I have a parking fine but not my vehicle

OingoBoingo

Umkomaas said:

I am willing to settle this matter by accepting £780 to cover my costs

Have you copied this to the court - or do you intend to?  You will need to break this down, itemising each cost head. What you send to the court and DCB Legal must be the same. A 'bald' figure isn't likely to be accepted without itemisation. 

I intend to send these emails to the court as part of the witness statement pack, as appendices to support each of my points. And include claim of costs in the pack too. PDF will be emailed to both court and claimant in a day or two.

OingoBoingo

Fruitcake said:

Is there any particular reason why you sent that "without prejudice"?

coupon suggested so:

Coupon-mad said:

"Costs in the case" is the correct phrase that means the costs from the abandoned hearing are carried forward and will be determined by the final Judge (so don't forget to ask for them - TWO lots of attendance costs - verbally once you win, or you could miss out.  Costs are something to ask for and often if you don't ask you don't get!).

Reply to DCB Legal again and head it up:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

Tell them that, as they already know, you are not one and the same data subject whose address was provided by the DVLA and this is so serious harassment that you will report them to the ICO if they fail to produce the soft trace record that threw up your address.  You are entitled to see how similar the two names are, whether there was a different initial, etc., in order to expose DCB group's error.

In the interests of the Overriding Objective and minimising wasted court time and in view of the costs their mistrace has caused their client to be exposed to, you are willing to accept £xxx to cover your costs in the case, if paid within ten days of this email.

Give them ten days then report this refusal to provide the soft trace data to the ICO, to the CSA and to the SRA.

You will be complaining to the ICO and separately to the SRA and CSA, about the conduct of DCB Group (not the parking firm).

Coupon-mad

Yep it's because it included an offer (them paying whatever settlement you put there).

You can't include this email in your bundle because it's a WP offer.  To be produced only during costs discussions at the end of the hearing, for you to show the Judge their unreasonableness and that they should have settled your costs when offered the facts and a chance to pay lower. Therefore you should have your FULL costs at the hearing.

They were fairly warned.

OingoBoingo

All documents sent now. DCB havent replied to my request to cease the case with costs, nor have they provided soft trace data regarding my address, nor have they responded to my request to remove the mis trace letter.

Documents submitted to courts & DCB:

Witness Statement

Witness Statement Appendices

Claim of Costs

Breakdown of Claim of Costs

Next day or two I will contact ICO, CSA, and SRA.

Johnersh

Strictly speaking the o/p's offer isn't really an offer at all, is it? S/he could waive their privilege and show it to a judge if necessary (eg if the court asked whether D had written to explain C's case was unmeritorious).

I say that because it is C's money claim. If D wants to pursue an action for misuse of data that requires a formal claim of its own. (Without scrolling back 20 pages i'm not sure that's the case). 

Although using the word offer, it's not a settlement proposal in the true sense of the word, but a rejection of the entire premise of C's claim and a demand for compensation.

C will, in any case, argue that they are entitled to rely upon information from the state as to the identity of the correct keeper and that it was not unreasonable to do so. The question for the DJ is potentially not the bringing of the claim, but when it was unreasonable to continue pursuing it on the evidence before it 

Johnersh

In relation to the particulars (pleaded in the alternative) C has to prove:

1. That the o/p was driving and/or 
2. Pursuant to PoPLA that an NtK was issued and D failed to name a driver and address for service.

In relation to the first, the PPC will be unable to do that and likely have adduced no evidence with the witness statement. Obviously if D received no NtK, even if he was the keeper (which his/her evidence will challenge) as a matter of law, they need to show the keeper was written to and given a chance to name a driver. 

It will be interesting to see the DVLA response to the request to be withdrawn as named keeper. D should also ask the DVLA to provide a letter that noone of his name and DoB has ever been issued a licence. If a criminal offence has been committed by persons unknown, has the o/p reported it to obtain a crime ref. That may also be helpful prior to the hearing, even if only to have the crime ref to deploy.

Brewerspride

How did things go today?

OingoBoingo

COURT RESULT:

Case Dismissed with Costs for the Day.

Court refused the claimants request to appeal.

The court wasn't satisfied with the claimants statements.

- The court deemed there to be signage discrepancies based upon the photos provided by the claimant

- The court agreed with the defendant on the fake letter and refused the claimants request that it is enough evidence to connect the defendant as keeper of the vehicle

- The court was satisfied that the defendant was not at the address of the vehicle at the time of the ticket issued

- The court accepted that sufficient correspondence with the DVLA was deemed enough to show that the defendant has made sufficient effort to rectify the vehicle registration error

I'm very happy and thanks

Nellymoser

Your year of hell comes to an end. Well done 🥳

Brewerspride

Well done you but what a horrid, stressful time it has been for you.  How can they get away with causing so much grief?

Hope you are having a celebratory tipple this evening.