You are way overthinking this. You’re reading far too much into that complaint response.
Let me be absolutely clear: this case is not heading for a hearing. Not in any realistic universe. DCB Legal’s business model on single private parking claims is simple:
• Fire off bulk, low-quality claims with slurry template Particulars of Claim.
• Hoover up easy default judgments and scared people who pay when they see “court”.
• Where a defendant files a competent defence and follows the process, quietly discontinue before the trial fee is due.
That is what they do. Over and over again. We only scratch the very tip of the iceberg and we have sight of well over 700 discontinuances over the last couple of years.
On this forum, for properly defended single-PCN claims run by DCB Legal, the pattern is effectively 100%: they fold before a hearing. The statistical chance of your defended claim, with a CPR 16.4 defence and the Mazur/Ensall issue flagged, actually reaching a final hearing is not just “low” – it is vanishingly small. I am talking well under 1 in 1,000 based on what we know and experience.
That’s why I say – and stand by – that if this ever gets as far as a hearing, I’ll eat my hat and help you with your witness statement. I am that confident it won’t happen.
A few specifics:
• Their line about “we intend to proceed” and “we are reviewing our processes” is pure face-saving. They cannot write “you’ve nailed us on
Mazur and we’re backing off”; they have to maintain the pretence that everything is fine and they’re marching resolutely towards trial.
•
Mazur and the Legal Services Act point are already doing their job by sitting on the court file and with the SRA. You’ve raised legitimate issues. Their boilerplate attempt to brush it off doesn’t make those issues disappear.
• The £100 you paid to DRP absolutely counts. DRP were acting as the client’s agent. Payment to an authorised agent is payment to the principal. At witness statement stage (if we even get that far) you will:
• Exhibit the DRP demand for £100 for this exact PCN; and
• Exhibit your bank statement showing £100 paid to DRP; and
• Explain that the principal sum was paid long before proceedings and what’s now being chased is made-up add-ons and duplication.
As for what you do now:
• You do not need to reply to that “complaint closed” email at all.
• You have already:
• Filed your defence focused on their defective Particulars of Claim, and
• Emailed the court about the Mazur/Ensall issue, and
• Reported the matter to the SRA.
Those boxes are ticked. Nothing you say to a “Complaints and Compliance Associate” will alter the trajectory of the claim.
The next meaningful step will come from the court, not from DCB Legal. When the court sends you the Notice of Allocation and directions (naming your local court and giving a trial fee deadline), post that up.
But I repeat, so you don’t lose sleep over this: on a defended, single-ticket Euro Car Parks claim run by DCB Legal, with this defence on file and the Mazur/SRA issues raised, the realistic probability of you ever sitting in front of a judge is effectively zero.
Send all the following emails...
To info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim number] – Notice of escalation following continued non-response
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to my emails of 28 September 2025 and 3 November 2025 concerning the N1SDT Claim Form signed “Sarah Ensall – Head of Legal”, requesting confirmation of her authorisation or exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007 to conduct litigation.
You have failed to respond to either email.
As warned, I have now taken the following actions:
• Court notification – Both previous emails and this correspondence have been provided to the Court with a request that the issue of the signer’s authority be considered at the appropriate stage. I have invited the Court to treat your failure to engage as unreasonable conduct and to consider a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
• Regulatory escalation – A formal complaint has been submitted to the SRA concerning the potential unauthorised conduct of litigation, including the filing and signing of a Claim Form by a person whose authorisation or exemption has not been confirmed despite repeated requests.
For completeness, I remain willing to receive your confirmation as to Ms Ensall’s authorised status or exemption under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007, together with her SRA or CILEX number and practising status, should you wish to belatedly provide it.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
The following as a PDF attachment in an email to the court at CaseProgression.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and CC DCB Legal and yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim number] – Notice Regarding Signer’s Authority to Conduct Litigation
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Defendant in this matter.
On 28 September 2025, I emailed the Claimant’s solicitors, DCB Legal Ltd, requesting confirmation that the individual who signed the N1SDT Claim Form (“Sarah Ensall – Head of Legal”) is authorised or exempt under the Legal Services Act 2007 to conduct litigation. Preparing and signing an N1SDT is conduct of litigation, as confirmed in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
I received no response.
On 3 November 2025, I sent a formal reminder giving DCB Legal three further days to respond.
No reply was received.
In accordance with my warning to them, I now formally place this correspondence before the Court. I respectfully invite the Court to note:
1. The Claimant’s solicitors have failed to provide any confirmation that the signer of the Claim Form is authorised or exempt to conduct litigation.
2. This raises a legitimate issue under the Legal Services Act 2007 concerning potential unauthorised conduct of litigation.
3. I ask the Court, at the appropriate stage, to take this into account when considering compliance and conduct.
4. I also ask the Court to consider whether the Claimant’s prolonged failure to engage with reasonable procedural enquiries amounts to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of CPR 27.14(2)(g), including the costs I have incurred in dealing with this issue as a litigant in person at the rate of £24 per hour.
I confirm that I have simultaneously raised this issue with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]
In the email, add this to the body:
I am the Defendant in the above claim. Please place the attached notice on the court file.
And to the SRA at report@sra.org.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Regulatory Complaint – Potential Unauthorised Conduct of Litigation by DCB Legal Ltd (Claim [claim number])
Dear SRA Investigations,
I wish to raise a regulatory complaint concerning potential unauthorised conduct of litigation by DCB Legal Ltd.
Background
DCB Legal Ltd filed and served a Claim Form (Form N1SDT) in claim [claim number]. The Claim Form was signed by “Sarah Ensall”, described as “Head of Legal”. The form purports to have been signed on behalf of the Claimant’s solicitor.
Preparing, signing, filing or serving an N1SDT constitutes “conduct of litigation”, a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007). The High Court confirmed in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) that unqualified employees may assist solicitors but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Attempts to clarify authorisation
On 28 September 2025, I wrote to DCB Legal requesting confirmation that Ms Ensall is authorised or exempt to conduct litigation, and asked for her SRA or CILEX practising details.
No reply was received.
On 3 November 2025, I sent a formal reminder allowing three further days for a response.
No reply was received.
Both emails are attached.
Reason for complaint
DCB Legal have:
• Filed a Claim Form signed by a person whose authorisation or exemption has not been confirmed.
• Failed to provide any clarification despite two written requests.
• Provided no evidence that the individual signing the claim form has the required authorisation, practising certificate, or statutory exemption under Schedule 3 LSA 2007.
This raises a potential breach of:
• The Legal Services Act 2007 (conducting a reserved legal activity without authorisation or exemption);
• SRA Principles (integrity, accountability, transparency);
• SRA Code of Conduct for Firms (particularly paragraphs 2.1 and 8.1).
I ask the SRA to determine:
1. Whether Ms Ensall is authorised or exempt to conduct litigation;
2. Whether the filing and signing of the N1SDT constituted unauthorised conduct of litigation;
3. Whether DCB Legal and/or any individual has breached the SRA Principles or Code of Conduct.
Please let me know if further documents or clarification are required.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
Stop trying to read something into their N180 that isn' there. It is all normal and you will be filing your own.
When you receive your own N180 or your MCOL history shows yours has been sent, just follow this advice:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180) or been notified on MCOL that yours has been sent, do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own N180 DQ 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.
As DCB Legal have not responded to the email, send the following chaser and let us know if they do not respond within 7 days:
Subject: Claim [claim number] – Non-response to 28 September correspondence
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wrote to you on 28 September 2025 regarding the N1SDT Claim Form signed “Sarah Ensall – Head of Legal”, requesting confirmation of her authorisation or exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007 to conduct litigation.
You have failed to respond within the seven-day period specified. Please treat this as a formal reminder. Unless a full written response is received within three working days, I will place both emails before the Court and refer the non-compliance to the SRA as part of a regulatory complaint concerning potential unauthorised conduct of litigation.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
If you cannot get into your MCOL portal, then follow the following advice:
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 [claimant] v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Euro 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.
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 16.7.3(1);
(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)
As for the fact that the Claim Form has been signed by an unauthorised person, send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim number] – N1SDT Claim Form signed by 'Head of Legal', authority to conduct litigation
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Claim Form with the Particulars of Claim (Form N1SDT) filed/served in this claim. It is signed “Sarah Ensall”, position “Head of Legal”, and purports to be signed on behalf of the claimant’s solicitor.
Please confirm by return:
Ms Ensall's, 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,
The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 that permits that individual to conduct litigation and sign the NSDT 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 N1SDT is conduct of litigation.
• 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 N1SDT personally signed by an authorised person, with their full name clearly stated.
Costs and regulatory notice:
If the N1SDT 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]
DCB Legal’s “reply” is just a padded-out template that skirts around most of the requests in your Letter of Claim rebuttal.
Key points from what’s happened so far:
• They’ve ignored the partial payment issue — this is important because they’ve not acknowledged the fact the balance they are claiming is disputed and already reduced. That omission can be used later to show unreasonable conduct.
• They’ve cherry-picked what to disclose — they admit refusing some items on grounds of “disproportionate and/or not relevant”, but that will play badly if they later try to rely on evidence they’ve withheld.
• Their “Britannia v Semark-Julien” citation is misleading — that County Court appeal only dealt with the £60–£70 add-on not being automatically struck out, it didn’t give operators a blank cheque to add it. It has no binding effect and is still contrary to the MLCHG’s stance and the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
• They’ve framed it as a breach-of-contract claim — that will be used to pin them to later, especially with their usual defective Particulars of Claim (PoC).
• They’ve conceded the £70 add-on is not VAT-inclusive — which confirms it’s not a genuine service cost but an arbitrary sum (another angle for abuse of process).
• No signage proof — they’ve admitted sending only “images of the signs” without a site plan or contemporaneous photos from the material date, which was one of your explicit requests under the Protocol.
Given your concern about avoiding court, paying now would mean you lose the ability to challenge and you’d be rewarding them for ignoring the Protocol. When the claim is issued and defended properly using our template, the likelihood of it reaching a hearing is vanishingly small — and even if it did, the risks are limited to the claimed sum plus capped court costs, not scary criminal penalties.
You don’t have to give them a phone number — keep everything in writing, preferably email, for a clear paper trail.
Just file that response from the utter incompetents at DCB Legal and you now wait for the N1SDT Claim Form to arrive in the post. When you receive it, we only need to see the main claim form page with the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Only redact your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave everything else visible, especially ALL dates. We will provide you with precise details and deadlines on how to respond.
I remind you that no one who follows this advice goes to court or pays a penny to ECP.
No idea where you got any previous advice but whoever gave it to you has SNAFU'd this for you. A classic example of the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree paying up out of ignorance and fear. I just hope you haven't yet sent that response to the Letter of Claim (LoC).
Besides showing incredible naivety by not redacting your personal details and bank account details in the attached letter you say you want to send to DCB Legal, you are at extremely high risk of having your identity stolen. I have reported the post to the moderator for them to remove your pdf attachment which is an invitation for someone to steal your identity and empty your bank account!!!!
Thankfully, if you follow the advice, you won't be paying another penny to DCB Legal or their client as we are familiar with the M.O. of DCB Legal.
Use the following as your response to the LoC and you EMAIL it to info@dcblegal.co.uk and you also CC yourself. No attachments or anything else, especially items that contain your personal data and bank account numbers etc!!!!
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I note your attempt to pursue a sum which has already been part-paid and remains disputed. Your LoC fails on multiple procedural counts, and until you correct these failings, this matter is not ripe for litigation. My formal position is set out below.
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
This will end up with a claim being issued but, as I said, if you follow our advice, the claim will either be struck out or discontinued in due course.