Euro Car Parks and DCB Legal collapse hours before strike-out hearing

Blindside6

In a lengthy and highly vexed case, which had rumbled on since May 2023, DCB Legal, in the shape of Sarah Ensall, on behalf of Euro Car Parks, chose to settle the claim, rather than face a N244 strike-out application hearing yesterday (8th August) at Chesterfield County Court.

Dispute was over two PCNs issued in July and August 2020. The sum claimed was padded out to £561.20. 

The court record will show that the claim is stayed, with no Order for costs. It would be imprudent to reveal the terms within the Tomlin Order confidential annex, for obvious reasons. Suffice to say they were favourable to me.

The conduct of DCB Legal throughout, including twice, at my insistence, having to file and serve N244 Relief from Sanction Applications was utterly reprehensible. A third Application, over an even more serious breach of Order, hadn't been made, which would have meant almost certain defeat at the application hearing yesterday. Notwithstanding, the inherent merit of the strike-out.

On 6th August they had filed and served a costs schedule amounting to £3201, including a fee of £1250 for Jac Armstrong of counsel. Whom, it may reasonably be assumed, didn't fancy standing behind the case, having read the papers. Thos ecosts didn't include the costs of making the two Relief from Sanctions Applications which on a fair estimate would have cost them close to a further £3,000.

I hope this fortifies others on this forum, not only fighting PCNs but having to deal with law firms such as DCB Legal whom, with a statutory regulator possessing even mildly sharp teeth, would have been struck off long ago.

ChirpyChicken

Thanks for this! 

Car1980

Why so stubborn?

Euro must have really been on their case.

Blindside6

Car1980 said:

Why so stubborn?

Euro must have really been on their case.

My take is that Euro Car Parks knew little to nothing of what was going on: It was a battle between myself and DCB Legal. I beat them in court in November 2024, and was awarded indemnity costs (when UK Parking Control was their client), and exposed them as liars. That may explain, in part at least, DCB's conduct since.

ChirpyChicken

Blindside6 said:

Car1980 said:

Why so stubborn?

Euro must have really been on their case.

My take is that Euro Car Parks knew little to nothing of what was going on: It was a battle between myself and DCB Legal. I beat them in court in November 2024, and was awarded indemnity costs (when UK Parking Control was their client), and exposed them as liars. That may explain, in part at least, DCB's conduct since.

I wonder what it is about the parking industry that sees a section of the legal profession happy to lie.  You dont really see it in other sectors.  They also act like bullies

Coupon-mad

The pattern we see here suggests that most PPCs have nothing to do with DCB Legal litigation. I think IMHO, they appear to run some sort of CFA which gives them the decision-making power.

Very much smells like debt Assignment only somehow they fly under the DVLA's useless radar.

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

The pattern we see here suggests that most PPCs have nothing to do with DCB Legal litigation. I think IMHO, they appear to run some sort of CFA which gives them the decision-making power.

Very much smells like debt Assignment only somehow they fly under the DVLA's useless radar.

My take on that is similar: DCB Legal Ltd is driven, and, I think, instructed, by sister company Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd. The latter described the former, within DSAR correspondence, as 'our legal department'. The PPCs, as you note, are passengers; their interest in the PCN 'debt' having passed down the chain for a modest consideration and no risk.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

The pattern we see here suggests that most PPCs have nothing to do with DCB Legal litigation. I think IMHO, they appear to run some sort of CFA which gives them the decision-making power.

Very much smells like debt Assignment only somehow they fly under the DVLA's useless radar.

That is correct in the sense some parking firms have no engagement with decisions over claims etc. This has been confirmed in discussions directly with a couple of parking firms