Lay reps, Clients and Deals in the background.

BenefitMaster

OK, first things first - Interest declared. I am a trained Lay representative and Union Representative. I regularly go to Tribunals and County Courts representing clients on both sides of the fence. I do Lay rep work with the BMPA, and do other work with PTAS. I am remunerated for some of the legal work I do by my union, and by PTAS.

In the Bournemouth thread, a couple of points have been made by people who appear to hold a grudge for some reason. The suggestion has been made that the client was paid off to keep quiet.

This is going to sound like a Rant, but I want to make something very clear.

When I accept a case whether it be parking, Employment or anything else I do, I always tell the client that I am not a solicitor, and I cannot guarantee a win, or even a draw. I also notify them that win or lose, I will charge them my reasonable expenses to attend their case in court, unless they are covered by the union. Now, because I am a layman, I cannot charge for my time or my representation (again unless this is union work), as I am not under the supervision of an authorised person as required by the Legal Services Act 2007 - Proserve are feeling that pain right now.

Normally, I will work under the umbrella of the BMPA for parking cases, and they are aware of my expenses. I have never sought approval of the sums I claim; I have never been criticised for seeking them. I know at least one other Lay rep who requests similar levels of expenses.

My expenses amounts to 45p a mile travel, each way, from my house to court. I add to this the standard HMRC subsistence allowance of £5 if I'm going to be more than 5 hours away, and £10 if I'm going to be more than 10 hours away from home, per day. Sometimes I also have to ask for hotel expenses, which are expensed at the actual rate I pay. If I am likely to pay for parking, my GPEOL is £3.

For the two Bournemouth cases on two separate days, each client was charged £60. I have charged much less, and some cases I have done for free in the early days, including Lorraine's case at Southampton. Conversely, for a case in Sunderland that I was asked to attend, the costs were going to be over £500, and the client agreed to that, before the Parking Company dropped the claim a few days before.

It's worth noting that this is money that the client has to throw at the case, win or lose. As a result, even a Drop Hands on the day has cost the client my expenses, which he cannot claim back via the court. However, Ultimately, this isn't my job, and it costs me travel and holiday time (which is much more than I ask in expenses) to do these cases, notwithstanding the pleasure I get when the court finds in our favour. In fact, for Bournemouth alone, I lost over £300 of holiday time.

Additionally, for many cases, another BMPA member comes along, either to assist and take notes, or to learn how to do the job before a judge. I've also been that assistant more than once. The assistant doesn't get their expenses...

What this means, in real terms, is that when a case is in hand, I owe my client exactly the same duty of care, whether I am being paid nothing, just expenses, a piece-rate for my work or whether the union is paying me. I am bound by the same professional conduct rules as any other legal adviser. And that means what the client says, goes.

I post here to help people. I lay rep to help people. I write and prepare court documents for others to help people. Ultimately, if I am using my time, and my own resources for this, I thing it's fair and reasonable that my genuine expenses are covered. And without exception, my clients agree with this stance. And so, paying or not, the client rules.

If a client tells me that they want the matter kept private, it is kept private. If the court orders the client to keep it private, I am bound by that order as his agent. Likewise if he wants it shouted from the rooftops, he gets his wish, and people like Prankster are always happy to help with publicity.

So as a result, if I am here, publicising what happened, it is not because the client owes anything to the forums, nor that I owe anything to the forums, nor that you, the forum members are entitled to know what happened. Its because those are my "professional" instructions, adhered to by me to the letter.

Finally, and without breaching confidentiality on any case I have dealt with, I have never agreed a payoff to a Defendant where that was conditional on a Confidentiality Agreement, and you are only aware of one such case where a CA was agreed. I am currently better than 10-0 against Parking Companies, and even Prankster is only aware of 4 cases I have been to.

So please, a little less of the backbiting, and criticism. You wouldn't say things like that to a Solicitor, but I (or Prankster, or Bargepole, or SRM/CM, or 4Consumerrights or a multitude of others who appear with Defendants) am doing the same job for the defendant as the guy who PE pays £300 per case for. Cut us an inch of slack, maybe?

Thanks for reading my rant :A Comments and criticism welcome, but I won't change the way I work or ask for expenses - my time comes for free but diesel costs £1.30 a litre :rotfl:

BenefitMaster

Forgot to mention that any work I do prior to the hearing doesn't get paid for either, unless it's something tangible like a Land Registry extract.

And that's as it should be - I can't be paid for my time.

Ryan_Bryan

Your work is well documented here and you don't in any way need to justify yourself. Your main accuser seems to delight in arguing that black is white. Just keep up the great work.
If anyone doubts that's those who fight against the bullys have to wring every shred of detail out of a victory lets not forget this legendary thread where confidentiality was the end of the line.

HAVING FUN WITH DEBITAS.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/741653

bargepole

I would second everything B-M has said, and can confirm I work on very much the same basis.


I went along with him to the Bournemouth hearing where a confidentiality agreement covered the outcome, and can confirm that the Judge made it clear to us and the defendant that no details of the case could be discussed publicly.


With most defendants whom I represent, I tell them in advance that, apart from travelling expenses, I don't want any payment for doing the work, but would like to post the details of successful outcomes on the forums.


In most cases they have agreed, and a search of my previous postings will show numerous detailed case reports, with case numbers, defendant's name, Judge's name and even the other side's representative's name.


But if a particular defendant wishes to remain anonymous, that is his/her prerogative, and they are then referred to as Mr or Mrs X.


As many on here will know, I assisted Andy Foster with the Beavis case at Cambridge, and although we now have a QC to represent Mr Beavis at the Appeal hearing, we are still doing all the mundane stuff and running around that would normally be done by a solicitor. This is saving hundreds of pounds in fees, but the importance of having our best shot at bringing down the PPC charging model cannot be underestimated.

BenefitMaster

bargepole wrote: »

With most defendants whom I represent, I tell them in advance that, apart from travelling expenses, I don't want any payment for doing the work, but would like to post the details of successful outcomes on the forums.

To be fair, I always ask my clients if I can publish their success, unless I am bound not to. In every case where I can, I have, even if only after it was returned to POPLA and won there.

Needless to say that anyone contacting Bargepole or myself privately and asking for that privacy gets it without question, and that also stands for any case matter discussed by BMPA volunteers off forum.

EnigmaPart1

People are going to have to accept sooner then later that for some solutions they are going to have to pay to have things "dealt with". and i have no qualms about doing that.

BenefitMaster

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

HAVING FUN WITH DEBITAS.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/741653

That's a case I'm aware of - the final result was a substantial four figure sum and a CA settlement.

Cap-1 have done that several times in cases I know about.

The_Deep

The suggestion has been made that the client was paid off to keep quiet.

But is that not what a confidentiality usually is? An agreement by one party to pay off another party as long as they do not talk about it?

We know that it is common practice in health trusts, the police, and local authorities, even though taxpayers' money is being spent.

Some years ago I brought a claim against Fiat when a main dealer in Spain charged me for parts which were not supplied. Fiat offered me an out of court settlement if I signed a CA, I refused and they paid up anyway.

If you are hard nosed enough and have a strong claim, you can often refuse to sign a CA

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

If you are hard nosed enough and have a strong claim, you can often refuse to sign a CA

I can't refuse to sign anything, I can only advise the client.

4consumerrights

The_Deep wrote: »

The suggestion has been made that the client was paid off to keep quiet.

But is that not what a confidentiality usually is? An agreement by one party to pay off another party as long as they do not talk about it?

We know that it is common practice in health trusts, the police, and local authorities, even though taxpayers' money is being spent.

Some years ago I brought a claim against Fiat when a main dealer in Spain charged me for parts which were not supplied. Fiat offered me an out of court settlement if I signed a CA, I refused and they paid up anyway.

If you are hard nosed enough and have a strong claim, you can often refuse to sign a CA

It would appear once again the Deep that for some obscure reason you cannot bear the thought that details of a court case have not been made public on MSE.

Your continued attacking of those people who spend their time and energy in assisting people with parking charges is quite frankly abhorrent - considering you admit quite freely that you have had no experience in this field yourself on this thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5078140

And when this was raised - your reply to one poster EnigmaPart1 was just to critique his incorrect use of the apostrophe.

It is no secret to those who know this poster that his spelling and grammar leaves somewhat room for improvement - however he knows more about parking issues in his little toe than you do or are ever likely to learn.


********************************************************

People in glass houses really should not throw stones.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go get yourself a Parking Eye PCN - ignore it and hopefully end up in court. Then you can go through the process of detailing us with your experience on your big day.


*******************************************************

You have not had to advise or listen to those people who have had default judgments against them and are unable to obtain mortgages or move because a parking company is in situ where they live.

bob?_3-2

You guys do not need to explain the ins and outs of what is basically charity work, without people like you willing to spend untold unpaid hours the PPC's would be having a 100% success rate.