The leitmotiv of the whole Premier Inn saga has been misinformation.

It all began with Whitbread getting planning permission for a site in St Peter’s Street, Colchester, which many consider to be the wrong place, on the back of misinformation about the availability of an alternative hotel site in Queen Street, not far away, which many consider to be the right place. I found out and (at my own expense) challenged the permission by seeking judicial review.

I was unsuccessful, and a costs order in the Council’s favour was made against me. According to the press the Labour council group leader and portfolio holder for planning said I could have to pay as much as £20,000. The rumour mill has widely repeated this claim. I was sure that figure was a ridiculous exaggeration, but the Council did not distance itself from it, so until now I was unable to refute it.

Then the press and political opponents created controversy about what is said to be my “delay” in paying a “debt” to the Council for legal costs. They don’t say when, according to them, it became due, but they have complained publicly about my “delay” in paying it.

According to some, this “debt” is £7,000 odd. According to others, it is £20,000. Quite a difference.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Here are the facts.

Only one costs order has effect. It was made on 25th July 2013, and ordered that I am to pay the Council’s costs to be assessed by detailed assessment if not agreed.

That means the Council has to draw up its itemised bill, I have 21 days from receipt to comment on it (because the Council is only entitled to what is reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount) and a court official decides what is payable, unless it is agreed. Meanwhile no one knows how much is payable.

I received a copy of the Council’s itemised bill by email after close of business on Friday 24th October 2014. Under rules governing court procedures, it was a year late. So if anyone delayed, it was the Council. I observed the court’s deadlines.

The amount claimed is less than £10,000. So I was right: the figure of £20,000 was a ridiculous exaggeration.

Nothing is yet due, and the Council did not ask for a payment on account, but I made a voluntary payment of £20,000 on account, which the Council now has; I assume it has put it into a deposit account somewhere. On any view, the Council will have to return a lot of that money to me.

I have 21 days from last Friday to either agree the amount or challenge it. If I challenge it, the court official will decide.

To anyone who was at the hearing on 25th July 2013, or had read the order itself or the transcript of the hearing (documents that have been in the Council’s possession for ages), certain things are clear.

First, a previous order made on paper without a hearing, which assessed the costs in the sum of £7,204.19, never took effect. It was an “unless” order. It lapsed because the precondition was fulfilled: the case would go to a hearing and the costs would be dealt with at the hearing.

Second, the figure of £7,204.19 in the previous order was, anyway, a mistake. It wasn’t the amount the Council was asking for. It was the amount Whitbread was asking for (but didn’t get). The judge at the hearing on 25th July 2013 thought that unless there was an enormous coincidence, the previous judge must have taken the figure from Whitbread’s documents by mistake, instead of from the Council’s.

Someone told the press that the order for payment of £7,000 odd had been “re-affirmed”. It hadn’t. The judge decided to order detailed assessment.

I trust that those who have spread rumours that I was delaying payment of a debt will retract and apologise.

According to some, I ought to have agreed to pay the Council £7,000 odd. What they don’t understand is that had I agreed to do so, I could not have refuted the claim that the costs were £20,000. That claim was wrong, as we now know, but damaging to my reputation and I needed to refute it. I needed to see the Council’s itemised bill, and I never would have received it if I had agreed an amount beforehand. The £20,000 figure would have ground on in the rumour mill perpetually.

All are entitled to their own opinions as to whether I should have sought judicial review of this planning permission or not, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

   Leave a comment