You are many months away from the discontinuation. You will next receive a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings to your local county court and then a Notice of Allocation with a hearing date and a deadline for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee. That will be 4 weeks before the heating date. Just before that date, you will receive an N279 Notice of Discontinuance. Come back and show that to us when you receive it.
Are you the defendant? If so, you are handling the matter yourself and have no need to delegate to anyone else.
My understanding is that form is for those who are assigning someone else to handle mediation for them (a lawyer for example).
Hi, sorry to keep bothering you all, really aprreciate your helo. I am very anxious about this and there is a lot of information on here so just want to make sure what I have found applies in my case. Is this what I need to do / say:
"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."
If you search the forum for “mediation” you’ll find lots of advice.
You do not need to refer to your defence other than to state that you stand by it, the claimant has it, and you won’t discuss it further.
Subject: Claim [court ref] — N180 signed “DCB Legal Ltd”: 24 hour chaser
Dear Sirs,
Further to my email of 1 October 2025, you have not provided the required confirmations regarding the N180 Directions Questionnaire that was signed “DCB Legal Ltd” with no named signatory.
Please provide within 24 hours:1. The full name and position of the individual who signed/approved the N180 filed with the court.
2. That person’s regulator and practising details (SRA/CILEx number) confirming they are an “authorised person” with rights to conduct litigation (Legal Services Act 2007, s.12 & Sch.2 para 4).
3. If not authorised, the precise exemption relied on (LSA 2007 Sch.3) entitling that individual to sign/file the N180.
As already set out, preparing, signing and filing the N180 are reserved steps in the conduct of litigation (LSA 2007 s.12; Sch.2 para 4). CPR 2.3 and PD22 require the individual’s name and capacity on a court document signed by a representative. Supervision does not authorise an unqualified employee to take reserved steps. See Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is an offence (LSA 2007 s.14).
Absent a compliant response, without further notice, I will place this correspondence before the court, invite appropriate case-management directions, and seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
Claim: [court ref]; Parties: [C] v [D]
For the attention of the Court — Civil National Business Centre (pre-allocation)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write regarding the Claimant’s N180 Directions Questionnaire filed in this matter. The signature block is completed simply “DCB Legal Ltd” with the “legal representative” box ticked, but no individual signatory is named.
On 1 October 2025 I requested the Claimant’s solicitors to: (i) identify the signatory; (ii) confirm their regulatory status and entitlement to conduct litigation; or (iii) specify any exemption relied upon. No response was received. Following that failure, I issued a further 24-hour final notice on [date], expressly drawing attention to the non-response. There has still been no reply.
Submitting, signing and filing an N180 are steps in the conduct of litigation (Legal Services Act 2007, s.12; Sch.2 para 4). Where a representative signs a court document, the individual’s full name and capacity must be shown (CPR 2.3(1) and PD22). Unauthorised employees may not take reserved steps merely under supervision: Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
Accordingly, before allocation I invite the Court, pursuant to CPR 3.1 and/or the Court’s general case-management powers, to:1. Direct the Claimant within 7 days to:a) identify the individual who signed/approved the N180; and
b) file and serve either (i) their regulator/practising details confirming they are an authorised person with a right to conduct litigation; or (ii) the precise statutory exemption relied upon (LSA 2007 Sch.3).
2. In default, treat the N180 as irregular and require the Claimant to re-serve a compliant N180 signed in the full name of an authorised (or exempt) individual stating their capacity and firm.
3. Reserve the issue of costs, with liberty to me to apply for costs of and occasioned by this issue under CPR 27.14(2)(g) if unreasonable conduct is found.
I will provide the Court with my 1 October letter and the 24-hour notice upon request or at the next stage.
Yours faithfully,
[Defendant’s name]
[Address/email
Subject: Claim [court ref] — N180 signed “DCB Legal Ltd”: identification of signatory and authority to conduct litigation
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the Claimant’s N180 Directions Questionnaire. The signature block is completed simply as “DCB Legal Ltd” with the box ticked for “legal representative for the Claimant.” No individual is named.
Please confirm by return:1. Identity of signatory — the full name and position of the individual who signed/approved the N180 filed with the court.
2. Regulatory status — that person’s regulator and practising details (SRA/CILEx number) and confirmation that they are an authorised person with rights to conduct litigation under the Legal Services Act 2007 (“LSA 2007”) (s.12 & Sch.2 para 4).
3. If not authorised: the precise exemption relied upon under LSA 2007 Sch.3 that entitles that individual personally to conduct litigation and to sign/file the N180 in these proceedings (if relying on a court order, provide the sealed order; if relying on an enactment, identify it).
For the avoidance of doubt:• Preparing, signing and filing the N180 in live proceedings are steps in the conduct of litigation (LSA 2007 s.12; Sch.2 para 4).
• A firm name alone does not identify the responsible person. Where a representative signs a court document, the individual’s full name and capacity must be shown (see CPR 2.3(1) definition of “legal representative” and PD 22).
• Supervision does not authorise an unqualified employee to conduct litigation. As confirmed in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), unqualified staff may assist, but cannot themselves take reserved steps (such as signing/filing court documents) unless authorised or exempt.
• Carrying on a reserved legal activity without entitlement is a criminal offence (LSA 2007, s.14).
Action required (within 7 days):• Provide the confirmations above; and
• Re-serve the N180 signed in the full name of an authorised (or exempt) individual, stating capacity and firm; or confirm that the existing N180 was signed by such a person.
Costs / regulatory notice:
If the N180 was executed by a person not authorised (or exempt) to conduct litigation, I will treat this as unreasonable conduct and invite the court to award my costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), relying inter alia on Mazur. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the court and to refer the matter to the SRA. Nothing in this letter waives any point taken in the defence.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
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 adequately 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 submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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 due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.