3. N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs  (Read 430 times)

0 Members and 133 Guests are viewing this topic.

N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« on: »
Hi All,

Newbie here, thanks for having me.

Thinking of filing an N244 for a review by a DJ of a TEC court officer's refusal decision of my TE7.

I am trying in vain however to find the specific Act, CPR, Practice Direction or other regulation which specifies i) the £255 application fee for oral hearings; and ii) that the application fee is expressly NOT recoverable as I am given to believe. Surely usual costs and recoverability of application fees apply to a winning party, unless otherwise expressly prohibited, no? I cannot find any such prohibition. Given that the application fee has already been charged, costs normally follow the event, so the local authority should surely be liable for them for wrongly opposing the original TE7 application, no?

Does anyone have any idea where this lack of recoverability of the application fee, costs apparently being prohibited, and the specific application fee itself are prescribed in the regulations?

Many thanks

Dom
« Last Edit: October 23, 2023, 10:51:16 pm by DomK »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #1 on: »
Costs follow the event, but it's a lot of hassle to get them as you need a full hearing before a district judge, this cannot be done on the papers.

Before we go down this potential rabbit hole, please could you outline why you think your out of time application is likely to be successful?
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #2 on: »
I am pretty sure that on a fair and reasonable assessment, the reasons are bullet-proof:

- Post goes missing in our area generally and has done for years
- Proof of complaints to Royal Mail
- Proof of mail delivered to me for other neighbours
- Neighbours usually redeliver wrong mail, however one neighbour died 2 years ago, property was still empty and estate still going through probate. We only get to collect any wrongly delivered mail every so often, when family come round to collect mail.
- One of the items of mail was the Order for Recovery, which I naturally couldn’t respond to as I only received it after the deadline to respond had passed when the family of my deceased neighbour had attended.

I’m just surprised a Costs Schedule including a costs order of the application fee against the LA for objecting to the TE7; witness attendance at oral hearing; litigant in person hours, etc, can’t be submitted as part of the application and awarded upon a win, as I can't find anything which expressly prohibits this approach but it would certainly seem that much of this is not exempt from applying https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-44-general-rules-about-costs
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 12:56:13 am by DomK »
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #3 on: »
The problem is that the enforcing authority have done nothing wrong so why should they pay the costs of your review, (if successful),  of the TEC court officer's decision ? . They obtained your name and address from the DVLA and then sent out all the statutory enforcement documents as required by the legislation. The fact they didn't arrive isn't their problem.  Yes, it is all very wrong, but the problem lies with TEC, and their decision-making process.
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #4 on: »
@Incandescent - my point is that it's specifically the enforcing authority who objected to my TE7, having seen my TE7 application as set out in my reply just above. That's the starting point isn't it? In other words, had they not submitted a 'notice of objection', then the TEC officer would presumably have been persuaded otherwise.

Alternatively, a costs order could surely / feasibly be made against TEC / HMCTS for the officer acting irrationally, or vexatiously in a public office under some legal principles which currently elude me regarding duties, specifically when it comes to discretion, in a public office, might that be a route to go down?

Fundamentally though, I need to know if there is any bar to submitting a costs order at all and why, anecdotally, it seems a large number of applications for even the application fee don't seem to work with district judges, even on paper or oral N244 hearings.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 01:07:18 am by DomK »
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #5 on: »
Well, good luck with your hunting expedition, but I think you'll struggle.  Scotland don't even have a process equivalent if an OfR is missed.
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #6 on: »
If you are going to suggest the council have done some wrong by objecting then show us that objection at the very least?
And your original OOT application.

Which council was it?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2023, 09:55:12 am by Neil B »
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #7 on: »

OP, try stripping out the emotion and what you think you know about the law. We can also strip out your anecdotal views on the reliability of the postal service in your area.

You posted:
We only get to collect any wrongly delivered mail every so often, when family come round to collect mail.
- One of the items of mail was the Order for Recovery, which I naturally couldn’t respond to as I only received it after the deadline to respond had passed when the family of my deceased neighbour had attended.

So, try putting this a different way.

On *** the family of ** who until they passed resided at ** came round to collect post from the property which has been unoccupied since ****.
They found a letter from *** council which they delivered to me.
This letter was an Order for Recovery dated ***.

Is the above correct?
Could you get a statement from whoever delivered the letter? 

So far the authority have acted properly: they issued and posted an OfR which was correctly addressed to you and was properly stamped. They are entitled to consider that this would have been delivered to you property.

Your argument is: it wasn't, but you don't have proof as yet, the post here has been s**t for ages and it's not your fault.

The authority would have been acting improperly to have simply taken your word.

And the letter from TEC would have set out your options and given you links to relevant sources.

Anyway, you say you have applied, correct?

..you can understand why the court officer took the decision which they did based upon the evidence which you had available and presented. However, you now have a statement from *** that they delivered the OfR to me on **** etc.
NB. unless you opened it in front of them or they could see the sender's details you might need to beef up this part e.g. they gave you several letters etc. which had accumulated since the last time this happened, *** not being the first occasion on which they've acted as an unpaid local postal worker.

For discussion.
Logged
Re: N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs
« Reply #8 on: »
Quote from: Incandescent on October 24, 2023, 12:55:51 am
The problem is that the enforcing authority have done nothing wrong so why should they pay the costs of your review, (if successful),
Because they brought the proceedings to begin with and in so doing they accepted the costs risk that comes with it. In the county court costs follow the event, there are exception like the small claims track, but that is the general rule. It's not a question of fault, it's a question of who is the successful party. There would need to be something to displace the starting position that the loser must pay, simply saying "we did nothing wrong" would not be enough IMHO.

We've actually been waiting for a while for a case where we could run the costs argument, but @DomK really needs to put his card on the table if he wants to get any reliable advice.

Some of us might be able to act as McKenzie friends and there's an outside chance we could get a solicitor to represent you, but as above we can't commit significant resources unless and until we can properly evaluate the strength of your case.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. N244 (review of out-of-time stat dec): recoverability of hearing fees & costs