Which bit about "stop panicking" was not clear?. Well done for persevering and following the advice.
Whilst the claim is discontinued, you can have the last say and put DCB Legal under pressure and if you really want, try to get costs for their unreasonable behaviour.
The N279 is defective because it has been signed by someone who is not authorised to conduct litigation and does not include their full name. Conducting litigation is a reserved legal activity under section 12 and Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007, permitted only to authorised persons (or those with a specific exemption).
If an employee (e.g., a paralegal) conducts litigation without being authorised or exempt, even under supervision, the consequences can include:
• Criminal liability: carrying on a reserved legal activity when not entitled is a criminal offence. Supervision does not make it lawful. There is a limited defence of lack of knowledge, but it is narrow.
• Procedural irregularity: any step taken (e.g., filing or signing a court document) is defective and must be cured by an authorised person. The court can require re-filing, disregard the step, or make other case-management orders.
• Costs exposure against the party: on the small claims track the court may, in its discretion, award the defendant’s costs for unreasonable conduct if the defect caused unnecessary work or expense.
• Wasted costs against representatives: the court may make a wasted costs order against the firm or those responsible if the conduct was improper, unreasonable, or negligent and caused unnecessary costs.
• Regulatory action: the firm and supervisors may face regulatory scrutiny for failures of compliance and supervision. The individual cannot retroactively acquire the right to validate the act.
• If a statement of truth is involved: making or causing a false or non-compliant statement of truth can amount to contempt of court, with serious sanctions.
Bottom line: supervision by a solicitor does not authorise an unqualified employee to conduct litigation. Any such step must be remedied and can lead to criminal, regulatory, and costs consequences.
You should now send the following by email to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim [claim ref] – N279 signed by paralegal: authority to conduct litigation and signature validity
Dear Sir/Madam,
I note that the Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) filed/served in this matter has been signed by a paralegal and the signature block identifies the signatory only as “J. Hammond”. Please confirm by return:
1. whether the signatory is an “authorised person” for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 with rights to conduct litigation (and provide their SRA/CILEX number and current practising status); or, if not,
2. the precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 LSA 2007 that permits them to conduct litigation and sign the N279 in this matter (enclosing the sealed court order or specific enactment relied upon, if applicable).
For the avoidance of doubt, filing/serving an N279 is conduct of litigation and, following Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (2025), unqualified employees may support but cannot themselves conduct litigation unless authorised or exempt. Further, PD 22 requires the name of the person signing to be stated; an initial plus surname does not adequately identify the individual for verification of authorisation. Please therefore confirm the steps you will take to remedy any irregularity, including (as applicable) filing and serving a compliant N279 personally signed and clearly printed with the signatory’s full name by an authorised person, and your position on costs arising from the defect.
For the avoidance of doubt, if the N279 has been signed by a person not authorised (or exempt) to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007, or if it must be re-filed/served to identify and correct the signatory’s full name and status, I will treat this as unreasonable conduct. In line with Mazur and CPR 27.14(2)(g), I, as a litigant in person, 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, consider wasted costs against representatives).
Absent confirmation, I reserve the right to raise this with the Court and the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[full name]
[postal address]
[email]
Please let us know the response you receive.
