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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Who is the litigant (by definition, only they can be vexatious)?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The issue is that discontinued can cover a number of circumstances, e.g. settled between the parties.
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?
Agree x 1
View List