Yes — at this point you’ve given DCB Legal every reasonable opportunity to confirm whether the signatory was authorised or exempt under the Legal Services Act 2007, and they have declined to engage with the substance. Their latest message effectively closes correspondence without addressing the statutory compliance question.
You can now proceed to the next stage without further reference to them, i.e.:
File a costs application or written request to the court (as outlined in the earlier draft) inviting the court to award your costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct, highlighting that DCB Legal ignored lawful requests for clarification of a reserved activity and provided a legally flawed excuse (“not implemented at the time”).
Report the matter to the SRA, enclosing the correspondence chain and explaining that DCB Legal’s employee signed an N279 without any verified authorisation or exemption and the firm refused to confirm compliance. Stress that this may amount to unauthorised conduct of litigation contrary to the LSA 2007 ss.12–14 and Sch 3.
Send the following to the court addressed to the Court Manager / District Judge:
Subject: Costs following Notice of Discontinuance signed by unverified paralegal
Re: [Claimant] v [Defendant] — Claim No. [Claim number]
Dear Sir/Madam / District Judge,
1. The Claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) on 8 September 2025 signed “L. Travis, Paralegal.” I queried whether the signatory was authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007 to conduct litigation or fell within a statutory exemption.
2. DCB Legal Ltd responded that because Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was decided after the discontinuance, it was “not implemented at the time.” That reasoning is legally unsustainable: the decision merely affirmed the pre-existing statutory position under sections 12–14 and Schedule 3 of the Act.
3. I reiterated the request for the signatory’s full name, capacity, and authorisation details. DCB Legal declined to engage further and now states the matter is “deemed concluded”. The question of whether the N279 was executed by an authorised or exempt person therefore remains unanswered.
4. Preparing, signing, filing or serving a Notice of Discontinuance constitutes the conduct of litigation, a reserved legal activity. Where undertaken by an unqualified person it amounts to unauthorised conduct contrary to section 14 of the Act. I have had to spend time pursuing clarification that should have been forthcoming immediately.
Application
Accordingly, I invite the Court to exercise its discretion under CPR 27.14(2)(g) to award my costs occasioned by this unreasonable conduct, namely:
| Description | Time (hrs) | Rate | Amount |
| Correspondence with DCB Legal | [x.xx] | £24.00 | £[ ] |
| Preparing this submission | [x.xx] | £24.00 | £[ ] |
| Postage / incidentals | | | £[ ] |
| Total | | | £[ ] |
Supporting documents:
• Copy N279 filed/served 08 Sept 2025
• My emails dated [dates] and DCB Legal’s replies dated [dates]
If the Court requires a formal N244, I am content to file one, but respectfully submit that the issue and quantum can be determined on the papers.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Send the following to the SRA at report@sra.org.uk:
Subject: DCB Legal Ltd – potential unauthorised conduct of litigation (Notice of Discontinuance signed/submitted by paralegal)
Dear Sirs,
I report a potential breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 concerning unauthorised conduct of litigation by DCB Legal Ltd.
Background
Claim No. [claim number], [Claimant] v [Defendant].
On 8 September 2025 DCB Legal filed/served a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) signed “L. Travis, Paralegal”. I requested confirmation of the signatory’s authorisation or exemption under the Act.
Responses
DCB Legal replied that Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) “was not implemented at the time of discontinuance” and therefore they had acted correctly. This response avoids the substantive statutory question. A further chaser was sent; they ultimately stated the file was closed and the matter concluded, without confirming authorisation or exemption.
Concern
Preparing, signing, filing or serving a Notice of Discontinuance constitutes “conduct of litigation”, a reserved legal activity under sections 12–14 and Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The refusal to identify the signatory’s authorisation raises a credible concern that an unqualified employee performed a reserved activity contrary to section 14(1) of the Act.
I attach the relevant correspondence and N279 for your consideration. I request that the SRA investigate whether DCB Legal permitted unauthorised conduct of litigation and, if so, take appropriate regulatory action.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Give them an extra 48 hours (by 4pm on Wednesday 22 October) with this email:
Subject: Claim [claim number] — FINAL NOTICE re authority of N279 signer
Dear Ms Travis,
Further to my email of [date] and your reply of [date], no substantive response has been received to the specific questions asked about the signatory’s authorisation/exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007.
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (16 September 2025) is declaratory of existing law; the issue is whether the person who signed the N279 was authorised or exempt at the time of signing. Please provide, within 48 hours:
1. The signatory’s full name, capacity and SRA/CILEX number and current practising status; or
2. The precise Schedule 3 LSA 2007 exemption relied upon (with the sealed order/statutory provision).
Absent a complete answer, I will (i) place this correspondence before the Court on a costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and (ii) refer the matter to the SRA for investigation of any conduct of reserved legal activities without entitlement.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]
If no response by 4pm on Wednesday 22 October, send the following to whichever court was last being used before the discontinuation and CC DCB Legal and yourself:
To: The Court Manager / District Judge
Claim: [claim number] — [Claimant] v [Defendant]
Re: Costs following Notice of Discontinuance (N279) signed by paralegal
Dear Sir/Madam / District Judge,
The Claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) signed “L. Travis, Paralegal”. I queried the signer’s entitlement to conduct litigation and requested confirmation of authorisation/exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007. DCB Legal’s response did not answer those questions; no further response has been received by 4pm, 20 October 2025.
Only an authorised person (or a person within a statutory exemption) may conduct litigation. Preparing/signing/filing/serving an N279 is conduct of litigation. See LSA 2007 ss.12–14 and Sch. 3. The decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (16 September 2025) reiterates and clarifies this. Practice Direction 22 also requires the individual’s name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party.
The Claimant’s representatives have (i) failed to confirm that the signatory was authorised or exempt at the time of signing, and (ii) relied on a misunderstanding that Mazur “was not implemented” at the time of discontinuance, which is irrelevant to the underlying statutory position. This conduct has put me to unnecessary time and expense after discontinuance.
I respectfully invite the Court to exercise its discretion to award my costs caused by this unreasonable conduct. While CPR 38.6(3) limits costs on the small claims track, the Court retains discretion to award costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The continued failure to confirm basic authorisation for a reserved activity after being squarely asked is, I submit, unreasonable.
Order sought:
(a) The Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the post-discontinuance correspondence, summarily assessed in the Schedule below and payable within 14 days; and
(b) Liberty to apply.
Schedule of Costs (Litigant in Person, CPR 46.5)
• Time spent drafting correspondence re authority (xx.xx hrs) @ £24.00/hr …… £[ ]
• Preparing this application/letter (xx.xx hrs) @ £24.00/hr …………………… £[ ]
• Postage/printing/incidentals …………………………………………………………… £[ ]
Total: £[ ]
Supporting documents:
• My emails dated [dates] and DCB Legal’s reply dated [date];
• Copy N279 as filed/served.
If the Court requires a formal application, I will file an N244 accordingly, but I hope this can be determined on the papers.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]
Thank you for that. You should now send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim number] – N279 signed by paralegal: authority to conduct litigation, signature validity, and regulatory notice
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) filed/served in this claim. It is signed “L. Travis”, position “Paralegal”, and purports to be signed on behalf of the claimant’s solicitor.
Please confirm by return:
1. The signatory’s full name (forename and surname), capacity, and whether they are an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA/CILEX number and practising status). If not authorised,
2. The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits that individual to conduct litigation and sign the N279 in these proceedings (enclose the sealed court order or the specific statutory provision, as applicable).
For the avoidance of doubt:
• Preparing, signing, filing or serving an N279 is conduct of litigation.
• Practice Direction 22 requires the individual’s name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party; an initial plus surname is not adequate for verification of authorisation.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Action required:
• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• If the document was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, file and serve a compliant N279 personally signed by an authorised person, with their full name clearly stated.
Costs and regulatory notice:
If the N279 was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signer’s identity/status, I, as a litigant in person, will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I 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, to consider wasted costs against representatives.
Further, conducting a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence under the Legal Services Act 2007. If any unauthorised conduct of litigation has occurred, I will report the matter to the SRA without further notice and reserve all rights to place this correspondence before the Court.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Give them 7 days to cure the defective N279 and respond to the questions about the paralegal's authorisation to conduct litigation. If they ignore or refuse, send a short note to the court (copying DCB Legal) enclosing the N279 and this email, asking the court to note the irregularity and to consider costs (and/or list a short costs hearing).
This is where you start to get your own back for their unreasonable behaviour.
Ok, let's cross that bridge if/when we get there. I know she won't be happy representing herself [she'd find it too stressful], and I'm not allowed to speak on her behalf. Not sure we'd have much choice.
Why on earth do you think you'd need "expensive councel"? Of course you can represent her in court as a Lay Representative and speak on her behalf. The only requirement is that she has to also attend. When you get to court, you only need to let the Usher know that you will be representing the defendant as her Lay Rep and ask them to inform the judge. You cannot be denied that right. Print this out and wave it at them should you get any resistance:
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1999 No. 1225
COUNTY COURTS
The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999
Made 27th April 1999
Laid before Parliament 27th April 1999
Coming into force 18th May 1999
The Lord Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 11 and 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990(1) and having consulted the Senior Presiding Judge, hereby makes the following Order:–
1. This Order may be cited as the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 and shall come into force on 18th May 1999.
2. The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1992(2) is hereby revoked.
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), any person may exercise rights of audience in proceedings dealt with as a small claim in accordance with rules of court.
(2) A lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:–
(a) where his client does not attend the hearing;
(b) at any stage after judgment; or
(c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings.
Irvine of Lairg, C.
Dated 27th April 1999
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)
This Order provides for lay representatives to continue to exercise rights of audience in small claims cases in the county courts. Section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 has been amended to facilitate the making of new Civil Procedure Rules, under which small claims cases are no longer referred to arbitration, but are allocated to a small claims track. This Order does not alter current practice, but is made as a consequence of those changes.
As explained above, the reason for requesting a hearing in person is that DCB Legal will discontinue if it is a hearing in person. If it is a CVP hearing, they will just continue and attend the CVP hearing. You can decide to continue with the CVP hearing or request a hearing face to face which is highly likely to be discontinued.
Is Bromley your 'home court'? I see it is listed as a video hearing. That is not ideal.
You can object to a CVP (Cloud Video Platform) hearing and ask for a face-to-face hearing instead, but it is up to the court to decide whether to allow it.
To make the request, you need to do the following:
• Ask as soon as possible, ideally as soon as the hearing notice is received.
• Write to the court that listed the hearing, giving the claim number and the date of the hearing.
• Explain clearly why you need a face-to-face hearing. Reasons might include difficulty using technology, needing to show or examine physical evidence, communication difficulties, or the case being too complex to manage by video.
The court has the power to decide how a hearing is held. It can choose a video hearing, but it must make sure the hearing is fair for both sides. If the judge believes a face-to-face hearing is necessary to make the process fair, they can order it.
Send the following to your local county court if it is not Bromley:
Claim Number: [insert claim number]
Parties: [Claimant v Defendant]
Hearing Date: [insert hearing date, if known]
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the Defendant in the above claim, which is currently listed as a video (CVP) hearing. I am writing to respectfully request that the hearing be held in person at [your local county court] court instead.
I would feel more comfortable presenting my case face to face, as I am not particularly confident using video technology for formal proceedings. I believe I would be able to express myself more clearly and follow the process more effectively in a courtroom setting.
I would be grateful if the court would consider this request. Please let me know if any further information is needed.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Date]
In response to your two questions...
1. Shouldn't the judge at least have given reasons for rejecting both the strike out and amended PoC requests?
Yes, ideally — but in practice, not necessarily at this stage.
This was an allocation order, not a hearing or formal judgment. While the defence included a request for strike-out or an order for further particulars, the judge was not obliged to rule on that at the allocation stage. Many District Judges will simply allocate to track and defer any substantive issues to the final hearing.
As the draft order was attached as part of the defence but no N244 application was submitted with a fee (and the matter was not listed for a hearing), the court may treat it as a request, not a formal application requiring reasons. This omission (i.e. not filing an N244 for directions or strike-out) may be why no explicit decision or reason is provided.
2. Does paragraph 4) of the N157 mean the defendant should have answered DCBL’s calls? Could ignoring them prejudice the case?
No, ignoring calls from DCBL will not prejudice the defence at trial.
Paragraph 4 of the N157 states:
“The parties are encouraged to contact each other with a view to trying to settle the case or narrow the issues.”
This is a general encouragement, not a compulsory direction, and it applies to both sides. The defendant is not obliged to negotiate with DCB Legal or respond to unsolicited calls or emails, particularly if those calls are vague, coercive, or unclear about their purpose. The court cannot and does not penalise a party for failing to engage with a debt collector's phone calls.
However, if this were a party-to-party discussion or a properly made Part 36 offer or Calderbank settlement letter, the court might consider unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement discussions when deciding costs after judgment. But that doesn’t apply here.
In summary:
• Not answering DCB Legal’s phone calls cannot prejudice the defence.
• The paragraph encourages negotiation between parties, not between a defendant and a third-party agent using vague or harassing tactics.
I am still very confident that DCB Legal will discontinue before the trial fee has to be paid. That deadline will come in a further order with the hearing date.
Here is the suggested defence. You only need to edit the claimant (Civil Enforcement Ltd), the defendants full name, the claim number and then sign it by typing the defendants name and date it. The draft order does not need editing. For the two transcripts linked to above, include a cover sheet for each one labelled "Exhibit A – Transcript of CEL v Chan 2023" and "Exhibit B -Transcript of CPMS v Akande 2024".
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
[Civil Enforcement Limited]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
Preliminary matter
1. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) served by the Claimant are defective and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Defendant requests that the court consider this matter as a preliminary issue and strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), as the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
2. In particular, the PoC:
(i) Fail to provide a concise statement of the facts upon which the Claimant relies.
(ii) Do not specify the exact contractual terms allegedly breached.
(iii) Lack sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the case and provide a full response.
3. The Defendant relies on two recent persuasive appeal cases:
(i) In CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44], the court struck out the claim due to inadequate PoC that failed to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4. (See attached Exhibit A)
(ii) Similarly, in CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], the claim was struck out due to vague and insufficient PoC, which did not provide enough information for the Defendant to respond appropriately. (See attached Exhibit B)
4. In light of these deficiencies, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be struck out for failing to meet the necessary legal standards.
5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that the Claimant be ordered to provide amended or further Particulars of Claim that comply with CPR 16.4, as detailed in the attached draft order referred to in paragraph 9.
Defendants Understanding of the Claim
6. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim and puts the Claimant to full proof of any allegation.
7. 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.
8. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Claimant's vague statement that the Defendant "parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage" lacks the specific terms allegedly breached. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4;
(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.5;
(c) 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;
(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(e) 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;
(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
9. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.
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:
This is a link to the Draft Order:
Draft Order for the short defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yjj8nwoc6sknmc9uawecf/short-defence-order-copy-3.pdf?rlkey=y3xyz2s8vumu0k3webocx9sza&st=mfxlgil6&dl=0)
When everything is ready, the 4 documents (defence, Draft Order 2 transcripts) should be attached as PDF files to an email addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk. Also CC in yourself.
The subject of the email must contain the claim number and in the body just state that attached are the defence, draft order and 2 transcripts in matter of "Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Defendants name] Claim no.: [Claim number]". When it has been sent, you should receive can auto-response from the CNBC almost instantly. If it hasn't been received after a few minutes, try again. If still no luck, try using a different email agent.