DCBL discontinuance - unreasonable behaviour costs awarded

JusticeWarrior

Today I won in court against DCBL who had served a notice of discontinuance 1 day before the £27 trial fee was due.

My case was somewhat complicated because I had already received a default judgement when I didn’t receive DCBL’s original claim from the court. I had the default judgement set aside at a hearing in May 2023.

When DCBL served their discontinuance for the hearing proper in December 2023, I wrote to the court requesting that their discontinuance be set aside as I wanted to claim my costs including the £275 filing fee for setting aside the default judgement in May.

The judge would not allow me to claim that fee today but supported my claim of unreasonable / improper behaviour from DCBL and awarded costs for travel, parking, loss of earnings and filing my defence statement amounting to £238. He contended that DCBL’s decision to discontinue was not a commercial decision rather that they knew they would lose in a hearing of the facts of the case which they should never have brought in the first place.

I made a few mistakes as a litigant in person, chiefly a failure to formally counterclaim and also filing a witness statement rather than a defence statement but it still feels like a moral victory!

Not_A_Hope

When DCBL served their discontinuance for the hearing proper in December 2023, I wrote to the court requesting that their discontinuance be set aside as I wanted to claim my costs including the £275 filing fee for setting aside the default judgement. The judge would not allow me to claim that fee today

Firstly congratulations on your win. At least you have got rid of the CCJ risk and not significantly out of pocket.

Did the judge give any reasons why he would not allow your set aside filing fee. Was it a mandatory set aside?

Often a set aside the draft notice includes repayment of the fee where the claimant is at fault but may be reserved for the later hearing of the claim and considered by a different judge. Seems like this one saw through their scam and was on your side.

Coupon-mad

This Judge couldn't award the £275 because the first Judge in May made no order as to costs.

Thus, the application fee is flushed down the loo unless the Defendant asks for it at the first hearing and gets it awarded or at least 'reserved' for later.

Well done for clawing back significant costs, @JusticeWarrior ...

...and I hope you've done the Justice Committee Inquiry (closes on Weds) because your case shows all that is broken and being rinsed by the parking rogues.

Why should setting aside a meritless parking claim - deliberately or negligently sent to an old address to get a CCJ - leave a consumer £275 out of pocket?

JusticeWarrior

I will be doing the survey tonight. I asked at the setting aside hearing for my £275 to be reserved but the judge simply refused. It doesn’t feel right that I’ve ended up financially down through no fault of my own. Of course, 2.5 years of stress, heart palpitations and occasional sleepless nights seems to have zero value in the court’s eyes. Obviously DCBL couldn’t give a fig about that either but at least this has ended up costing them and I hope may help others.

JusticeWarrior

I’m still not clear if there’s any value in trying to go after DCBL with e.g. a LBC. As the original claimant was iPark Services Ltd, I’m not sure how that works. It seems obvious that DCBL as agent are the main actors who have likely bought the ‘debt’ from iPark.

Fruitcake

There is nothing stopping you from issuing a LBC followed by a claim from the PPC. You are out of pocket, and you have the second judge's statement that the claim should never have been made in the first place, which is the reason why you ended up being £275 out of pocket. This is completely separate to the award by the judge for unreasonable behaviour.

Coupon-mad

It would not be a LBC to DCB Legal who would say they were only doing as instructed by the C.

patient_dream

Yes, a 30 day LBC to the PPC who may wish to take legal advice, , probably not DCBL though.

"How do you solve a problem like DCBL ... the attorney general OF COURSE"

troublemaker22

In the past I have successfully issued claims against DCB Legal and its clients as joint defendants because I don't believe the Nuremberg defence (I was only obeying orders) is valid.  They all ended with DCB Legal paying up. 

The downside of suing joint defendants is that the claim can't be issued online via MCOL.  You have to post the claim form (with copies for each Defendant, if you want the court to serve them) to Northampton and then twiddle your thumbs for about 2 months because of the CNBC paperwork logjam. 

Coupon-mad

troublemaker22 said:

In the past I have successfully issued claims against DCB Legal and its clients as joint defendants because I don't believe the Nuremberg defence (I was only obeying orders) is valid.  They all ended with DCB Legal paying up. 

The downside of suing joint defendants is that the claim can't be issued online via MCOL.  You have to post the claim form (with copies for each Defendant, if you want the court to serve them) to Northampton and then twiddle your thumbs for about 2 months because of the CNBC paperwork logjam. 

Interesting.  I didn't know you'd done that.

troublemaker22

I have hidden shallows