DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33068--------------------------------------------------
Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: August 12, 2024, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having recently had a CC case instigated by DCB discontinued, I
understand that this is par for the course for companies like
DCB.
I also understand (indeed had first hand experience) that the
court system is overworked and under-resourced. I am probably
thinking from a logical and common sense angle rather than from
a legal process one, but I can't see why these companies are not
considered vexatious. As a matter of course they are submitting
claims that they know they will discontinue, just in the hope of
scaring people. So they pay £35 which they don't get back, but
I doubt this truly covers the cost of the time they waste.
If companies like this were held to account on a macro level for
all the hundreds of (what I would consider to be) vexatious
claims they make, the court system would save a hell of a lot of
time and maybe wouldn't be so overloaded.
Is there no process by which these companies can be
investigated, based on the amount of and percentage of claims
they discontinue? I am of course joking but I would consider it
good value to put aside £350 per year to make 10 nonsense claims
against people like DCB that I have no intention of continuing.
Would this not be vexatious behaviour on my part?
#Post#: 33102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: peodude
Date: August 12, 2024, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How can it be vexatious when on the face of it they believe they
have a legitimate claim. The driver breached the term and
conditions on site and a charge was raised and not paid.
#Post#: 33108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 12, 2024, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The points is that they are apparently issuing claims solely for
the purposes of pressuring the defendant into paying up, with no
intention of proceeding if a defence is lodged.
My understanding is that most vexatious litigants (and FMoTL
litigants for that matter) believe that they have a valid
claim/defence/whatever.
#Post#: 33109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2024, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The driver breached the term and condition
--- End Quote ---
Did he? Was the term he allegedly breached adequately conveyed
through suitably prominent signage? Was the signage capable of
forming a contract? Do they know who was driving? If not, have
they complied with the provisions of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act to recover the charge from the
registered keeper?
Many of these claims are flimsy at best.
The particulars of claim they usually rely on are also often
very vague.
As Andy rightly notes above, they're essentially using the
threat of court as a shakedown, with no intention of attending a
hearing.
#Post#: 33124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 12, 2024, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If they are raising claims that they do not intend to pursue, or
are using the court process for an improper purpose, that is an
abuse of process. Someone who does so repeatedly could be
declared vexatious. The test is set out in Bhamjee.
The Attorney General takes action against vexatious litigants -
the complaint would have to be to him.
#Post#: 33135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2024, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I realise we only see a small fraction of all the claims issued
(UKPC issued 4,227 claims in 2023), but so far 100% of the
claims defended on here or MSE where DCB Legal are involved end
up discontinued.
They're clearly issuing claims in the hope of securing
judgements in default/people panicking and paying up.
#Post#: 33139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 12, 2024, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Minor point of order, can DCBL be a vexatious litigant if they
are not the litigant?
I would suggest that there is a fine line between what DCBL do
and what is lawful, but I would also suggest that they are
effectively regulated by a body that exists to protect its
members' interests - much like the BPA and (to a greater extent)
the IPC protect their members' interests (albeit that they do
not themselves purport to regulate their members' behaviour,
whereas it is the DVLA that likes to tar them with that brush
when seeking to justify ignoring the requirement for reasonable
cause when selling keeper data).
#Post#: 33142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 12, 2024, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Who is the litigant (by definition, only they can be vexatious)?
#Post#: 33145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2024, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DCB work with several parking companies (adopting identical
tactics with each), but the one we seem to see most frequently
by a decent margin is UKPC.
#Post#: 33190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: August 13, 2024, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> DCB work with several parking companies (adopting identical
tactics with each), but the one we seem to see most frequently
by a decent margin is UKPC.
>
--- End Quote ---
So then a complaint as noted above about UKPC backed up by the
data would seem appropriate, if they are found to be vexatious
it would fire a warning shot across other PPC bows.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page