CNBC Super-Users - Do they pay a reduced court fee?

Blindside6

I am told, informally, that litigation firms, such as DCB Legal Ltd., acting for car park management companies have a special rate agreed with the Civil National Business Centre. This, purportedly, allows them to file at a rate for the vast majority of their claims (between £200 and £300) at £25 each rather than £35.

A FOIA request has been drafted, which will go into Ministry of Justice (notoriously difficult to deal with on disclosure) on Monday morning. If any forum member wishes to critique they are welcome to do so. 

If I can prove that the £25 fee is correct, the ramifications for drivers, vehicle keepers, the car park companies and their lawyers is hugely significant. 

Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

I am writing to request the disclosure of information held by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), specifically relating to the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) and high-volume users of county court claim services (sometimes informally referred to as “County Court Super Users”). I make this request by way of the FOIA and ask that you disclose the following information:

1. Reduced Fees for Bulk Claim “Super Users”: Confirmation of whether County Court “Super Users” (i.e., frequent high-volume claim issuers) are offered any reduced court fees or discounted rates for issuing claims in bulk. This specifically includes clarification on whether any special fee arrangements exist for money claims in the ~£200–£300 value range (where the standard fee would ordinarily be £35 for a paper-issued claim) – for example, do such high-volume users pay a lower fee per claim when issuing in bulk?

2. Policies or Guidance on Fee Discounts for High-Volume Litigants: Copies of, or excerpts from, any policies, guidance documents, internal communications, or memoranda that outline fee arrangements, discounts, or incentive schemes provided to high-volume litigants (including but not limited to law firms or companies) who issue large volumes of civil claims. This should include any official guidance on bulk issuance through the CNBC or County Court Business Centre, and any mention of discounted fee structures, direct debit billing for bulk claims, or other financial incentives for frequent claim issuers. To constrain cost of this request, only documents revealed by electronic search are requested to be disclosed.

3. Special Operational Measures for “Super Users”: Data held pertaing to any special measures or operational arrangements in place for County Court “Super Users” to streamline or facilitate high-volume litigation. For example, this may encompass any priority processing queues, dedicated online portals/interfaces (such as Secure Data Transfer systems or specialised filing systems), dedicated account managers or teams to handle bulk claim customers, or other service enhancements provided to high-volume claim issuers that differ from the standard process for ordinary users.

In making this request, I wish to clarify that I am not seeking any commercial information about specific companies or personal data about individuals, nor any information that would be exempt under Section 40 of FOIA. I am interested in policies, procedures, agreements, or aggregated information under the applicant-blind principle of FOIA. 

If some parts of the requested information are exempt or contain personal data, please redact those parts and provide the remainder.

If the information requested is already available in the public domain (for example, published fee schedules or guidance), I would be grateful if you could direct me to the relevant resources or include them in your response. 

Otherwise, I would appreciate receiving the materials or information requested in electronic form. If any part of this request is unclear or would exceed cost limits, please advise on how I might refine it, as I am willing to narrow the scope if needed.

Thank you for your attention to this request. I look forward to your response promptly, as required at Section 10(1) of FOIA and no later than the 20-working-day backstop, also referred to in that same FOIA section.

Yours faithfully,

End.

Coupon-mad

I think that was stopped a few years ago. Used to be the case. Interested to see the reply because DCB Legal put £35 on all their claim forms.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

I think that was stopped a few years ago. Used to be the case. Interested to see the reply because DCB Legal put £35 on all their claim forms.

Yes, the fee on the claim form is the key point I'm driving at. Thank you for highlighting it.

Would make every county court claim they've issued defective, of course.

Plus, more crucially for the car parking firms and their lawyers, there are massive fraud implications: If your figure of 100,000 DCB Legal claims per year is correct (that will be part of the stage 2 FOIA request) then we are looking at allegations of large scale fraud by false representation (section 1, Fraud Act, 2006) of £1 million per year, irrespective of whether the claim was successful, or otherwise. 

Coupon-mad

If your figure of 100,000 DCB Legal claims per year is correct.

It is correct. It's in a table of the top 5 litigators provided to the DLUHC in 2023 by the MoJ.

The table is in the DLUHC's Draft Impact Assessment on the parking code, August 2023.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

If your figure of 100,000 DCB Legal claims per year is correct.

It is correct. It's in a table of the top 5 litigators provided to the DLUHC in 2023 by the MoJ.

The table is in the DLUHC's Draft Impact Assessment on the parking code, August 2023.

I've spent some time with the document to which you have kindly pointed - and specifically Table 7.8 - but that, taken at its face, doesn't support a finding 100,000 DCB Legal claims per year. 

Annex C at page 88 does refer to this, though: 'The HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Top 30 small court claimants 2018-2022. Five operators and legal firms (within top 30) specialising in, or exclusively dealing with, parking claims on behalf of various private parking operators.'

But I'm struggling to locate it within the Impact Assessment. 

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64b6666a0ea2cb001315e47b/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf