VCS - DCBL - Own Space - 2 Claims - 1 CCJ

Coupon-mad

Only contact DCB Legal once the fee is paid. The application isn't yet live, if not paid for.

Don't want to be alarmist but:

Make sure everyone in your household knows NOT to open the door to a HCEO.  Never let them in.  One poster's wife was tricked by an HCEO saying he needed to 'lean on a table' to fill out a form... then once in, he started going into every room, listing goods to seize.

Park your car in a garage EVERY day/night. Hidden from view. They will clamp it if not.

icy_fox

My car has been moved and we’ll be extra vigilant at home for the foreseeable, although we’ll soon be away for a while soon in any case.

The Civil court is closed until Monday so I’ll be following up on this further ASAP to get the application live & stay any potential writ.

Ill do some digging for examples of when DCB legal has conducted themselves in this way, as that can surely only help when requesting the Civil court processes my N244 specifically to stay a writ.

Ill post meaningful updates as and when. Much appreciated for all the help and advice thus far.

Coupon-mad

Have a read of the entire thread by @SoJacob who found her case escalated to HCEOs within a week of the CCJ (not 30 days) and bailiffs turned up ...I think...

I recall when she rang DCB Legal she was told the sum had increased to more than the Judgment and they refused to deal with her and said the case was already with HCEOs.

Within days.

icy_fox

Just received a call from the court who accepted a £15 fee. They confirmed the application is live and I should hear back further within a couple of days.

I'll be on to DCB Legal to tell them to withdraw now.

Coupon-mad

Woohoo! Application in for fifteen quid!

And fast-tracked by Manchester Court instead of languishing in the black hole of the CNBC.

  

Coupon-mad

icy_fox said:

Just received a call from the court who accepted a £15 fee. They confirmed the application is live and I should hear back further within a couple of days.

I'll be on to DCB Legal to tell them to withdraw now.

Did you ever hear from DCB Group?  Hopefully your application means your cars are safe from clamping and any writ they did apply for this month is stayed.

Read the updated court report from @LionsShare  who recently got her CCJ Set aside and like you, only paid £14/£15 to stay the writ! Very similar case to yours. You might want to bookmark it.

icy_fox

Good evening @coupon_mad!

Apologies for not responding to this until now. I've been travelling with work since 22/09/2024 with a full schedule. Having now returned, I've received confirmation of a hearing in court on Wednesday (09/10/2024). The letter was sent on 20/09/2024 and I hadn't received confirmation of this via email. So I'm super relieved to have seen this now and not have missed anything, although I did advise of my expected availability when contacting the courts and speaking with the team sooner, so perhaps this was taken into account.

Meanwhile, there has indeed now been some comms received from DCBL. I'm including the full details with dates below. My plan ahead of the hearing is to re-confirm my witness statement (for the 2nd claim) and my defence (submitted for the first claim but relevant to both). I'll also review the case of LionsShare as suggested.

Order / Comms received from the court (Sent 20/09/2024 by post)

To confirm the details I've received in the response:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The application to stay execution of the writ and to set aside judgment be listed for an attended hearing before a District Judge sitting at (Court Address) on Wednesday 9 October 2024 at (TIME) with an estimated length of hearing of 30 minutes.
2. Execution of the writ of control be stayed pending the hearing of the application.

Additional details for point 1 included:

• Sentence stating documents sent to the court must clearly state the date and time of the hearing
  • Question (I believe this shouldn't matter providing I've included the necessary details within the original application, right?)
• Please note that Court lists are advertised on www.courtserve.net daily.
• Allow appropriate time (30-45 mins) to pass through security

DCBL - Comms directly to me (Sent 30/09/2024 PM by email)

This was sent during the PM of 30/09/2024, I've already missed the aggressive proposed deadline:

Dear (NAME), We act for the Claimant in the above matter. Without Prejudice Save as to Costs Upon review of your Application, our Client wishes to propose the attached Consent Order to be sealed at the upcoming Hearing. The Claimant is agreeable to Judgment being set aside, and the Claim being dismissed. Should you be agreeable to the same, please sign and return the attached Consent Order. Upon receipt of the same, we will countersign and file the Consent Order with the Court. Kindly confirm by by 12pm 01/10/2024, if you are agreeable.

DCBL - Proposed Consent Order (attached in comms direct to me on 30/09/2024)

Before an Officer of the Court UPON the Claimant and the Defendant having agreed to the terms of this Order; AND UPON the Claimant accepting that, although the claim was correctly served at the Defendant’s last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9, the Defendant did not receive the claim form and therefore did not have opportunity to defend the claim; AND UPON the Defendant providing evidence, to suggest that more likely than not, the Defendant had authority to park on the Land, and therefore the Parking Charge Notices ought to not have been issued. AND UPON the parties agreeing that, in view of the above, there is some other good reason for Judgment to be set aside pursuant to CPR 13.3;

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT:-

1. The Judgment entered on 06/09/2024 is set aside;
2. The Claim be dismissed; and
3. No Order as to costs.

DCBL - To the Court and myself (Sent 02/10/2024 by email)

We write in relation to the above matter wherein we are instructed to act on behalf of the Claimant.

We have received the Defendant's Application dated 13/09/2024 and note the content.

Within the Defendant's Application they have not provided any justification as to why they did not respond to the Claim Form. It is respectfully submitted that the Claim Form was correctly served at the Defendant's last known address pursuant to CPR 6.9. Pursuant to CPR 6.9(3), the Claimant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the Defendant’s current address by conducting a pre-issue trace. The trace result provided the Claimant with the knowledge of the Defendant's address, where the Claim Form was then subsequently served. As the Defendant failed to respond to the Claim Form, Judgment in default was obtained against them.

Upon reviewing the Defendant’s Application, the Defendant alleges that they had authority to park on the Land. Respectfully, no evidence of the same has previously been provided to the Claimant's representatives.

In view of the above, please find enclosed the Claimant's proposed Draft Order. The Claimant has decided to take an economical approach to dismiss the Claim.

We would be grateful if the Court would place the attached Draft Order on the Court file in readiness for the Hearing listed on 09/10/2024.

In the event that the Defendant also seeks to recover the costs of making the Application to set the Judgment aside, it is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has not acted unreasonably. The Claimant has therefore followed the correct process and had no reason to believe that the Defendant had the relevant authority. Had the Defendant responded to pre-action correspondence or the Claim Form, legal proceedings could have been avoided.

Coupon-mad

UPON the Defendant providing evidence, to suggest that more likely than not, the Defendant had authority to park on the Land, and therefore the Parking Charge Notices ought to not have been issued.

Wow.  Some admission!  Yet they say:

"it is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has not acted unreasonably."

Really?!

So did they send you the court on 2nd October the same draft Order, minus the word 'consent'?

If so, then they've admitted in writing to the Judge that "the PCNs ought not to have been issued".  Surely it was a professional PPC's burden to be sure at the outset that they aren't issuing wrongful PCNs in the first place against authorised persons who they "ought not" be harassing and penalising?

They also issued two claims against you rather than bringing their whole case as one claim.

I'd say that conduct - taken together - meets the Dammerman case bar for an unreasonable course of conduct.

Due to this wholly unreasonable conduct you must make it clear, straight after saying hello at the hearing, that you OPPOSE that Draft Order because you are seeking full costs:

a) standard - or your hourly daily/rate if higher - witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

Don't let the Judge talk over you and say "well this will be easy because the C has consented to your application...next!" 

You : "Not that easy, Judge...I oppose that draft order...and they gave me just half a day to decide whether to consent to it or not. And the answer is NOT, in the matter of costs."

Take proof of your daily rate with you and point out that the above CPRs include 'loss of leave' whether it was a working day or not.


P.S. there was a writ, then!  

icy_fox

Coupon-mad said:

UPON the Defendant providing evidence, to suggest that more likely than not, the Defendant had authority to park on the Land, and therefore the Parking Charge Notices ought to not have been issued.

Wow.  Some admission! 

After reading their first Draft Order initially, I actually perceived this to mean "if the judge believes that the defendant has produced sufficient evidence at the hearing", rather than this already being decided and admitted by the claimant. Assuming this is the case, that hopefully bodes well!  

Coupon-mad said:

Yet they say:

"it is respectfully submitted that the Claimant has not acted unreasonably."

Really?!

So did they send you the court on 2nd October the same draft Order, minus the word 'consent'?

So they did it seems, although it still contained the word "CONSENT". I somehow missed that additional draft order having not scrolled to the bottom of that document (the rest of the content I've shared).  

Coupon-mad said:

If so, then they've admitted in writing to the Judge that "the PCNs ought not to have been issued".  Surely it was a professional PPC's burden to be sure at the outset that they aren't issuing wrongful PCNs in the first place against authorised persons who they "ought not" be harassing and penalising?

Would it be reasonable to suggest that the parking company should have a copy of my name and vehicle reg, meaning that their due diligence would have ensured this situation had been entirely avoided? Also pointing out that accordingly they have no right to issue future PCN's under the same circumstances?  

The idea behind this is to further emphasise the levels of unreasonableness, although I don't want to somehow talk myself into trouble.  

Coupon-mad said:

They also issued two claims against you rather than bringing their whole case as one claim.

I'd say that conduct - taken together - meets the Dammerman case bar for an unreasonable course of conduct.

Due to this wholly unreasonable conduct you must make it clear, straight after saying hello at the hearing, that you OPPOSE that Draft Order because you are seeking full costs:

a) standard - or your hourly daily/rate if higher - witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

Don't let the Judge talk over you and say "well this will be easy because the C has consented to your application...next!" 

You : "Not that easy, Judge...I oppose that draft order...and they gave me just half a day to decide whether to consent to it or not. And the answer is NOT, in the matter of costs."

Take proof of your daily rate with you and point out that the above CPRs include 'loss of leave' whether it was a working day or not.

Can I turn up on the day with evidence for costs and in relation to earnings if it was not submitted with my WS? I've just re-read the part of the NEWBIES thread recommending to add a costs assessment (oops). I'm conscious that most evidence needs to be submitted officially beforehand, although this isn't evidence relating specifically to my right to park, etc.

Initially I believed claimable costs would only relate to the date of the hearing itself and application costs. Having looked into this further, it seems that when handling larger claims people track their total hours spent throughout the process including the preparation of the witness statement, etc.  

Despite reading that as a rule of thumb smaller cases usually don't yield similar results, as you've pointed out the "threshold of unreasonableness" has already been exceeded. My Draft Order states only "including the application fee of £303 and cost of attendance at hearing(s)", the word "including" perhaps providing sufficient leeway to ask (of course, the higher £303 fee was avoided in this instance).  

If it's worthwhile pushing for this, the next question is "how much time is reasonable to state for the witness statement and court preparation?" I don't have those exact calculations, but I can say that I spent a considerable amount of time during the evenings and even the daytime of 09-13/09/2024 responding to the 2nd claim. Not to mention the additional time already spent on responding to the original claim beforehand.

I think that requesting the full amount there would be unrealistic. That said, advice I've also seen says "you don't ask, you don't get". Is there a similar case relating to unreasonable conduct with a successful result visible in this forum which I could use as a yardstick? I see Troublesum1 received the standard £95 outlined within "PRACTICE DIRECTION 27A".

Coupon-mad

Would it be reasonable to suggest that the parking company should have a copy of my name and vehicle reg, meaning that their due diligence would have ensured this situation had been entirely avoided? Also pointing out that accordingly they have no right to issue future PCN's under the same circumstances?  

Yes.

And sending a signed/dated costs assessment to the court & Claimant a few says before a hearing is fine.

Take proof of 'loss of leave' (hourly rate or how much you could typically earn in a day) with you to the hearing.