I am back in the mire of Contract Compliance today much to my annoyance. Interestingly, as an addendum to yesterday, the threshold for concern on taxation of CDS 7 bills is to be 15%. Now I appreciate the differences in the processes here, especially the issue of enhancement claims, but that said why did we get 10% as the point at which much more draconian extrapolation decisions were made?

Steve is here doing more work on Peer Review - a non-live sample to inform a forthcoming training event.

Andy is out on site doing good old fashioned fieldwork i.e. zapping armies of Autorecbots from behind an oil drum.

Sandra is taking bookings for the next training tour - spaces still available. She is also very pleased with an incoming piece of "fan mail".

Sarah is working on two Crown Court bills both of which we anticipate, in advance, making enhancement claims and probably, given the current taxation climate, appeals too.

To lighten things in the office we are also having a "use stupid words day".

You will have received these changes to your Civil and Criminal Contracts today I have to find them on the "interweb".

On a first scan the most noticeable point in the Criminal version is the weaving of Peer Review into the contract with a confirmation of the Cat 2 - Competence Plus, threshold for Preferred Suppliers.

It also entrenches the Assessment Reduction Rates as a PI (performance indicator). The set rate is 15% and failure will not initially constitute a contract breach. That said is anyone else experiencing a tougher taxation regime at the moment?

It also looks like this post might have been somewhat premature!

Has anybody had recent experience of Duty Solicitor compliance exercises being run by the LSC? (We know about Bradford).

If you have we would be grateful for a comment, a call or an e-mail.

Marcel Berlins gives his take on the situation facing entry to the Bar here.

We discussed the LSC's "Drivetime Tables" below. These are the journey-time assumptions upon which the revised duty scheme borders are based. In addition to earlier observations, estimates significantly lower than practitioners experiences, average speed requirements above the speed limit etc., we decided to test one route.

The new border where our office is situated, Cleveland, will soon involve travel across a larger area. We therefore chose such a trip, Middelsbrough to Hartlepool, to exemplify the changes. For fun we also decided to film it and if you have 13 mins to spare you can watch it here. (Sorry about the quality but we struggled to get it onto Youtube - file too large).

If however you want to cut to the chase click on the continue link below.

The Commissions figures suggest that the drive from Eston to Hartlepool takes 29 mins. We did it in 32 in a very benign mid morning run and without having to walk to and from the car at either end. That makes their figures at least 10% out. We would suggest on average, including the travel to "railhead" and from "terminus" time, that it is likely that this percentage is considerably higher.

We make no claim for the "science" of this light hearted experiment and we anticipate the stout defence that the figures are not the sole, nor necessarily the most important, determinant. That said the use of any "faulty" data to inform policy which will so dramatically effect the livelihood of very many people should surely be more reliable.

The devolved powers point mentioned below seems to have more resonance than I initially realised. Steve reports the same story as my contact and likewise locates the current problem with a shift in assessment venue from Leeds to Chester. The latter take a somewhat different interpretation on the subject. I have had a non-exhaustive check of the various tomes, GCC, CAG, Funding Code and Civil CBAM and can find no confirmation of the correct approach.

It seems clear to me that, as per GCC Rule 1.10.1 DP decision making and recording is chargeable under contract - i.e. controlled rather than certificated levels of service. I have always thought that the same was true under a certificate and so did the Leeds RO.

Others experiencing the same problem might like to contact me as we will try and think of a way dealing with it.

Just by chance I have just fielded a Devolved Powers query concerning claiming for emergency self grants (more later). The firm in question have also had cost reductions made for the very same Bradford - Keighley trip discussed previously. To enhance the scientific sample in yesterdays poll I asked about their expected journey time - was the reply "Oh about 14 minutes"? No - rather more like 40!

I am now going to road test Middlesbrough to Hartlepool from the office of some friends of this site. They say 29 minutes and I do think I can do it!!

More later.

This is neither a "dress down Friday" nostalgia trip nor a football related rant about the inappropriateness of the involvement anyone connected with that bit of London with the Mighty Leeds United.

(Though whilst on the subject of nostalgia here are two things which attracted my attention).

Rather this post relates to the growing number of calls I am getting about the "Annex G" proposed new boundaries for Duty Solicitor schemes. Apologies to Mr MacManus for the play on his song title, but it is merged schemes (Keighley is to be merged with Bradford) and the practical problems this will create which has been exercising the more forward thinking of my contacts.

The responses are by no means all negative and there are even contrasting views within the same propose schemes. For instance Andy and I have both had direct discussions with firms in London, for one the proposals are disastrous for the other enticing. The large new West Midlands schemes have attracted most approbation, and inspired the title to this post, although I have obviously changed the town in questions name and not included the swearing. As ever these discussion also demonstrate to me the unerring ability of the profession to adapt to new arrangements quickly, with a wide variety of practical stratagem being considered.

We have neither the local geographical knowledge nor the time to find the most absurd of these proposals so please feel free to use the comments box to do so.

*I however am more than happy to go to Keighley, especially if it involves a pint of the best beer in the world. (Choose "Landlord").

UPDATE

Friend of the site Nigel Ford draws my attention to the "Drivetime Tables" on which the proposed new boundaries are based. After some searching I find the entry relating to the journey between one of our Bradford clients and Keighley. Subsequent to this I conduct a highly scientific survey of a 3 Bradford solicitors regarding the fastest time in which they could undertake this journey (not an average or at rush hour etc). One says 30, his colleague in the office says 20 an third says 22 to 25 minutes. Lets take the median then (I think) of 22 mins for the fastest one-way trip - 22 mins for 9 miles at an average speed of 25 mph.

Click on the continue reading for the LSC assumption for the purposes of these proposals.

They suggest 14 minutes.

(Interestingly so do the AA - did they supply the estimates?)

For those interested this is a 39 mph average speed. There are some where this is nearer 60mph

These also seem to ignore the provisions of CRIMLA 33 regarding the public transport presumption and travel to an from "railhead" and "terminus".

The winding down of the PDS will come as little of a shock to most people. Perhaps more surprising is that the two Welsh offices get another year to prove their "cost effectiveness". Meanwhile the continuation of the Darlo and Cheltenham offices is something we predicated here.

I remember trying to calm practitioner paranoia at the inception of this experiment and so feel somewhat vindicated today - frankly spotting that it would ultimately fail was hardly difficult, even back then.

That said I don not find it a reason for celebration. Rather I share the sympathy, expressed by a Merseyside practitioner I spoke to yesterday, for those being made directly redundant by the Commission. This news arrives on a morning where another advice line caller informs me of "indirect" redundancies being forced upon suppliers in his home town. At least, and its is frankly little or no comfort to those involved, the latter have not been paid at inflated rates which will make transition back into the private sector doubly difficult.

Depressingly I have little doubt that this theme will become increasingly common.

Thanks to Anon in the comments on "War of Attrition" below.

Further to our coverage of the strike comes this report in todays Gazette.

Seems like our Hull correspondent was correct.

At one time our CDS MasterClass (Billing for Dummies) was our most popular course and which I would be guaranteed to deliver a couple of times per month. Times have now obviously changed, and this course has been replaced by ‘Peer Review - Are you Competent?’ as our most frequently delivered session.

Yesterday was therefore something of a break from the routine and it was actually quite fun to be tested on knowledge I had not used for some time. What is most striking however, when systematically going through the CDS claim structure, is how very many fee-earning opportunities have been taken from the profession since the inception of Contracting. With further restrictions and new Standard Fees in April, on the back of the re-introduction of Means Testing, it does make one almost astonished that firms continue to survive.

Anyhow, I now prepare to struggle with the London traffic and spend another day with a firm having to (re-)learn the skills necessary to be Competent Plus.

A quick post today as I am away to London - two days of training - the first on CDS billing and the second on, yes you've guessed it Peer Review. It will make a bit of a change to blow the dust off CBAM and rekindle all those fond memories of the very many criminal Contract Compliance appeals we ran.

Will try and post from my hotel tomorrow.

Think of all the swearwords you know, going right back throughout your life, in every language you know, including those you have made up yourself.

Now times that by three and imagine it condensed it into one single, impassioned, not taking a breath 5 minute rant. (A rant I anticipate taking place in every office of any firm who supplies billing related software to the profession).

Having nearly finalised our Online CDS 6 Wizard and being close on the CMRF version they have gone and changed the @£$*ing forms again. Along with a bunch of amendments to others (including the CDS 7 for which we also supply a free Wizard) these will come in with the new reporting codes in April.

I am trying to think of an appropriate Youtube clip to post - the John Cleese thrashing car scene from Fawlty Towers is too long at 5 mins and they don't have 70s punk legends Alternative TV singing their classic "You &^%$ard".

We will have a version available by April for users.

Stumbled across this though which I dedicate to our Mr Barnes:

Mrs SP, who works in Local Government, is currently having her department assessed by another wing of the Central Government inspectorate. The auditors self description is:

"Someone who is sent to shoot the wounded following the battle".

Any better ones will be published.

For those thinking like me I have already tried to find an image of Viz's "Bottom Inspectors" which is what a client named his audit team recently. Wikipedia describes them as follows:

The Bottom Inspectors – a parody of Hitler's SS, or perhaps the Stasi. A fascist organisation who knock on people's doors in the middle of the night and inspect their bottoms. Any transgression is dealt with arbitrarily and cruelly. It has been revealed that the bottom inspectors are actually based on the ticket inspectors of the Newcastle Metro system (Chris Donald in a 'Picture of Tyneside', BBC 4, June 2005).

I appreciate that this is somewhat juvenile but it is Friday.

UPDATE

This is the best I can do.

The VHCC Best Value Panel (BVP) is, to my mind, by far the most interesting of this weeks glut of consultations. Not only is there more detail to go at there is an intriguing underlying methodology to consider - potentially equally applicable to other planned and forthcoming contracting initiatives.

Very briefly it works like this. There are, similar to modern job descriptions/person specifications, a set of "essential" and "desirable" criteria against which the firm will be assessed. These include number of VHCC undertaken and the experience of staff etc. Firms are scored against this and then their sealed bids for a number of cases (minimum 3 over 18 months) at one of three prescribed rates are then assessed for Value for Money (VFM). The latter process will give a weighting to "quality" but the mechanics for this are not described (unless I've missed them). Whether this, or something similar, will prove unnecessary, or too complicated, for mainstream criminal and civil contracting remains to be seen.

So why the title? Well this bears more than a passing resemblance to BIDCOM the last competitive tendering experiment they tried and something I predicted we would not see the like of again.

Potential bidders wanting more detailed advice should pick up the phone.

"Quality Profile reports are not currently being produced due to issues over the integrity of the data the (sic) contain".

Has anyone else encountered a similar response from the LSC or is it just one RO?

I was unable to post yesterday as I was on my travels - again PR training in Yorkshire. (To an interesting town where the 5 PR results we are aware of do not reflect our judgement of real quality).

Anyhow that aside the Gazette's front page story is the same one we ran earlier in the week. My chats with people suggest it is a "work to rule" rather than a strike (isn't the Law Societies advice that a strike is illegal?). The article contains some very apposite quotes (that from Brian Craig should be especially of concern for Carter proponents) and some of the comments here are likewise interesting.

Will try and post on VHCC, which is very interesting to a Legal Aid anorak like me, later but I have just been asked to prepare two Crown Court re-determinations with today as a deadline.

UPDATE

Andy is in a "striking" rather than working to rule town today!

FURTHER UPDATE

Apparently the LSC have been trying to entice Bradford Duty Solicitors to break the Leeds "strike" and have been successful in getting someone local to us, to cover in Hull. Any more details can be placed in the comments box.

As I plough through this now near full lever arch file it strikes me that it is going to take at least two more read throughs before incorporating the key themes into the forthcoming "Contracting Update" course.

If you want the chance to quiz me face-to-face you can book using this.

This batch of proposals for consultation can be sub divided into three:

Police Station Boundaries
Fixed Fees
New Working Arrangements

Here is a brief guide as to how access the information you will immediately want to see - if phone calls today are anything to go by.

Boundaries

There are a range of maps, broken down by Regional Office, at (Appendix G i-v - in the "Related Documents" box on right of the frame) which outline the new boundaries. We found that printing them on a page by page basis speeded things up. These will be implemented - along with the remaining proposals, in October this year.

Fixed Fees

These can then be referenced to the proposed standard fee, itemised against your new scheme boundary, in either Appendix A, B or C. (Ignore D - H for this purpose). These are inclusive of vat, exclusive of disbursements - for now, and include an "allowance" for travel and waiting.

The two options identified in Ap. A-C relate to the two proposed options for paying for exceptionally high cost cases or "escape" matters as they are now called. All such claims will be audited!

Working Arrangements

Slot allocation will work on a similar basis to the Market Stability Measures albeit against more up to date data and including both investigations and proceedings class work.

The other key ideas for consideration are a return of a proposed minimum volume contract £50k, and the 20% out of area rule. The former is unlikely to have immediate impact upon many suppliers (although this may change as we move to Best Value Tendering or BVT). The restriction on only being able to undertake on an extra 20% of own client cases out of area may affect somewhat more firms.

There are some protections for "niche providers" and a limited acknowledgement of the problems faced by new "market entrant" firms. You can also anticipate some free training from the LSC - "sorry we don't know the answer to that but if you leave us a contact address we will get back to you".

I am now moving on to the VHCC BVP documents which I anticipate to be the most interesting of the lot - with luck another post on this later.

I will try to give a view on any queries via comments or the phone - preferably the former.

The BBC are runining this story quite heavily today. Marilyn Stowe has just been on Five Live reinforcing the Judges views and also contributing that the crisis in Legal Aid is not helping.

A cheery distraction from Carter don't you think?

It is proposed that all requests for publicly funded advice in the Police Station should be processed via the Duty Solicitor Call Centre from October 2007. CDS direct will then provide initial advice before deploying a duty firm where attendance was required.

Dublin or Bangalore for the call centrers? We've a couple of good ones on Teesside!

To avoid lots of unintended consequences to his proposals, snap recruitment and sackings etc. Carter requested that a series of early, new rules be established so as to minimise this. There are 4 of these:

Slot Allocation

April to October 2007 Police Station rotas will allocated proportionately on the basis of the number of duty and own client police station claims between December 2005 and November 2006.

Service Requirements

Accredited reps and solicitors with the PSQ can undertake duty work.

Performance Standards

The 50% of Mags work by designated fee earners standard is reintroduced.

Moratorium

No new Criminal contracts will be granted between April and October 2007 with two small exceptions.

PACE consultation to follow (probably tomorrow).

I imagine that there will now be a series of posts here following on from this mornings statement of intent.

You can download all the various documents here, including appendices. We cannot place direct downloads here to all of them due to their size so we decided the above link would be more useful.

There are 4 "baskets" of documents

Police Station: Boundaries, Fees and Working Arrangements (Consultation)
Market Stability Measures
Call Centre and CDS Direct (Consultation)
Best Value VHCC tendering (Consultation)

I will post on Market Stability first, above, shortly - happy reading or you could just wait for us to do it!

Please keep us up to date about developments regarding the "two-day work to rule by angry criminal lawyers".

UPDATE

A London solicitor tells us that the plans for the capital involve essentially prefiguring Carter and putting all own client work through a small number of advocates, acting as agents for the wider group of firms. This will "test" the operational impact of putting more work through a smaller number of suppliers.

We sit here awaiting the publication of the much vaunted Carter changes "market stability measures". (Sadly with far more anticipation than is healthy - but it's too murky to "go out and get a life" frankly).

We are passing the time by checking a live PR sample and helping with an application to become an LSC Commissioner.

Oh what fun we have on a late winter Monday at JRS.

P.S. Andy has just rung to ask if it is available yet - see what I mean!

I am preparing correspondence to this Autorecbot seeking an early reinstatement of a clients SMPs. Interestingly in this case the "overpayment" is almost exactly the same as the first contract payment made in 2001. I have commented previously about how this was then described as an "interest free loan" and that now the bailiffs have now been called in.

Yesterday I had sight of a clients letter to another requesting the full 107.5% balance of payments allowance which has been tenaciously refused to date.

On a positive note I spoke to a firm yesterday ruminating over whether to hold back some claims this month to put through next. I advised that it is a good Autorecbot defence to be underpaid - you never get any contact in those circumstances - unless you know otherwise?

Here is some secret film of an LSC training session earlier this year, taken by a good, rebel Autorecbot:

Here is their new "company song":

By way of thanks to the good Autorecbots out there here is:

My version of the latter is available on the album "Start" by the "slow time mondays" ("Best debut album of 2006" - M.R., Solicitor, Doncaster) for £5 - £4 of which goes to Lawcare.

The Gazette is full of Carter and Legal Aid related stories this week. These cover Housing suppliers threats to quit over Carter, how the same proposals will impact upon Mental Health firms and a report on the bar getting a bigger split of the Legal Aid fund.

I cannot get a link to the larger feature on Labour MPs support for the Law Society save legal aid campaign neither a letter from a disgruntled criminal practitioner.

Not exactly the Blondie hit but we are hanging on the release of the finalised "Market Stability Measures" from the LSC, which are due out today (we think). This is particularly frustrating given we have a client similarly hanging on our advice regarding making an application for a fresh criminal contract.

Do any of our LSC based readers have an advance copy? or an update on the release date?

We are making a bit of effort here to balance stupid things which make you cross/depressed with stupid things which make you laugh. IF you are looking for a bit of the latter and don't object to Dom Jolly style wind up merchants try this.

You need sound however it is "office safe", there is no swearing - unlike a routine day in the JRS HQ.

There was a feature length piece on the PDS in last weeks Gazette. If you don't want to read it all you can probably make an educated guess at the tone.

This quote from the Head of Service, Gaynor Ogden, caught my eye though:

"But we need to define what we are about and get our objectives straight. There is a conflict in being asked to deliver value for money and a quality service, but at the same time being asked to inform policy and be a test bed for service delivery, which affects our chargeable hours". (Emphasis added)

This is a sentiment not lost on all the firms we work with on "quality" including those working on low Tailored Fixed Fees in civil categories as well as CDS suppliers.

I also notice that "Cheltenham and Darlington are now profitable", knowing a bit about both towns I might add that there are reasons for this in comparison to the other presumably non-profitable offices.

I wonder what plans the LSC has for these two areas? Would this feature not have been a ideal opportunity to tell us?

My guess is that they will continue to "invest" not least that having disrupted fragile local markets they have some responsibility now not to withdraw.

Sandra has done a new easier to manage PDF of the Spring training booking form for those interested.

That's probably it on here today as I am off North training on Peer Review again.

We have had encountered more Autorecbot activity this morning (yes 105% balance of payments reconciliations rather than 107.5%)

I then spotted this. Read the bit on civil bills.

The two key phrases are:

"we have an obligation to manage our cash flow within our resources at the end of the financial year"

and

"you will notice us reverting to our published target times when processing your civil bills"

This translates into - "we will hold back paying you, despite our ability to do so (and perhaps even having assessed your bills), to massage the end of year figures".

Or in JRS speak.

Autorecbots are Green, Autobillbots are Red.

Further to this story the revised Mental Health "Improving your Quality" Guide is now published.

The changes, from an extremely quick read, relate to the frequency of visits to clients anticipated by the reviewers. Anything which looks like establishing firm benchmarks e.g. the controversial "5 visits" has been made considerably more vague. As ever comments can be made below

The drinks break in yesterdays Peer Review course got diverted into a consideration of the firms QPR and CMRC reports (that's Quality Profile Report and Contract Management Review Criteria for slackers). The only adverse statistic was a high percentage bill reduction rate on their CDS 7s.

"Ah lost a couple of enhancement claims recently then", I quipped.

"It is the first time we have ever lost an appeal on enhancement" came the response "and all since the abolition of Cost Committees".

Is anyone having the same experience? We would like to informally monitor the situation so any experience, confirmatory or otherwise, would be gratefully received.

UPDATE

A North East firm ring to check my availability for a CC hearing. Apparently Chester are still sending out the pre-October standard appeal letter. We have advised them to reply stating that they do want to be represented before a panel!

It is a particular pleasure to be able to bring you news of another Competent Plus Criminal Peer Review result. Not only is this an antidote for some of the more depressing news of the last week or so, but it is pleasing to us as the firm in question have now been clients of JRS for 10 years.

It is not that we would claim any credit for this outcome except to say they have always been a good law firm who have responded positively to any advice given.