Advice - DCBL - Bailiff Ltd and now Legal keep using wrong address

Coupon-mad

Tux_Geek said:

HI All,

Just an update to this, amazingly DCB Legal are now using the correct address and have sent their Cetter of claim to which I am about to reply with the details on the 2nd post on the newbies thread.

As a retail site I have attempted to contact the landowner, who just ignored me and closed the online 'ticket' that is their only method of contact and none of the 10 shops will entertain talking to me as its not their carpark.

Looks like i'm fighting it all the way 

You'd be the first (against this batch). They are hearing shy. DCB Legal will discontinue this claim before the date for them to pay the hearing fee.

When it comes, show us the NoD attached to their email as we are counting all the discontinuances.

Tux_Geek

Well what a 24 hours,

I've been spending time compiling and finalising the statements and evidence for the submission deadline which is Tomorrow (3/12/2025) at 1600h and getting ready to drop it into the courts email inbox with an hour or so to go when today my partner forwards me an email from DCB Legal ..... Discontinuing the case at the 11th hour ... So that's nice as it gave me a free evening for a feet up and a beer.

I will post the discontinuation form in due course, want to blank parts out and also my partner wants to ensure it's all done and dusted first.

But thanks to all you guys and this forum, it's been invaluable in both walking me through the process and also with the information to provide.

1 last question though, can I and should I now be claiming costs for all the paperwork I e been doing up to this point?  

Coupon-mad

Costs after a late discontinuance are already explained in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Well done - you won! As expected but great!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please do post a pic, so that @Umkomaas can count your success.

  

Tux_Geek

Update: applied for costs and heard today the case has been left on the books to be heard in in the new year in respect to the costs. 

Hopefully DCB will still have to send someone all the way down to defend their corner and incur more of their own costs for this ridiculous claim.

Should I be doing anything beforehand in terms of evidence and statements, my cost were all time related (didn't claim for 'future' costs of travel and time at court) so not sure what I can show? 

Coupon-mad

Tux_Geek said:

Update: applied for costs and heard today the case has been left on the books to be heard in in the new year in respect to the costs. 

Hopefully DCB will still have to send someone all the way down to defend their corner and incur more of their own costs for this ridiculous claim.

Should I be doing anything beforehand in terms of evidence and statements, my cost were all time related (didn't claim for 'future' costs of travel and time at court) so not sure what I can show? 

That's great!

You have a costs hearing, so if you haven't already I would file and serve a signed & dated list breaking down your costs accrued since the Claim Form hit the doormat and up to the point of this very late discontinuance.

£24 per hour could be granted (at the discretion of the judge - maybe even your hourly work rate of pay if you can prove that) plus any postage if you have receipts, AND the cost of attending in January.

We are still awaiting a redacted screenshot of your NoD please! Can't count your case yet on Umkomaas' thread, without it!

Tux_Geek

You have a costs hearing, so if you haven't already I would file and serve a signed & dated list breaking down your costs accrued since the Claim Form hit the doormat and up to the point of this very late discontinuance.

£24 per hour could be granted (at the discretion of the judge - maybe even your hourly work rate of pay if you can prove that) plus any postage if you have receipts, AND the cost of attending in January.

When I wrote to the courts to ask for Costs to be considered I have already included a list of what I was claiming costs for, it's not broken down into specific days/hours but is broken into grouped hours based on tasks.

I hadn't included the hearing as it was only up to the point I requested Costs to be considered, I however will serving updated costs for the hearing date as I can show the cost of the Carpark, and what my time will be to be at the hearing (inc. traven to and from)

We are still awaiting a redacted screenshot of your NoD please! Can't count your case yet on Umkomaas' thread, without it!

Your right, what with everything else going on I totally forgot to upload it sorry,  but here it is below for the @Umkomaas thread
 

Coupon-mad

Yay! 

Calling @Umkomaas

Umkomaas

Thank you @Tux_Geek for the copy of your NoD. I can now get this counted in the DCBL Legal thread of shame. 👍 

Tux_Geek

Just thought I'd update this one with what happened after I asked for costs to be considered...

The hearing date was kept, but shortened in duration for it to be heard.

DCB submitted their statement to the court, and myself, with a glaring factual error in the first paragraph, along with statements that costs cannot be legally sought, my time is not billable, etc.. all signed by their solicitor (so a legal professional) 🤦🏻‍♂️

Which I have clearly countered and detailed what costs I'm seeking, and why the conduct is classed as unreasonable in terms of late discontinuation.

Unfortunately, it's all been delayed... So now I'm waiting for a new date.

More to follow once I've had my day in court, along with more details on how wrong their statement was.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872974#Comment_81872974

Tell us a bit more about what you have submitted to support your costs.

What did you put in your submission? What case law, etc?

I suggest you now add a skeleton argument (if you haven't yet sent one) see this info that I just posted on another thread like yours:

a skeleton argument in support of your case if you haven't yet relied on the new case law in Mazur v Speechlys (search the forum). Add wording about that.

I also posted about a High Court case of Brookes earlier this week which supports the argument that CPR 38 creates a 'usual rule' that the winning party in a hearing (your first hearing) gets costs and that a very late discontinuance can be part of a course of unreasonable conduct.

Search for a post by me this week including the keywords Brookes and Mazur.