DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: October 20, 2025, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No reply to your rebuttal after 9 days. Proceed to the next
stage, or allow a few more days of 'grace'?
#Post#: 94846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: October 20, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Give them an extra 48 hours (by 4pm on Wednesday 22 October)
with this email:
--- Quote ---
> 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:
> [indent]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).[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---
> 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:
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> Schedule of Costs (Litigant in Person, CPR 46.5)
>
> [indent]• 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: £[ ][/indent]
>
> Supporting documents:
> [indent]• My emails dated [dates] and DCB Legal’s reply dated
[date];
> • Copy N279 as filed/served.[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 94847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: October 20, 2025, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Will do, and thanks.
#Post#: 96401--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: November 1, 2025, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
--- Quote ---
> 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
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: November 1, 2025, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes — at this point you’ve given DCB Legal every reasonable
opportunity to confirm whether the signatory was authorised or
exempt under the Legal Services Act 2007, and they have declined
to engage with the substance. Their latest message effectively
closes correspondence without addressing the statutory
compliance question.
You can now proceed to the next stage without further reference
to them, i.e.:
File a costs application or written request to the court (as
outlined in the earlier draft) inviting the court to award your
costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct,
highlighting that DCB Legal ignored lawful requests for
clarification of a reserved activity and provided a legally
flawed excuse (“not implemented at the time”).
Report the matter to the SRA, enclosing the correspondence chain
and explaining that DCB Legal’s employee signed an N279 without
any verified authorisation or exemption and the firm refused to
confirm compliance. Stress that this may amount to unauthorised
conduct of litigation contrary to the LSA 2007 ss.12–14 and Sch
3.
Send the following to the court addressed to the Court Manager /
District Judge:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Costs following Notice of Discontinuance signed by
unverified paralegal
>
> Re: [Claimant] v [Defendant] — Claim No. [Claim number]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam / District Judge,
>
> 1. The Claimant filed a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279)
on 8 September 2025 signed “L. Travis, Paralegal.” I queried
whether the signatory was authorised under the Legal Services
Act 2007 to conduct litigation or fell within a statutory
exemption.
>
> 2. DCB Legal Ltd responded that because Mazur v Charles
Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) was decided after
the discontinuance, it was “not implemented at the time.” That
reasoning is legally unsustainable: the decision merely affirmed
the pre-existing statutory position under sections 12–14 and
Schedule 3 of the Act.
>
> 3. I reiterated the request for the signatory’s full name,
capacity, and authorisation details. DCB Legal declined to
engage further and now states the matter is “deemed concluded”.
The question of whether the N279 was executed by an authorised
or exempt person therefore remains unanswered.
>
> 4. Preparing, signing, filing or serving a Notice of
Discontinuance constitutes the conduct of litigation, a reserved
legal activity. Where undertaken by an unqualified person it
amounts to unauthorised conduct contrary to section 14 of the
Act. I have had to spend time pursuing clarification that should
have been forthcoming immediately.
>
> Application
> Accordingly, I invite the Court to exercise its discretion
under CPR 27.14(2)(g) to award my costs occasioned by this
unreasonable conduct, namely:
>
> [table]
> [tr][td]Description[/td][td]Time
(hrs)[/td][td]Rate[/td][td]Amount[/td][/tr]
> [tr][td]Correspondence with DCB
Legal[/td][td][x.xx][/td][td]£24.00[/td][td]£[ ][/td][/tr]
> [tr][td]Preparing this
submission[/td][td][x.xx][/td][td]£24.00[/td][td]£[ ][/td][/tr]
> [tr][td]Postage / incidentals[/td][td][/td][td][/td][td]£[
][/td][/tr]
> [tr][td]Total[/td][td][/td][td][/td][td]£[ ][/td][/tr]
> [/table]
>
> Supporting documents:
> [indent]• Copy N279 filed/served 08 Sept 2025
> • My emails dated [dates] and DCB Legal’s replies dated
[dates][/indent]
>
> If the Court requires a formal N244, I am content to file one,
but respectfully submit that the issue and quantum can be
determined on the papers.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
> [Postal address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
Send the following to the SRA at report@sra.org.uk:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: DCB Legal Ltd – potential unauthorised conduct of
litigation (Notice of Discontinuance signed/submitted by
paralegal)
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I report a potential breach of the Legal Services Act 2007
concerning unauthorised conduct of litigation by DCB Legal Ltd.
>
> Background
>
> Claim No. [claim number], [Claimant] v [Defendant].
>
> On 8 September 2025 DCB Legal filed/served a Notice of
Discontinuance (Form N279) signed “L. Travis, Paralegal”. I
requested confirmation of the signatory’s authorisation or
exemption under the Act.
>
> Responses
>
> DCB Legal replied that Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) “was not implemented at the time of
discontinuance” and therefore they had acted correctly. This
response avoids the substantive statutory question. A further
chaser was sent; they ultimately stated the file was closed and
the matter concluded, without confirming authorisation or
exemption.
>
> Concern
>
> Preparing, signing, filing or serving a Notice of
Discontinuance constitutes “conduct of litigation”, a reserved
legal activity under sections 12–14 and Schedule 3 of the Legal
Services Act 2007. The refusal to identify the signatory’s
authorisation raises a credible concern that an unqualified
employee performed a reserved activity contrary to section 14(1)
of the Act.
>
> I attach the relevant correspondence and N279 for your
consideration. I request that the SRA investigate whether DCB
Legal permitted unauthorised conduct of litigation and, if so,
take appropriate regulatory action.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
> [Postal address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: November 22, 2025, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I just can't reconcile what appears to be a direct
conflict in your advice. In comment #130, you said:
--- Quote ---
> Only the defendant can claim costs. Any request for costs must
be made by the defendant and can only relate to their own time.
--- End Quote ---
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?
#Post#: 99370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: November 22, 2025, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s your choice. I thought you were the defendant. Just tell
the defendant to claim for all their costs. If you were acting
as a Lay Representative, your time cannot be claimed.
If the defendant wants to claim costs for time you have spent
assisting, that is for them to reconcile as to how they recover
those costs to you.
#Post#: 99622--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: Eryobotrya
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 99623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your time claimed should simply be what you can justify from
memory, you don’t have to prove it but it needs to be reasonable
and consistent, so I’d just write it down and hold on to what
you’ve written.
#Post#: 99624--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd - N1SDT Claim form recieved for PCN
isssued for Swanley Park parking in New Barn Rd
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************
Page 15 of 18
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page