form 4 complaint and in particular, given that the amount in dispute was just £20!!

The brief background is that the bailiff levied upon a vehicle owned by Mr Kirk's sister and that he charged a fee of £24.50, £18.00 and a "levy fee" of "28.00 There was also a small additional amount of £26.00 which apparently related to a shortfall against a previous account.

Mr Kirk complained to Rossendales about the levy and they removed the levy fee and visit fee and credited the account with the sum of £50.

The debtor was not happy to be told on CAG that he had no grounds to file a Form 4. Subsequently, he sought advice from another forum and from reading a copy of the PDF of his thread it would seem that he was encouraged to file a Form 4 Complaint.

Before the website had removed the thread on 29th May 2013 a copy of Mr Kirk's Form 4 had been displayed. Sadly, it referred to at lest 14 legal cases most of which was irrelevant and "19th century case law".

As a warning to anyone else who may quote such case law in a Form 4 complaint, it is noteworthy that His Honour Judge Butler confirmed that if he had felt it necessary to list the Form 4 for a hearing that he would have required the complainant to bring to the court copies of the legal cases referred to in the Form 4 and most seriously he would have requested that the complaint or "his legal adviser" would have been required to explain to the Judge the relevance of such legal cases !!

Finally, in paragraph 6 His Honour Judge refers to Mr Kirk's comment that he had "taken legal advice" and he questions whether such "advice" had come from "face to face" advice from a solicitor or CAB or alternatively whether the "legal advice" had originated from "internet research" and stated that "if from the latter he should not assume that this information is correct and nor should he assume that the court is aware of the matters he relies upon ( in this he refers to the "19th century legal cases").

There is a significant public interest element as to why District Judge Butler's Judgment should be displayed.

The Judges is highly critical of the "legal advice" given to the complainant and he states that if he had decided to list the matter for a hearing he would have requested that the "legal adviser" or the complainant attend court and to bring with them copies of the legal cases referred to on the Form 4 complaint ( 14 legal cases were quoted).

His Honour Judge Butler also confirmed that costs have been awarded in other cases and he provided details.

Within hours of the complainant posting a copy of such a damning Judgment on the forum, the entire thread had been removing from public view. The effect being that any new visitors to the website would be "kept in the dark" about the response to a Form 4 complaint that the website had drafted for him.

However, if the response had been favourable to the complainant would the website have removed it from public view? The answer is obvious.