Free Traffic Legal Advice

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]