URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 90608--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Small claim court letter received. Observed leaving site
       UKCPS Sheff
   DIR By: b789
       Date: September 19, 2025, 4:50 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: disgruntchelt link ---
       >
       > Who sent the notice of discontinuance? The court or moorside
       legal.  Did they actually discontinue or just tell you they were
       so you didn’t turn up today to argue your case?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       --- Quote from: Pauly436 link ---
       >
       > Notice of Discontinuance Was sent to me by email 24hours and
       15 minutes before the court hearing.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The NoD is sent by the claimant or their legal representative.
       An N279 is not issued by the court.
       On a separate note, there has been a very recent High Court
       appeal decision, which will be binding, that could affect every
       single one of these bulk litigators, especially Moorside Legal
       who are one of the most incompetent of them all.
       Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341
       (KB), Sheldon J (16 Sept 2025)
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/avemaaeatg8znf97gix8m/Mazur-and-Ors-v-CRS-LLP.pdf?rlkey=ijv0ibxmz7ok6vrgwcvfdqpob&st=t7kweh3l&dl=0<br
       />is a high-authority clarification that paralegals/non-admitted
       staff cannot conduct litigation merely because their firm is
       authorised; they may only support an authorised litigator.
       In these types of cases, you can target any paralegal-signed
       formal steps (claim issue, SoTs, WS purporting to take
       responsibility) and seek regularisation plus costs. In this
       particular case, the N1SDT is signed by an Ibrar Ahmad. Whilst
       Mr Ahmad is listed as an SRA regulated solicitor, it shows him
       as employed by Osbourne Pinner Ltd, not Moorside Legal. The only
       SRA regulated employees of Moorside Legal are Adam Edward
       Peacock  who is not an SRA-regulated lawyer, working as
       Compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA),
       Rebecca Horton-Grainger who is an SRA-regulated solicitor and is
       Compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) and a Thomas Oliver
       Clough who is an SRA-regulated solicitor.
       Given that Moorside Legal’s SRA entry lists only Rebecca
       Horton-Grainger (COLP) and Thomas Oliver Clough as its
       solicitors, if the N1SDT claim is signed “for Moorside Legal” by
       Ibrar Ahmad whose SRA record shows he “works at Osbourne Pinner
       Ltd”, there’s a clear authority mismatch.
       A statement of case/SoT may be signed by the party or their
       legal representative (CPR 22; PD22). The legal representative
       must be the lawyer acting for the claimant through the firm on
       the record. A practising solicitor (like Mr Ahmad) is personally
       authorised to conduct litigation, but if he signs on behalf of
       Moorside Legal, he must have a proper practising
       relationship/authority with Moorside
       (employee/partner/consultant/secondment).
       Unless Moorside can evidence that Mr Ahmad was acting
       through/for Moorside when he signed, this is a solid authority
       defect and will affect their liability for costs.
       I suggest you send the following email to Rebecca
       Horton-Grainger at Moorside Legal:
       --- Quote ---
       > Subject: Claim [Claim No.] – Confirmation of Mr Ibrar Ahmad’s
       authority (March 2025)
       >
       > Dear Ms Horton-Grainger,
       >
       > Re: UKCPS Ltd v [Defendant’s name] — Claim No. [____]; issued
       13 March 2025]
       >
       > For the purpose of a pending costs application following the
       Claimant’s late discontinuance, please confirm the following in
       relation to the above claim:
       >
       > [indent]1. Whether Mr Ibrar Ahmad was employed by, seconded
       to, or acting as a consultant for Moorside Legal as at 13 March
       2025; and
       > 2. Whether Mr Ahmad was authorised by Moorside Legal to sign
       N1SDT claim forms and/or statements of truth on that
       date.[/indent]
       >
       > A brief yes/no to each point (or a short confirmation on
       letterhead) will suffice.
       >
       > This request is made to clarify authority at the material
       time, in light of the recent High Court guidance on conduct of
       litigation by authorised persons.
       >
       > I would be grateful for your reply within 7 days from today.
       If no response is received by that date, the Court may be
       invited to note the absence of confirmation when considering
       costs.
       >
       > Yours faithfully,
       >
       > [Full name]
       > Defendant
       > [Email] | [Telephone]
       > [Postal address]
       --- End Quote ---
       #Post#: 92617--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Small claim court letter received. Observed leaving site
       UKCPS Sheff
   DIR By: Pauly436
       Date: October 2, 2025, 2:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all.
       Had a reply from the courts on my request to claim fees from
       moorside for unfair practice.
       “This matter has been brought to an end by the Claimant’s notice
       of discontinuance. The Defendant has not applied to have the
       notice of discontinuance set aside (CPR 38.4) and therefore this
       matter is no longer ongoing, so he cannot make a claim under
       it.”
       Feels like the end of the road as I don’t feel in the position
       to spend funds fighting for the fees.
       Still extremely happy that the support from this group got the
       case dropped.
       Pauly
       #Post#: 92635--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Small claim court letter received. Observed leaving site
       UKCPS Sheff
   DIR By: DWMB2
       Date: October 2, 2025, 5:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Your original aim was to avoid paying UKCPS any money. You have
       succeeded in that aim. I'd count that as a win.
       --- Quote ---
       > I don’t feel in the position to spend funds fighting for the
       fees.
       --- End Quote ---
       Entirely sensible.
       #Post#: 92660--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Small claim court letter received. Observed leaving site
       UKCPS Sheff
   DIR By: b789
       Date: October 3, 2025, 4:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Have you had a response from Moorside Legal?
       *****************************************************
       Page 6 of 6
   DIR Previous Page