LBC advice for driver who 'possibly accepted guilt'

Umkomaas

kensiko said:

Umkomaas said:

nopcns said:

Are you confident enough to go with the claimant and act as their lay rep?

Make sure you take with you a copy of The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 in case there is any debate about your ability to lay rep. Also research the difference between a Lay Representative and a McKenzie Friend - similar, but with some different parameters - in case the Judge asks you exactly which role you will undertake. 

I am confident enough to be at the hearing.  Although it will be a new experience for me and the claimant understands I am by no means a legal representative.

As far as I am aware the difference is a McKenzie Friend was not allowed to speak on their behalf.  A lay rep as per https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made speaking on the claimants behalf was allowed.  I am hoping to be there on the day and be a lay rep on the claimants behalf.

Sorry, I didn't mean your personal ability to Lay Rep, I meant it in the context that some Judges occasionally won't allow (seemingly incorrectly) a Lay Rep to represent another party, hence my suggestion to carry a copy of the document. 

Coupon-mad

I guessed he'd be wobbling by now, which is why I explained why he must turn up.

It's worth it because there's nothing to lose (honestly, it is an interesting life experience but feels a bit like a job interview so not exactly in any lay person's comfort zone).  Nerves are normal; Judges expect it and allow for it.

Not turning up risks hundreds in costs.  Do not even think about ducking this outing!

kensiko

Umkomaas said:

kensiko said:

Umkomaas said:

nopcns said:

Are you confident enough to go with the claimant and act as their lay rep?

Make sure you take with you a copy of The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 in case there is any debate about your ability to lay rep. Also research the difference between a Lay Representative and a McKenzie Friend - similar, but with some different parameters - in case the Judge asks you exactly which role you will undertake. 

I am confident enough to be at the hearing.  Although it will be a new experience for me and the claimant understands I am by no means a legal representative.

As far as I am aware the difference is a McKenzie Friend was not allowed to speak on their behalf.  A lay rep as per https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made speaking on the claimants behalf was allowed.  I am hoping to be there on the day and be a lay rep on the claimants behalf.

Sorry, I didn't mean your personal ability to Lay Rep, I meant it in the context that some Judges occasionally won't allow (seemingly incorrectly) a Lay Rep to represent another party, hence my suggestion to carry a copy of the document. 

Sorry, understood.  Yes, I will take a copy of the legislation with me.  I am surprised to hear not all judges would not understand such a simple part of the process though!

kensiko

Coupon-mad said:

I guessed he'd be wobbling by now, which is why I explained why he must turn up.

It's worth it because there's nothing to lose (honestly, it is an interesting life experience but feels a bit like a job interview so not exactly in any lay person's comfort zone).  Nerves are normal; Judges expect it and allow for it.

Not turning up risks hundreds in costs.  Do not even think about ducking this outing!

Yes, a bit worrying.  I will bring him round as best I can.

Thanks everyone.

kensiko

Ahh well time to bring the thread to a close.

It was close, but no cigar unfortunately.
It would have been good to turn a loss into a win, but it was not to be.

The case always hung on 'they misled him to make mistakes he would not otherwise have made' vs 'he was silly (which he does know!!) and should have done everything correctly (ie the original defence), why would 1 email make such a difference' - the Judge seems to have chosen the latter.

Everything was very cordial and it was a good experience, just the final 2 mins that could have been better.

The biggest issue was the fact that the original defence was not done and even after default judgement no set asides or appeals were done.  This should really have all been done back then.

The only one small point that irked me a little bit was in the judgement she said 'ZZPS acted in good faith when sending the cancellation email after they had been told to close the case'.  If she'd had said 'admittedly the email was misleading, but it shouldn't have effected anything further down the process', that would have sat better with me.

The misleading part of it all really wasn't mentioned that much in the end, more just this should have been solved nearer the time.

Thanks everyone for your help and advice on this one though, I have learnt a lot from it.

Now, back to the easy cut 'n paste defence ones - still 100% on those 

All the best.

Coupon-mad

Nice try and I assume no costs all round.  Therefore you cost ZZPS a three figure sum to fight this.  Nice.

kensiko

Coupon-mad said:

Nice try and I assume no costs all round.  Therefore you cost ZZPS a three figure sum to fight this.  Nice.

Nothing at all.
Judgement given, everyone said thank you and left.