sky/virgin defaults

[MARTIN3030]

You can email me as my pm box is full and I havent yet copied them.

I basically need a brief run down of whats happened so far-to see a copy of your POCS and anything the Court has ordered.

martthedj@yahoo.co.uk

 

I am happy to help on the understanding that it will be reported here when appropriate.

[buzby]

even if litigant in person bringing small claim???

 

Absolutely. The loser pays.

 

Folk tend to forget this angle, and whilst is was previously seen as a low-cost track and therefore everyone paid their own costs the winner would expect HIS costs to be reimbursed by the loser (as you would). The fact that the loser happens to be the initiator of the action doesn't mean they walk away with no costs. Some firms were reluctant to be seen claiming these costs, but those WERE the days. All they need so is ask the judge for their capped costs and it cannot be unreasonably be refused).

 

This may have been led by those making spurious claims in the belief that their loss would only be the court fee, but when you think about it, is manifestly unfair. In my action against RM, I lost, as the solicitor was on her feed demanding full costs for the the 4-day case. The judge noted their application, and agreed as winners, they would normally have a full expectation of their costs (capped at £100) being met by the loser. However, the sheriff ruled that as RM's actions in the whole affair had been less that credible and as such refused their application, ruling that each had to carry their own costs.

 

This is a reversal to what most (all? CAGgers) believe, that Small claims is risk free when in fact there is no such thing. The idea that you only get forced to pay the other sites cost if you are being vexations doesn't really fly these days. If the winner doesn't ask for costs, there won't be any awarded, but in the last 10 cases I saw handled in my local SCC, costs were awareded to the winner in 90% of the cases, the remaining one made no application.

Edited January 11, 2010 by buzby

[MARTIN3030]

In my last case VMs own legal bod turned up from Hampshire-he tried to claim £200 costs for his travel and time but the Judge was having none of that and limited costs to £100 on the basis that he should have used a local and that the highest amount she had awarded that morning had not exceeded £100.

Of course VM were determined to deal personally with my case given that I have been a thorn in their side.

The hearing was an application for ammending POCs,but was refused on a technicality in that VM had already settled and so I was told would need a fresh action which the Judge gave permission to do.

 

Of course,Raymond is right,there is always a risk of costs,and no one should forget this.

Reducing that risk,relies on getting everything right first time,as well as complying to Court orders and directions.

I still dont think CAG has the details of those customers who have had a result,I know many will have accepted VM credits to accounts and promises of non DD fees being removed,others have settled before hearings and signed conf agreements.

Some of my issues also concern not just the charges but other things,which I researched under duty of care,contract law and other things.

Relying on common law on its own is not sufficient,if there are other issues.

I think its also becoming increasingly important that these claims should be submitted on an individual basis as opposed to relying on templated matter.

Just my personal opinions-its up to the individual to look at their own case and decide how to proceed.

[buzby]

To confirm Martin's point - you don't have to act unreasonaly to be hit with costsif you lose, however if your paperwork is correct, and you impress the judge that you have aacted responsibly in the face of (possibly) reprehensible action by the defender, you'll have his sympathy and may find the costs request by the winner rejected - this should always be seen as the icing on the cake (it also makes losing that bit more palatable), but you cannot complain to the judge if costs ARE awarded against you, and this should always be borne in mind.