Which bit about "stop panicking" was not clear?. Well done for persevering and following the advice.
Whilst the claim is discontinued, you can have the last say and put DCB Legal under pressure and if you really want, try to get costs for their unreasonable behaviour.
The N279 is defective because it has been signed by someone who is not authorised to conduct litigation and does not include their full name. Conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under section 12 and Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007, permitted only to authorised persons (or those with a specific exemption).
If an employee (e.g., a paralegal) conducts litigation without being authorised or exempt, even under supervision, the consequences can include:
• Criminal liability: carrying on a reserved legal activity when not entitled is a criminal offence. Supervision does not make it lawful. There is a limited defence of lack of knowledge, but it is narrow.
• Procedural irregularity: any step taken (e.g., filing or signing a court document) is defective and must be cured by an authorised person. The court can require re-filing, disregard the step, or make other case-management orders.
• Costs exposure against the party: on the small claims track the court may, in its discretion, award the defendant’s costs for unreasonable conduct if the defect caused unnecessary work or expense.
• Wasted costs against representatives: the court may make a wasted costs order against the firm or those responsible if the conduct was improper, unreasonable, or negligent and caused unnecessary costs.
• Regulatory action: the firm and supervisors may face regulatory scrutiny for failures of compliance and supervision. The individual cannot retroactively acquire the right to validate the act.
• If a statement of truth is involved: making or causing a false or non-compliant statement of truth can amount to contempt of court, with serious sanctions.
Bottom line: supervision by a solicitor does not authorise an unqualified employee to conduct litigation. Any such step must be remedied and can lead to criminal, regulatory, and costs consequences.
You should now send the following by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim ref] – N279 signed by paralegal: authority to conduct litigation and signature validity
Dear Sir/Madam,
I note that the Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) filed/served in this matter has been signed by a paralegal and the signature block identifies the signatory only as “J. Hammond”. Please confirm by return:
1. whether the signatory is an “authorised person” for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 with rights to conduct litigation (and provide their SRA/CILEX number and current practising status); or, if not,
2. the precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 LSA 2007 that permits them to conduct litigation and sign the N279 in this matter (enclosing the sealed court order or specific enactment relied upon, if applicable).
For the avoidance of doubt, filing/serving an N279 is conduct of litigation and, following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (2025), unqualified employees may support but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt. Further, PD 22 requires the name of the person signing to be stated; an initial plus surname does not adequately identify the individual for verification of authorisation. Please therefore confirm the steps you will take to remedy any irregularity, including (as applicable) filing and serving a compliant N279 personally signed and clearly printed with the signatory’s full name by an authorised person, and your position on costs arising from the defect.
For the avoidance of doubt, if the N279 has been signed by a person not authorised (or exempt) to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007, or if it must be re-filed/served to identify and correct the signatory’s full name and status, I will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I, as a litigant in person, will invite the Court, in its discretion, to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs caused by your firm’s irregular conduct (and, if appropriate, consider wasted costs against representatives).
Absent confirmation, I reserve the right to raise this with the Court and the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[full name]
[postal address]
[email]
Please let us know the response you receive.
You are now waiting for an acknowledgement from the CNBC that you defence was received and a copy was sent to the claimant. You will also probably receive a letter from the claimant stating that they have received a copy of your defence and that their client intends to proceed. All part of the process.
Next you will receive (possibly with the claimants confirmation that they intend to proceed) a copy of their N180 Directions Questionnaire.
Please check your MCOL history shows that your defence was received.
When you receive the claimants N180, follow these instructions:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
With an issue date of 11th March, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st March to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 14th April to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of National Parking Control Group Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
National Parking Control Group Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather
than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)