Once your MCOL updates to show that your DQ has been sent you can fire off your own DQ to the dq email address at the CNBC and CC DCB Legal at any of their email addresses, it doesn't really matter which. Personally, I just advise using the info@ one as it is their published contact email address.
You can send the template response about the signature of their N180 but, to be honest, it won't do much except frustrate them slightly. They can just reissue with a name of an authorised person, even if it isn't actually done by them. It would be more important for the N1SDT or an N279 form.
You can check your MCOL history to see when your own N180 has been issued or just wait to receive it in the post. 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 [claimant to their legal representative]and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
DCB Legal issue thousands of claims monthly, suggesting an annual volume well into the many tens of thousands—raising serious questions about whether a single solicitor like Mr Croot could lawfully and practically oversee and sign each one.
DCB Legal is one of only three County Court “Super Users”, meaning they have privileged access to bulk claim issuance via the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC). They state on their website that they issue “thousands of claims monthly”, which conservatively implies at least 24,000–36,000 annually, though anecdotal evidence and industry estimates suggest the figure may be well over 100,000 per year.
The Mazur v CRS LLP ruling reaffirmed that “conduct of litigation” under the Legal Services Act 2007 must be performed by a regulated person with appropriate authorisation. This includes signing and submitting claim forms, which are considered reserved legal activities.
Mr Croot is one of only four regulated solicitors overseeing litigation at DCB Legal, it raises a procedural red flag. Can one solicitor realistically sign and submit tens of thousands of claims annually? Can only four solicitors even do so? If not, who else is conducting litigation—and are they authorised?
Even if we assume DCB Legal issues a modest 25,000 claims per year, and they employ only four SRA-regulated solicitors, that equates to 6,250 claims per solicitor annually—or ~24 claims per working day. But this raw math ignores the actual scope of “conduct of litigation”, which includes far more than just signing claim forms. Under the Legal Services Act 2007 and confirmed in Mazur v CRS LLP, conduct of litigation encompasses the following reserved activities that a solicitor must oversee:
• Reviewing particulars of claim for accuracy and compliance with CPR
• Ensuring pre-action protocol compliance, especially for consumer claims
• Signing and submitting claim forms—a reserved legal activity
• Responding to court directions and correspondence
• Supervising paralegals and admin staff involved in litigation prep
• Managing hearings, adjournments, and enforcement proceedings
• Handling procedural irregularities, strike-outs, and defence rebuttals
Even in a high-efficiency litigation firm, a solicitor might realistically handle 5–10 claims per day with proper oversight. Anything beyond that risks rubber-stamping, lack of supervision, or unauthorised delegation.
At 24 claims/day, each solicitor would need to, sign and submit claims at industrial speed, skip meaningful review or supervision, thereby breaching SRA Principles on integrity, competence, and supervision.
This workload is not just implausible—it’s procedurally incompatible with lawful conduct of litigation. If unregulated staff are preparing or submitting claims, DCB Legal may be systemically breaching the Legal Services Act. The firm risks SRA enforcement for unauthorised litigation conduct.
So, even at only 25,000 claims/year, the workload per solicitor exceeds lawful capacity. Given the scope of conduct of litigation confirmed in Mazur, it is not credible that four solicitors can personally oversee, sign, and submit this volume without breaching reserved activity rules. This demands urgent SRA investigation into systemic unauthorised litigation conduct.
Anyone care to submit the question to the SRA?
As above... the driver should never be identified! They have no idea who the driver is. They only know the Keepers identity. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver and they should always decline to do so, unless we can verify that the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued in full compliance with POFA 2012. (not so) Smart Parking almost never comply with the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable.
First, you must ask yourself why you never received the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). Was your address on the V5C up to date at the time of the alleged contravention? Often people change address, update their drivers licence with the DVLA, not understanding that they also have to separately update their V5C information. Please double check that your V5C is up to date with your current address.
Any debt recovery letters can be safely ignored. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear. Never, ever enter into communication with a useless debt collector.
As you have now received a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal, you need to respond with the following to info@dcblegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
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.
As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
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. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
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]