DVLA case struck out

[ukdickie31]

DVLA sent me a LLP in Dec 2008 for a car I scrapped in september 2008.

 

I had sent the V5 and tax refund request in the same envelope. I received the tax refund and thought nothing more of it until 3 months later when a LLP came though asking for £40, rising to £80 if not paid within 4 weeks.

 

I have been lurking on this forum since and reading with interest the many messages of support and advice to others going through similar issues and they all gave me a focus and heart to fight the matter.

 

I complained - they replied that it was my fault for not chasing up the acknowledgement.

 

I asked for an ICE review - they refused but the Chief Exec sent my reply to the wrong address.

 

I complained to the Information Commisioner and the Chief Exec of DVLA agreed to refer my case to ICE.

 

In July 2009 ICE made a recommendation that DVLA 'give me the benefit of the doubt' and that I was "clearly an honest motorist." ICE also explained that DVLA may choose to ignore her recommendation - they duly did and advised me that they would see me in court. (what's the point of having a complaint system and an independent case examiner that gets refused??).

 

Well, in December 2009 I had my first Court Papers. I wrote back saying I wished to defend.

 

DVLA missed the deadline for returning their papers - reminder sent and 2 week extension or it will be struck out. They responded on the very last day.

 

Hearing fee was then payable.

 

They did not send it in on time, reminder sent a 2 week entension. By the end of May they had not paid the fee.

 

Today I have received a letter that HM Courts have srtuck out the DVLA's claim against me.

 

DVLA have made error upon error throughout. They may not have liked me to face them in Court armed with evidence from my Building Society copy of Road Tax cheque they sent me, Incorrect letters from their Chief Exec, Information Commisioner letter to DVLA for breaching Data Protection when sending my letters to the wrong address and a history of missed deadlines with HMCS.

 

All in all DVLA are a Shambles.

 

 

Can DVLA re-appy to make a Court Case against me?

[Bookworm]

Nope, and it if were me, I'd apply for a wasted costs order from the courts.

[ukdickie31]

I find it so annoying that they intimidate, threaten and when faced with the "I'll defend" they bottle it !!

 

They have also paid some court costs but not the hearing fee so it's the Taxpayer that's losing.

[Bookworm]

So claim your costs from them! You presumably spent hours and stationary, printing ink, researching and preparing for defending, why should they get away with that?

[buzby]

You cannot claims costs if you've not been to court. 8)

 

This is why it is imperative in any action that you do not agree to any 'court steps' settlement as it is entered as either a 'vacation' or 'abandonment' and as such no costs are awarded, UNLESS you ask the judge at the time, as part of your agreement to their cessation.

 

Unfortunately, as they failed all along the line, and didn't pay for the action to proceed, you cannot also seek to have your costs reimbursed.

[Bookworm]

Oh yes you can. They haven't withdrawn, the judge struck it out!

[Mossycat]

Oh yes you can. They haven't withdrawn, the judge struck it out!

 

Spot on advice

 

Bookworm is 100% correct

 

Mossy

[MARTIN3030]

[buzby]

OK then. Just tell me how you can ask the judge to make a costs order since the case didn't take place?

 

If England allows 'after the event' costs I'd be most surprised, indeed amazed. ALL applications for costs are applied for at the disposition stage. Through a technicality, (no formal hearing) the applicant has no ability to influence or request costs.

 

Since costs are a material consideration, do explain how someone who has not attended court can arrange for their 'costs' to be met? If the answer is to 'send an invoice' to the pursuer, this isn't relevant.

[Bookworm]

Read and learn:

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/143-wasted-costs-order-

 

Adapt for cases other than bank charges, obviously, but the principle is still the same.

[buzby]

Oh that? I haven't stopped laughing yet!

 

Of the 28 cases I have been in court (where wasted costs were applied for) only 2 were successful, and it was a socilitor (not a LIP) who managed it.

 

The judge was happy to allow CONSIDERABLE leeway to the defending banks, especially in view of the ongoing stays that were being allowed prior to the OPT's abandonment. I agree. that this does not address those appeals by correspondence, which as they are not heard in open court, would not be publicly known. But rather than tell me about what can be applied for, some indication as how many applications or percentage of success of those that have actually been upheld, would be far more useful, to everyone.

 

Rarely is it the judge who dealt with the case who reviews a subsequent order request for wasted costs, it will be up to a senior clerk to decide, and believe me they don't like to rock the boat.

 

So, returning form fairyland - if you want any reasonable chance of success you have to go the distance AND back it up. Not pluck a figure out of the air and expect a return. You make it to cout, latches and despatches count, claim your dues. If you don't getting it down the line is no walk in the park.

[Bookworm]

Research it yourself. CAG has got plenty of threads on the subject where people got their costs awarded, if you think I am going to do the search for you just to prove you wrong, you're mistaken.

 

Please stop turning every other thread in a p****g contest, it is very tedious. Ultimately, OP can do his own research and decide for himself what he wants to do. What you think.... who cares?

[ukdickie31]

OP here.

 

Interesting debate.

 

To be honest, I just want to be sure it's all over. I was ready to go to Court, was fully prepared to present my evidence (in the knowledge they had none) and also shame them in Court for all their failings.

 

It's just one less thing to worry about.

 

Just goes to show DVLA don't want to go to Court. If you have done everything as you should have done, don't pay ! Let them take you to Court.

[buzby]

I don't thnik it is a reluctance to 'go to court' more than a pragmatic evaluation of whether it would be cost-effective to do so. If they need to instruct some out of town (Swansea?) firm to represent them, the cost to them of winning (and losing) would be calculated. A one-off would be a no-no, but a day of similar actions would be a worthwhile punt (assuming all were similar and they felt they were on solid ground - rather than make it up as they go along).

 

Bookworm believes that all 'wasted costs' orders are made via CAG and would be reported in this way, which is why doing any research on CAG would be futile and not representative either). However, even if this was done, the statistics if pro-rata over the number of applications for a WCO would be even less encouraging.

 

Since the DVLA use bluff and bluster, the best advice it to call their bluff, advising a full defence will be prepared for any action contemplated, and you would be seeking your full costs. (Note, this is much easier as you don't have to hope the judge believes their actions to be vexatious - all you have to do is win, (and by that NOT accept an offer to abandon outside the court on the day - unless their duty solicitor agrees with you in WRITING to pay your costs up to your appearance in court).

 

This way, your costs are assured - and you don't need to rely on anyone else having to take your 'side'.