A Ramsgate salon owner who won a legal judgment in his long-running battle over insurance related to a Southern Water sewer collapse at his business in 2023 is now facing a £10,000 legal bill after the judgement was set aside.
The sewer collapse meant Marcello had to shut his business and move out of his home for seven months and was then refused renewed cover by his insurance company Hiscox, forcing another two month closure.
The dad-of-three has run his hair salon, Marcello’s in West Cliff Road, for more than three decades but has almost been driven out of business since the sewer collapse and ensuing issues over pipe ownership, business insurance and building safety sign off.
Southern Water said the sewer pipe section was private and therefore Marcello’s responsibility even though the water firm covered the cost of repairs. But Marcello disputed ownership of the pipe section saying Southern Water’s lining contractor confirmed the section is not a private asset but ‘a shared pipe’ that was the water company’s responsibility.
Southern Water has since said it has to ‘reassess’ ownership of the sewer.
Insurance dispute
A claim with Marcello’s insurers, Hiscox, was ongoing but he then received a letter to say the firm would not renew the cover, which forced him to close yet again.
In a bid to prove his case and bring ‘the truth’ to light, Marcello had requested his personal data held by Hiscox – such as emails and call recordings- but says the company refused to release this.
The determined business owner then lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office which advised Hiscox to review Marcello’ request within 21 days.
It also informed Marcello that he could take legal action “should they not provide you with the personal data to which you are entitled.”
Marcello took this action and a default judgment was issued in November last year with an award of £3,633 in damages.
When the money was not paid Marcello moved to enforcement action.
But Hiscox then applied to have the ’in default’ ruling struck out due to procedural errors – these were unnecessarily stating on the claim form that further particulars would follow, serving them four days late, and serving by email without formal consent.
The court has now struck out the claim on the procedural and case-management grounds without any determination of liability at trial.
Hiscox spent £54,000 in legal fees to fight the £3,633 claim and Marcello has now been ordered to pay £10,000 of those fees.
He said: “The ICO found Hiscox Insurance broke data protection law. As a dyslexic litigant in person for whom English is a second language, I took them to court. I secured a judgment in default through the court’s online system, and enforcement officers were appointed to collect the debt.
“Then the institutional response kicked in. Hiscox spent £54,000 in legal fees to fight a £3,633 claim. They won — not on the facts, but on a technicality about how I initially served the claim. The court’s own online system granted a judgment in default which the judge later said should not have happened.
“The judge indicated that, had the case been reviewed by a person before the default judgment was entered, it is unlikely the judgment would have been granted in the first place. In other words, the automated process allowed the case to progress when a human review may have reached a different conclusion.
“That point is important to me because, having obtained a court judgment and instructed enforcement officers, I genuinely believed I had followed the correct process. Had I known at that stage that the judgment should never have been entered, I would never have taken the matter further or exposed myself to the risk of substantial legal costs.
“I have now been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs because I struggled to navigate a system that was not designed for people like me. The judge reduced their £54,000 costs claim to £10,000 — which itself tells a story about proportionality. But the outcome is the same.
“The system worked in a way that left me facing a £10,000 costs order without the underlying ICO finding ever being tested at trial. For ordinary people, the gap between having legal rights and being able to enforce them can be enormous.
“I didn’t give up. I followed the process as I understood it, relied on a judgment issued by the court’s own online system, and tried to hold a large insurer accountable after the ICO found it had breached data protection law.
“That is one of the hardest parts for me, because the substance of the matter was never properly decided, yet I still ended up carrying the full burden of the process. That has been incredibly hard for me to absorb, especially after everything else I have already been through.
“It feels deeply unfair that I was trying to enforce my rights and ended up facing such a heavy financial consequence without the underlying issue ever being properly heard at trial.”
Marcello says since the sewer collapse and the “devastating effect on my home, my business, and my finances” he has also had to deal with insurers, loss adjusters, regulators, and the emotional and practical aftermath of the damage itself.
On top of that he had to fight for the information held by Hiscox and then follow a court process that he says has ultimately failed him.
He said: “I tried to do everything myself in good faith, but I was under enormous pressure and did not have the support or expertise to navigate such a complicated process properly.
“My concern is not only the outcome itself, but the wider access-to-justice issue it raises. An ordinary litigant in person trying to enforce statutory rights following an ICO finding ended up exposed to substantial adverse costs because of procedural mistakes, without the substantive issue ever being determined in court.
“To me, that is a very sobering example of how overwhelming and unforgiving the system can be for someone without legal representation.”
Marcello adds that the start of the issue – the question over Southern Water ownership of the sewer- has never been clearly answered.
He said: “Even years after the original collapse, Southern Water still indicated that further CCTV investigation could take place to establish ownership and responsibility. If the company had been completely confident from the outset that the pipe was private and that I was responsible, I would have expected the CCTV inspection to be completed and the issue resolved with clear evidence once and for all.
“Instead, the CCTV inspection that was discussed never took place, despite repeated requests and despite me providing extensive evidence, documents, CCTV reports, correspondence, council records, Building Control documents and expert opinions.
“For me, this is no longer simply a dispute about one pipe. It is about truth, transparency, accountability, and the devastating impact this has had on my life. It has affected my home, my business, my family, my health, and my ability to move forward.”
Southern Water says the reassessing of ownership is currently still ongoing.
Hiscox declined to comment.
Marcello’s petition calling for transparency and accountability for Hiscox and Southern Water can be found at: https://www.change.org/p/demand-justice-and-transparency-southern-water-and-hiscox-must-be-held-accountable
