I Park Services/DCB Legal defence

Coupon-mad

No - yet again, this is another example of the courts indulging Claimants.  There's no limit.  

We saw a couple of BW Legal cases a few years ago where they left the claims dormant for 18 months then suddenly decided to proceed.  In that time, it's very likely some Defendants would have moved house, thinking the dormant claim was dead.  Yet the courts don't give a stuff about that and cheerfully issued CCJs when victims didn't return the sudden DQs sent to old addresses.

LDast

Just a quick question for the legal experts... this claim was stayed at the beginning of April. If the claimant wants to resurrect it, they will have to pay for and file an N244 application for the stay to be lifted with no guarantee that it will be granted.

As it is stayed, does the claimant have to apply for the stay to be lifted if they want to discontinue at this stage?

The email is reproduced below. As you can see, the question about requiring the claim to be unstayed before discontinuance is because it could be interpreted that a discontinuance should be made before the claim is stayed:

Whilst you have a defence filed on the court case, a judgment cannot be entered against you.

The claimant had 33 days to respond to your defence in one of the following ways:

If the claimant disagrees with your defence and wish to proceed, directions questionnaires will be issued to both parties. Depending on the responses from each party to these, the case will either go for mediation, or be transferred to a local court for a hearing.

- If the claimant agrees with your defence, they can discontinue the claim. This means the claim will be closed and no more action will be necessary.

- If the claimant hasn’t responded at the end of this time, the case will become stayed (put on hold), and the claimant will need to make a fee paid application to lift the stay to proceed with the case.

An application is not guaranteed and is at the discretion of a Deputy District Judge or a court appointed Legal Advisor.

I can confirm to date the court has not received a response from the Claimant to the defence you have filed, and the case stayed on 03/04/24.

LDast

Thinking about sending the following to DCB Legal in order to force the matter:

Re: Claim No. [XXXXXXX] - iPark Services Ltd v [Defendant]

I am writing regarding the above-referenced claim, which is currently stayed.

Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 15.11, I hereby serve notice requiring you to take appropriate steps to lift the stay and proceed with the claim within the next 28 days.

Please be aware that if you fail to comply with this notice within the specified time frame, I will apply to the court for an order to strike out the claim due to want of prosecution. In such an event, I will also seek an order for costs incurred in making this application to be awarded against you.

Just need to add something to let them know that if they should decide to discontinue after an application for strike-out has been made, the defendant will seek costs. The claim has not been allocated to any track at this stage.

Coupon-mad

"due to want of prosecution"?

I don't understand that bit.

And I would be stating that, if they dither or deliberately choose to leave it indefinitely stayed, the current address for service is only reliable for papers served in 2024.  After that, if their client wants to resuscitate the claim they must carry out a soft trace AND email the Defendant first to alert them fairly.  No consumer can be reasonably expected to put their life on hold and/or remember in years to come to tell DCB Legal (if they still exist) of future house moves.  The Defendant refuses to be indefinitely tied to this matter on the whim of the likes of DCB Legal and the claim is considered dead anyway.