DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

kryten3000

Here's another one (of 2 received today) from Facebook land:

Mr S was being pursued by Euro Car Parks for a parking event back in 2022.  DCB Legal even managed to get a default judgment thanks to the CNBC delays, overturned under their administrative powers.

Following mediation, the claim was allocated for a hearing in December with WS due the usual 14 days prior.

After various settlement emails, £60 in mid September  then back up to £200 on Monday this week, this turned up today. . Number 675 I believe.

1505grandad

@Umkomaas -  hope you can count the two above?

kryten3000

Another Facebook defendant:

Mr H incurred a charge from G24 back in July 2019.  DCB Legal sent a Letter of Claim in March 2025 and raised a claim in  April despite the defendant replying within 30 days and asking for an additional time.

The claim was inflated to more than £380.   Mediation was followed by a transfer to Skipton which is a known motorist friendly court.  After the routine £60 settlement email in September, a pathetic settlement offer of more than £300 followed this week with the N279 arriving just 2 days later!

Number 676 (TBC by @Umkomaas)

doubledotcom

Why are you redacting the name of the person who signed the N279? Signing and submitting an N279 is a regulated act and cannot be done by someone not authorised to conduct litigation. It needs to be signed with a full name, not an initial/surname and it needs to be someone who is regulated. A paralegal is not a regulated person.

Mazur applies in all these cases and I would suggest that the recipients of these N279s enquire with DCB Legal as to who the signatory is, that they cure the problem at their own cost and that apply to the court for their own costs for DCB Legal's unreasonable behaviour.

kryten3000

doubledotcom said:

Why are you redacting the name of the person who signed the N279? Signing and submitting an N279 is a regulated act and cannot be done by someone not authorised to conduct litigation. It needs to be signed with a full name, not an initial/surname and it needs to be someone who is regulated. A paralegal is not a regulated person.

Mazur applies in all these cases and I would suggest that the recipients of these N279s enquire with DCB Legal as to who the signatory is, that they cure the problem at their own cost and that apply to the court for their own costs for DCB Legal's unreasonable behaviour.

Good point, but I'm not sure my defendants will want to do this, they're relieved the claim is over. I currently don't have time to follow up for them either.   For the record they're signed Initial. Last Name.

Umkomaas

ClaretFozzy said:

Another discontinuance from ECP/DCB Legal.

Thank you for all your help and knowledge on here.

👆👆Crack open the champagne 🥂 (or claret 🍷 if you prefer), @ClaretFozzy pulls the cork on ECP and DCB Legal. 

Discontinuance #

674

Umkomaas

kryten3000 said:

Here's another one (of 2 received today) from Facebook land:

Mr S was being pursued by Euro Car Parks for a parking event back in 2022.  DCB Legal even managed to get a default judgment thanks to the CNBC delays, overturned under their administrative powers.

Following mediation, the claim was allocated for a hearing in December with WS due the usual 14 days prior.

After various settlement emails, £60 in mid September  then back up to £200 on Monday this week, this turned up today. . Number 675 I believe.

Here we go, thank you @kryten3000 - Facebook ace. ECP and DCB Legal wasting everyone's time. Discontinuance #

675

Umkomaas

kryten3000 said:

Another Facebook defendant:

Mr H incurred a charge from G24 back in July 2019.  DCB Legal sent a Letter of Claim in March 2025 and raised a claim in  April despite the defendant replying within 30 days and asking for an additional time.

The claim was inflated to more than £380.   Mediation was followed by a transfer to Skipton which is a known motorist friendly court.  After the routine £60 settlement email in September, a pathetic settlement offer of more than £300 followed this week with the N279 arriving just 2 days later!

Number 676 (TBC by @Umkomaas)

G24 this time, aided and abetted by DCB Legal (who else but!) wasting another motorist's time. Discontinuance #

676

Umkomaas

1505grandad said:

@Umkomaas -  hope you can count the two above?

I think I've caught them all. Let name know if there's any I've missed. 👍

Justifai

doubledotcom said:

Please tell anyone showing the N279 to NOT redact the name of the person who has signed it. I note that of those that are not redacted, they are all signed by "paralegals" and are not using their full name.

Anyone in receipt of an N279 from DCB Legal should send an email to info@dcblegal.co.uk along these lines:

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:

1. 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,

2. 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]

Thanks @doubledotcom for this info.

The full name (Morgan Falconer) of the person who signed NoD sent to me was wriitten in the email I received even though he signed as "paralegal" on the attached form N279 and name M.Falconer 

The email came from morgan@dcblegal.co.uk

Do you reckon I still need to send dcblegal the email (Subject: Claim [court ref] – N279 signed “claimant’s solicitor” (paralegal): authority to conduct litigation & signature compliance) you provided above ?

Thanks a lot in advance.