Keygo interaction with standard ITSO when BoJ

[kijeta]

You can't claim fixed costs upon claim commencement under CPR 45.17 unless your claim is for at least £25.

Thanks. Does this mean, regardless of the case particulars, in this situation, the defendant (GTR) has the legal upper hand? As in, I will be required to pay the fees even if I win.

direct travel expenses and loss of earnings or leave for any absence from work

Which I prospect to be zero. I do not pay for travel within London, and am unemployed.

it may be argued by GTR that failing to use it amounts to unreasonable conduct

Would it therefore be safer to still involve the Ombudsman first, and present their response with a cover letter specifying that their decision is not binding?

Overpaying for travel physically hurts me

I can ask for a doctor's letter at the next appointment, if that may help the case at all?

 

[AlterEgo]

I can give you £2.85 if it will save all this arsing about.

 

[simonw]

I can give you £2.85 if it will save all this arsing about.

Oh for a like button.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks. Does this mean, regardless of the case particulars, in this situation, the defendant (GTR) has the legal upper hand? As in, I will be required to pay the fees even if I win.

Ah, sorry - I should have clarified what "fixed costs upon claim commencement" means. These are the costs you're recovering as a contribution towards your legal expenses. If you're unrepresented, they are towards the time you have taken to bring the case.

CPR 27.14 sets out the costs that can be awarded in a case allocated to the Small Claims Track (which this would be). These include your Court fees, and separately the fixed commencement costs under CPR 45.17 above, as well as the other things I've alluded to.

You'll note subparagraph (g) which sets out the unreasonable behaviour costs rule.

Would it therefore be safer to still involve the Ombudsman first, and present their response with a cover letter specifying that their decision is not binding?

That would certainly be one option, yes. You would include the part about it being non-binding in your Letter Before Claim and subsequently your Particulars of Claim or skeleton argument.

I can give you £2.85 if it will save all this arsing about.

Very good of you to offer, but AIUI the OP is looking to pursue this on a point of principle rather than anything else. Moreover it's fair to assume that the underlying issue with the system, which causes KeyGo to overcharge in these specific circumstances, won't be resolved unless the matter is escalated.

 

[kijeta]

These include your Court fees

Even if the £35 is non-refundable, I still think this is a low-cost opportunity to gain some real-life legal experience, so £(35-2.85)=32.15 is very reasonable in my opinion.

I will raise this with the Ombudsman, but also seek advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau in parallel, to save time - on the assumption that the Ombudsman will not provide a favourable reply.

OP is looking to pursue this on a point of principle rather than anything else

That's correct - thank you. I've actually had nightmares about this last night. I'm not bothered about the monetary figure of £2.85, but I am bothered by GTR's incompetence.

 

[Watershed]

Even if the £35 is non-refundable, I still think this is a low-cost opportunity to gain some real-life legal experience, so £(35-2.85)=32.15 is very reasonable in my opinion.

That would be one way of viewing it, but as I alluded to, there is also the hearing fee to consider with if the matter isn’t settled at an early stage.

Moreover, if even the knowledge that this has happened is causing you nightmares, you might want to consider the stress that a lot of people would feel when bringing this kind of claim. If the claim is properly defended you may well have barristers etc. throwing around terms or precedents you don’t know.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t do this - I completely understand pursuing things on a point of principle and have done so (in other contexts) myself. But I think it’s worth carefully thinking about the whole process and what it involves.

 

[kijeta]

That would be one way of viewing it, but as I alluded to, there is also the hearing fee to consider with if the matter isn’t settled at an early stage.

Will I keep the right, as a claimant, to drop ("discontinue") the case, by forfeiting any costs paid and covering their costs up to that stage?

you might want to consider the stress that a lot of people would feel when bringing this kind of claim

Although I admit this is stressful, I do still want the experience. I would prefer to go through this minor stress now, than to be in a position in the future where I am the defendant against a TOC, with no "easy way out" (such as dropping the case), and be inexperienced.

you may well have barristers etc. throwing around terms or precedents you don’t know.

If it's only three figures, I can afford to request assistance from lawyers too.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

That would be one way of viewing it, but as I alluded to, there is also the hearing fee to consider with if the matter isn’t settled at an early stage.

Moreover, if even the knowledge that this has happened is causing you nightmares, you might want to consider the stress that a lot of people would feel when bringing this kind of claim. If the claim is properly defended you may well have barristers etc. throwing around terms or precedents you don’t know.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t do this - I completely understand pursuing things on a point of principle and have done so (in other contexts) myself. But I think it’s worth carefully thinking about the whole process and what it involves.

It's also worth thinking about the likely outcomes. Given the amount involved, will the railway have any appetite to defend themselves in court? I think it was on this thread that I suggested that they might just ignore the whole matter and pay up when the time comes: it's also possible that they might short circuit by paying up shortly after receipt of the paperwork for the case.

Either way, the OP would not get their day in court - or if the railway just ignored the proceedings, they might get their day but with no one from the other side to challenge.

From what I understand, the OP is looking for an opportunity to air their grievances. But even by pursuing this to court, I don't see that they will get that opportunity - at least not in any meaningful way.

 

[kijeta]

if the railway just ignored the proceedings, they might get their day but with no one from the other side to challenge

Will GTR have to pay any more than £2.85 in this case?

OP is looking for an opportunity to air their grievances

Yes, but additionally, I want a chance to gain legal experience where I believe I have a high chance of winning. Other students in the Law department may have to do fictional cases for practice, while this opportunity for a real-life case is handed to me on a silver plate.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes, but additionally, I want a chance to gain legal experience where I believe I have a high chance of winning. Other students in the Law department may have to do fictional cases for practice, while this opportunity for a real-life case is handed to me on a silver plate.

I hadn't realised that you were a law student. But as you are, you have presumably come across the phrase which I've seen credited to Abraham Lincoln:

If you are your own lawyer you have a fool for a client.

I'll leave that there, but will also muse that the courts might well take a dim view of a student using them and a frankly trivial case as an opportunity to get experience: as you, again, may well have come across in your studies, law courts are not a cost-free service, and you making the courts incur a cost for your chance to gain legal experience would not go down well. As a taxpayer (and so a partial funder of His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service) it certainly doesn't go down well with me.

 

[kijeta]

I hadn't realised that you were a law student. But as you are, you have presumably come across the phrase which I've seen credited to Abraham Lincoln:

Sorry if that was misleading - I am not a law student. I am a student studying something completely different (as you can see from my earlier ambiguity).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Sorry if that was misleading - I am not a law student. I am a student studying something completely different (as you can see from my earlier ambiguity).

In that case, go and talk to other students in the law department - perhaps some who are studying law rather than whatever else your institution's law department teaches - who I confidently predict will tell you in much less charitable terms than I have used that you should not do this.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Will GTR have to pay any more than £2.85 in this case?


Yes, but additionally, I want a chance to gain legal experience where I believe I have a high chance of winning. Other students in the Law department may have to do fictional cases for practice, while this opportunity for a real-life case is handed to me on a silver plate.

There's no chance this would reach court. They'll just give you £2.85, at best. If it did reach court it may well be deemed vexatious. Its a complete waste of the court's time and that of the taxpayer funded GTR. You are doing it to harass GTR rather than recover your loss, by your own admission, and you perfectly meet the definition of a vexatious litigant. It's an "unmeritorous lawsuit intended primarily to harass" and you'd probably be ordered to pay their costs. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vexatious

I think when you said you're unemployed, I think you could just as well have said underemployed. There's no incompetence, merely a poorly defined sequence of events that isn't adequately covered by a payment mechanism, because they are not reasonable and genuine actions, your movements were specifically designed to confuse and create administration.

There's no gotcha! moment here and I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

 

[BAFRA77]

I wonder if anyone at GTR is reading this thread and making notes?

 

[Mawkie]

There's no chance this would reach court. They'll just give you £2.85, at best. If it did reach court it may well be deemed vexatious. Its a complete waste of the court's time and that of the taxpayer funded GTR. You are doing it to harass GTR rather than recover your loss, by your own admission, and you perfectly meet the definition of a vexatious litigant. It's an "unmeritorous lawsuit intended primarily to harass" and you'd probably be ordered to pay their costs. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vexatious

I think when you said you're unemployed, I think you could just as well have said underemployed. There's no incompetence, merely a poorly defined sequence of events that isn't adequately covered by a payment mechanism, because they are not reasonable and genuine actions, your movements were specifically designed to confuse and create administration.

There's no gotcha! moment here and I suggest you find something better to do with your time.

Agreed, and imagine the face of the Citizen's Advice Bureaux volunteer when the OP wastes CABs very limited time on the grand £2.85 claim.

OP, IMO you just need to let it go.