DCB Legal Ltd Claim Form delayed in mail redirection abroad

neilflah

From my viewpoint (and the judge's), it was an illegitimate claim.  The legal team of the claimant didn't organise the conference call for the telephone hearing, as instructed by the court, so I didn't get the chance to defend myself.  The email I received from the CC is not even from the judge but an Administration Officer passing on the outcome.  Can I respond to this email asking the judge to consider making the claimant pay the £108 fee to me?  They have wasted the court's, and my, time and have caused me considerable stress and inconvenience.    

Fruitcake

neilflah said:

'A trace was conducted to ensure that the Claim Form was served to the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9 (3)'

This is surely just a DVLA check trace?  What's a CRA trace?

In this instance, CRA means Credit Reference Agency, which is completely different to requesting the keeper's details from the DVLA. 

neilflah

I don't know where the assumption they used a CRA trace is coming from, DCB Legal didn't state this!

Coupon-mad

They did.   You quoted it:

"A trace was conducted to ensure that the Claim Form was served to the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9 (3) – the Claimant has therefore followed the correct process."

That IS NOT the early DVLA look-up.

neilflah

Somewhat cryptic...could still just be a DVLA 'trace'...all semantics

even if they did do a CRA trace, the claim form was still issued to the wrong address, their problem.  Why is it considered reasonable by the court that I should foot the bill for the set aside fee when the claim form was issued incorrectly?  They could have found out my new address in Poland with proper effort.

Coupon-mad

No the word 'trace' means a CRA soft trace in this industry.  See the new (temporarily withdrawn but incoming this year) DLUHC Code of Practice which specifies it.

I don't think they could have found your Polish address and didn't you move from the UK around the same time as the LBC?  They did nothing wrong and are not liable for the £108.

They'd reasonably say: If someone in the UK had been tasked with opening your post for a few months (mail redirection within the UK) to check you didn't miss anything urgent, you would have been able to defend it.

This was just bad timing really, and honestly this is the best outcome.  All over for £108 fee thanks to this forum's advice (we stopped you being told to pay £275 and stopped you having to have a hearing/fly into the UK).

neilflah

Yes, please don't think me ungrateful for all of the great advice from yourself Coupon-mad, and all others, it's greatly appreciated.  The main thing is that I'm rid of the CCJ, yet I can't help feeling that DCB Legal are abusing the court's time here by having the court issue a CCJ against me without being 100% sure and correct.  Why is it that the court will side with their 'efforts', a £3 trace likely, and not with my inconvenience and £108 expense caused by their incorrect claim?  It doesn't really matter if they tried to find my correct address does it, they failed to.  That's their problem, surely.  This is the advice previously presented on this forum, that they cannot rely on last known address.  What is the difference between a £3 soft trace and a free one-time DVLA check?

Umkomaas

The 'free one-time DVLA trace' can only be carried out by the PPC at the time of the parking event. Even the PPC can't have another 'go' at it at a later date.  DCB Legal have no prospect whatsoever of doing a trace via the DVLA. 

neilflah

ok Umkomass but that's not really what I'm getting at; how likely is it that the judge will instruct DCB Legal to reimburse me the £108 set aside fee?

neilflah

As well as getting my £108 back it would also be nice to cost DCB Legal £108.