In my view there are two main reasons the poor/unrepresented tend to get a raw deal in court. The first is simply that they are not trained in the law. A lawyer will almost always know the law better. The second is something that hardly anyone thinks about, viz the judge's position.
If a judge has before him a LIP and a lawyer whatever the merits it will be a professional risk for the judge to find in favour of the LIP. Why? It's because the lawyer will appeal and almost certainly succeed. Result, humiliation for the judge. Now, if the LIP appeals he will almost certainly fail and the judge's decision/professional position is maintained. If a county court judge gets overturned in the high court too many times s/he can get sacked. It certainly happens. A high court judge has much better protection as the matter has to go to Parliament.
To the best of my knowledge no high court judge has ever been sacked however the odd one has been persuaded to fall on his sword. In the county court there are political factors at work too. There is normally a district judge (DJ) and a circuit judge (CJ) working in the said court. Appeals from the former go to the latter. However CJs can feel beholden to the DJs who regularly do the court's donkey work. CJs simply don't want to humiliate them.
Accordingly, if you lose before a DJ and wish to appeal it is best that it was a deputy district judge (basically a freelance) because a CJ will find it easier to overturn a stranger. There are politics too in the high court. In the Court of Appeal, which sees lots of LIPs, when they are refused permission to appeal (PTA) on the papers they often ask to go before a different judge the next time. That is a mistake in my view as you never know the politics or the seniority of the lord justices. Much safer to try to get before the same judge again and with added material. That said LIPs don't normally get a choice.