Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I am due to support a claimant from today, I would like to hear from anyone else who is doing or has done the same.
Thanks to some input so far i have established that this means i will be a witness in court and will need to present a statement covering the indepth legal issues, just as I have with my own claim, and the claimant is able to present a basic outline of thier claim.
I understand that the claimant needs to write a letter to the court advising of my attendance as a witness and also a letter to the solicitor to say i will be acting on thier behalf
So peeps any tips or experiences todate would be great
HI bong have read that thread thanks for that, im a little concerned reagrding a part in teh thread that reads.
I would suggest that you don't tell the opposition that you are going to be representing your friends until the very last minute, as they may realise that you are more knowledgeable on the subject than your friends and try and formulate strong objections to your representing your friends. There are other things they can do to make life hard for you but I won't mention them here - wouldn't want to give them any ideas!
This is what i dont want and want to know the best time to advise both the court and the solicitor.
Naturaly we hope thssi will be paid up long before court there are no complications the account is closed, with no money owing, the solicitor has no chance of conditions and restrictions.
So once they run out of allocated time stays etc: hopefully it will end before court but we want to be prepared.
So the actions taken by some one else iwho has been in this position would be good to follow
Hi BL.
I think the proper time, rather than the best time, to advise your presence as a witness, is at the AQ stage (assuming you haven’t already passed that stage).
I don’t know whether you and the claimant see you as a lay witness or an expert witness, but there is a lot of useful info on this subject in Patricia Pearl’s Procedure book (page 72 and others if you’ve got it). If not, I can copy the relevant bits to you.
I share your concern about keeping it a secret until the last minute. Don’t think the judge would be happy with that, never mind defendants. By advising the court via the AQ you would automatically be advising the defendant’s sols, through the courtesy of a copy.
Haven’t been there myself yet and I’m hoping I don’t have to, but I’ll be looking forward to reading your report of proceedings (if it happens!) .
Why not ask the original poster what the basis of the comment is?
As far as I can see leaving it till the last minute before informing the court is only likely to annoy the courts and give the defendant an excuse to ask for the use of the representative to be prevented.
I doubt the defendant will worry about the legal capabilities of the defendants until we start offering to send a highly experienced and qualified QC in and only then because it will increase their costs because they will want to match the level of expertise to ensure that as far as possible they win.
JMHO
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
It has been suggested by some, including BankFodder, that certain banks have been sucessful in getting claimant's to abandon their claim or accept heavily-reduced
It has been suggested by some, including BankFodder, that certain banks have been sucessful in getting claimant's to abandon their claim or accept heavily-reduced offers, due to intimidatory tactics.
If someone is acting on behalf of a Claimant the Bank will immediately realise that he/she is probably more experienced in the areas of law relating to Bank Charges than the Claimant.
In any event, this may be a moot issue. As long as the CLAIMANT is PRESENT at EVERY hearing then nobody, not even the court needs to be informed of the Lay Representative's acting. To keep it simple, I would ask the court at the first hearing to allow the Lay Representative to conduct the case, at any future hearings, without the need for the Claimant to be present (first of all saves the application fee but there are other factors that I have in mind).
Another thing, don't have the lay representative acting like a lawyer, if the lay rep seems like a slightly knowledgeable person just helping out a friend who doesn't know too much about what they are doing, then the Lay Representative may get more slack (they aren't lawyers, don't know much about the CPR, or the intracacies of the law... or so the judge will probably think).
So what relevance has that got to do with declaring that you intend to use a friend to present on your behalf?
If you cant say then it kind of queers the advice.
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
REPRESENTATION AT A HEARING
3.1 In this paragraph:
(1) a lawyer means a barrister, a solicitor or a legal executive employed by a solicitor, and
(2) a lay representative means any other person.
3.2
(1) A party may present his own case at a hearing or a lawyer or lay representative may present it for him.
(2) The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 provides that 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
(c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings.
(3) However the court, exercising its general discretion to hear anybody, may hear a layrepresentative even in circumstances excluded by the Order.
(4) Any of its officers or employees may represent a corporate party.
But there is no mention of having to give notice that you intend to use a lay representative, although this might be within the Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order
REPRESENTATION AT A HEARING
3.1 In this paragraph:
(1) a lawyer means a barrister, a solicitor or a legal executive employed by a solicitor, and
(2) a lay representative means any other person.
3.2
(1) A party may present his own case at a hearing or a lawyer or lay representative may present it for him.
(2) The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 provides that 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
(c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings.
(3) However the court, exercising its general discretion to hear anybody, may hear a layrepresentative even in circumstances excluded by the Order.
(4) Any of its officers or employees may represent a corporate party.
But there is no mention of having to give notice that you intend to use a lay representative, although this might be within the Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order
I g2g.
However, you aren't going to know if the court is going to excercise it discretion to hear the Lay Representative outwith the presence of the Claimant, unless you ask beforehand.
I may be wrong but, I asked at the court a while ago when it seemed irrelevant, and so instantly forgot the answer, but I'm sure I was told that you just need to inform the usher and make your request to the judge to use a lay rep when you go into the court.
It seemed so oddly simple I brushed it aside, but maybe that's just it.
I think Bookworm was lay rep for her husband. Maybe you could ask her.
Yes, I agree, but I would have thought that a court would only use it's discretion to allow representation without the claimant in exceptional circumstances, not just because it was convenient to the claimant
I didn't read Breadlines post to be asking to be there without the claimant. I agree with you Michael that the claimant should be present. I personally wouldn't assist anyone who couldn't / wouldn't turn up themselves, unless like you say, there were exceptional circumstances.
Even with the edit of post 7, the reference made about keeping it a secret doesn't seem to have any basis.
The assumption that the bank will realise the lay representative is more experienced and therefore some kind of 'threat' to the banks defence is erroneous.
I know we have all become instant Perry masons, but i really don't think the bank will worry about a lay person presenting on behalf of a claimant.
Is there anything you can put up to explain the worry other than anything else you have posted because Bread needs to know what the problem is if there is one.
JMHO
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
Supporting a Claimant to court level.
Originally Posted by Michael Browne
