Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd

Oh, hang on a mo. The directions refer to my daughter as the defendant. Isn't she now the claimant?

Your daughter is still the defendant in the matter. She is not counterclaiming. She is requesting a costs order against the claimant for unreasonable behaviour.

The Court is now requesting a fee of £120. The N244 Application is for costs against DCBLegal of £95.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make any economic sense, unless the defendant is also awarded costs - which I somehow doubt.

Waste of time & money pursuing this any further? Looks like they get away with it.

Withdraw N244 Application?

You could try and get that fee paid by CEL I suppose as part of the application. It's your call - the risk here is that you turn a win (CEL abandoning the case) into a financial loss.

Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen somehow. There in no inducement for them to cough up, and I certanly don't have any leverage over them. Time to draw a line under this and just take the win.

I was meaning that you could ask that the court award the N244 costs alongside your costs.

But I think you're wise to take the win.

I could, but there'd be no guarantee they would be awarded, right? In which case, it would make zero sense to pay £120 to pursue costs of £90.

To be clear, the post N279 action was taken on advice given here. The defendant would have been none the wiser but for that advice. The conclusion must be that, unless the Application includes costs that greatly exceed the cost of the Application itself, then it's probably not worth pursuing the Claimant's legal reps for irregular conduct.

I don't think we have much choice but to withdraw the N244. Shame.

The reason it was mentioned as an option is that it can work - see this recent success here.

If you win, then you get the N244 costs back as part of your costs. The risk of course is that if you do not succeed, you're down the court fee. Whether you do it depends on your appetite for risk. It potentially makes less sense when your costs are so low.

On second thoughts ...
Now seriously considering coughing up. But
1. Would the Court take a dim view of going to such lengths for a relatively trivial claim in terms of £££?
2. Is the Application against DCBL or the Claimant (CEL)?

In response to your questions:

• The attitude different judges take to different issues can be hard to predict. In theory, your costs are your costs, and modest costs that you can clearly justify are more likely to be considered reasonable than obviously inflated costs.
• The claimant, for whom DCB Legal were acting.

The key matter will be whether the conduct of the claimant (via their solicitors) passes the bar for unreasonable conduct. This bar is high by design (as the idea is that the small claims track involves very limited costs, presumably so that big firms with deep pockets can't use the threat of huge legal fees to bully defendants into submission). The key difference I can see between the case I linked to and your case, is that in the linked case, Moorside did not discontinue - instead, the claim was struck out by the judge for multiple examples of CPR breaches.

The claimant, for whom DCB Legal were acting.

Oops. I thought my Application was against DCBL, coz it was their paralegal who improperly engaged in the conduct of litigation. I didn't see how CEL could be held responsible for the incompetence of their legal reps. Does that mean my Application is now sunk without trace?

PS: Having said that, CEL are cited on the N244 as the Claimant.

Unfortunately, my appetite for risk was just a tad too high this time:

https://ibb.co/27wKL96Y

Bummer.

I think that's the end of the line for this claim. On this occasion at least, they get away with it.