Rights of audience in parking claims – court ruling impacts advocacy agencies

doubledotcom

A detailed County Court judgment has now clarified an issue that affects a large proportion of parking claims that reach a hearing: the widespread practice of bulk litigation firms sending outsourced “advocates” to court.

Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley (Haverfordwest CC, Jan 2026), the court ruled that an advocacy-only representative, subcontracted through a third-party agency and with no involvement in the conduct of the litigation, has no automatic right of audience under the Legal Services Act 2007.

The judgment examines the business model commonly used in parking cases, where solicitors run the litigation but subcontract hearing attendance to an advocacy agency, which then sends a contractor to court. The court made clear that this structure does not satisfy the statutory requirements for rights of audience.

The judge rejected several arguments that have routinely been relied on in small-claims parking hearings, including the propositions that:
• advocacy alone amounts to “assisting in the conduct of litigation”
• outsourced advocates can be treated as “exempt persons”
• layered subcontracting satisfies supervision and instruction requirements
• CPR 27.9 allows claimants to avoid attendance while still being heard orally
• the term “solicitor’s agent” carries legal weight

Notably, the judgment also refers to a familiar feature of parking claims: a witness statement from the claimant’s legal representative indicating that they may not attend the hearing, followed by non-attendance and the appearance of a subcontracted advocate instead. The court made clear that this does not create a lawful route to oral advocacy.

The court concluded that advocacy-only contractors sent by agencies are neither authorised persons nor exempt persons, and that Parliament never intended Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 to legitimise wholesale outsourced advocacy in routine commercial litigation.

This decision is important because it applies across the board. It is not limited to one parking company or one firm of solicitors. Any bulk litigation firm that relies on third-party advocates to attend hearings is affected.

The impact is forward-looking. The judgment does not reopen past cases. But in future hearings, if a claimant does not send:
• a solicitor or authorised legal executive
• a genuine employee with rights of audience
• or a company officer attending as a party

and instead sends an outsourced advocate, the defendant can object at the outset and require the court to determine rights of audience properly.

If the objection succeeds, the claimant may be confined to their written evidence, required to adjourn, or face the consequences of non-attendance. What can no longer be assumed is that a hired advocate will automatically be allowed to speak.

For anyone facing a parking claim that reaches a hearing, this judgment is essential reading. It finally brings clarity to a practice that has long operated in a legal grey area and restores the statutory limits Parliament intended.

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6654565/rights-of-audience-in-parking-claims-court-ruling-impacts-advocacy-agencies

So what are the consequences of non-attendance for this type of claimant?

I've seen a number of threads over the years where the litigating firm misses a deadline but the judge/court doesn't sanction them, or apply any other form of consequences, so it seems (at least to me) that they don't fear any such consequences.

Coupon-mad

We already have a thread a month ago discussing this.