Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks.

I have also received the following email from dcblegal


"WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

 

We write to you in relation to the above matter.

 

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £60.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £343.40.

　　　

Should you be agreeable to this offer, please confirm the same within 7 days. Payment can be made via our website www.dcblegal.co.uk, by calling our office on 0203 838 7038 or via bank transfer:　

　　　

DCB Legal Ltd Client Account　　

Sort Code: 20-24-09　　

Account no: 60964441　　

　　　

When making payment please ensure you include the following reference number, 332045454E, to enable us to allocate it to the correct case.

　　　

Upon receipt of the settlement sum of £60.00 we will update the Court that the matter has been settled. If you are not agreeable, we will continue to follow the Court process as normal."　

A classic precursor to a discontinuation. Hold your nerve.

I refer you to reply #33 I gave you.

Can you please show us the N279 Notice of Discontinuation (NoD). Please do not redact the signatory of that document.

Redact means to obscure details, but please post the N279 by redacting your details but not those of the signatory. We want to know who signed it, and in what capacity. We do not need to know your name and address.

redact
verb [ T ]  formal
 
UK/rɪˈdækt/ US/rɪˈdækt/

to remove words or information from a text before it is printed or made available to the public:

Yes... but you have redacted the name of the person who has signed the N279. The whole point is that we need to see that name because singing the N279 is conducting litigation which is a reserved activity and cannot be Doen by an unauthorised person, even if acting under supervision. You can rest assured that the person who has signed the N279 is not an authorised person and is therefore in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007, a criminal offence!

I suggest you send the following email immediately to info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC yourself:

Subject: Claim [court ref] – N279 signed “claimant’s solicitor” (paralegal): authority to conduct litigation & signature compliance

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the N279 (Notice of Discontinuance) filed/served in this matter. The signature block describes the signatory as “claimant’s solicitor”, position “paralegal” at DCB Legal, with the name shown as “[initial] [surname]”.

Please confirm by return:

• The signatory’s full name (forename and surname), their capacity, and whether they are an “authorised person” within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007 with a current right to conduct litigation (provide their SRA/CILEX number and practising status); or, if not,
• The precise exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 permitting them to conduct litigation and sign the N279 (and any related statements of truth/certifications) in this matter.

For the avoidance of doubt, filing/serving an N279 and related correspondence are acts of “conducting litigation”. If any person purporting to conduct litigation or to sign documents requiring a personal signature is not authorised (or exempt), please confirm the steps you will take to remedy the irregularity, including filing and serving a compliant N279 personally signed by an authorised person, and your position on costs arising.

You are placed on notice that if any signatory or employee is conducting litigation without the required authorisation or exemption, any breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 will be reported to the SRA and I reserve the right to raise it with the Court, including on costs.

Please respond within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

[full name]

[postal address]
[email]

They lie all the time in order to get your money, so why wouldn’t they also break the law?

Just send the email and see what they respond with.

If you want to understand why this is now an issue, have a read of this thread:

Why the recent High Court appellate case of Mazur is very relevant to all cases we deal with here