CEL ANPR PCN - POPLA unsuccessful -PAPLOC - Now Claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park, London SE5 8RW - paid have receipt too! ***Claim Discontinued***

[AndyOrch]

Its the claimants responsibility to serve Notice of Discontinuance on the the other party.

[FTMDave]

Have a read of the last page of this thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/454769-ukpc-court-claim-crownhill-retail-park-pl6-5us-no-parking-claim-discontinued/page/2/#google_vignette

 

This is what DCBL are supposed to do when discontinuing, so it's worth ringing them.

[Annabooo]

Well well well. The court has emailed me back today and said: 

"I can confirm that the case has been discontinued by the Claimant. I attach a copy of the Notice of Discontinuance for your records. Therefore the hearing on the 14th is now longer needed and the court file is closed."

My case has been discontinued since mid June. They never sent me the N279! Bet they did it on purpose to keep me hanging and lead me on to think that it is still going ahead. Wasted my time preparing the Witness Statements and sending it over to the court. Glad I reached out to the court even though they were slow. Didn't want to waste my time turning up for no reason. 

Guys, I would like to say a big Thank You for all your support, I wouldn't have gotten this far without you guys. 

 

 

J9KF2G8V N279 - Notice of Discontinuance.pdf

[FTMDave]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

[honeybee13]

Brilliant. Well done you and all the advisers. 

HB

[Annabooo]

I am so lucky to have found this site and you guys have been so wonderful and amazing. 

Where can I donate please???? I would like to give back to you guys. 

[dx100uk]

hit donate in your post.....

[Nicky Boy]

Congratulations!

And spread the word among your friends about the site...

[Annabooo]

@Nicky BoyYes definitely! 

I have now made the donations. 

Thank you all, wish you all the best. 

Take care!! 

[lookinforinfo]

I am so pleased to hear your result.No doubt you are too, frustrating though the last few weeks have been. DCBL seem to make a habit of discontinuing  days before cases are due to come to Court.

[brassnecked]

Excellent DCBL looking ever more like a cowboy outfit.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[Annabooo]

Hello All, 

I have finally received the N279 from DCBL through the post today. 

The N279 sent to the court was signed back in 12th June.

The N279 sent to me by post was signed by another person on the 2nd August which I have received today 9th August (5 days before the actual court date). 

I believe DCBL/CEL deliberately sent it to me so late to lead me on to believe the court case will still go ahead. 

Just want to say better to get in touch with the court to find out the progress of the claim. 

All the best. 

Thank you CAG again for all your help. 

 

N279 Discontinance.pdf

[FTMDave]

Once again, congratulations on standing up to these charlatans - and winning.

Thanks also for reporting back.  Your experience will help & encourage others to not give in.

As DCBL are solicitors, I suggest you complain about them to the SRA  https://www.sra.org.uk

We know the SRA will do Foxtrot Oscar, but it will be some hassle for DCBL who will have to explain themselves, and maybe possibly perhaps if eventually enough people complain the SRA might move their little finger.

 

[Annabooo]

Thank you @FTMDave

I will complain to SRA! That is a good suggestion. 

[Annabooo]

Hello All, 

I have complained to SRA as suggested and today have had a response, took them 3 months to reply and I had to chase and follow up: 

I write further to my email of 26 October 2023 and can confirm that I have now considered all the information and evidence provided by both you and DCB Legal Ltd and that I have come to a decision.

Your concerns

I can see that you had raised concerns about the firm’s conduct when they were acting on behalf of their client Civil Enforcement Limited in respect of proceedings in the county court. In particularly, a Notice of Discontinuance was sent to the court on 23 June 2023, which was signed by K Hinton, in which it was stated “I certify that I have served a copy of this notice on every other party to the proceedings”. On 2 August 2023, a second Notice of Discontinuance was filed and served and this was received by you on 9 August 2023. You had alleged that a false statement was made in the Notice of Discontinuance dated 12 June 2023, since a copy of the Notice was not served upon you, contrary to Ms XXXX statement on that Notice.

We have not seen any information to suggest the firm has behaved unethically which we need to investigate

It is understandable that you would have concerns that a statement was made in the original Notice of Discontinuance that you were served with a copy of the Notice when this was not the case. An allegation of misleading the court, requires evidence to suggest that the firm or individual knew at the time of the statement was made that they were aware that this wasn’t the case.

However, the firm has confirmed that in this case, due to a technical and administrative error, that only one copy of the Notice of Discontinuance was sent to the Court by email and the copy for service on you was not sent out due to a system error. They have explained that as a firm, they use a postal service provider and despite a request for the notice and a covering letter to be sent for printing and posting by the postal service provider being raised on 12 June 2023, due to a technical issue, the letter was not sent out. They say that the case management system is set to serve both parties (the Court by email and the Defendant by post via the postal service provider) to ensure compliance with the CPR, but on this occasion, it appears it did not function as expected. They say that the file handler appears to have completed the actions correctly on the case management system, so it appears that this is a case of a genuine administrative error when the data was sent to the postal service provider for posting. They say that upon the Court contacting them on 1 August 2023, and of their being made aware of an issue with the Notice of Discontinuance not having reached the Court file, they revisited the file and to err on the side of caution, and to ensure compliance with the CPR, they filed and served a new notice of discontinuance.

Although it is understandable that you would have concerns, mistakes are sometimes made and, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the firm deliberately attempted to mislead the court and therefore acted unethically, in breach of our rules.

I am sorry that we have not been able to help further on this occasion.   

I find this very hard to believe. I strongly believe the court would not have contacted the claimant on the 1st August if they didn't receive their Notice of Discontinuance because by then it would have been too late because they didn't pay the court fee and the case would have been a 'Struck Out'. On the 1st August, the Court sent me their Notice of Discontinuance which they already have on file so no need to contact the claimant also.

All Rubbish but enjoy reading! 

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Annabooo

[lookinforinfo]

Well done for trying. And although we might never know, perhaps the next person who complains that they didn't receive their NoD at the right time might get a different letter than the whitewash you received.

[FTMDave]

Yes, well done with at least causing DCBL hassle and forcing them to scurry around and make up some ridiculous excuse.

[brassnecked]

Anything that causes hassle for them and their solicitors is worthwhile.

[BazzaS]

On 03/11/2023 at 17:21, Annabooo said:

Hello All, 

I have complained to SRA as suggested and today have had a response, took them 3 months to reply and I had to chase and follow up: 

I write further to my email of 26 October 2023 and can confirm that I have now considered all the information and evidence provided by both you and DCB Legal Ltd and that I have come to a decision.

Your concerns

I can see that you had raised concerns about the firm’s conduct when they were acting on behalf of their client Civil Enforcement Limited in respect of proceedings in the county court. In particularly, a Notice of Discontinuance was sent to the court on 23 June 2023, which was signed by K Hinton, in which it was stated “I certify that I have served a copy of this notice on every other party to the proceedings”. On 2 August 2023, a second Notice of Discontinuance was filed and served and this was received by you on 9 August 2023. You had alleged that a false statement was made in the Notice of Discontinuance dated 12 June 2023, since a copy of the Notice was not served upon you, contrary to Ms XXXX statement on that Notice.

We have not seen any information to suggest the firm has behaved unethically which we need to investigate

It is understandable that you would have concerns that a statement was made in the original Notice of Discontinuance that you were served with a copy of the Notice when this was not the case. An allegation of misleading the court, requires evidence to suggest that the firm or individual knew at the time of the statement was made that they were aware that this wasn’t the case.

However, the firm has confirmed that in this case, due to a technical and administrative error, that only one copy of the Notice of Discontinuance was sent to the Court by email and the copy for service on you was not sent out due to a system error. They have explained that as a firm, they use a postal service provider and despite a request for the notice and a covering letter to be sent for printing and posting by the postal service provider being raised on 12 June 2023, due to a technical issue, the letter was not sent out. They say that the case management system is set to serve both parties (the Court by email and the Defendant by post via the postal service provider) to ensure compliance with the CPR, but on this occasion, it appears it did not function as expected. They say that the file handler appears to have completed the actions correctly on the case management system, so it appears that this is a case of a genuine administrative error when the data was sent to the postal service provider for posting. They say that upon the Court contacting them on 1 August 2023, and of their being made aware of an issue with the Notice of Discontinuance not having reached the Court file, they revisited the file and to err on the side of caution, and to ensure compliance with the CPR, they filed and served a new notice of discontinuance.

Although it is understandable that you would have concerns, mistakes are sometimes made and, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that the firm deliberately attempted to mislead the court and therefore acted unethically, in breach of our rules.

I am sorry that we have not been able to help further on this occasion.   

 

 

"Many thanks for this update. However, it raises more questions than it does answers. If their case management system allowed them to file the copy with the court only (and not serve me with a copy), with the case management system not highlighting the error : how many other cases might be impacted by the same issue?. The issue sounds like it is a failure of their case management system.

Have DCBL (as responsible legal professionals, with a duty to act in a manner that upholds the public's confidence in legal professionals) undertaken a 'look back' exercise to identify the scale of the system failure, and if there are other litigants affected, a wider scale investigation to identify ALL such litigants and ensure they have been updated (correcting the errors)?." "How long has this error been in existence? Have DCBL done a 'scoping exercise' to determine how long the error has been in existence and how far back they need to look?"

Copy in and complain to the Legal Ombudsman. If DCBL want to blame a systems error, let them take the consequences that come with that : then they'll have to do loads of work to identify if anyone else was affected by "the systems error", and inform the LO what they have done to identify the effects of the 'systems error', how long the error has been present, and the mitigation actions.

"Play silly games, win silly prizes"!.

Edited November 5, 2023 by BazzaS

[lookinforinfo]

Never thought I would see DCBL and the words responsible legal professionals in the same sentence.

[BazzaS]

Some might say that. I couldn't possibly comment!

[Annabooo]

OMG that is so true.

I will reply to SRA with what you had mentioned and will let them know I will now take it further.

SRA thinks they can just brush me off just like that.

I will also look into making a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman so I can give them more hassle like what they did to me! 

I am so disappointed with all parties involved, DVLA, CEL, DCBL and now SRA.

Felt they like are all brushing me off and tried to scam me.

No wonder why most people just give in. 

Hopefully the Ombudsman will take this seriously, but let's see!

I have learnt so much going through this and thank you to this group for your great support.  

I will keep this thread updated with the outcome!

[dx100uk]

open

 

[dx100uk]

i notice you've sent a reported post stating you have a new PAPLOC from CEL this time NOT DCBL

On 17/08/2021 at 16:08, Annabooo said:

First notification was to my husband as he is the owner of the car.

I thought I did the right thing and appealed (as stated in their letter) to say I have paid for the parking and sent them my receipt and explained I may have entered the registration slightly wrong (entered II instead of 11) which is why I got the charge

Expected to hear back within 14 days from the appeal (as stated) but received another invoice but in my name this time 17 days later after the appeal. 

could this new letter of claim be for the org PCN that your hubby got and not the one you got (if they were different PCN numbers??)

carefully check the PCN number on the Claimform the court sent you... is it the same as this New CEL PAPLOC?

dx