Have we any retired or working altruistic solicitors or barristers in the forum?

[Rhothgar]

Never thought of posting here but I guess it’s a tall ask.

I am going to court tomorrow afternoon to get myself a new a***hole torn by one of the big four banks after they applied for strike-out / summary judgment for outright dismissal of my case.

I took them to court for the failure to provide PPI redress on some kinds back in the 1990’s.

I’ve never been to court before as an LiP and to say the process is confusing is an understatement.

I’ve certainly learned a lot in the last 6 months and unfortunately ****ed up insofar as I’ve been messing about with War Horse and the Lexia issues for the last month when I should have been preparing a witness statement or some kind of documentation.

Anyway, last night I learn that because the court in their ineptness has not allocated the claim to the small claims track as yet and because the adversarial solicitor is concerned only with fighting their client’s corner and nothing else that I am now exposed to £6000 of their costs because fixed costs do not apply pre-allocation.

The system is beyond draconian.

So I may the most valuable Xantia HDi and Lexia combo in the UK.

Coupled with that I had a potential cancer diagnosis last Tuesday following several ****-ups and lack of joined up thinking. I first went to get diagnosed last June with concerns and now the issue has proliferated and I have a CT scan on Wednesday to see if it has spread.

I also have a meeting a follow-up with the Consultant who should have referred me to another department urgently last July.

[mickthemaverick]

You have left it a bit late to ask Roger, however in view of that and your current medical situation I would advise contacting the court first thing and asking for a postponement on medical grounds. Explain that you are in the middle of a cancer investigation with a consultant's appointment due on Wednesday and as such in no frame of mind to address the issues in court at the moment. Hopefully they will adjourn the proceedings pending clarification of your situation. Good luck

[myglaren]

Sorry to hear about the cancer Roger, hope it all goes well for you.
Can't help with the legal question, far from my area of expertise. Only had one experience, took a car dealer to court but relied on a solicitor and barrister who did their bit perfectly.

[Rhothgar]

You have left it a bit late to ask Roger, however in view of that and your current medical situation I would advise contacting the court first thing and asking for a postponement on medical grounds. Explain that you are in the middle of a cancer investigation with a consultant's appointment due on Wednesday and as such in no frame of mind to address the issues in court at the moment. Hopefully they will adjourn the proceedings pending clarification of your situation. Good luck

Cheers Mick.
Bloody forum deleted my post again after logging me out too fast on mobile.

Judicial system very antiquated. Adjournment at this stage would probably end up costing me as their barrister will be on train mid morning I guess.

I should have let them know last Tuesday immediately after but funnily enough I had other worries on my mind and more important people to tell.

Apparently even telling the usher can mean they end as part of the proceedings. Seems a weird set up.

Don’t think I can even have a quiet word with the judge beforehand.

Forgot to file a witness statement a week before.

[Rhothgar]

Sorry to hear about the cancer Roger, hope it all goes well for you.
Can't help with the legal question, far from my area of expertise. Only had one experience, took a car dealer to court but relied on a solicitor and barrister who did their bit perfectly.

Thanks Steve.

[CitroJim]

Sorry to hear about the cancer Roger, hope it all goes well for you.

Same here Roger and here's hoping your journey down this particularly nasty road will end as mine did

If you need to chat, you know where I am...

[411514]

You have left it a bit late to ask Roger, however in view of that and your current medical situation I would advise contacting the court first thing and asking for a postponement on medical grounds. Explain that you are in the middle of a cancer investigation with a consultant's appointment due on Wednesday and as such in no frame of mind to address the issues in court at the moment. Hopefully they will adjourn the proceedings pending clarification of your situation. Good luck

But extending time limits will incur additional liability for costs, particularly without agreement between the parties. That’s not the way that time limits are extended. If you file an application to extend a time limit without agreement, the court will just schedule a hearing, which could easily add thousands in costs.

I don’t understand why people with no legal training, knowledge or experience are so willing to give out nonsense legal advice. If the issue here is the medical appointment, why not cut out the consultant and dish up some nonsense medical advice instead?

[mickthemaverick]

I think you should check out your facts before making adverse comments Sam. I have taken court action 4 times, won 3 of the cases and accepted a settlement on the fourth. So while you are correct that I have no training i do have some knowledge and experience. I also have some faith in the court system being run by people who are surprisingly empathetic when necessary.

[Rhothgar]

You have left it a bit late to ask Roger, however in view of that and your current medical situation I would advise contacting the court first thing and asking for a postponement on medical grounds. Explain that you are in the middle of a cancer investigation with a consultant's appointment due on Wednesday and as such in no frame of mind to address the issues in court at the moment. Hopefully they will adjourn the proceedings pending clarification of your situation. Good luck

But extending time limits will incur additional liability for costs, particularly without agreement between the parties. That’s not the way that time limits are extended. If you file an application to extend a time limit without agreement, the court will just schedule a hearing, which could easily add thousands in costs.

I don’t understand why people with no legal training, knowledge or experience are so willing to give out nonsense legal advice. If the issue here is the medical appointment, why not cut out the consultant and dish up some nonsense medical advice instead?

Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

I pretty much well knew this would be the case but there are some things relating to costs I am unsure about. I've done a lot of reading up including weeding my way through CPR rules to do with costs.

Will I be able to make oral submissions on costs and point out what is noted below?

What really shocks and concerns me is as the case hasn't yet been allocated, fixed costs are not applicable but CPR 46.13(3) provides judge with wide discretion. I am not sure what to believe of what I read about having my diagnosis made plain to the judge before the hearing. I certainly don't want the other side to know as they will just drag it out if it goes beyond today.

Sort of hoping the judge will throw their costs out as entirely disproportionate to the case as that will put defendant on the backfoot but then again, as a bank, I don't think they care what they throw at it to defend their 'shining' reputation.

And late last night I did find that there are arithmetical errors in there. Hourly rate discrepancies of what is being claimed then a lower figure (only 20p per hour) used in the calcs and then they have added VAT to the Court Costs which I believe isn't allowed. They rolled it all up into one which begs the question - can the actual hours claimed be relied upon?

Actual discrepancy is £60+ but is it enough I wonder to mention to the judge if it seems to be going their way that there could also be errors in the hours.

This is how I've phrased it:-

"The Defendant’s N260 is internally inconsistent and arithmetically unreliable. The hourly rate for Mrs. XXX is stated as £358.80, yet most entries are extended at £358.60, while at least one later line appears to use £358.80. Further, the VAT figure of £1,012.02 is exactly 20% of the whole pre-VAT total and appears to include the court fee. The schedule of work done on documents also includes time in column (D), but no (d) fee earner is identified in the fee earner table, making it impossible to tell who undertook that work or what rate is said to apply. In light of those inconsistencies, the Court cannot safely rule out further error, including possible error in the hours recorded themselves. On any view, the schedule does not reconcile properly and cannot safely be accepted at face value."

[Rhothgar]

I think you should check out your facts before making adverse comments Sam. I have taken court action 4 times, won 3 of the cases and accepted a settlement on the fourth. So while you are correct that I have no training i do have some knowledge and experience. I also have some faith in the court system being run by people who are surprisingly empathetic when necessary.

I hope you're right on the empathy.

Not sure they are THAT emphatic though. Not on the day anyway. I guess I will find out soon enough Mick.

I am pretty sure that it would result in adverse costs. That is the arena I am in. Because the claim has not yet been allocated, costs are open for sure and not the fixed costs it would have been limited to once the Court allocated it. The Court system is failing over, Mick. You'd think between end August 2025 and October/November they could have allocated it. The Defendant filed N180 Directions on 20/10 as I did too and Defendant also sent me a draft summary judgment application on the same day. THEY KNOW EXACTLY what they are doing!

Relief can be given under 46.13(3).

[Rhothgar]

Well that didn't go according to plan although the judge was superb.

Not sure I put my point across as effectively as I should have and I still feel that I've been hard done to.

Although he wasn't finding facts because it wasn't an evidential hearing, he said for the basis of this hearing he assumed that what I was saying was true and he said that with a conviction that gave me some early hope. He was HEAVILY critical of the bank's behaviour in dealing with my original PPI claim which I sent in the day before the deadline going as far as saying they were dilatory. However, he couldn't make the connection between a 2025 claim and loans ending in 1993 even though he said he didn't need to hear anything about The Limitation Act. I think my claim was verging on esoteric and had it had been a trial the outcome may have been better. I think he had limited discretion because the hearing was brought by the Defendant to strike out the claim.

Originally I had pleaded Section 32 LA 1980 and would have switched to Section 2 and 9 co-terminously if he had allowed me to amend my Particulars of Claim. It just shows anyone that if you take someone to court very special attention needs paying to the Particulars of Claim insofar as Cause of Action, Breach, Causation, Loss and Limitation.

I've learned a lot from the experience at least. It's certainly a complex and winding road.

And so...

He struck out the claim without allowing my Particulars to be amended.

And then he turned to their costs which effectively were not capped because the claim had not actually been allocated to any track within the Court.

This was the only time their barrister spoke and she obviously followed the line that I had been vexatious and resistant to discontinuing a claim, they say, was bound to fail.

Then the judge tore her a new one in the most polite way possible and then exercised his discretion. I didn't even get to say my piece about errors in the arithmetic of their statement of costs and how it was £0.08 out but also that they had mistakenly charged VAT on the court fees and that their schedule included for a mysterious fee earner who charges were not laid out and that they had charged £122.36 for producing a statement of costs that was wrong.

Best case scenario I could have probably got the £2005 costs for document preparation down to £50.60 which was 0.1 hours for a fee earner that was named. The VAT from the court costs removed - £62.60 and the £0.08 error but some of the lines had been extended with the wrong hourly rate - only minor decimal points wrong but that called into question the accuracy of the whole document for me.

ANYWAY...

The judge threw their £6072 costs out.

So we both came away somewhat bloodied although, in truth, I was relieved even though I won't ever get to see the £5700 Barclays owe me. We really irritates me is that the Financial Ombudsman did say that if you can get them to relent, and from what you have told me and providing the evidence stacks up (which he said it sounds like it would have done - all off the record) they would have found in my favour.

I now have 3 years to try and get them to give in.

I did think I sending one letter by recorded delivery every day for the next 3 years just to bombard them.

As a bank, if a poll was held Barclays would very probably come out on top as the lowest of the low.