Free Traffic Legal Advice

Got it, and thx.

That doesn’t get her or DCB Legal off the hook. Mazur simply confirmed the existing legal requirement. It did not introduce the requirement from the date of the judgment.

Respond to her with the following:

Subject: Claim [claim number] — Notice of Discontinuance signer’s authority

Dear Ms Travis,

Thank you for your email.

Your response misunderstands the point in issue. The effect of Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (16 September 2025) is declaratory of existing law: it reiterates that only an authorised person (or someone falling within a statutory exemption) may conduct litigation. That has been the position under the Legal Services Act 2007 (see ss.12–14 and Sch 3) irrespective of the date of the Mazur judgment. The question remains whether the individual who signed the N279 had the requisite authorisation or exemption at the time of signing.

Please therefore answer the questions previously put:

The signatory’s full name, capacity, and whether they are an “authorised person” within the meaning of the LSA 2007 (provide SRA/CILEX number and practising status).

If not authorised, the precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 LSA 2007 that entitled that individual to conduct litigation and sign the N279 in these proceedings (enclose any sealed order or specific statutory provision).

For the avoidance of doubt, Practice Direction 22 requires a signature with the individual’s name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party; “L. Travis, Paralegal” is not adequate for verification. If the N279 was not signed by an authorised (or exempt) person, please file and serve a compliant N279 personally signed by an authorised person, with their full name and capacity clearly stated.

Unless and until you provide satisfactory confirmation, I will reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek my costs arising from any irregularity under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and, if appropriate, wasted costs. Conducting a reserved legal activity without entitlement is also a criminal offence under the LSA 2007; I reserve the right to report any such conduct to the SRA.

Please respond within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Postal address]
[Email]

I’m not on a break. I will be out of the country for 3-4 weeks and may have limited time and access. I will be trying to stay on top of cases as much as I can.

Give them an extra 48 hours (by 4pm on Wednesday 22 October) with this email:

Subject: Claim [claim number] — FINAL NOTICE re authority of N279 signer

Dear Ms Travis,

Further to my email of [date] and your reply of [date], no substantive response has been received to the specific questions asked about the signatory’s authorisation/exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007.

Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (16 September 2025) is declaratory of existing law; the issue is whether the person who signed the N279 was authorised or exempt at the time of signing. Please provide, within 48 hours:

1. The signatory’s full name, capacity and SRA/CILEX number and current practising status; or
2. The precise Schedule 3 LSA 2007 exemption relied upon (with the sealed order/statutory provision).

Absent a complete answer, I will (i) place this correspondence before the Court on a costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and (ii) refer the matter to the SRA for investigation of any conduct of reserved legal activities without entitlement.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]

If no response by 4pm on Wednesday 22 October, send the following to whichever court was last being used before the discontinuation and CC DCB Legal and yourself:

To: The Court Manager / District Judge

Claim: [claim number] — [Claimant] v [Defendant]

Re: Costs following Notice of Discontinuance (N279) signed by paralegal

Dear Sir/Madam / District Judge,

The Claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) signed “L. Travis, Paralegal”. I queried the signer’s entitlement to conduct litigation and requested confirmation of authorisation/exemption under the Legal Services Act 2007. DCB Legal’s response did not answer those questions; no further response has been received by 4pm, 20 October 2025.

Only an authorised person (or a person within a statutory exemption) may conduct litigation. Preparing/signing/filing/serving an N279 is conduct of litigation. See LSA 2007 ss.12–14 and Sch. 3. The decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (16 September 2025) reiterates and clarifies this. Practice Direction 22 also requires the individual’s name and capacity when signing on behalf of a party.

The Claimant’s representatives have (i) failed to confirm that the signatory was authorised or exempt at the time of signing, and (ii) relied on a misunderstanding that Mazur “was not implemented” at the time of discontinuance, which is irrelevant to the underlying statutory position. This conduct has put me to unnecessary time and expense after discontinuance.

I respectfully invite the Court to exercise its discretion to award my costs caused by this unreasonable conduct. While CPR 38.6(3) limits costs on the small claims track, the Court retains discretion to award costs for unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The continued failure to confirm basic authorisation for a reserved activity after being squarely asked is, I submit, unreasonable.

Order sought:

(a) The Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the post-discontinuance correspondence, summarily assessed in the Schedule below and payable within 14 days; and
(b) Liberty to apply.

Schedule of Costs (Litigant in Person, CPR 46.5)

• Time spent drafting correspondence re authority (xx.xx hrs) @ £24.00/hr …… £[ ]
• Preparing this application/letter (xx.xx hrs) @ £24.00/hr …………………… £[ ]
• Postage/printing/incidentals …………………………………………………………… £[ ]
Total: £[ ]

Supporting documents:

• My emails dated [dates] and DCB Legal’s reply dated [date];
• Copy N279 as filed/served.

If the Court requires a formal application, I will file an N244 accordingly, but I hope this can be determined on the papers.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Address]
[Email]

OK, looks like we're just going round in circles here. She's avoiding the substantive points of compliance and exemption, etc. Proceed to the next stage without further reference to them?

Dear xxxxx xxxxxx,

I write further to the below.

Please note that our position remains as previously advised. We continue to act in accordance with SRA regulations and adjust our internal processes accordingly dependant on new instruction from any regulating authority.

The matter was discontinued on 08/09/2025 and therefore our file is closed.

DCB Legal Ltd now deem the matter concluded.

Kind Regards,
Lauren Travis

DCB Legal Ltd
Tel: 0203 434 0433|DX 23457 Runcorn
dcblegal.co.uk|Twitter|Linkedin|Facebook

Sorry, but I just can't reconcile what appears to be a direct conflict in your advice. In comment #130, you said:

Only the defendant can claim costs. Any request for costs must be made by the defendant and can only relate to their own time.

In comment #144, you then list a schedule of costs for time that I spent on behalf of the defendant, and for which you already said she cannot claim. It was my time, not hers, although she has spent other time defending this claim that you haven't listed.

For example, she prepared a bullet-point list of the facts surrounding the circumstances of the alleged infraction of the PPC's Ts&Cs - twice in fact, cos the first one was lost when Pepipoo went AWOL. She also returned to the scene of the 'crime' twice to obtain pictures of the signage for the same reason. She also spent time answering my questions whenever you posed a question that I couldn't answer without asking her, etc. Some of it is a matter of record on WhatsApp. But none of that time relates directly to dealing with DCBL. All of that was done by me.

Under those circumstances, does she have a claim for costs? IOW, can she claim for all the other stuff that predates my communications with Lauren Travis/DCBL? If not, then we will have to forgo the claim for costs and just make this a complaint about process, no? 

Well b789, you must deal with at least dozens of cases every week, so I wouldn't necessarily expect you to remember the particulars of every case you have ever handled.

But no, this is muggins fighting on behalf of his daughter, who would just cough up on first sight of a PCN for the sake of an easy life if it was left to her. She doesn't have the time for all this, and, of course, I have nothing better to do. So ........

1. OK, so she can claim for ALL the time she personally spent on this, right? If you include the two round trips to the site, the two lists of facts, and numerous exchanges with me on WhatsApp, etc., I estimate time spent to be iro 5.00hrs, give or take. But it's only an estimate. No precise records were kept. Would that be acceptable to the court, or should we deliberately underestimate to be on the 'safe' side?

2. Is the correspondence with the court, etc., to be conducted via email or hard copy via post? 

TIA.

Just be honest about the time she spent on the claim. Include any time spent researching etc. I must have spent a few hours doing some research on this case too. Just don't overcook it.

All correspondence over this can be via email with the court.