Simon Pottinger writes:

My final Cost Committee hearing last week was certainly a better one than the two previous and I will now look back on this era with a somewhat rosier glow. We confidently predict a Category 1CCA gradation as a result.

The most interesting point relates to our long standing battle to gain some leverage on the "General Findings" rules, Civil and Crime. These are the rules under which the power to affect any cash "extrapolations" and recoupments were made - often with disastrous impact upon firms. For over 2 years we have tried to get CCs to engage on this point with limited success. More often we have had met with miscomprehension, timidity and confusion, following (mis)advice from Committee Clerks or even adjournments for skeleton arguments.

On one or two occasions we did win agreement with our arguments that, initially, the CC does have the power to consider, and rule upon, the appropriateness of a General Finding. Most commonly we made these arguments where a single perverse file was "unrepresentative" of the firm’s usual practice and consequently had an unfair impact upon the audit rating. More often though, we had confusion, often orchestrated by the LSC's representatives’ incomprehension of their own rules, guidance and issues like "Audit Precision".

I began to remake the argument on Wednesday last, to be stopped by the Chairman who directed we have a short adjournment (less than 30 mins) for legal advice from the LSC to be sought. On our return he read from what was described as an Induction Guide for CC members, which I have not seen, to the effect that they both had jurisdiction in such matters and specifically could "exclude from the audit sample a rogue file".

Given that the CCA process is now all but finished and that the "General Finding" on a Cat 2 CCA outcome is the single most important factor for a firm in such circumstances, why has this Guidance only just appeared now? More importantly, why was this interpretation, identical to our own, not published to appellants and in the forefront of the minds of every LSC CC Clerk at every CCA Appeal throughout this assessment technique’s disgraceful history? Instead of the pitched battle we had at times, why could it not be as simple as it was last week?

There are very many firms who will have been prejudiced because of this, often with severe financial penalty. If there is anyone out there who can think of a way in which this can be retrospectively revisited, we would love to here from you.