MIL Collection v Mrs M, Oldham County Court, 3/2/2017, C5QZ4M9H
Mr M, Mrs M's ex-husband, has some experience in law, and as a result was gong to lay rep for this case, but contacted the BMPA via Bargepole and asked for further details of the Mrs C case (as reported recently) especially in regard to right of audience.
John Wilkie of Private Parking Appeals was the Lay rep for that case, so he offered some pointers and offered to come along for the fight if he was free.
As it happens, he was, and so popped down to Oldham from Glasgow, and was offered the chance to lay-rep the case.
When everyone was identified by the usher, it turned out that the advocate sent along by Elms Legal was the delightful Ms Kauser (again) who had been denied right of audience at Burnley only two weeks ago.
As a result Mr Wilkie rolled out a few relevant persuasive cases, including Ellis v Larson and McShane v Lincoln, both of which examine closely the question of a "solicitors agent" as done the recent publication by the Law Gazette at https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/bar-council-solicitors-agents-could-face-prison-term/5059560.article
Having been pointed to these matters, the judge properly examined both Mr Wilkie's right of audience, and Ms Kauser's. An interesting bombshell dropped by Ms Kauser is that MIL apparently intend to appeal the Mrs C Case.
Mr Wilkie, as always, relied on the Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999, which makes him an exempt person within the meaning of Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Regrettably for Ms Kauser, she was unable to satisfy the judge that she was involved in the "Conduct of Litigation" nor that she was "Supervised" such that she was also an exempt person. As she had no right of audience, and specifically because MIL Collections are professional debt collectors,
she was refused audience, and asked to stand down from the case. She indicated an intention to appeal the judge's finding in this case, which was additionally refused.
As a result of MIL not attending, not being represented and not producing their witnesses, Mr Wilkie invited Judge Greensmith to strike out the claim under rule 27.9, which the judge did, and also granted £93.70 costs for the Defendant due to the unreasonable conduct of MIL.
The judge generously thanked Mr Wilkie for his assistance, and Mr M for his well-prepared and well-pleaded documentation. Mr Wilkie is now at home in Scotland, though he has left his Ego at the court, as it could not fit back out through the door.
The Prankster is aware of a court statement by Alan Davis in which he states "Any advocate that attends on [MIL's] behalf is fully compliant with the requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007." This seems to be as accurate as his previous claim in Parking news to send an advocate to
every single court hearing. The Prankster suggests that Alan Davis and The Truth are not common bed-fellows.
MIL Collections, you've been Gladstoned, yet again.
Rights of audience are further examined here
The Bar Council's advice is here
The Parking Prankster