DCBL query
-
ChinaPlate
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 06 Dec 2019 11:06
DCBL query
When a client instructs DCBL (specifically) and they ambush with a Writ, which is later stayed pending an appeal on the judgement, who pays the fees DCBL tried to impose upon the debtor?
Re: DCBL query
The creditor -
whose name is on the form N293 transfer application from the County Court to the High Court for enforcement.
It creates lots of acrimony between bailiffs and their clients when a writ is overturned, or they make a detailed assessment award.
With a detailed assessment, the creditor also lands the solicitors fees of the debtor bringing the detailed assessment application.
But the creditor can recover his costs against the indemnity insurance policy for the bailiff company because the fee error is theirs.
With DCBL, I don't think they have indemnity insurance. In a claim against Channel 5, the court made an interim order for DCBL to produce evidence of insurance, but they did not produce.
It's not a legal requirement for bailiffs to have Insurance (except for a £10,000 bond lodged with the court), but clients and debtors need greater protection from errant bailiffs.
whose name is on the form N293 transfer application from the County Court to the High Court for enforcement.
It creates lots of acrimony between bailiffs and their clients when a writ is overturned, or they make a detailed assessment award.
With a detailed assessment, the creditor also lands the solicitors fees of the debtor bringing the detailed assessment application.
But the creditor can recover his costs against the indemnity insurance policy for the bailiff company because the fee error is theirs.
With DCBL, I don't think they have indemnity insurance. In a claim against Channel 5, the court made an interim order for DCBL to produce evidence of insurance, but they did not produce.
It's not a legal requirement for bailiffs to have Insurance (except for a £10,000 bond lodged with the court), but clients and debtors need greater protection from errant bailiffs.
-
ChinaPlate
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 06 Dec 2019 11:06
Re: DCBL query
that is interesting, and a detailed response. Thank you.
A further thought came to me;
A judgement was entered in the defendants absence, but this was appealed. The court made a judgement ordering transcripts of the hearing. The case sat at the pre-appeal stage for 2-3 years. The claimant did not progress the claim. County Court Bailiffs attempted to enforce the judgement but this was rebuffed due to the case being held on appeal. Action from the County Court enforcement division ceased at that point.
The claimant then (almost two years later) privately instructed DCBL to again enforce the judgement, but ultimately failed as the case remains on appeal without a hearing date; as a result and once made aware of this fact, the writ was stayed by the Court.
So one could argue that's quite a masterful dupe on DCBL by the claimant, though one which has come back to haunt them!
But surely this is also a dupe of the High Court, resulting in them issuing a writ on a judgement that is stayed pending appeal (they clearly did not check their own files and simply rubber stamped the writ). Courts do not like to be made a fool of, that much is clear...elsewhere online suggestions are that this could be contempt of court (and High Court no less).
In any event, the defendant has made an application to strike out the case due to the claimant pursuing action outside of the court process, bringing the court into disrepute and attempting to pervert the course of justice before waiting for the conclusion of proceedings.
A further thought came to me;
A judgement was entered in the defendants absence, but this was appealed. The court made a judgement ordering transcripts of the hearing. The case sat at the pre-appeal stage for 2-3 years. The claimant did not progress the claim. County Court Bailiffs attempted to enforce the judgement but this was rebuffed due to the case being held on appeal. Action from the County Court enforcement division ceased at that point.
The claimant then (almost two years later) privately instructed DCBL to again enforce the judgement, but ultimately failed as the case remains on appeal without a hearing date; as a result and once made aware of this fact, the writ was stayed by the Court.
So one could argue that's quite a masterful dupe on DCBL by the claimant, though one which has come back to haunt them!
But surely this is also a dupe of the High Court, resulting in them issuing a writ on a judgement that is stayed pending appeal (they clearly did not check their own files and simply rubber stamped the writ). Courts do not like to be made a fool of, that much is clear...elsewhere online suggestions are that this could be contempt of court (and High Court no less).
In any event, the defendant has made an application to strike out the case due to the claimant pursuing action outside of the court process, bringing the court into disrepute and attempting to pervert the course of justice before waiting for the conclusion of proceedings.