DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91278--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop panicking! The "fee" you have referred to is the trial fee
that the "Claimant", not you, the "Defendant" has to pay. I will
eat my hat if the claim is not discontinued just before the
deadline for them to pay that fee on Monday 29th September.
I note that the court set a deadline for Witness
Statements/bundles are to be submitted by 4pm on Friday 26th
September. I also bet you will not receive a copy of any WS from
the claimant by that date, if ever. If you do, then show it to
us.
So, if you have not received a copy of the claimant's WS by 4pm
on Friday, let us know. If you get any calls from DCB Legal, do
not respond. They are likely to try and contact you to offer a
settlement sum. This is their typical modus operandi and a
notable precursor to their discontinuation.
#Post#: 91577--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: Velina
Date: September 26, 2025, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your advice. In the letter says that both parties
should send the documents, not only the Claimant. I haven't sent
mine though. So if their arrive by 4 pm today mine will not go
which I assume is big problem.
#Post#: 91578--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: Velina
Date: September 26, 2025, 3:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can I do something like extending this deadline in terms of
sending my documents?
#Post#: 91583--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: Velina
Date: September 26, 2025, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, can I send the documents via email to both court and NPC?
#Post#: 91585--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: Velina
Date: September 26, 2025, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update!
Yesterday I've received email from DCB, which I haven't seen
because it was in my Spam folder. Email says that the Claimant
discontinue the case. Great news for me. Thank you all that you
helped me especially b789 I wouldn't be able to do it without
you!!!
Here are the pictures:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/rVP6rem
#Post#: 91635--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
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:
--- Quote ---
> 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:
>
> [indent]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).[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
Please let us know the response you receive.
#Post#: 92133--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: Velina
Date: September 30, 2025, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the advice. Before I carry on with this one I have
few questions.
1. Is it possible the discontinued case to be returned if this
letter is counted as invalid?
2. Will be any consequences for the person who sign this
document, for example to lose his job?
#Post#: 92179--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge Notice- No NPC e-permit, Greenwich
Millennium Village, SE100X
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. No, absolutely not.
2. Unlikely but the firm could be sanctioned by the SRA.
You should send this as it has no effect on the outcome of the
claim. The claim is discontinued. It cannot be resurrected.
DCB Legal flood the court system with hundreds of thousands of
these claims every year, causing misery and upset for countless
individuals. They have been abusing the system for many years
and it is now time to turn the tables around.
They should be made to answer the questions and if they have
been acting in breach of the LSA 2007, they deserve sanction.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page