DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Umkomaas

@pasta_sauce cooks ParkingEye and DCB Legal and has an anticipated discontinuation dished up. 

This may sound silly but I had a few days where I felt really stressed by the looming possibility of going to court and I would scroll through the discontinuation thread to steady my nerve - thanks!

Glad that the thread helped you. 

365

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80833918#Comment_80833918

136_NW

You can add a further discontinuance by UK Parking Control Ltd/DCB Legal filed and served in their claim against me on 17th May, 2024. The very same day that the Notice of Hearing and further Directions was received by me and them, presumably.

However, earlier today, I filed a N244 Application to set aside the Discontinuance Notice grounded in abuse of process, procedural defects and dishonesty - and a circumvention of my repeated requests, both in pleadings in the claim and in party-party correspondence, for my costs to be re-imbursed on the indemnity basis. 

Coupon-mad

Ooh that's a brave move.

136_NW

Coupon-mad said:

Ooh that's a brave move.

ChatGPT has produced this summary of the Statement of Grounds: 

Summary of Grounds for Opposing Discontinuance Notice

Introduction

1. The document outlines the grounds for the Defendant (D) opposing the Claimant's (C) Discontinuance Notice (DN) served in May 2024.
2. D argues that the grounds for opposition are primarily based on abuse of process and dishonesty by C.
3. D highlights that there are significant public interest issues beyond the alleged parking violation, warranting a hearing.

Key Points 4. D asserts that car park operators, debt collection agencies, and bulk litigation solicitors often operate unscrupulously, breaching laws, regulations, and codes of practice. 5. D invites the court to review the Amended Defence, which details these issues extensively. 6. D also seeks reimbursement of costs, arguing for a sanction in the form of costs on an indemnity basis.

Brief History of the Claim 7. The claim form was served on 16th June 2023, and the defence was filed on 22nd June 2023. 8. D outlines multiple breaches of Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) by C, suggesting that C's conduct is an affront to the court. 9. D made several attempts to settle the matter, which were ignored or inadequately responded to by C. 10. The claim was struck out on 23rd February 2024, with an order to file and serve Amended Particulars, which C did on 19th March 2024. 11. No wasted costs order was made, and an Amended Defence was filed on 12th April 2024. 12. C improperly closed the file without filing a DN, which was later issued on 17th May 2023, likely to avoid costs consequences.

Legal Grounds for Opposing Discontinuance 13. D introduces legal precedents supporting the argument that discontinuance can be an abuse of process: - Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge (2000): Court's jurisdiction to prevent frivolous or vexatious proceedings. - Broxton v McClelland (1995): Discontinuance used to abuse the process can be set aside. - Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd (2012): Court can strike out a claim for abuse of process. - Taylor Walton (a Firm) v Laing (2007): Tactical and bad faith discontinuance can be challenged. - Lewis v Ward Hadaway (2015): Preventing the court from addressing dishonesty and abuse of process is impermissible.

Factual Basis for Opposing Discontinuance 14. The Amended Defence details various procedural and substantive issues supporting D's argument: - Multiple breaches of CPR. - False premises and dishonesty by C. - Repeated attempts by D to settle the claim were ignored. - Defective Statement of Truth in C's Amended Particulars. - Claims based on unfair terms and breaches of data protection regulations.

Impact on the Defendant 15. D has expended significant time and effort dealing with C's improper conduct, causing frustration and stress. 16. D, a journalist and pensioner with health issues, highlights the personal toll and broader implications of C's bullying tactics.

Relief Sought 17. D requests the court to: - Award costs on an indemnity basis. - Strike out the Amended Particulars of Claim as defective. - Strike out the entire claim as an abuse of process.

Supporting Documents 18. The Amended Defence and a Schedule of costs are attached to the application.

Conclusion 19. D respectfully submits that the court has sufficient grounds to exercise its powers under CPR 38.4 and set aside C's DN.

Draft Order and Statement of Truth 20. A draft order is attached, and the statement concludes with a Statement of Truth affirming the facts.

KeithP

@136_NW, should this discussion be on your already existing thread?

Umkomaas

@136_NW - would you be good enough to move your comments on your proposed actions to either an ongoing thread of your own, or to start a new one, rather than have this specific DCB Legal discontinuations count thread diverted. Thank you. 👍

PS - admire your sticking it up 'em! 😄

136_NW

Umkomaas said:

@136_NW - would you be good enough to move your comments on your proposed actions to either an ongoing thread of your own, or to start a new one, rather than have this specific DCB Legal discontinuations count thread diverted. Thank you. 👍

PS - admire your sticking it up 'em! 😄

The post is recording a discontinuation.

136_NW

KeithP said:

@136_NW, should this discussion be on your already existing thread?

I don't think so?

Umkomaas

136_NW said:

Umkomaas said:

@136_NW - would you be good enough to move your comments on your proposed actions to either an ongoing thread of your own, or to start a new one, rather than have this specific DCB Legal discontinuations count thread diverted. Thank you. 👍

PS - admire your sticking it up 'em! 😄

The post is recording a discontinuation.

Can we see a redacted Notice of Discontinuation, then I'll count it. Thereafter, if you'd be good enough to detail your ongoing fight with DCB Legal/UKPC on another thread, that would be really helpful. 

136_NW

Umkomaas said:

136_NW said:

Umkomaas said:

@136_NW - would you be good enough to move your comments on your proposed actions to either an ongoing thread of your own, or to start a new one, rather than have this specific DCB Legal discontinuations count thread diverted. Thank you. 👍

PS - admire your sticking it up 'em! 😄

The post is recording a discontinuation.

Can we see a redacted Notice of Discontinuation, then I'll count it. Thereafter, if you'd be good enough to detail your ongoing fight with DCB Legal/UKPC on another thread, that would be really helpful. 

Nope. That is entirely unnecessary. If you doubt my word - and I am not a little affronted that you do - then please remove me from the forum.