Own Space Parking CCC

Real_Cinnamon

Another update on this CCC,
I have received a notice of discontinuance emails from DCB Legal late January and the original hearing is vacated.

Thanks to everyone for all your help with this!

It's not over yet, now i have a cost hearing scheduled for 13th of March. again need all the help i can get regarding  Section 7 (items a - h) of the cost hearing letter from the court below. also what I sent to court  (below) day after receiving the discontinuance, as you would imagine, very realistic time spent on preparing defence and WS probably in the region of 10+ days, that's reality as this case has been overwhelming for me.
Any comments, views, suggestions much appreciated.






URGENT MATTER TO BE REFERED TO THE PROCEDURAL JUDGE – DEFENDANT’S COST APPLICATION

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have received an e-mail at 5:45 PM, on Jan 18, 2023, Claimant’s N279 Notice of Discontinuance of this claim, and of its’ Court proceedings

1. CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(d))." I believe it should actually refer to r.27.14(2)(g) as that is the rule which allows the court to award costs for unreasonable behaviour.

2. On this basis I would like to request a costs order to be made against the Claimant given that AUTO SECURITY LTD T/A AUTOSEC through their solicitor DCB Legal Ltd has behaved unreasonably by their conduct, starting from the very point of issuing baseless parking charges without ever declaring or checking their evidence. Then after months of harassment and debt letters (none with any actual evidence) then culminating in the final insult of discontinuing this claim.

3. The Claimant chose to continue with the claim and the Court ordered that Witness Statements be served 14 days before the hearing on the 9th of February 2023.

4. A regular litigant such as this Claimant, using their Trade Body connected Solicitor, should not be able to walk away a week before the submission deadline on 26th January 2023, having defendant as a litigant in person had to spend considerable amount of time preparing the witness in time for the scheduled court hearing.

5. If they intended to discontinue, they should have done that very early in the process without causing unnecessary distress to the defendant as proceedings continued and also without wasting court’s valuable time and the resources.

6. This fundamental injustice and the vexatious nature of this typical cut & paste 'one size fits all' parking charge automated-claim and intimidation tactics, with no checks being made at any stage about the facts, and using a template copy defence Statement that failed to show that the Claimant had any claim in law, cannot be described as 'trivial' conduct and that the Claimant cannot just run away the week before the final hearing and expect relief from sanctions.

7. The Defendant avers that this poorly pleaded claim with no detail in the Particulars, and no 'legitimate interest' shown at any point that could have saved this charge from the penalty rule, when considered alongside the late discontinuance, amounts to an attempt to ambush a litigant in person with allegations never pleaded in the Particulars, then abandon that Defendant with the burden of costs and distraught caused due to intimidating trail of letters and misuse of defendant’s personal data by the claimant.

8. This is a gross abuse of process, and that sanctions should be imposed. The Defendant relies upon para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, and asks for costs on the indemnity basis.

9. Copy of the DRAFT witness statement attached as the proof that the defendant’s genuine time spent on preparing the witness statement in time for the scheduled court hearing.

10. Costs Schedule
DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

(a) Costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

 There is no reasonable justification or lawful explanation for the Claimant's conduct, which constitutes unwarranted harassment; such conduct to be explained at the hearing.

The following additional costs are sought on the indemnity basis for the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

The Defendant avers that such costs must apply, given the facts, primarily in order to compensate for the time taken in handling this meritless and wholly vexatiously pleaded court claim, and secondarily to send a clear message to this legally-represented serial litigant that their conduct in the instant case is an abuse of process:

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (24 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £456.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £17.00 Sub-total £473.00

==================

 £ 473 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

Signature

Coupon-mad

Good for you in trying to get costs!  A brave move.

OK, the court wants a paper bundle in a lever arch file.  Play the game because you've started it so need to complete it reasonably, to the best of your ability.

Don't get bogged down, that's basically a copy of your email and the court letters, plus everything you wish to rely upon in demonstrating the C has acted wholly unreasonably and the case law on why you should get costs, plus anything the Defendant's solicitors throw at you.  That has to be included too.

Have they responded to your application?  Do they know about it?

This should help - read this and use the judgment transcript as an exhibit in your bundle:

Residential PCN (initially lost at POPLA, of course)

Premier Park Ltd ordered to pay £500 in costs for unreasonable late discontinuance at Southampton County Court.

This link includes all orders and judgment transcript following his application for a costs hearing:  Premier Park v S Jones:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6271727/residential-pcn-premier-park-ltd-ordered-to-pay-500-in-costs-at-southampton-county-court

The letter to the Judge asking for costs is interesting; it was treated as an 'application' by the Court, same as yours was:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjuljss3bo0totu/04%20C%20TWIMC%20%2B%20Costs%20Hearing%20Legal%20Arguement.pdf?dl=0

The OP said:

"The 05 Witness Statement is interesting and quotes a post from this forum. The statement by Mr Byers-Nolan was riddled with errors and inconsistencies, ignored the main points of the case and was delivered so late that the Judge ignored it. As he did with my skeleton argument…
 
You might think I would be steaming with anger with PP, BW Legal, DRP, Gladstones, CST Law, Zenith Collections et al, but no. If POPLA are going to boast on their website that they take “into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice.” they should do exactly that. Don’t employ someone with experience of “conflict resolution” and “problem solving” to decide on points of law. How about employing someone with a legal background to decide on legal matters? The new Government CoP will hopefully remove POPLA from the equation.

And finally, for the Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal employees who lurk on this forum: we still have a BIG problem with the other 24 PCNs you plastered my vehicles with, don’t we?"

Real_Cinnamon

Coupon-mad said:

Good for you in trying to get costs!  A brave move.

OK, the court wants a paper bundle in a lever arch file.  Play the game because you've started it so need to complete it reasonably, to the best of your ability.

Don't get bogged down, that's basically a copy of your email and the court letters, plus everything you wish to rely upon in demonstrating the C has acted wholly unreasonably and the case law on why you should get costs, plus anything the Defendant's solicitors throw at you.  That has to be included too.

Have they responded to your application?  Do they know about it?

This should help - read this and use the judgment transcript as an exhibit in your bundle:

Residential PCN (initially lost at POPLA, of course)

Premier Park Ltd ordered to pay £500 in costs for unreasonable late discontinuance at Southampton County Court.

This link includes all orders and judgment transcript following his application for a costs hearing:  Premier Park v S Jones:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6271727/residential-pcn-premier-park-ltd-ordered-to-pay-500-in-costs-at-southampton-county-court

The letter to the Judge asking for costs is interesting; it was treated as an 'application' by the Court, same as yours was:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjuljss3bo0totu/04%20C%20TWIMC%20%2B%20Costs%20Hearing%20Legal%20Arguement.pdf?dl=0

The OP said:

"The 05 Witness Statement is interesting and quotes a post from this forum. The statement by Mr Byers-Nolan was riddled with errors and inconsistencies, ignored the main points of the case and was delivered so late that the Judge ignored it. As he did with my skeleton argument…
 
You might think I would be steaming with anger with PP, BW Legal, DRP, Gladstones, CST Law, Zenith Collections et al, but no. If POPLA are going to boast on their website that they take “into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice.” they should do exactly that. Don’t employ someone with experience of “conflict resolution” and “problem solving” to decide on points of law. How about employing someone with a legal background to decide on legal matters? The new Government CoP will hopefully remove POPLA from the equation.

And finally, for the Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal employees who lurk on this forum: we still have a BIG problem with the other 24 PCNs you plastered my vehicles with, don’t we?"

Thank you Coupon-mad your comments and inputs, much appreciated. I'll start to put together the folder.

"Have they responded to your application?  Do they know about it?"

I don't know if they know about it, I haven't heard from them, I received the court letter on 11/2 Saturday, I think Claimant has got a copy. 
I didn't copy the email to the claimant, court's letter for original hearing date stated to send WS to the claimant, so, as discontinuance served, i didn't send the WS, 
I send the email to the court, thinking just in case, the original hearing going to carry on as a cost hearing.

Coupon-mad

OK and your court has taken it on as a costs hearing.

Which court?  Some are good, like Southampton in the linked case.

It's Autosec but which solicitor?

Real_Cinnamon

Coupon-mad said:

OK and your court has taken it on as a costs hearing.

Which court?  Some are good, like Southampton in the linked case.

It's Autosec but which solicitor?

York county court.

solicitor, DCB Legal Ltd is the one sent me the discontinuance.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Good.  DCBLegal, right.

Dig out the claim form and look at the Particulars of Claim on the left and see how shoddy and generic they are.  Then search the forum for Sprague and read the Luton and Peterborough court threads where two Judges have struck out Particulars like that as abusive and unacceptable. 

Draft a Witness Statement especially for this costs hearing.  Use Sub headings listing the 'wholly unreasonable' aspects of this claim.  For inspiration and case law, look at the one I linked where the person succeeded and got £500.

Anyway, one sub heading will be Incoherent and Obstructive Particulars of Claim. 

Quote the POC then say that more than one Judge has considered these generic 'roboclaim' POC to be entirely inadequate and indeed obstructive to justice, causing a Defendant more work and confusion re the allegations.  Quote those Judges' words.

Add in other subheadings in support of your 'wholly unreasonable' argument so it shows a clear course of behaviour, in particular focussing on:

(a) abuse of the pre-action protocol (the Claimant and/or their legals not engaging to discuss the areas of dispute and narrow the issues when you tried, if you did, and were met with a virtual brick wall marked: "pay up");

(b) conduct during this litigation;

(c) meritless claim from the outset (but that on its own is not enough to be 'unreasonable', hence a & b!)

It is hearsay, but in support of the sub heading I'm suggesting, you could provide a link to Umkomaas' DCBLegal Discontinuations forum thread and point out that one forum alone has noted a hundred such instances, all where a generic parking claim has been robustly defended and all resulting in late discontinuations.

Add that this 'serial discontinuance' conduct appears from all reports seen, to be not just a pattern but some have said, almost a business model of DCBLegal who seem, from the repeated reports, to have little or no appetite to reach hearings.  This approach wears many scared people down into paying an inflated £170 at LBC stage, and the rest are churned through a generic 'bulk litigation' conveyor belt, where MOJ published statistics show that 85% are nodded through by default.  In parking cases, each one includes what the Government (DLUHC) has called the 'extortion' of the added £70 per PCN and interest at 8% that few Judges would allow.  Given the fact that DCB have their own bailiffs, the regular feed of bulk CCJs - especially in multiple PCN claims which reach HCEO level - must prove very lucrative work.

Then of the small number who defend, some can be caught out by their inexperience when they fail to return a DQ or witness statement and the few hardy defendants who manage to navigate the court system are routinely seeing their cases discontinued, going by reliably reported and recent accounts, after all their individual stress and hard work.  The court is invited to find that this is an alarming pattern and that a cavalier approach to consumers cannot be right in this day and age.

When the conduct is taken in context of a meritless claim against an authorised resident, it must surely meet the high bar for vexatious conduct in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269.

Read this:
https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/the-rule-on-unreasonable-behaviour-in-small-claims-reasonably-obvious/

Given that you've been handed a costs hearing, it has to be worth making your bundle a good one, like that other poster did.

Real_Cinnamon

Coupon-mad said:

Good.  DCBLegal, right.

Dig out the claim form and look at the Particulars of Claim on the left and see how shoddy and generic they are.  Then search the forum for Sprague and read the Luton and Peterborough court threads where two Judges have struck out Particulars like that as abusive and unacceptable. 

Draft a Witness Statement especially for this costs hearing.  Use Sub headings listing the 'wholly unreasonable' aspects of this claim.  For inspiration and case law, look at the one I linked where the person succeeded and got £500.

Anyway, one sub heading will be Incoherent and Obstructive Particulars of Claim. 

Quote the POC then say that more than one Judge has considered these generic 'roboclaim' POC to be entirely inadequate and indeed obstructive to justice, causing a Defendant more work and confusion re the allegations.  Quote those Judges' words.

Add in other subheadings in support of your 'wholly unreasonable' argument so it shows a clear course of behaviour, in particular focussing on:

(a) abuse of the pre-action protocol (the Claimant and/or their legals not engaging to discuss the areas of dispute and narrow the issues when you tried, if you did, and were met with a virtual brick wall marked: "pay up");

(b) conduct during this litigation;

(c) meritless claim from the outset (but that on its own is not enough to be 'unreasonable', hence a & b!)

It is hearsay, but in support of the sub heading I'm suggesting, you could provide a link to Umkomaas' DCBLegal Discontinuations forum thread and point out that one forum alone has noted a hundred such instances, all where a generic parking claim has been robustly defended and all resulting in late discontinuations.

Add that this 'serial discontinuance' conduct appears from all reports seen, to be not just a pattern but some have said, almost a business model of DCBLegal who seem, from the repeated reports, to have little or no appetite to reach hearings.  This approach wears many scared people down into paying an inflated £170 at LBC stage, and the rest are churned through a generic 'bulk litigation' conveyor belt, where MOJ published statistics show that 85% are nodded through by default.  In parking cases, each one includes what the Government (DLUHC) has called the 'extortion' of the added £70 per PCN and interest at 8% that few Judges would allow.  Given the fact that DCB have their own bailiffs, the regular feed of bulk CCJs - especially in multiple PCN claims which reach HCEO level - must prove very lucrative work.

Then of the small number who defend, some can be caught out by their inexperience when they fail to return a DQ or witness statement and the few hardy defendants who manage to navigate the court system are routinely seeing their cases discontinued, going by reliably reported and recent accounts, after all their individual stress and hard work.  The court is invited to find that this is an alarming pattern and that a cavalier approach to consumers cannot be right in this day and age.

When the conduct is taken in context of a meritless claim against an authorised resident, it must surely meet the high bar for vexatious conduct in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269.

Read this:
https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/the-rule-on-unreasonable-behaviour-in-small-claims-reasonably-obvious/

Given that you've been handed a costs hearing, it has to be worth making your bundle a good one, like that other poster did.

Thank you so much for your help and time, appreciate very much. 
claim form content included below, may be helpful to others too.

B789

You can read where they have breached the rules in their PoC regarding CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7 here:

CPR16.4:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/rule/16.4/made

16PD3:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16/pd_part16#3

16PD7:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16/pd_part16#7

Real_Cinnamon

I'm really sorry to ask for a big help, I have made my draft WS for the cost hearing, but as having no luck with both Peterborough & Luton cases references & transcripts, I'm fairly certain, what i have put together has considerable errors, appreciate any volunteers invaluable help who's able to have a quick glance through it and comment, hope i can send it via PM as an attachment. please let me know who's able to help, any help much appreciated, many thanks

Coupon-mad

We will help but none of us do this by pm.  No need.  No time.

I never read pm's, I get far too many so I ignore them.  Can't see how to block them (apart from selected usernames) as we used to be able to do!

Put it up here but on Monday is better than the weekend, I'd suggest. You'll get more help on weekdays.