Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post Reply
User avatar
Hithard
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: 19 Mar 2013 13:54

#1 Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Hithard » 24 Apr 2014 16:16

It looks like inroads are being made in the fight against the level of 'Costs' charged by councils for enforcement against council tax defaulters. The Rev Paul Nicholson is making a stand.
http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org. ... -be-heard/
Descendite ne illegitimi

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#2 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Apr 2014 17:52

I've been following it. I last spoke to Rev Nicholson a few months ago and expect to meet with him to go over his JR when it is concluded because if it's a successful one when we can open the door to start reclaiming them. There are a number of professional exclaiming companies lined up to start work but many of them are asking for quite a large cut of the spoils. The JR might well go in his favour but I ha en a feeling it will not be retrospective preventing commercial fee reclaimers picking up the money trail.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk


User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#4 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Oct 2014 09:52

Can you keep us appraised?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

outlawipcc
Posts: 308
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 17:31

#5 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by outlawipcc » 07 Oct 2014 16:03

Excellent result. Permission granted.

The London press reports here:

Vicar emerges triumphant after court hearing

Vigil held outside High Court for retired vicar


Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#7 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Mark1960 » 17 Oct 2014 17:43

That is amazing and fantastic news.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#8 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Oct 2014 18:57

It is likely his JR will succeed but will block retrospective claims for application fees already paid. Otherwise it could be another PPI and bank charges scandal of the early 2000's.

I expect councils will increase application fees substantially in the run up before the JR, and that could well prove the fees charged is not a genuine pre estimate of the councils costs.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Hithard
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: 19 Mar 2013 13:54

#9 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Hithard » 30 Apr 2015 10:26

Just an update Rev Nicholson is back in court today. Wishing him good luck.
http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org. ... -wc2a-2ll/
Descendite ne illegitimi

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Apr 2015 15:04

I was there and followed it. I've posted in news. The Judge said the judgment will be given early next week.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6276
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#11 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 May 2015 23:29

In case anyone fancies some midnight reading:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean

Haven't read it yet, but the headlines say he's won:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/art ... uling.html
On 25/07/17, Dodgeball said "Telling the truth isn’t slander, in fact, it wouldn’t be slander anyway, as that is verbal not written. Liable is the word you are looking for." Discuss.

User avatar
Hithard
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: 19 Mar 2013 13:54

#12 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Hithard » 07 May 2015 07:16

So, what are the wider implications? Can debtors now challenge liability order fees on account that their own councils may have invented the figure like Haringey?

Have Haringey now got to prove what information they used to come to the figure of £125 and prove those cost to the court before they can charge it?
Descendite ne illegitimi

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#13 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 May 2015 08:33

Yes, they do. But I'm sure they will make something up. a template list of costs for each liability order.

This bit is interesting for litigants in person....
It was the Council that benefited from the unlawful decision, and they were responsible for the failure to adhere to the Guidance, which had been promulgated before the hearing in the Magistrates' Court took place. Their representative should have been in a position to provide the breakdown of the costs requested at the hearing. If that information had been forthcoming, then these proceedings would not have been necessary. In principle, therefore, there is no injustice in ordering the Council to pay the Claimant's pro bono costs, and the fees, costs and expenses that the Claimant incurred earlier, whilst acting in person. There is no good reason to depart from the normal rule that the party who unsuccessfully resists the application should pay the costs of the other party.
We are constantly up against resistance by authorities to bring an application - e.g. Ori, - so we can nbow quote the Nicholson judgment to claim his costs £3200 in a torts claim. His application - althought successful - was resisted which caused him further loss.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12690
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#14 Re: Court Cost Hearing Rev Paul Nicholson

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 May 2015 08:34

Yes, they do. But I'm sure they will make something up. a template list of costs for each liability order.

This bit is interesting for litigants in person....
It was the Council that benefited from the unlawful decision, and they were responsible for the failure to adhere to the Guidance, which had been promulgated before the hearing in the Magistrates' Court took place. Their representative should have been in a position to provide the breakdown of the costs requested at the hearing. If that information had been forthcoming, then these proceedings would not have been necessary. In principle, therefore, there is no injustice in ordering the Council to pay the Claimant's pro bono costs, and the fees, costs and expenses that the Claimant incurred earlier, whilst acting in person. There is no good reason to depart from the normal rule that the party who unsuccessfully resists the application should pay the costs of the other party.
We are constantly up against resistance by authorities to bring an application - e.g. Ori, - so we can nbow quote the Nicholson judgment to claim his costs £3200 in a torts claim. His application - althought successful - was resisted which caused him further loss.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply