DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: August 13, 2024, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to
county court cases?
#Post#: 33216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 13, 2024, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: dave-o link ---
>
> Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to
county court cases?
>
--- End Quote ---
You could submit a FOI request to HMCTS for all cases between
certain dates where UKPC (for example) were the claimants and
which were subsequently withdrawn. I don’t know if that data
will be held or readily available. It also won’t show the reason
why each case was withdrawn.
#Post#: 33222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: August 13, 2024, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> [quote author=dave-o link=topic=2798.msg33214#msg33214
date=1723547620]
> Thanks, is there anything akin to a FOI request in regards to
county court cases?
>
--- End Quote ---
You could submit a FOI request to HMCTS for all cases between
certain dates where UKPC (for example) were the claimants and
which were subsequently withdrawn. I don’t know if that data
will be held or readily available. It also won’t show the reason
why each case was withdrawn.
[/quote]
I may be thinking along the wrong lines, but I would request all
of the cases (limited by date but not status), and their
ultimate resolution. The intent would be to show that (e.g.)
99% of their claims are discontinued.
#Post#: 33225--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 13, 2024, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The issue is that discontinued can cover a number of
circumstances, e.g. settled between the parties.
#Post#: 33228--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: August 13, 2024, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> The issue is that discontinued can cover a number of
circumstances, e.g. settled between the parties.
>
--- End Quote ---
Understood, so do you think this would be a pointless exercise
then?
#Post#: 33245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: August 13, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It depends on the granularity of detail HMCTS holds. In my
experience (limited in respect of the English courts) the court
often won’t know why a case has been withdrawn.
#Post#: 33246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: August 13, 2024, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I may do this anyway, as a test. What would you suggest is a
reasonable time period, in order to get enough data to make a
qualified analysis, while not being unreasonable myself?
Can anyone confirm what UKPC's name is specifically when stated
on papers as a claimant? e.g. First Parking is stated as "First
Parking LLP".
#Post#: 33257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 13, 2024, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UK Parking Control Ltd I believe.
I've sent a couple of FOIs about their (and other companies')
antics in court before, and whenever the question has contained
any level of detail I've been refused on cost grounds, with them
claiming they'd need someone to manually look at each claim for
details.
They couldn't even tell me the number of claims initiated for
most parking companies, saying they don't store this in an
easily accessible format (which surprised me), they could only
tell me the numbers for Civil Enforcement Ltd, UKPC, and
ParkingEye, as these were their 3 'bulk customers', whatever
that means.
I'm away at the moment but once back I can ping you across the
details of the couple I've sent, to avoid you making a repeat
request.
#Post#: 40952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Why Are DCB (etc.) Not Considered Vexatious?
DIR By: dave-o
Date: October 16, 2024, 3:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to reopen this discussion, due to something B789 posted in
another thread:
--- Quote ---
> Under CPR Part 38.3(1), the claimant must serve the Notice of
Discontinuance on the defendant, but if this is not done, it
could be seen as unreasonable behaviour. The defendant may then
argue under CPR 27.14(2)(g) that the claimant's failure to
notify the discontinuance caused unnecessary time, effort, or
costs to be incurred. This should open the door for the court to
order costs against the claimant, even in a small claims case,
where costs are usually limited.
>
> If the claimant's failure to serve the notice resulted in you
unnecessarily preparing for a case that has been discontinued,
you can apply to the court to seek costs for wasted preparation
time, citing the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
--- End Quote ---
After my case was discontinued, I was advised to ask for a NoD.
I don't dispute that this is good advice, but considering the
above, wouldn't it be better not to help the scammer? Should we
not leave it up to them to forget to serve the NoD so that we
could potentially cost them some money if they don't?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page