DcbLegal missed Witness Statement deadline

doubledotcom

You can claim costs for their unreasonable behaviour because the N279 has been signed/submitted by a paralegal and is not signed correctly.

M. Falconer
Position or office held: Paralegal
(Claimant’s Solicitor)
Date: 8th October 2025

That signature block is misleading and procedurally defective for two reasons:

1. Misdescription of status – The form describes “Claimant’s Solicitor”, yet the individual expressly identifies themselves as a Paralegal. A paralegal is not an authorised person under the Legal Services Act 2007 and cannot lawfully conduct litigation, which includes signing and filing an N279 (a formal step in proceedings). The recent High Court authority Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirms that supervision does not cure unauthorised conduct.

2. Signature/identifiability issue – Under CPR 5.3 and Practice Direction 5A, para 1, where a document is signed electronically or mechanically, the name of the signatory must be printed so the person may be identified. “M. Falconer” (an initial and surname only) does not satisfy that requirement because the court and opposing party cannot clearly identify the individual. The rule’s purpose is accountability — initials are insufficient.

Accordingly, this N279 is defective on both regulatory and procedural grounds.

Send the following email to DCB Legal:

Subject: Claim [insert claim number] – Defective N279 Signature / Unauthorised Conduct of Litigation

Dear Sirs,

Re: [Claimant] v [Defendant] – Claim No. [insert number]*
Document: Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) dated 8th October 2025

I refer to the Notice of Discontinuance filed in this matter. The document is signed “M. Falconer” and identifies the signatory as a “Paralegal”, yet the signature block states “(Claimant’s Solicitor)”.

This document is defective for the following reasons:

1. Unauthorised conduct of litigation
   Signing and filing an N279 constitutes conduct of litigation, a reserved legal activity under Sections 12, 14 and 18 and Schedule 2 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
   A paralegal is not an authorised person and has no statutory exemption permitting them to conduct litigation. Supervision by a solicitor is irrelevant — the High Court in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirmed that unauthorised employees may not perform reserved acts, even under supervision.
   You are therefore required to confirm whether M. Falconer is personally authorised to conduct litigation, including their full name and SRA number. If they are not, you must explain the legal basis on which they purported to sign and file the N279.

2. Defective signature / misidentification
   The signature “M. Falconer” does not comply with CPR 5.3 and Practice Direction 5A paragraph 1, which require that where a document is signed electronically or mechanically, the signatory’s name must be printed so that the person may be identified. An initial and surname do not meet that requirement. The signature also misrepresents the signatory’s capacity by describing a paralegal as “Claimant’s Solicitor”.

Required action (at your cost):

• File and serve a corrected N279 signed by an authorised person, accurately described as such;

• Confirm that you will bear all costs of curing the defect; and

• Confirm the full name, position, and SRA number of the supervising solicitor responsible for this matter.

Regulatory notice:
If you fail to provide a satisfactory response within 3 business days, I will refer both the signatory and DCB Legal Ltd to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for unauthorised conduct of litigation and misleading the court.

Further notice:
Until a properly executed Notice of Discontinuance is filed and served by an authorised person, you are not to rely on the defective N279 as having any procedural effect. Any attempt to do so will be treated as a further instance of professional misconduct and will be brought to the attention of the court and the regulator.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name]

Since the claim was on the small claims track, you seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g): unreasonable behaviour.

Grounds: the claimant filed and served an N279 signed and submitted by a paralegal misdescribed as “Claimant’s Solicitor”. A paralegal is not authorised to conduct litigation. That is capable of being unreasonable. You have the N279 and your follow-up email as evidence.

What you can claim:
– Any court fees you actually paid (issue or hearing).
– Reasonable travel or witness expenses if incurred.
– Plus an uplift for the extra work their misconduct caused. As a litigant in person you claim time at £19 per hour. Keep it tightly linked to the defect: reviewing the N279, drafting your objection, preparing the costs request and N244 if needed.

What to do now:

1. Send DCB Legal the email (already drafted) giving a short deadline and attach a simple costs schedule: fees paid, hours x £19, brief description of work.

2. If they do not agree, issue an N244 seeking a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) with summary assessment on the papers. Exhibit: the N279 image, your email chain, and a short witness statement explaining the defect and the extra work it caused.

Suggested wording for the application:

The claimant’s conduct was unreasonable. The Notice of Discontinuance was signed and filed by a paralegal described as “Claimant’s Solicitor”. A paralegal is not an authorised person and has no right to conduct litigation. The High Court in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirmed that only authorised or exempt individuals may conduct litigation and that supervision does not confer authorisation. Filing and signing an N279 is a reserved legal act. This unlawful act required the defendant to investigate the matter, write to the claimant to demand correction, and prepare this costs application. The time and cost of doing so were caused entirely by the claimant’s unreasonable conduct.

The defendant applies for costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the claimant’s unreasonable conduct in filing and serving a Notice of Discontinuance signed and submitted by an unauthorised paralegal misdescribed as “Claimant’s Solicitor”. This necessitated corrective correspondence and additional work. The defendant seeks summary assessment in the sum of £[amount], comprising [fees paid] and [x] hours at the litigant in person rate of £19 per hour, per the attached schedule.

Le_Kirk

Justifai said:

I wish there is a forum like this for PCNs issued by council. I received a PCN in Barking & Dagenham even though I paid for parking.

There is, it is as below: -

Council

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/

Police

https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/

Private

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/

Car1980

FYI it changed from £19 to £24 per hour on 1 October.

They might argue about the claim starting before that date, but I'd just stick in £24 and if they argue they'd rather pay you the lower rate it would still be a win.