Yes, you can be both a lay representative and a witness in your son's small claims hearing. There is no rule that stops you from doing both. The Civil Procedure Rules allow lay representatives to assist parties in small claims, and being a witness does not disqualify you from that role.
However, there are some things to keep in mind. The claimant might try to object, saying that a witness should not act as an advocate, but in small claims this is usually not a problem. Judges understand that small claims are informal and that family members often help each other.
The judge has control over how the hearing runs. They might ask you to give your evidence first, then allow you to continue as your son's representative. Or they might be fine with you doing both roles without any issue. If the judge does raise concerns, the worst that could happen is that they ask your son to speak for himself, so it's good for him to be prepared just in case.
If new evidence comes up during the hearing that shows your son was the driver, and your witness statement becomes irrelevant, you can just say so. There’s no special process needed to withdraw a witness statement in small claims. You can simply explain to the judge that it was based on the limited information available at the time and that you’re no longer relying on it.
At the start of the hearing, it’s helpful to explain the situation to the judge. For example, you could say: “I’m the defendant’s father and I made a witness statement because we didn’t know which event the claim related to. If it turns out he was alone that day, then my evidence is not relevant, and I’d like to continue as his lay representative if that’s allowed.”
The judge will usually be understanding. Just be open about the facts and let them know you are trying to help your son present his case fairly. You’re allowed to assist him, even if you also gave evidence, and especially since he doesn’t feel confident speaking for himself.
Make sure you take a copy of the
Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 with you and show the usher and the judge, if necessary.
However, it is difficult to give much more advice than this without seeing the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), the Letter of Claim (LoC) and the response, the Particulars of Claim (PoC), the defence submitted, the claimants evidence and witness statement and the defendants witness statement.
It is also incredibly rare that a claim like this ever gets as far as a hearing. The last time this happened was many years ago in the case of
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ibbotson (2012). In this instance, Vehicle Control Services (VCS) pursued a claim against Mr. Ibbotson, alleging that he had breached parking terms by leaving the site after parking his vehicle.
During the proceedings, the judge found that VCS failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim that Mr. Ibbotson had left the premises. Consequently, the case was dismissed. Moreover, the judge reprimanded VCS's representative for bringing forth a claim lacking credible evidence and warned that any future attempts to present similar unfounded claims could result in contempt of court charges. The judge's admonishment included a remark suggesting that the representative should "bring a toothbrush," implying the seriousness of potential consequences, such as imprisonment, for contempt.
This case has since been cited in discussions about the evidentiary standards required for private parking enforcement claims, particularly those involving allegations of drivers leaving the site.
