You don't need her name. Just email the following complaint to scmreferrals@justice.gov.uk and CC yourself:
COMPLAINT – conduct of mediator at Small Claims Mediation Service appointment on 11 December 2025 – [Claim No: XXXXXXXX]
To whom it may concern,
I write to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the mediator who handled my Small Claims Mediation Service (SCMS) appointment on 11 December 2025 in the matter of Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Your Full Name], claim number [XXXXXXXX].
The appointment was scheduled in the 09:30–12:30 time slot on 11 December 2025 and conducted by telephone from a withheld number. The mediator was a female mediator from the SCMS. Unfortunately, I did not catch her name.
During the call, the mediator made a number of statements which, in my view, were inappropriate, inaccurate and inconsistent with the neutral role a court-appointed mediator is required to perform.
1. Misrepresentation of the effect of defending the claim (CCJ risk)
The mediator told me that the Claimant was “not ready to close the case” and that it would now be put “on a list for a Hearing in Court in front of a Judge”. She then went on to say that if it went to court it was “50/50” whether I would win and that if I lost “this will not be good for you and you will get a CCJ that will affect your credit score and stay on your records for 6 years.”
That is simply wrong and highly misleading. A County Court Judgment is only registered and affects a person’s credit record if any judgment is not paid within the statutory period (usually one calendar month). The mediator did not explain this at all. Instead, she presented a CCJ damaging my credit file for six years as the automatic and inevitable consequence of exercising my right to defend the claim at a hearing.
This was not a neutral or balanced explanation of the process; it was a one-sided and inaccurate description which amounted to pressure to settle.
2. Inappropriate legal opinion and prediction of outcome (“50/50” comment) by an unqualified person
The mediator told me that if the case went to a judge, it was “50/50” whether I would win, and that if I lost it would be “not good for me” because of an inevitable CCJ. That is, in substance, a legal opinion and prediction of outcome.
I appreciate that mediators may outline, in general terms, that litigation carries risk. However:
• The mediator’s comments were phrased as a definitive prediction (“50/50” and “you will get a CCJ”), not as a neutral explanation that either side could win and that there are consequences if a judgment is not complied with.
• She went beyond facilitating negotiation and stepped into the role of a legal adviser, despite there being no indication that she is an “authorised person” or otherwise qualified under the Legal Services Act 2007 to give legal advice or conduct reserved legal activities.
• No basis was given for the asserted “50/50” assessment or for the highly misleading statement that a CCJ would automatically arise and sit on my file for six years.
Unless this mediator can demonstrate that she holds a recognised legal qualification and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007, she has no business giving legal opinions or outcome predictions to litigants in person. In my view, this is so far removed from the standard expected of a neutral, court-appointed mediator that it should trigger at least a formal warning and a serious review of whether she is suited to this role at all, unless she can evidence appropriate legal training and authorisation.
3. Undermining of neutrality and confidence in the mediation process
The SCMS literature I received emphasised that mediators are neutral and that mediation is a confidential process aimed at helping the parties explore settlement. What I experienced instead was:
• A mediator who appeared to adopt and repeat the Claimant’s position that the matter “will” go to a hearing because they were “not ready to close the case”.
• A mediator who overstated and mischaracterised the consequences of defending the claim, by suggesting that an adverse judgment would automatically and inevitably result in a six-year CCJ on my credit record.
• A mediator who gave what amounted to legal advice and a prediction of outcome, rather than remaining neutral and facilitating discussion.
This undermined my confidence in the impartiality of the SCMS. I felt I was being warned off exercising my legal rights by someone calling from within the court system, using the authority of that position to pressure me into a settlement.
4. Impact on me as a litigant in person
I am a litigant in person with limited experience of the civil court process. Hearing from a court-appointed mediator that going to a hearing would “result in a CCJ” which would damage my credit record for six years caused me considerable distress and anxiety. I was left with the impression that simply allowing the case to proceed in the normal way would automatically and irreversibly damage my financial standing, regardless of whether I complied promptly with any judgment.
That impression is plainly wrong in law, and should never have been conveyed by a mediator acting under the auspices of the court.
My requests
Given the seriousness of the above, I request that you:
1. Retrieve and review the recording(s) of my mediation appointment on 11 December 2025 in claim [XXXXXXXX].
2. Confirm whether the statements described above – including the statement that I “will get a CCJ” that will remain on my record for six years simply if I lose at a hearing – are in line with SCMS training, guidance and standards for mediators.
3. Confirm what action will be taken in relation to the mediator concerned, including any remedial training, supervision, or disciplinary steps, to ensure that litigants in person are not subjected to inaccurate and intimidating statements about CCJs and court proceedings.
4. Confirm that a clear note will be placed on the court file that I did in fact attend and engage with mediation, and that I will not be criticised for refusing to be pressured into a settlement based on misinformation about CCJs.
I appreciate that mediators have a difficult role, but there is a clear line between explaining, in neutral terms, that litigation carries some risk and what actually happened in my case: a combination of inaccurate statements about the legal consequences of losing and a definitive prediction of outcome that had the practical effect of pressuring me to abandon a legitimate defence.
I look forward to your written response to this complaint and to confirmation of the outcome of your review.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Telephone Number]
What do you mean "if they take me to court"? They have "taken you to court" in that they have issued a claim against you and you are now in the process of defending against that claim!
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:
”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
You will get an appointment for medication call. Just follow the advice I will give below.
You have been taken to court! You are now in the court process. However, the odds of you actually having to go to a hearing are slim to none.
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
Send the following email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [Claim No] – Directions Questionnaire (N180) and covering letter signed “DCB Legal”: authority to conduct litigation, signature validity, service by email, and regulatory notice
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to (i) the Directions Questionnaire (N180) and (ii) your covering letter dated [date] filed/served in this matter. Each document is signed only “DCB Legal” with no named individual 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), their role, and whether they are an authorised person within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with current rights to conduct litigation (provide SRA or 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 this individual personally to conduct litigation and sign these documents in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it precisely).
For the avoidance of doubt:
• Preparing, signing, filing, or serving a Directions Questionnaire is an act of conducting litigation, a reserved legal activity.
• Practice Direction 22 requires the signatory’s full name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party; a firm’s name or initials alone are not sufficient for verification of authorisation.
• Following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025], unqualified employees may assist but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt.
Action required:
• Confirm the above within 7 days.
• Re-file and serve a compliant N180 personally signed by an authorised (or exempt) individual, with their full name and capacity clearly stated. Please also identify the individual who signed the accompanying covering letter and confirm their authority.
Costs and regulatory notice:
If any document was signed by a person not authorised or exempt, or must be re-filed/served to correct the signatory’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, carrying on 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 Solicitors Regulation Authority without further notice and reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email]
Did you submit an AOs? If yes, then you have until 6th August to submit the defence. If you are going to email it to them, then you may as well just send it as we normally suggest to the CNBC at claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk.
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 Civil Enforcement Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement 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)