3. Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?  (Read 2501 times)

0 Members and 140 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
« Reply #15 on: »
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 In my experience (limited in respect of the English courts) the court often won’t know why a case has been withdrawn.
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
« Reply #16 on: »
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".
« Last Edit: August 13, 2024, 04:04:25 pm by dave-o »
Logged
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
« Reply #17 on: »
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.
Logged
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
« Reply #18 on: »
Just to reopen this discussion, due to something B789 posted in another thread:

Quote
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?

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?