KUICK CAR HIRE LTD wrongly used my Details - Hit and Run and MCOL Claim **STRUCK OUT**

[Bergy10]

I spoke with him a few days ago briefly but he was busy. We spoke again yesterday when he filled me in. I want to speak with him again today or tomorrow to ask exactly what they did to resolve those parking tickets they transferred to his name. Might be over the weekend though before I can speak to him about it.

 

In the meantime, I don't think the owner sent the DQ to the courts as I have just received the following letter. Don't know if he realised that he was to send it to the court rather than just myself.

 

2022-06-07 GFOJ_OR_ORDER _ claimant not sent court N180.pdf

[BankFodder]

I see that you have completed your DQ.

I can't remember whether I made a recommendation about claiming litigant in person costs. I suppose I should have suggested that you mention this on the DQ

 

Of course they may well file their DQ.  

In case they do and the case proceeds then I would suggest that you get your contact to complete a witness statement. Here is a suggested model.

Quote

Name of case XXX (claimant) and XXX (defendant)

County Court XXX
claim number XXX

Witness statement of XXX name of witness XXX

 

1. My name is XXX. I am XXX years old and I live at XXX. I work as a XXX
2. On XXX date I rented a XXX make/model motorcar registration number XXX from XXX company.
3. The rental period lasted for XXX days
4. I returned the vehicle to XXX company on XXX date.
5. I had not incurred any parking fines or any other penalties relating to any incident involving this motorcar during my period of car hire.
6. In the following XXX weeks/months I'm surprised to start receiving notifications of parking offences/infringements in my name and apparently using the vehicle which I had previously hired but returned.
7. I approached XXX company, the hire company and raise the matter with them.
8. They agreed that they had they had rented the vehicle registration number XXX out to one/two/three customers who had committed parking infringements at various car parks and they had given my name as the hire of the vehicle when approached by the parking authorities.
9. I asked them to resolve the matter and they said that they would.
10. Since having spoken with them I have not received any further warnings or notifications of parking infringements and so I believe that the matter has been cleared up although I have not checked.

Statement of truth

Dated

Signed

 

I would say that it is worth getting this done just in case you have got it stored away. Also you should ask him if he has any documents relating to his hire of the vehicle and also any of the documents relating to the tickets that he received. If he does have any documents then it would be good idea to get copies and to reference them in this statement

Finally, you should warn him that these things don't necessarily go away on their own even if he has been told that it is sorted out. If this company has passes details to a parking company or to a public authority, then although everything might seem fine now, he may suddenly find that he will have letters arriving on his doorstep.

He may well want to come to us for help – but for the moment, he will be wise to send the hire company an SAR - and also keep an eye on his credit file. You too

 

It's a shame that it probably will take an application notice to vary the order because it would be quite reasonable to ask the judge to include an order that in the event that they don't comply, given the unreasonable nature of their litigation that you should be awarded litigant in person costs. At 18 quid an hour, it might be quite nice because it would include all of the preparation work that you have put in which you could reasonably estimate at 10 hours, I would have thought.

Unfortunately it will probably cost you 200 quid to ask for it although you would get that back

[Bergy10]

I did not realise there was a section on the DQ to even mention in person litigant costs. But no worries, it is what it is.

 

For your second post, I'll ask the the other person whether he still has the documents and parking tickets, and whether he has anyy communication with the hire company regarding this. I'll also ask him to fill out the witness statement above.

 

For the order notice, will the court not penalise Kuick, if it deems that the claimant was committing fraudulent activities by using my details and naming me as the hirer, and subsequently made a claim that was not based on any truth? I don't mind not getting any money as long as they are sanctioned somehow for their behaviour.

[BankFodder]

I haven't looked at the DQ for some time but they used to be somewhere where you could ask for orders or particular directions from the judge.

A witness statement I've suggested may look rather forbidding to him but it would be the best way to do it. As the you will need to amend it to suit the circumstances which actually happened and you will have to get a copy of the statement of truth and add it to the bottom of the statement.

No if the claimant struck out then that will be the end of the matter. On the other hand, we can take it further by bringing a claim under the data protection act. What's happened to your SAR at the moment? I've lost track
if they haven't complied with the SAR and also if you can show that they have been guilty of inaccurate processing then I think there is a good basis for winning a claim for distress for more than £600 which means we could put the High Court enforcement officers in for a bit of sport
 

Your contact could do the same thing as well. Tell him to come here

[Bergy10]

No worries. I just filled in the DQ similar to how we did it in a friend's defence against a private parking company parking ticket.

 

I'll try to speak to the other person by the end of the week and depending on what he tells me I'll update the statement and share it here for comment. If that looks good then I'll send it back to him to see if the form captures what had happened to him and if so to then sign and date it and share a copy of it with me.

 

That's unfortunate if the courts do not take some sort of action against companies and people who make frivolous claims based on false declarations of truth.

 

With regards to the SAR, we have not received a response to the SAR aside from that rude email they sent in early May. We waited for the one month deadline to pass and then submitted another email that you kindly drafted reminding Kuick that they are required to comply with the SAR and that if they fail to do so we will proceed to take them to court. This was sent on the 1st of June.

[BankFodder]

In terms of the DQ, it's a shame that you didn't ask us for help at the time because we might have suggested litigant in person costs. I think I've already mentioned to you that you should keep a closer engagement with this thread seeing as you are taking advice from us. It seems a bit strange then to go off and do it alone.

 

I suggest that we see what happens with this case and if they don't complete the DQ and if the case is struck out then we will look at attacking them under the data protection act. It may give you a bit of satisfaction and also produce a few quid.

 

I suggest that you  advise your friend to come along here as well.

 

I think what these people are doing can have extraordinarily serious consequences for individuals who don't have the kind of help that they get on this forum.

 

[Bergy10]

I did mention that I submitted the Defence and have received an update on MCOL that the DQ had been sent out to me to fill out. There wasn't a response to that post for a few weeks and I believed the reason for this is because the DQ seemed straightforward enough first time I helped a friend with it that you guys thought it wasn't necessary.  Apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

 

By the way, the case I was helping my friend out with did have a request to include costs but that was included in the Defence rather than the DQ. No problem anyways, as long as we can stop these people from their fake claim, that's all that matters.

 

I'll speak to the other person by the end of this week hopefully. He's not a friend by the way, we just have overlapping social circles. I'll advise him to join the forum.

 

Indeed you're right. These guys are definitely out of order. Any help you can give to anyone else who has had their information used without their permission will be extremely helpful.

 

Also, apparently the son has been fired in the last couple months and a young woman now works with the father. Someone who recently hired a vehicle from them just informed me of that.

 

Oh by the way, I've just checked the MCOL page, and it turns out they have on record the following

 

"A claim was issued against you on 06/04/2021

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 15/04/2021 at 20:00:54

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 16/04/2021 at 08:07:21

Your defence was received on 10/05/2021

DQ sent to you on 10/05/2021

You filed a DQ on 02/06/2021

General sanctions order was made on 07/06/2021"

 

However I emailed CCBAQ on May 25th with my DQ response and have the auto confirmation email from them that they have received my email. I don't know why the DQ is therefore being recorded as being filed on the 2nd June. It should be either May 25th or, if sent after 4pm, May 26th.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Bergy10

[BankFodder]

I suppose that it is a processing lag.

As long as they have it - that's the important thing

[dx100uk]

open

 

dx

[Bergy10]

Hey guys. Hope everyone is good. Just as an update.

 

I've been given a date of Nov 1st for the hearing. Meantime I have struggled to get the guy who told me they did something similar to to make a statement. Apparently he was worried about being called a snitch or something as if he was sending someone to prison. Stupid mentality but it is what it is.

 

Anyways I've continued to push this along. Was getting ready to prepare my witness statement and have just been sent a letter by the court saying the claim has been struck and the hearing vacated because the claimant did not pay the court fee.

 

I'm pretty sure it's because they don't have any evidence aside from that forged rental agreement, despite them claiming they have video and photo evidence of my inspection of the car.

 

Anyways apparently they can still pay it within 7 days to get it set aside, varied or stayed, whatever any of that means.

 

Dunno what this means for the case. Is it over, or should I still expect something to happen.

Edited October 10, 2021 by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue

[dx100uk]

you won!!

 

end of.

 

well done

 

dx

 

[Bergy10]

Really? Thanks man, much appreciated for everyone here who helped get me here. Your support has been been extremely valuable.

 

I was just worried what they meant by set aside, varied or stayed thinking these guys might be able to set things back in motion. Buy yeah, if it's done then I'm over the moon. Thanks again.

[BankFodder]

Well they could apply to set aside the strike out but it is unlikely. However, the courts are notoriously inefficient and I would telephone the courts once a week just to double check – including in the couple of days before the date of the schedule hearing.

In terms of the statement which your witness wouldn't give you, this is not unusual. It is always important to get a statement as early on as possible. The best thing to do is to help the person put the statement together and always do it immediately when the person offers to make a statement. Don't leave it until later because by that time they will have had time to reflect for their friends may tell them that they shouldn't get involved.

Get a statement while the issue is hot and the potential statement maker doesn't have time to reflect and to withdraw.

Earlier on I set out a draft of an ideal statement. However if this seems too formal and it puts people off then simply a few sentences in their own words and signed by them will be fine.
Even if they won't sign it, if you can get a few lines in their own writing and make sure it is dated, that would be better than nothing

[Bergy10]

Thanks pal.

 

You know when you say keep phoning until the date of the original hearing, as it's been vacated, I was assuming it would be another date if they put it back on the table. Or would it continue on the same date.

 

Also regarding the witness statement, is it still required to be sent on the same date as originally required if they get it set aside, varied or stayed (I'm still not sure what these mean fully). Or would the process start from the needing the court to send a new letter with a new hearing date and submission of WS date?

 

Yeah, it's unfortunate. To be honest he was hesitate from the start even though they used his details to pin some PCNs on him but they eventually sorted it out so maybe he feels like he's on on terms with them. I can try push him again and ask him to take the text you sent and just change it a bit. It's been a little while since he said was unsure about doing it.

[BankFodder]

If it is set aside the new date will be set up for everything.

I'm only saying that you should telephone regularly to doublecheck because although the courts are very nice, they make some bad mistakes now and then.

 

"Stayed" means that the action is suspended.

 

"Varied" simply means that the court has modified the order. These wouldn't apply. The action has simply been struck out that they've given them a bit of time to appeal against that order.

 

I wouldn't bother trouble witness for the moment unless the strikeout is set aside.

[Bergy10]

He guys. So court date was originally meant to be 1st of November. Until now there has been no further letters and the court said they have not received any applications for a set aside, variance or stay but that they can do so at any time, even months and months later.

 

When I asked if they would have a weak case due to delays etc if there comes a time when they do apply for any of the above, they said each case would be judged by its merits.

[BankFodder]

Sorry, it has been so long – please could you summarise where you are with this and why there was a listing on 1 November.

 

[Bergy10]

The hearing date for their claim was meant to be on November 1st. They were claiming I was responsible for renting a vehicle from them and involved in an accident and were trying to charge 10k for excess charge + vehicle out of service charge and some other stuff.

 

In any case I never rented that car from them and they forged my signature on a hire agreement (probably copied from an old car I hired from them). They attempted to pretend it was me who rented the vehicle when the owners son was doing something dodgy. I SARed them and they refused to share any info and instead responded by saying they had video and pictures (which they couldn't possible have) and that they would see me in court.

 

So we proceeded, I knew they wouldn't have anything real because I did not rent the vehicle and aside from their forged document they couldn't possible have any video or photos of me taking the vehicle in question. We completed the defence, submitted a response to the DQ and then we're preparing for the witness statement when the court sent a letter saying the claim has been struck and the hearing vacated because the claimant did not pay the court fee. However they could apply within 7 days to have it set aside, varied or stayed. I believe they did not pay because they knew they'd lose.

 

I was advised here to keep phoning the court to see if there had been any update from the court on whether the claimant made any attempts to reinstate the case somehow and to keep following up until the court date. So nothing happened until that point, and the court said they received no applications however they said the claimant could apply to set aside, vary or stay the case even months later despite what it said on the letter which struck the claim.

 

So now I'm not sure whether I should keep following up or whether the matter is pretty much closed and I could forget about the whole thing.

[AndyOrch]

As the claim was struck out according to your letter (10th Oct ) post # 63 there was no Hearing of the 1st Nov.

[Bergy10]

On 14/11/2021 at 15:46, Andyorch said:

As the claim was struck out according to your letter (10th Oct ) post # 63 there was no Hearing of the 1st Nov.

Thanks, I understand that.

 

I was just told to keep an eye out for any response from the claimant to the courts until that date.

 

What I'm wondering now is if that's done and dusted or are they still able to revive the case at this point. And if so, are they negatively impacted by the missed payment deadline as well as the missed response deadline given in the letter striking out the claim.

 

is there any more need for me to be worrying about this, checking to see if there are any new letters from them or the courts, and whether I need to be following up with the court anymore.

[AndyOrch]

If they make an application for relief from sanctions and to set a side the strike out the court will serve you notice. The longer its left in abeyance its very unlikely or that it would be granted by the court.

[labrat]

Curiousity question from myself here

 

Isn't there a possibility of putting a claim in against the car place for improper processing of personal data?

 

I seem to remember this being done against parking firms a while back and being in the region of £750, in this case wouldn't it be reasonable to ask for more as it's resulted in extra costs relating to a vexious court case?

 

Apologies for the quick steal of the thread it was just a sudden thought

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

open

[Bergy10]

Been a while since I received any communication regarding the case so been trying to follow up with the court. Have not managed to get through to them as Willesden County court are the worst and never answer their phones, been trying for the last few weeks and being on hold for hours with no response. In the end emailed them and it seems there has been no further requests for applying for a stay, variation or anything.

 

Anyways I came on here to vent about the court when I saw the last post on the thread.

 

On 07/12/2021 at 14:39, labrat said:

Curiousity question from myself here

 

Isn't there a possibility of putting a claim in against the car place for improper processing of personal data?

 

I seem to remember this being done against parking firms a while back and being in the region of £750, in this case wouldn't it be reasonable to ask for more as it's resulted in extra costs relating to a vexious court case?

 

Apologies for the quick steal of the thread it was just a sudden thought

 

 

 

 

Was wondering about what the labrat wrote regarding making a claim back could work or better to leave well alone in case this sparks them to try reopening the case? I mean they'd lose anyways because they don't have the evidence they claim of me insoecting the vehicle because that never happened.

[dx100uk]

you mean starting a totally new claim about them unlawfully processing your data...could be worth about +£750 , the old claim is dead gone buried...and struck out.

 

you would need proof , they never replied to your SAR with docs, with the forged sig...?? so 1st stage would be failure of SAR court claim??

 

pers i'd just drop it.