In the days before this blog we used more traditional methods to publicise the one occasion a client was successful in obtaining an ex gratia payment for the costs of an appeal. Last week a second firm were similarly successful in this regard. The decision is hardly a floodgate one and was made in a quite tight set of circumstances nonetheless anyone wanting the detail of the determination should get in touch.
This is the 100th post to this blog.
The feedback received to date has been positive and of course we now put a short diluted version in Independent Lawyer once a month.
Do people find it useful, interesting, of value? Does anyone have any thoughts on improvements?
Let us know.
Apologies for lack of activity here so far this week. The reasons?
Monday off unsuccessfully doing Christmas shopping.
Tuesday a collaborative, yes collaborative, meeting with the LSC in Leeds to make our CDS 6 and CMRF Wizards on-line capable. This now seems possible and we hope to release a new version in the New Year. This will of course remain a free service.
Yesterday a Cost Committee on an over 80% alleged overclaim with an agenda of 17 files. We wrung 11 concessions out of them and seemed to get a friendly hearing on the others so here's hoping we've significantly reduced a 6 figure recoupment claim.
You run a case, cradle to grave, advising throughout. Prepare it for Crown Court trial and achieve an acquittal.
On a scale of 1-5, 1 being excellent 5 being "Failure in Performance" how would you rate that case?
Update
Using the same scale as above how would you rate the sending of a close of case letter 5 working days after the final hearing in the case.
Those submitting claims for "exceptional" Legal Help matters (over 3X your TFF) know that these are subject assessment. On the basis of yesterdays experience this "assessment" is not a standard line-by-line taxation but rather a very broad brush "Singh" assessment. Oh yes you have a right of appeal but only to a CC at Liverpool or Nottingham. How to reduce a right to appeal to a simple commercial decision.
It never rains etc.
UPDATE
Guess what "TFFECDU" stands for.
I have spent all today looking at an Immigration CCA appeal based almost entirely proof of means issues. What an infuriating rule. No one involved in this business thinks these are ineligible clients. We must however engage in this shadow boxing regarding what is and isn't acceptable proof of their lack of means. Neither has the LSC told this firm that retrospective evidence is acceptable on appeal so we now have very limited time to go out and find it.
Why can one public body, the LSC, contact another one, The Home Office, and confirm this in a matter of minutes? Why not simply give them access to the NASS data base? As Jim Royle would say "Joined up Government my arse".
If, in the Tailored Fixed Fee scheme, your average reported profit costs slip 20% below your fixed fee the LSC can reduce this, with retrospective effect. Monitoring your average against the TFF is therefore vital.
We have observed this occur on a couple of occasions now.
The first tip is simply to argue your corner. The scheme was sold to the profession on the basis that you could increase profit on Legal Help by making "efficiency savings" in the conduct of cases - but obviously not more than 20% efficiency savings. A client has however now successfully argued this point, having made more than 20% efficiency savings, and their TFF has been left alone.
The second remember WIP and those larger files yet to be billed in the contract period - not always conclusive but potentially effective.