Over the past few days we have been having a significant problem with our e-mail, and other internet, services at the new office .

If you have sent something urgent and not received a response please give us a ring to discuss.

A constant feature of recent time has been coming to the office - on days when I am not out at pointless meetings - with a plan of action and finding myself, mid afternoon having, achieved none of my intended tasks. Something always happens which knocks me off track and I end up immersed in a new matter, with an ever increasing pile of other jobs. (The pile is becoming physical where it involves financial stewardship).

Just listed 10 priority tasks for today in the certain knowledge that I may get 1 done. It is also a weekend I can't utilise to reduce my backlog either.

We have one client currently sitting in a meeting with the LSC to discuss their "capacity to deliver". We are aware that of a couple of these took place last week and that one in happening tomorrow. They essentially seem to be seeking to persuade firms to hand back matter starts as is discussed in this very interesting article.

It is from a Housing Law blog called "Nearly Legal" which I was directed to over the weekend - primarily because of their converge of the CLP Judicial Review case.

The linked article explains, legally, what we describe as the "makeitupaswegoalongery" being displayed by the Commission post procurement. My thoughts on the subject do tend to concur. This is mainly following a discussion last week where a firm has been advised that any contract sanction based upon failure to meet, say, the 85% NMS delivery KPI, would be unlawful.

Well worth reading the whole thing though.

It took me ages to get logged in to the e-portal today but once there discovered that this weeks maintenance has resulted in a radical, visual change to the site.

You may well get a surprise therefore, if checking for an appeal notification.

It remains to be seen if our under-rehearsed cover of the karaoke classic (but which takes more from this superior version) will work next Saturday night. If you are close to Teesside you are very welcome to come and judge for yourself. If you do you will see West Yorkshire's finest lawyer based band too.

Is the question Andrew Keogh asks in the comments below with regard to this story in the Gazette.

If you have not read it, it covers the comments made by Mr Justice Collins in a JR of the Procurement round brought by CLP of Birmingham. Irrational is a phrase I have used in discussing this process but am surprised not only that a High Court is in agreement but so vehemently so.

The answer to Andrew's question remains to be seen but gives a good indication that things might be about to unravel. I understand that TLS are issuing tomorrow and hope for a hearing next week - perhaps before the same judge.

If you have been awarded a contract you will have received a request for "confirmation", as if this were needed, that you can deliver it from October 14th.

For a very few there will be the need to send a Supervisor declaration or an indemnity form but this will not be common. If this is the case DO SO as I do not think they will baulk at saving matter starts by revoking any contract offer they can.

The only contentious issue remains the PSAIF. That is the non-mandatory Excel spreadsheet which pries into your accounts and asks for diversity monitoring information. It can be downloaded from "Buyer Attachments" in the e-portal. We still believe this to be, as stated above, non-mandatory, however it probably makes best sense to complete one and attach it to your "Confirmation" message.

We are so paranoid that we think that they might try and revoke your contract for not titling the message "confirmation" let alone for failing to supply a PSAIF.

"The days more gray each one than what had gone before".

Cormac McCarthy
The Road

I am finding it hard to digest all the various pieces of new information dropping on my desk concerning Family procurement. I do however get a feeling that the process is beginning to fray at the edges.

Meanwhile "Financial Stewardship" rolls on like a steam roller seemingly crushing everyone it meets in one way or another. Files and appeals everywhere. Lots of chew with UPOA as well.

Not had time to do any practice for next week end either!

You might have thought, given the reduced Family supplier base - though not necessarily achieving the "fewer larger suppliers" they have wanted for such a long time - that the tone of the relationship might change.

For the avoidance of doubt, you will be required to deliver both the volume and breadth of services for which you have tendered. The delivery of new matter starts (NMS) is a key performance indicator (KPI) under your contract and breach may result in contract sanctions (including termination, where appropriate). Failure to deliver in accordance with your tender will also be taken in to account in any future tender exercises.

And these are the lucky ones.

This weeks webinar was originally intended for over a month ago - before Civil procurement interrupted things. Originally it was to be a summary session of July's "new LSC audits" theme nut now we are obviously at the end of August.

Although the session is late it is still a useful one we think covering how to prepare for and handle the various elements of the "financial stewardship" process.

The aim is to provide a series of invaluable checklists for fee earners and supervisors to avoid the process spiralling out of control as it has in certain cases.

Next task today is to get my head into some boxes of files whilst keeping an eye on the e-portal for more appeal notifications.

I was WRONG. Completely and utterly WRONG and have never been so happy to be so in my life.

I thought all Family bid appeals would be rejected out of hand but not so and we have just heard of our first successful result.

This involved mismarking of panel membership and has resulted in an award of contract at minimum matter starts.

UPDATE

Second result - similar issue, same bid zone, full NMS bid for.

Didn't do a Friday song here is a Saturday one

I must get 4 or 5 phone calls a day asking about appeal timescales.

This is what the LSC say;

we are aiming to consider appeals in approximately one month

This might be quicker if you fall into one of the priority groups - though this seems to me to mean just about everyone.

Please note, appeals will be prioritised where:

• Organisations have been assessed as unsuccessful and as a result have no contract offer

• Organisations have been unsuccessful in their tender for Housing and have also tendered for Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme work.

We are prioritising appeals where organisations are challenging the information against which we have verified family accrediation.

The North East JR initiative also features in this weeks Gazette.