Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: dave-o on August 12, 2024, 12:23:17 pm
-
Just to reopen this discussion, due to something B789 posted in another thread:
Under CPR Part 38.3(1), the claimant must serve the Notice of Discontinuance on the defendant, but if this is not done, it could be seen as unreasonable behaviour. The defendant may then argue under CPR 27.14(2)(g) that the claimant's failure to notify the discontinuance caused unnecessary time, effort, or costs to be incurred. This should open the door for the court to order costs against the claimant, even in a small claims case, where costs are usually limited.
If the claimant's failure to serve the notice resulted in you unnecessarily preparing for a case that has been discontinued, you can apply to the court to seek costs for wasted preparation time, citing the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
After my case was discontinued, I was advised to ask for a NoD. I don't dispute that this is good advice, but considering the above, wouldn't it be better not to help the scammer? Should we not leave it up to them to forget to serve the NoD so that we could potentially cost them some money if they don't?
-
UK Parking Control Ltd I believe.
I've sent a couple of FOIs about their (and other companies') antics in court before, and whenever the question has contained any level of detail I've been refused on cost grounds, with them claiming they'd need someone to manually look at each claim for details.
They couldn't even tell me the number of claims initiated for most parking companies, saying they don't store this in an easily accessible format (which surprised me), they could only tell me the numbers for Civil Enforcement Ltd, UKPC, and ParkingEye, as these were their 3 'bulk customers', whatever that means.
I'm away at the moment but once back I can ping you across the details of the couple I've sent, to avoid you making a repeat request.
-
I may do this anyway, as a test. What would you suggest is a reasonable time period, in order to get enough data to make a qualified analysis, while not being unreasonable myself?
Can anyone confirm what UKPC's name is specifically when stated on papers as a claimant? e.g. First Parking is stated as "First Parking LLP".
-
It depends on the granularity of detail HMCTS holds. In my experience (limited in respect of the English courts) the court often won’t know why a case has been withdrawn.
-
The issue is that discontinued can cover a number of circumstances, e.g. settled between the parties.
Understood, so do you think this would be a pointless exercise then?
-
The issue is that discontinued can cover a number of circumstances, e.g. settled between the parties.
-
Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to county court cases?
You could submit a FOI request to HMCTS for all cases between certain dates where UKPC (for example) were the claimants and which were subsequently withdrawn. I don’t know if that data will be held or readily available. It also won’t show the reason why each case was withdrawn.
I may be thinking along the wrong lines, but I would request all of the cases (limited by date but not status), and their ultimate resolution. The intent would be to show that (e.g.) 99% of their claims are discontinued.
-
Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to county court cases?
You could submit a FOI request to HMCTS for all cases between certain dates where UKPC (for example) were the claimants and which were subsequently withdrawn. I don’t know if that data will be held or readily available. It also won’t show the reason why each case was withdrawn.
-
If they are raising claims that they do not intend to pursue, or are using the court process for an improper purpose, that is an abuse of process. Someone who does so repeatedly could be declared vexatious. The test is set out in Bhamjee.
The Attorney General takes action against vexatious litigants - the complaint would have to be to him.
Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to county court cases?
-
DCB work with several parking companies (adopting identical tactics with each), but the one we seem to see most frequently by a decent margin is UKPC.
So then a complaint as noted above about UKPC backed up by the data would seem appropriate, if they are found to be vexatious it would fire a warning shot across other PPC bows.
-
DCB work with several parking companies (adopting identical tactics with each), but the one we seem to see most frequently by a decent margin is UKPC.
-
Who is the litigant (by definition, only they can be vexatious)?
-
Minor point of order, can DCBL be a vexatious litigant if they are not the litigant?
I would suggest that there is a fine line between what DCBL do and what is lawful, but I would also suggest that they are effectively regulated by a body that exists to protect its members' interests - much like the BPA and (to a greater extent) the IPC protect their members' interests (albeit that they do not themselves purport to regulate their members' behaviour, whereas it is the DVLA that likes to tar them with that brush when seeking to justify ignoring the requirement for reasonable cause when selling keeper data).
-
I realise we only see a small fraction of all the claims issued (UKPC issued 4,227 claims in 2023), but so far 100% of the claims defended on here or MSE where DCB Legal are involved end up discontinued.
They're clearly issuing claims in the hope of securing judgements in default/people panicking and paying up.
-
If they are raising claims that they do not intend to pursue, or are using the court process for an improper purpose, that is an abuse of process. Someone who does so repeatedly could be declared vexatious. The test is set out in Bhamjee.
The Attorney General takes action against vexatious litigants - the complaint would have to be to him.
-
The driver breached the term and condition
Did he? Was the term he allegedly breached adequately conveyed through suitably prominent signage? Was the signage capable of forming a contract? Do they know who was driving? If not, have they complied with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover the charge from the registered keeper?
Many of these claims are flimsy at best.
The particulars of claim they usually rely on are also often very vague.
As Andy rightly notes above, they're essentially using the threat of court as a shakedown, with no intention of attending a hearing.
-
The points is that they are apparently issuing claims solely for the purposes of pressuring the defendant into paying up, with no intention of proceeding if a defence is lodged.
My understanding is that most vexatious litigants (and FMoTL litigants for that matter) believe that they have a valid claim/defence/whatever.
-
How can it be vexatious when on the face of it they believe they have a legitimate claim. The driver breached the term and conditions on site and a charge was raised and not paid.
-
Having recently had a CC case instigated by DCB discontinued, I understand that this is par for the course for companies like DCB.
I also understand (indeed had first hand experience) that the court system is overworked and under-resourced. I am probably thinking from a logical and common sense angle rather than from a legal process one, but I can't see why these companies are not considered vexatious. As a matter of course they are submitting claims that they know they will discontinue, just in the hope of scaring people. So they pay £35 which they don't get back, but I doubt this truly covers the cost of the time they waste.
If companies like this were held to account on a macro level for all the hundreds of (what I would consider to be) vexatious claims they make, the court system would save a hell of a lot of time and maybe wouldn't be so overloaded.
Is there no process by which these companies can be investigated, based on the amount of and percentage of claims they discontinue? I am of course joking but I would consider it good value to put aside £350 per year to make 10 nonsense claims against people like DCB that I have no intention of continuing. Would this not be vexatious behaviour on my part?