Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

[rcdc69]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

If I understand correctly you are saying that their deliberate vagueness in the claim amounts to misconduct under CPR 44.11 particularly since the claimed amount is in excess of £10k and because this is misconduct there should be additional amounts payable to cover work caused by this misconduct.

Are you saying that this would affect the rate or just the total amount of work that is reasonable and therefore the total cost bill I could apply for (which is limited in part 44 in relation to the total amount of the claim.)

I have to say that I do think they were deliberately vague, probably in the hope that I would be someone who ignores these court claims and gives them an easy court judgement.

[charitynjw]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

The £10k threshold brings the claim outside 'small claims' (unless both parties agree otherwise).

Once allocated, if it does go to small claims, CPR 27 would be the relevant rule/procedure.

Either way, 'unreasonable behaviour' is much the same.

My understanding is that this could lead to costs in excess of the LiP hourly rate, & would potentially relax the usual 'no costs' rule in 'small claims'.

Of course, the court would decide on this, & the amount awarded, if at all.

Again, though, it would be good for others to comment on this

[rcdc69]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

Ah, that's interesting.

Small claims - No Costs rule.

Does that mean that the LiP costs don't apply in claims under £10k ?

I ask in order to clarify for other people and any future claims against me.

[charitynjw]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

Costs on the small claims track

27.14

(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.
(Rules 46.11 and 46.13 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)

(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;

(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;

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for an expert’s fees;

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably; and

(h) the Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2 fixed costs in rule 45.18 where –
(i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);

(ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and

(iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set out in the relevant Protocol; but

(iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and

(i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript reasonably incurred.



(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990¹ (a lay representative).


This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 27

Costs

7.1

Attention is drawn to Rule 27.14 which contains provisions about the costs which may be ordered to be paid by one party to another.




7.2

The amount which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(2)(b) (for legal advice and assistance in claims including an injunction or specific performance) is a sum not exceeding £260.



7.3

The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings) and (d) (experts’ fees) are:
(1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing or staying away from home for the purpose of attending a hearing, a sum not exceeding £90 per day for each person, and

(2) for experts’ fees, a sum not exceeding £750 for each expert.

(As to recovery of pre-allocation costs in a case in which an admission by the defendant has reduced the amount in dispute to a figure below £10,000, reference should be made to paragraph 7.4 of Practice Direction 26 and to paragraph 15.1(3) of the Costs Practice Direction)


Back to top

[rcdc69]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

I have a reply from Restons.

As you will appreciate, we act for the debt purchaser rather than the original Creditor. Although we have requested all available contractual documents from our client, you will appreciate that it may take some time for these documents to be obtained from HSBC Bank Plc and be forwarded to this office. We will forward all available documentation to you as and when it is received by this office.

We trust that this is acceptable.

I suspect that this should NOT be acceptable to me since it effectively lets them come back at any time they like and my guess is if I don't reply then it will be deemed to have been accepted by default.

It seems to me from above posts that their time to come up with valid documentation is limited, and I don't know what the exact legal position is, but surely as solicitors they should not really have taken me to court in the first place if they didn't have valid documentation (such as at minimum the original contract) demonstrating I was liable in their possession.

I am guessing that they should be informed at the least of a time limit on the production, though not sure if their incompetence in not having such documentation before commencing proceedings should be commented on. And of course if there is anything else I should mention that may help a strike out request (should they not come up with something valid in short order).

All comments and thoughts gratefully received.

[rcdc69]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

Would appreciate any help/advice in how to reply.

Many thanks

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Newbie looking for help with Restons/Marlin/HSBC

Any updates? Did you get somewhere with Restons?