Justice Committee – Inquiry into the County Court

136_NW

This was posted elsewhere on the forum last week (Discontinuations thread):

"The robust judgment of DJ Humphreys at Ipswich County Court (September 2023) is in sharp contrast to latitude given by Manchester County Court to UKPC/DCB Legal, recently, in almost identical circumstances.

"Their claim against me was struck out following filing and service of a defence, but leave given to file and serve amended particulars of claim despite the court's attention being drawn to numerous CPR, PD and Protocol breaches in that defence.

"The claimant's amended particulars were similarly inadequate - and did lead to an amended defence being filed and the court giving further directions, which included listing a trial date.

"Upon receipt of which the claimants filed a discontinuation notice (on the very same day). 

"All county courts and district judges should, by now, be getting wise to such claims and strike out at allocation stage. Especially the larger court centres, such as Manchester, where there must be multiple instances."

Nellymoser

Here's a few responses (published 17th April 2024) relating to parking the Parliamentary Justice Committee received to their Call for Evidence Work of the County Court (Inquiry)

This is an excellent account from a retired solicitor 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/127792/html/

Evidence submitted Anonymously 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/127752/html/

In this one parking and mediation gets a mention near the end 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126260/html/

DCB Legal Ltd. Funny no mention of the high number of times they discontinue court claims...just as well others mentioned it.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/127083/html/

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/publications/written-evidence/?DateFrom=07/11/2023&DateTo=04/07/2024&SearchTerm=&SessionId=38&page=1

Nellymoser

Another written response found on Justice Committee website. This writer raises PPCs court claims, wrong addresses, default CCJ, and DLUHC new appeal service replacing mediation.

Evidence submitted anonymously 

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/127055/html/

pinkelephant12

The Justice Select Committee has re-opened their inquiry into the Work of the County Court.

The Committee was disbanded when the General Election was called but has been newly formed.

Information about the inquiry and the call for evidence is here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/204828/justice-committee-launches-new-inquiry-on-the-work-of-the-county-court/

Evidence previous submitted will be taken into account but there is an opportunity to update existing evidence or add new evidence.

I am sure lots of users of this forum will be able to give examples of parking companies wasting the courts' time and taking up valuable resources.

Deadline 13th February 2025  

Coupon-mad

pinkelephant12 said:

The Justice Select Committee has re-opened their inquiry into the Work of the County Court.

The Committee was disbanded when the General Election was called but has been newly formed.

Information about the inquiry and the call for evidence is here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/204828/justice-committee-launches-new-inquiry-on-the-work-of-the-county-court/

Evidence previous submitted will be taken into account but there is an opportunity to update existing evidence or add new evidence.

I am sure lots of users of this forum will be able to give examples of parking companies wasting the courts' time and taking up valuable resources.

Deadline 13th February 2025  

Thanks for highlighting this vital enquiry.

We should all do this all over again.

Newbies included. Please! All invited to spend time on this first part of the 2025 fightback.

We must be polite, not ranty, careful to answer their questions and provide lots of on-point examples as evidence, not bald opinion.

The MHCLG like real evidence, not opinion.  So will the CJC.

Let's assume we are talking to pretty intelligent & switched-on good people who have no idea about the alleged abuse of the court process operated by roboclaim firms.

Personally, I will call for things like these:

- 'roboclaim represented' parking claims for at least all 'single ticket' cases - but preferably ALL parking cases - to be banned and

- for parking Claimants to have the remedy open to them (just like ordinary people and small traders do) to run cases through court themselves without representation, if they think they have a case, and

- for those PPCs to have to state in writing (upon threat of contempt, if false) before or at the point of filing any claim, that they have exhausted efforts to resolve the dispute, complied fully with the DVLA KADOE, PAP and applicable Code of Practice and have supplied the court with a verified (by the Defendant in recent weeks) or recently re-checked and proper service address for the Defendant (not just the old unreliable DVLA vehicle address) and

- for the small claims track to copy the equivalent Scottish court costs rule which does not allow ANY costs or court fees to be reclaimed in claims under £300.  That MUST be introduced for ALL parking cases at least.

Puts off frivolous 'churn' small claim incentivised bulk litigation and prevents the waste of public money flushed down the toilet and the appalling consumer harm caused by the ludicrous number of CCJs currently being (seemingly deliberately) harvested from innocent ordinary victims of what was exposed YEARS ago as 'an outrageous scam'.

Let's not forget as well that Conservative Justice Minister The Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to; “better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent.”

He added:
"It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address."

Parking companies were singled out then, to be among the worst perpetrators.

That was almost NINE YEARS AGO. Since then the MoJ has allowed roboclaim solicitors to run unchecked and has even called DCB Legal a 'Super User' instead of blocking them!

Whatever your politics:

I reckon try in your own words to play the Labour CJC off against the woeful inaction of the Conservatives. Whatever the Tories promised it had not worked and things are ten times worse now. So the Labour reaction against parking firms abuse of the courts must be TEN TIMES more robust.

Nellymoser

People need to respond as Coupon-mad says. It's not difficult if you are unsure or need help take a look at how others worded their responses to the previous inquiry in the 27th Oct post. 

moneyhaven

I will be responding to this over the weekend and will bring it to the attention of my MP, who also thinks the private parking firms are racketeers.

Coupon-mad

moneyhaven said:

I will be responding to this over the weekend and will bring it to the attention of my MP, who also thinks the private parking firms are racketeers.

Nicely said. My MP thinks so too.

Coupon-mad

Just a thought: we need to mention:

1. Compulsory Mediation
Say in your own words how inappropriate the compulsory Mediation stage is in cases of exaggerated parking claims, and that people's reported experiences in 2024 have repeatedly shown a pattern of Mediators favouring and repeating a typical parking Claimant's meritless case, unnecessarily pressurising and frightening Defendants by saying they face a 'higher costs risk' by not settling, that is simply not true in a parking case.

2.  Default judgments wrongfully obtained
The CNBC fully automated system that lets rogue 'roboclaim' parking Claimants press the button to get an immediate block on a defence and gain from the unjust enrichment of hugely exaggerated default judgments (with no human checks whatsoever) is illegal under the DPA 2018 and UK GDPR. The automated system's 'request judgment' button takes no account of posted or emailed defences already received but not processed, or AOS that were already filed by email or post, which is unjust and plainly wrong. The 'request judgment' button is immediate (such automated decision making is illegal) and it goes against this rule change in 2020:
https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/litigation/2020-02/rule-change-to-clarify-default-judgment-cant-be-entered-if-acknowledgement-of-service-or-defence-filed-before-judgment

3.  Discontinuances
Tell them about DCB Legal's scattergun MO of filing over 100,000 generic boilerplate claims per annum then reaping the £millions in profit due to false 'debt recovery fee/damages' enhanced sums that almost invariably go to default CCJs. When cases are defended by robust Defendants, the bulk litigators just try to push for money at Mediation stage then finally discontinue thousands of claims before the hearing fee is paid  (not just a few, literally thousands). A complete waste of court resources and a raid on the public purse which funds the broken system that enables bulk litigation. New firms are jumping on this bandwagon as it is so very easy to get exaggerated money; e.g. Moorside Legal which is connected to - a shared group Director -the Vice-President of the British Parking Association. A conflict of interests. Nobody seems to care or stops them.

4. The CNBC enables and props up what MPs called 'an outrageous scam' (2018 debate) and 'extorting money from motorists' (2022 DLUHC Minister).  Why has nobody at the MoJ seen this and stopped these cases from abusing the court process?

5. What needs to change?
The Committee should look to copy the rule in Scotland which bans added costs (completely) in claims under £300. This dissuades bulk litigators altogether and 'costs exaggerated' claims as seen in parking claims in E&W are not possible.

Alternatively: ban bulk third party law firm litigators from the small claims track.

Coupon-mad

Don't forget to do this - everyone who has had to suffer from a boilerplate parking claim or CCJ.

@Harvez63 have you recounted your tale again?

We have to repeat it because any submissions made last year are redundant / binned die to the change of Government.

Please everyone. This will make a difference.

See above for ideas what to say, if unsure.