Unexpected CCJ - Recovery of Debt letter from DCBL

fair2everyone

My son's hearing is due soon and I was expecting to be able to be a Lay Rep for him.  However, with it being a remote hearing (video link), he phoned the court to ask how that would work (e.g. do I sit beside him and speak when allowed to speak or do I need my own Laptop/link).  He was told that he isn't allowed a Lay Rep, only a legal representative.  He can, however, bring a "Friend" for support but I wouldn't be allowed to speak.  Can anyone advise on this?  I'm sure I've read on here that Lay Reps are allowed ( @Coupon-mad I'm sure you agreed that it would be a good idea for me to Lay-Rep?  Any thoughts on what we can do about this?)

I did find this info from @bargepole - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6302758/lay-representatives-remote-hearings?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=lay+rep

but it is from 2021 - has anyone done had a Lay Rep at a video hearing recently?

KeithP

fair2everyone said:

He was told that he isn't allowed a Lay Rep, only a legal representative.

That is clearly wrong.

The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 clearly states...

3. any person may exercise rights of audience in proceedings dealt with as a small claim in accordance with rules of court.

It goes on to effectively say that the Defendant must also attend.

It's a very simple one page document. Suggest you send a copy to the court pointing out that you will attend as a Lay Representative.

fair2everyone

Thanks for the quick reply. I’ve looked at that now - does this sentence have any significance 

(2) A lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:–

(a) where his client does not attend the hearing;

(b) at any stage after judgment; or

This hearing is a follow on from his original CCJ which has now been set-aside and the claim sent to the Small Claims Track. 

If not, I will do as you say and email a copy to them. Thanks 

KeithP

fair2everyone said:

Thanks for the quick reply. I’ve looked at that now - does this sentence have any significance 

(2) A lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:–

(a) where his client does not attend the hearing;

(b) at any stage after judgment; or

This hearing is a follow on from his original CCJ which has now been set-aside and the claim sent to the Small Claims Track. 

If not, I will do as you say and email a copy to them. Thanks 

(2)(a) says the named Defendant must attend - I mentioned that earlier.

(2)(b) says that the Lay Rep cannot take part after a Judgment has been made. But after a Judgment has been made that's it. Case over - except perhaps for the matter of costs. So make sure the named Defendant is up to speed on that.

Trainerman

Follow the advice from @KeithP.  He is right. The sort of ignorance you describe is not that uncommon, believe it or  not.

I was once told by the Judge's clerk that I could only be a McKenzie friend, even though I showed him the relevant paperwork. This was at an attended hearing and I just sorted it out with the Judge when I got in there

Nellymoser

@fair2everyone how did the hearing go, did your son win? 

fair2everyone

Unfortunately no.  However he did get a reasonable reduction in the amount awarded. I will give more details later but I do have one question. He has paid the parking company  - is it up to them to inform the court or does he need to send evidence of payment to the court. We really don’t trust Excel and obviously don’t want the court to set another CCJ against his name. 

Coupon-mad

Aah that's a shame. I guess the Judge determined that the signs were sufficiently prominent, even though this was a change for the site?

What was said? Did you lay rep the case?

Your son doesn't have to prove to the court that he paid in time but it won't hurt to email them the proof.

fair2everyone

Yes, they weren’t impressed with him trying to use the signs argument. However, they were very reasonable on other aspects. He argued very well I thought. I will do a more detailed account in a few days as we’re away at the moment with only my mobile to input with. Thanks as always for your reply. 

fair2everyone

Sorry for the time it has taken to update the details of this case. 

First of all, I wasn’t allowed to Lay Rep. The judge was asked and said I could only be a McKenzie friend, not sure why.  My son asked if I would be allowed to speak and the answer was only to help with explanations - I obviously could not give evidence. In the end, I didn’t need to speak, my son did extremely well (in my opinion)!  

At the hearing, the rep for the Claimant concentrated on the signs - how clear they were, how many there were, spent ages on this one point.  My son said he had 3 main points to make - the signs, the additional charge of £70, and the lack of effort to obtain the correct address. He also tried to include an argument over the cost of £275 for his set-aside, which he felt was unfair due to the misleading “Consent Order”. The Judge dismissed this, saying “that hearing was your chance to speak up. Didn’t you go over all of that with the Judge at the time?” He did try to express the fact that he felt he was faced with a Judge who had already made their mind up, but to no avail.  When discussing the address issue and how a soft trace would have prevented him being here today, the judge asked "what do you mean by soft trace, do you mean a credit card trace because I can tell you, that’s very expensive". My son argued that, in the CoP IA, the PPCs themselves suggested it costs no more than £1.80 and in bulk could be as low as 28p. The judge then said they would go away for at least 30mins to consider everything. Almost 1 hr later they returned with a judgment: beginning with "there is no excuse regarding the signs, they were perfectly clear". It soon became obvious they were going to find in favour of the Claimant.  However, they then said that as the Claimant had not included evidence of the address being obtained from the DVLA, they would not allow the extra £70, nor would they allow the other add ons, as they said the Claimant could not show they had done enough to find the correct address.  They then went on to award a total of  £60 plus the court fee for this hearing (£27) - saying that the Defendant had already said in his argument today that, had he received the PCN at the time, he would probably have paid the £60. That was it.  The Claimant's rep tried to argue for more costs but the Judge wasn't interested. So, all in all, we were happy with the overall outcome.  We've both learnt a lot from this whole experience (and from this forum - thank you sincerely).  Hopefully we will never have to go through those 9 months of stress again but if we do, I think we could do a better job second time around!!!