Send this to the COLP (Tom Clough), cc Safina Zubair and yourself:
Subject: Urgent clarification – Mr Ibrar Ahmad named on N1SDT claim form
Dear Mr Clough,
Further to Ms Zubair’s email of [date], I must raise a serious concern regarding Mr Ibrar Ahmad, whose name appears on the N1SDT claim form issued in this matter.
A search of the SRA Register confirms that Mr Ahmad is currently shown as a solicitor employed by Osbourne Pinner Ltd, not by Moorside Legal Services Ltd.
Please confirm, by return:
1. Whether Mr Ahmad was employed by Moorside Legal at the time the claim was issued; if so, specify the relevant dates.
2. If he was not, explain on what authority his name appears as the issuing solicitor for a Moorside Legal claim.
3. Whether the SRA has been notified of any secondment, dual employment, or change of practising arrangement permitting him to act for Moorside.
4. Whether you, as COLP, accept responsibility for the issue of this claim in his name.
Given the potential breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 and SRA Principles (honesty, transparency, and proper supervision), I will update the SRA report to include this matter. Please respond within 48 hours.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
You can also send the following follow up to the SRA about your complaint:
Further to my report of [date] concerning Moorside Legal Services Ltd, I now note that the claim form (N1SDT) in the same proceedings was issued under the name of Ibrar Ahmad, shown on the SRA register as a solicitor employed by Osbourne Pinner Ltd, not Moorside Legal.
Please add this to my existing complaint and confirm whether the SRA has on record any approved dual-employment or secondment arrangement allowing Mr Ahmad to conduct litigation for Moorside Legal.
You also follow up with this email to the court for the file to Enquiries.kingston.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and you CC help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and yourself:
Subject: M8MP864A – Conduct of litigation issue; SRA referral; request to note and reserve costs
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have since discovered that the solicitor named on the Claim Form, Mr Ibrar Ahmad, is currently registered with the SRA as employed by Osbourne Pinner Ltd, not Moorside Legal Services Ltd. I have sought urgent clarification from Moorside and notified the SRA accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
I have no idea what you actually sent as a 'chase up' but there a few things you need to do. First I suggest you send another email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk with the following:
Subject: Urgent: Non-response re conduct of litigation (COLP clarification)
Dear Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP),
Further to my email of [date], no response has been received within the 7-day deadline. In light of the absence of any clarification, I have today submitted a report to the SRA concerning the following:
• Ms Safina Zubair’s witness statement asserting: “I am a Paralegal … and I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principal.”
• Your bundle cover letter filed to the court signed only as “Moorside Legal Services Ltd”, which also contained a settlement proposal, with no named individual or status.
Please provide, within 48 hours:
1. The name and professional status of the person at Moorside who has conduct of these proceedings and who is personally authorised to conduct litigation;
2. The name and professional status of the individual who drafted and sent the cover letter to the court, and confirmation that they are personally authorised to conduct litigation;
3. Confirmation that all reserved acts in these proceedings have been undertaken by an authorised person, and if any were not, what remedial steps you will now take.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will place this correspondence before the court and rely on Mazur & Anor v CRS LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) when addressing conduct and costs.
Please note that this email is my final 48-hour chaser. An SRA report has been submitted, and I will update the SRA if your response arrives.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
At the same time, you notify the court with an email for the file to Enquiries.kingston.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and you CC help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and yourself:
Subject: M8MP864A – Conduct of litigation issue; SRA referral; request to note and reserve costs
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to record that Moorside Legal Services Ltd (for the Claimant) has not responded to my 7-day request for clarification after their paralegal, Ms Safina Zubair, stated in her witness statement that she “has conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of [her] Principal”. A bundle cover letter was also filed signed only “Moorside Legal Services Ltd”, containing a settlement proposal, with no named individual or status.
Given the proximity of the hearing, I have reported the matter to the SRA and sent a 48-hour final chaser to the firm’s Compliance Officer of Legal Practice (COLP) today. I respectfully invite the Court to (i) note the issue, (ii) direct the Claimant to identify on the record the authorised individual with conduct and to confirm that all reserved acts have been undertaken by that person, and (iii) reserve costs arising from any improper conduct, with reference to Mazur & Anor v CRS LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
I also enclose a concise Costs note (CPR 27.14(2)(g)) limited to the unnecessary work caused by the conduct issue raised herein. If required, I respectfully seek the Court’s permission to rely on this short note at the hearing. Copies served on the Claimant’s solicitors today.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
Include the following costs note with the above email (adapt the times if necessary at the LiP rate of £19/hour:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Claim No.: M8MP864A
Between: National Car Parks Ltd (Claimant) and [your full name] (Defendant)
Costs note – unreasonable conduct (CPR 27.14(2)(g))
Background
1. The Claimant’s paralegal, Ms Safina Zubair, states in her witness statement that she “has conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of [her] Principal”.
2. The Claimant also filed a court cover letter signed only as “Moorside Legal Services Ltd”, which included a settlement proposal but did not identify the individual author or their professional status.
3. Those features have required me to take issue, write to the firm’s COLP, prepare regulatory correspondence, and address the point for the Court, increasing time and cost.
Law
4. Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity. The High Court in Mazur & Anor v CRS LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirms that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision; employment/supervision does not confer entitlement.
5. Under CPR 27.14(2)(g) the Court may order costs where a party has behaved unreasonably in bringing, defending, or conducting proceedings.
Application to the facts
6. The paralegal’s express assertion that she “has conduct” (even “subject to supervision”) conflicts with Mazur.
7. Filing a court document bearing only the firm’s name—and containing a settlement proposal—without identifying the authorised individual responsible obscures accountability for reserved acts.
8. That conduct has been unreasonable, necessitating additional work by the Defendant to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings and regulatory compliance.
Costs sought (summary schedule)
9. I ask the Court to award costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) at the LiP rate of £19/hour, limited strictly to the unnecessary work caused by the above, namely:
[2:00] Reviewing WS wording and researching Mazur – £38.00
[0:30] Drafting COLP letter and chaser – £9.50
[1:00] Preparing SRA report email (and exhibits) – £19.00
[0:30] Preparing this costs note and short oral submissions – £9.50
Subtotal: £76.00
Total claimed: £76.00
10. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to:
(a) find that the Claimant’s conduct has been unreasonable within r.27.14(2)(g); and
(b) award the Defendant the limited costs set out above.
You download this SRA Report Form (https://www.sra.org.uk/globalassets/documents/consumers/report-solicitor-form.docx?version=4a80ca), complete it and email it back to report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself. Use the following to guide you through the form:
Firm: Moorside Legal Services Ltd (ABS).
Matter: National Car Parks Ltd v [Defendant], Claim No. M8MP864A, hearing listed [8 October 2025, 11:45].
Summary of concern:
A paralegal, Ms Safina Zubair, signed a witness statement stating: “I am a Paralegal employed by Moorside and I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principal.” The firm also filed a bundle cover letter to the court signed only as “Moorside Legal Services Ltd” which included a settlement proposal, without identifying the individual author or their status. My concern is that a non-authorised individual is asserting conduct of litigation and potentially performing reserved acts.
Why this engages SRA regulation:
Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity. The High Court in Mazur & Anor v CRS LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) held that non-authorised employees cannot “conduct litigation” even if supervised; employment/supervision does not confer entitlement. The witness statement wording is inconsistent with that position and may reflect improper conduct within an SRA-regulated ABS. The unsigned (by individual) court letter compounds the concern by obscuring who is responsible for reserved steps and whether they are authorised.
Chronology:
• [Date] – Claimant’s witness statement served; wording quoted above.
• [Date] – Bundle cover letter filed to court, signed only “Moorside Legal Services Ltd”, including a settlement proposal.
• [Date] – I wrote to the firm’s COLP seeking clarification and identification of the authorised individual with conduct; 7-day deadline given.
• [Date] – No response received.
• [Today’s date] – Report submitted to the SRA; 48-hour final chaser sent to COLP.
Potential breaches:
• Reserved legal activities undertaken/held out by non-authorised person (Legal Services Act 2007; SRA Principles/Code).
• Failure to ensure proper supervision and clarity of responsibility; opacity as to who is conducting litigation; potential misrepresentation to the court.
Outcome sought:
• Regulatory review of Moorside’s arrangements for conduct of litigation.
• Confirmation/correction that only authorised individuals have conduct and perform reserved acts; identification of the authorised individual on the court record.
• Any remediation the SRA deems appropriate, including guidance to prevent recurrence.
Attachments (to upload):
1. Extract of Ms Zubair’s witness statement (with “have conduct” wording highlighted).
2. Copy of the court cover letter signed “Moorside Legal Services Ltd”.
3. My email to the COLP dated [date] and proof of non-response.
4. Today’s 48-hour chaser.
5. Hearing notice (for context).
You don't have much time so please get this done today.
Send the following email immediately to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Clarification required regarding conduct of litigation by non-authorised person
Dear Ms Rebecca Horton-Grainger,
I am writing in relation to the witness statement signed by Ms Safina Zubair in National Car Parks Ltd] v [Defendant], Claim No. M8MP864A. At paragraph 1 of that statement, Ms Zubair describes herself as:
“a Paralegal employed by Moorside and I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principal.”
That assertion causes me serious concern. As you are aware, the conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. In Mazur & Ors v CRS LLP [2025] EWHC 1710 (Ch), the High Court held unambiguously that a non-authorised individual cannot conduct litigation, whether supervised or not. Employment by, or supervision within, an authorised firm does not entitle an unqualified person to conduct litigation.
I therefore require your clarification as COLP:
1. Does Ms Zubair in fact have conduct of this matter?
2. If not, why has her witness statement expressly stated otherwise?
3. Who is the authorised person at Moorside who has true conduct of this litigation, and who is exercising professional judgment and responsibility in accordance with the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct?
I also note that your cover letter to the court accompanying the trial bundle is signed only in the name of “Moorside Legal Services Ltd.” This letter includes a settlement proposal. As this is a document submitted to the court in active proceedings, I require confirmation of:
• The name of the individual who drafted and signed this correspondence; and
• That this individual is personally authorised to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007.
For the avoidance of doubt, if it transpires that a paralegal or any other non-authorised person has had conduct of this litigation or has been performing reserved acts, I will report the matter to the SRA as a regulatory breach, and I will invite the court to apply Mazur in relation to costs consequences for improper conduct of litigation.
Please provide your clarification within 7 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
When you receive a response, please show us. I believe that by permitting an unauthorised person to conduct litigation, there has been a breach of the Legal Services Act, which is a criminal mater and the person and the employing firm should be reported to the SRA.
Don't worry about submitting it a few days late. After consulting with a district judge friend, it has been suggested that a brief WS be submitted, just repeating the defence and stating the facts as known:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the Defendant in this matter and make this statement in support of my Defence. The facts set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. I deny that there is any cause of action. No contract was formed, and no breach is proven and I repeat my defence.
3. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim fail to disclose any cause of action, as required by CPR 16.4(1)(a). They contain no coherent statement of how or when I am said to have breached any term, nor do they clarify whether I am being pursued as the driver or as the registered keeper. This failure to plead a complete cause of action is fatal and I respectfully request the court to strike out the claim.
4. The only mention of an alleged contravention appears in the Claimant's Witness Statement, drafted by a paralegal and not given in the first person. It alleges simply that the vehicle was "parked without payment of the parking charge." There is no detail or supporting evidence of any actual contract being formed or breached.
5. The Claimant’s own photographs show that the vehicle was merely present on the site for 13 minutes. The signs shown are not legible from a moving vehicle and appear to contain densely packed, small print terms. It is not plausible that a contract could have been read, understood, and accepted in such circumstances.
6. The event is over a year old, and I have no knowledge or record of who was driving the vehicle on that unremarkable day. I cannot assist with further details. It is possible the driver stopped to assess payment options before deciding to leave.
7. The failure to state a clear cause of action, combined with the absence of a reliable first-hand witness statement from the Claimant, and the lack of clear, accessible signage, renders this claim without merit.
8. I respectfully ask the court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) for disclosing no reasonable grounds and being an abuse of process. Alternatively, I request the claim be dismissed with costs.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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:
Submit the WS as a PDF attachment in an email to the court at Enquiries.kingston.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and also CC help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself. Make sure you include the claim number in the subject field of the email.
Hi all,
Please see my witness statement below. Any changes needed?
[size=150]Statement of Evidence of xx[/size]
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: xx
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
xx (Defendant)
[size=120]WITNESS STATEMENT OF xx[/size]
I, xx, will say as follows:
I am the Defendant in these proceedings. I make this statement in support of my defence against the claim brought by National Car Parks Ltd ("the Claimant") and in compliance with the court's order dated [Insert Date of Court Order, e.g., "first available date after 24th July 2025"].
I deny the claim in its entirety and assert 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.
The Particulars of Claim ("PoC") served by the Claimant lack precise detail in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me, such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
I am unable to properly plead to the PoC because:
- The contract referred to in the PoC is not detailed or attached in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5).
- 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.
- The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the Claimant asserts I have breached the contract (or contracts).
- 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.
- The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges.
- The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.
- The PoC do not provide clarity on whether I am being sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the Claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
The deficiencies in the Claimant's PoC are not merely technical. As highlighted by Her Honour Judge Evans in CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, a defendant "cannot possibly plead his Defence because he does not know what the contractual term is said to be that he has breached and he does not know how he is said to have breached it". The PoC in this case suffers from these exact fundamental flaws.
I further rely on the persuasive appellate decisions in CEL v Chan [2023] E7GM9W44 and CPMS v Akande [2024] K0DP5J30, where claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached as Exhibit N.B.1 (CEL v Chan) and Exhibit N.B.2 (CPMS v Akande).
In CEL v Chan, Judge Murch held that the particulars of claim must set out the conduct relied upon as amounting to a breach of contract, stating, "The conduct amounting to the breach was not set out". The judge further noted that if the Money Claims Online (MCOL) system's character limit is insufficient, it is open to the claimant to file and serve separate, detailed particulars of claim. The Claimant in my case has similarly failed to set out the specific conduct alleged to be a breach.
Similarly, in CPMS v Akande, it was explicitly stated that the PoC must contain a concise statement of the facts relied upon, and that the nature of the breach, not just a simple assertion, is fundamental to a claim of this nature. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the PoC were "wholly inadequate" because they did not specify the breach.
I also attach a copy of a draft order previously issued by a District Judge at another court in a similar case where the claim was struck out of the court's own initiative due to the Particulars of Claim failing to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). This draft order is attached as Exhibit N.B.3. The judge in that case noted the claimant's failure to:
- Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
- Explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
- Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2). The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective, leading to the outright striking out of the claim.
I submit that the same reasoning applies in this case. The Claimant's PoC suffers from the identical, fundamental failures identified in the appellate decisions and the attached draft order. To permit further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Therefore, I invite the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant's failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
[size=120]Statement of Truth[/size]
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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: xx
Date:
There is no need to delay submitting the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). With an issue date of 30th January, you have until Tuesday 18th February to submit the AoS.
Just follow the instructions in this linked PDF file to submit the AoS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Once you have submitted the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 4th March to submit the defence.
Here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go 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 send all the documents as PDF attachments 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 Car Parks Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks 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(1)(a).
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 cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. The Defendant also attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order previously issued by a district judge at another court in a similar case. In that case, the court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). 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) Failed to 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.
6. 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(1)(a).
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/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0)
CEL v Chan Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0)