This article:

https://news.sky.com/story/a-consumer-experts-guide-to-appealing-against-private-parking-fines-13354771

says:
"Ask their solicitor on the day if they have a 'right of audience'. Basically, do they have the right of audience to represent their client?

"Many solicitors are self-employed and do not have the right to
represent these private parking operators.

"They just turn up on the day they are asked to. If they do not have
a right of audience in court, the case should automatically be dismissed."

Must this be a formal agreement and not simply be inferred from have the
case details at hand? Or are they saying many representatives purporting
to be solicitors aren't actually registered with the SRA?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-05-01, Fredxx <[email protected]d> wrote:

This article:

https://news.sky.com/story/a-consumer-experts-guide-to-appealing-against-private-parking-fines-13354771

says:
"Ask their solicitor on the day if they have a 'right of audience'. Basically, do they have the right of audience to represent their client?

"Many solicitors are self-employed and do not have the right to
represent these private parking operators.

"They just turn up on the day they are asked to. If they do not have
a right of audience in court, the case should automatically be dismissed."

Must this be a formal agreement and not simply be inferred from have the
case details at hand? Or are they saying many representatives purporting
to be solicitors aren't actually registered with the SRA?

That's just bizarre. As far as I'm aware, solicitors automatically have
rights of audience in the magistrates court and county court. And being self-employed has nothing to do with anything. So they're never going to
say "no" to this question. And even if they did I can't imagine the case
would be dismissed, it would just mean the hearing would be rescheduled.

If what they actually mean is that sometimes the representatve of the
company is not a solicitor at all but an employee, then I guess asking
if they have the right to represent the company is reasonable, given
that CPR 39.6 says they may only do so with permission of the court,
but even if they don't have such permission they could just ask the
judge and I'm guessing the judge will just immediately say "yes".

(I've represented companies in court multiple times, and the judge
has never even brought up permission as a requirement, let alone
refused it.)

It's extremely unlikely that anyone would be in court pretending to
be a solicitor when they're not - it's a criminal offence and they
would be very easily caught out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 1 May 2025 13:12:44 +0100, Simon Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

The article contradicts itself (for example is specifically states that
a PCN is an "invoice" not a "fine" but then later refers to it as a
fine) and is unclear on key points, the above being one such example
where it lacks clarity. (I suspect a longer article has been cut down
to hit a certain word count and this process has introduced the errors
or the person writing the article has misheard / misunderstood what was >said.)

Yes, it does give the impression of being edited for length rather than clarity.

Technically, one could oppose the application for permission to appear
on behalf of the company but I would expect the court would want to hear
a reasonable cogent reason for opposing it considerably more substantive
than "Because I'll win otherwise." but I suppose it is worth a try at a >pinch. Any port in a storm and all that. :-)

It does come across as a bit of an FMotL kind of approach, arguing against
the process rather than addressing the substance.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/05/2025 13:12, Simon Parker wrote:

On 01/05/2025 10:37, Fredxx wrote:

This article:

https://news.sky.com/story/a-consumer-experts-guide-to-appealing-
against-private-parking-fines-13354771

says:
   "Ask their solicitor on the day if they have a 'right of audience'.
Basically, do they have the right of audience to represent their client?

   "Many solicitors are self-employed and do not have the right to
represent these private parking operators.

   "They just turn up on the day they are asked to. If they do not
have a right of audience in court, the case should automatically be
dismissed."

Must this be a formal agreement and not simply be inferred from have
the case details at hand? Or are they saying many representatives
purporting to be solicitors aren't actually registered with the SRA?

The article contradicts itself (for example is specifically states that
a PCN is an "invoice" not a "fine" but then later refers to it as a
fine) and is unclear on key points, the above being one such example
where it lacks clarity.  (I suspect a longer article has been cut down
to hit a certain word count and this process has introduced the errors
or the person writing the article has misheard / misunderstood what was said.)

As Jon Ribbens has pointed out, a lawyer automatically has a 'right of audience' so asking a lawyer if they have it is a nonsense.

Barristers, yes. Solicitors only in the lower courts unless they have
gone through further training and are properly certificated. So, it
depends on the court.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)