ukpc and dcbl Stay lifted after a year???

kza

Stay lifted... I'll explain what iv done,

So ukpc and dcbl, issued civil claim on the 24/11/2021 for a pcn from 05/03/2016, 5 years 8 months after the pnc (I understand they have 6 years) so following the advice on this forum (followed the template later).

Did acknowledgement of service which money claim site confirmed was received on 03/12/2021.

I then filled my defence which again been confirmed as received on 16/12/2021 (I did everything within the time limit)

So about 4-5 weeks (02/02/2022) pass, don't hear anything so email the court on to ask what's going on.... they tell me due to ukpc inactivity the case is now stayed and they will have to apply for it to be lifted. i never asked for the stay it was automatic because of them.

So on the 15/02/2023 (over a year after my defence)I receive a letter with the n180 questionnaire telling me this claim is going ahead etc. So go online and check moneyclaim site and it says 

Case stay lifted on 10/02/2023

And dq sent to me.

 I'm going to fill in questionnaire and fight cause its the most ridiculous pcn.

My question to the forum is how has dcbl managed to get this stay lifted? Iv tried doing some research and there is rules regarding getting them lifted but only in special cases, the 2 cases I seen 1 case was lifted 1 month after the stay and another was 6 months but was down to the defendant messing around, I think the court shouldn't have lifted the stay or am I missing something?  

Plus from the date of the stay being lifted the pcn is nearly 7 years ago, it just doesn't seem right, is there anything I could do?

Coupon-mad

We had a recent case where Excel and DCBLegal tried to breathe new life into a statute-barred (over the 6 year limitation) case, by submitting an application whinging that their CMS system failed which is why they failed to comply with an Order to file & serve more detailed Particulars of Claim otherwise the claim would be struck out.  They didn't.

It was struck out but Excel were not having that, and got DCBLegal to try to apply for relief from sanctions (by now 4 months after the 6 year limitation period).

Judge who reviewed that application actually accepted it initially, and (without a hearing and without the D ever having been told about any of this which was done behind her back) ordered the case to be resurrected and ludicrously expected the D to suddenly have to come up with a WS bundle even though the claim would have been statute-barred and she was obviously prejudiced by what was suddenly happening.

D objected to that Order.  Helped in her wording by solicitor poster @Johnersh.

The earlier Order was set aside and a hearing was held on 25th January to consider the application for relief from sanctions.  This was now two weeks shy of SEVEN YEARS after the PCN date.    Here is her timeline summary and submission (the rest of the thread shows all the background):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6296707/imperial-war-museum-north-excel-parking-services-ltd-amount-claimed-288-52-from-05-02-2016/p17

I suggest you might object to the Order to lift the stay.

First thing is to ring the CCBC and ask for a copy of the application to lift the stay, and the resulting Order which you knew nothing about.

That will help shed light on it.  Do not rush to return that DQ... see if @Johnersh thinks you may have grounds to object, or not.

kza

thanks for you response, ill ring CCBC tomorrow morning and ask for that, ill hold back on the DQ till i get the information and post what they say ASAP, thanks

Coupon-mad

Make sure you ask for both.

Johnersh

This is different. The claim was issued in time *just* and a stay is exactly that. It can be lifted.

The o/p could've applied to strike on the basis of inaction. Interesting to see if there was an application or not. Still might be worth arguing prejudice on the basis of the delay. 

Ed2022

Interesting as CEL have done this also to a few posters. Not paying the fee, or is that different? The court staying the case.

kza

iv just rung the CCBC, I'm very confused. so basically the guy on the phone said that dcbl did response to my defence in time but said this date was 10/02/2023, so i asked why did CCBC tell me it had been stayed over a year ago because of there inactivity? he wasn't sure, how is it in time if its nearly a year after my defence? wasn't sure
i asked if it was on time why did it take over a year to send n180 form? he kept putting me on hold and couldn't answer so gave me an email to write to. He did say the case was stayed 19/01/2022 and dcbl used the n244 form to lift the stay. The guy of the phone said there was no resulting Order. iv asked for copy of the n244 form so will see what that says.

LDast

In the forlorn hope that the OP who hasn't been active on the site for nearly a year, I am asking @kza if they ever had a response and a copy of the Claimants N244 for the lifting of the stay. Also, what was the eventual outcome?

dmw959

@LDast I had the same thing for a claim. After filing an AOS and defence, I actually sent an N180 in advance to CCBCAQ (despite having not received anything it in the post), but then didnt receive any further correspondence related to the claim. I was expecting notification of a court date as the next step but this never came. Turns out I had the misfortune of moving address in the period of time when a case stay was applied (at some point) and then lifted a year later when I think DCB legal sensed I was no longer at the address due to non-response on another claim. I cant understand why a case stay was applied to this claim whereas another one with DCB proceeding at more or less exactly the same time didnt? Is this a tactic used by DCB in the hope that a change of circumstances by the defendant will lead to the kind of situation I described above? 

Coupon-mad

dmw959 said:

@LDast I had the same thing for a claim. After filing an AOS and defence, I actually sent an N180 in advance to CCBCAQ (despite having not received anything it in the post), but then didnt receive any further correspondence related to the claim. I was expecting notification of a court date as the next step but this never came. Turns out I had the misfortune of moving address in the period of time when a case stay was applied (at some point) and then lifted a year later when I think DCB legal sensed I was no longer at the address due to non-response on another claim. I cant understand why a case stay was applied to this claim whereas another one with DCB proceeding at more or less exactly the same time didnt?

Is this a tactic used by DCB in the hope that a change of circumstances by the defendant will lead to the kind of situation I described above? 

Probably, IMHO. Did you get a CCJ?

Despicable company in my view and the court service has the cheek to bend over backwards to enable a conveyor belt of poorly-pleaded boilerplate claims by firms like DCB Legal, who are one of a handful of small claims 'Superusers'.

You need to respond to this important Call for Evidence to recount your experience and attach proof of what DCB Legal are doing to people:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81070874/#Comment_81070874

Closes in ten days time.

Please do what you can to answer some questions.

LDast

If a case has been stayed for a significant period (especially over six months), the claimant must apply to the court for the stay to be lifted. The defendant must be notified of the application and given an opportunity to respond or object.

If a stay is lifted without an application from the claimant (or a court-initiated review process), this constitutes an abuse of process.  Under CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions) and CPR 23 (general applications), a party must apply to the court with notice to the other side if they wish to lift a stay.

If the stay was court-imposed, only the court can lift it—meaning a claimant cannot just proceed as if the stay never existed. If the claim has been stayed for six months or longer, the court will require an explanation from the claimant as to why they delayed seeking to lift the stay. If a claimant attempts to continue proceedings without a formal application, the defendant can apply to strike out the claim on the grounds of procedural impropriety or an abuse of process.

If the stay was court-initiated, it could lift a stay without prior notice, but only if it deems it appropriate under case management powers [CPR 3.1(2)(f)]. However, procedural fairness dictates that both parties should be informed before the stay is lifted, as it affects the defendant’s rights and case strategy.

The Court has discretion to act without notice [CPR 3.3(2)] in urgent cases or where justified. However, CPR 3.3(5) requires the court to send a copy of the order lifting the stay to the defendant, and the defendant has 7 days to apply to set it aside, vary, or appeal it.

So, if a stay is lifted without notifying the defendant and without proper justification, the defendant can argue that this is procedurally unfair and amounts to an abuse of process. The defendant could apply under CPR 3.3(5) to challenge the decision, arguing that they were deprived of an opportunity to object.