I have just finished the course notes for the, near sell out, North Eastern leg of our next shouting tour. There are places left at the other venues.

As ever doing it late in the date is part my own fault part the ever present anticipation of the publication of other relevant course materials by the LSC. We may well have to make working repairs on route. I do find the current direction of travel somewhat depressing and I have also had another moody conversation with a client in a similar emotional state.

So here is a Friday tune from one of my current favourites, Editors, which is in a similar vein:

My replacement data projector has arrived next weeks training can go ahead

Wakefield is to get a CLAC and East Yorkshire a CLAN*.

These pieces of news are not related.

*Community Legal Advice Centre or Network

Sorry, this has passed us by (we don't get the same correspondence suppliers get).

You seemingly have until this Friday, 31st August, to make your last ever claim for Civil File Review. The claim should contain all actual claims from 1st October 2006 plus an estimate of any others yet to be done before 30th September 2007. The form to use is the FR1.

We have been alerted to this deadline by an observant client from the North East Region who received correspondence from that Regional Office. Some feedback from other areas would therefore be appreciated especially if this is, perversely, only a little local problem.

Further to yesterdays post there is no corresponding notification of this deadline in the "What's New" section of the LSC web-site.

We thought the addition of the "What's New" front page to the LSC Web-site was a good idea; one central place where you can find the latest publications without the need for a detailed search of the site. Consequently, being the anorak I am, I check it most days.

Today, nothing new. Or perhaps not. Steve, delving somewhat deeper found this.

Published today, it is the "Final Evaluation of the FAInS (Family Advice and Information Service) Pilot".

Perhaps paragraph 23 of the LSC Summary explains why.

"The research concludes that FAInS does not appear to have effected much change in family law practice. Although there have been some subtle shifts in the approach adopted by some FAInS practitioners, they have not been substantial enough to be able to detect any major change on the behaviour of solicitors or their clients".

This and, (if my guess is correct), Preferred Supplier down the tubes, in one summer?

UPDATE

It went on the front of the site today! Was this a response to our post or just coincidence and us being pre-emptive? You can be the judge.

P.S. I think the latter.

We did, and a traditional one too (minus rain!). Had lunch at The Stray Cafe Redcar,

View Larger Map
then walked the 4 miles or so to Saltburn for a pint outside the Ship Inn at Saltburn. Later we walked back and had Fish n Chips for tea.

Performing live for the first time this year, tomorrow night (yeah not very industrious, I know ). Doing the usual slow time mondays, acoustic stuff but we have put in some last minute practice with the local related youth and intend to do two short electric sets. I am even gong to sing ! (well make a barely audible noise behind over-distorted guitars) - we intend to do this and two Ash songs:-

Much better will be versions of 3 Weller classics with our kid out front, especially, he says modestly, a pretty good stab at this:-

If you are near M'boro all you need is a chair and a picnic!

The LSC are trying to attract press attention for CLS Direct.

At the bottom of the page they supply three case studies. It is a long time since I did debt casework (nearly 15 years) however I seriously doubt that it will be possible to achieve similar outcomes within the, roughly, 2 and a half hours of work the tolerance fixed fee will allow post October.

Perhaps the pub landlord will become a real option.

I am preparing my September Training course. It predominantly deals with changes to the civil scheme, though will touch on issues relevant to CDS firms. The Unified contract is now in force for Civil firms (with further changes due in October) and will impact on Criminal Defence practitioners next April. One of the changes is a move from "equal opportunities to "equality and diversity" with new requirements in this regard.

If you want a model policy to muse upon here is one the LSC prepared earlier.

The "goin' back in time" theme continues with calls about UPOA and CCA taking up most of my air time this morning.

I mentioned the former last week because the Law Society are taking an interest in it. As it has raised its ugly head in our world again I would be very grateful for a chat with anyone with recent experience of this lengthy archive trawl.

The following is connected to the title but nothing else, i.e. it is little more than a crude attempt to justify more youtube on this site:

The October changes to the CDS contract, PACE fixed fees, VHCC Panel etc. are being put back by a fortnight to October 15th.

Is this the first or the final slippage to the timetable?

Ham Salad or Cheese and Tomato?

Reading Contract Compliance documentation also now has a distinctly retrospective feel to it. They are of course fairly few and far between nowadays, except seemingly in Immigration, and so the feelings of despair, bewilderment and anger they engender are no longer a common experience.

I had thought that the practice was now pretty much a discredited one which was becoming obsolete under unified contract and standard fees. The attraction of 5 figure recoupments, as my current correspondents face, is seemingly however too strong for the LSC to resist.

This is a world replete with nostalgia and we can certainly do without a re-run of this appalling episode in Legal Aid history.

As you can seen below the last couple of days we have returned to the subject of the VHCC auction process.

I was greatly amused by this gem in a letter from John Williams (Bankside Law) in today's Gazette, regarding one of the answers in the Q & A document -

"The rather unexpected answer is worthy of the bartering scene in the 'Life of Brian'..."

Unfortunately I cannot find a Youtube clip to post.

The likely LSC response - "Cwucifixion"

UPDATE

I have just noticed that this post, by chance, is number, yes you've guessed it......666. Spooky!

Just spotted this Law Society initiative regarding UPOA (unrecouped payments on account) and thought it deserved an airing here.

Follow the link and answer the questionnaire if you have been affected.

When is a 12 Noon VHCC application deadline not a 12 Noon deadline?

Obviously when, retrospectively, it is a 5.30pm deadline.

Why did that happen then? And which item from the title is which?

PS If you delivered between these two times, have a signed chit and left your "late" application with the LSC you have a get out of jail free card.

Hot on the heels of yesterdays autorecbot sighting comes a second. Similar in content, this must mean we are now in a period of auto reconciliation activity.

Please take the necessary evasive action.

Somewhat differently to the second part of this post we have had our first genuine Autorecbot sighting of the year. Much as last year it involves hassling firms slightly under the 90% reporting threshold to agree reductions, however small, in their SMPs. From the tone of my last conversation it seems that they intend to enforce these petty reductions regardless of any representations and despite solid evidence that other payments, CDS 7s and File Review, will resolve the problem.

The following para from their (standard?) correspondence is somewhat more ominous and of potentially wider impact:

"On a separate note I thought it would be prudent to ensure that you are aware that the 7.5% pull forward will not be applicable after this contract finishes, and, therefore, in order to avoid us us recouping a significant amount of money all at once it may be worth considering reducing the overpayment more gradually over the year".

Seems that it is repayment time for those "interest free loans" then.

It also appears that there is now a new breed of more junior and cost effective Autorecbot undertaking this task:

I obviously hate this man however:

"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea".

Eric "the traitor" Cantona

For those concerned about the welfare of my recently de-lumped dog she is fine. Got a couple of rather lurid scars and some large shaved patches, but otherwise doing well.

In other wildlife news we were visited by three half grown but clearly domesticated ducks yesterday. They have since moved on.

UPDATE

Have you ever tried to put a sock on a Labrador?

A phrase spoken in a mid 70s, mid-Atlantic accent which confirms the DJ as a total @&*%$£ and that you are not going to enjoy any of the remainder of the evening.

It did however pop into my mind whilst dealing with the latest two phone enquiries.

The first whisked me back to the days when firms wanted to expand, take on new contracts and were often genuinely positive about the future of Legal Aid. I remember an almost parallel situation to this one; firm wanting a civil contract in an area with insufficient supply being told that Legal Aid Stake-holders (eligible clients to you and me) could use irregular public transport to find a supplier at some distance. The current enquirers look like having their all too rare enthusiasm crushed by another act of bureaucratic idiocy.

My second act of time travel was not as far back in time and unfortunately involves a more common problem of recent history - autorecbots and contact reconciliation. There is a similar paradox here in that it involves mucking about a firm positively engaging with the post Carter agenda.

That the LSC does not have the foresight and flexibility to assist, or at least not to hinder, those firms willing to "row with them" remains one of the great mysteries of our age.

My younger dog "Tabby" has successfully had her lumps removed today - a weekend of whimpering in an Elizabethan collar to follow!

We have discussed "excellence in customer service" in three posts in the last two days - mostly to have another (gratuitous?) pop at the Commission. To even things out my question is simple - Is there a large organisation in the world with which it is possible to have a reasonable customer supplier relationship?

Nat West, BMi, Aviance.......?

To be fair to the former they have at least 1 employee with both initiative and the willingness to use it. I can however find no reason whatsoever to be fair to either of the other two who having lost my bag have now lost my insurance claim and have today, 1 month after the event, told me I am wasting my time in any event because they will not cover computer equipment!

I don't want to shout down the phone at a call centre worker I want to shout at someone in authority, based at either firm's head office, to make a point and to waste some of their time too.

By coincidence I have just written my first and only response to a client complaint in 11 years. I am frankly mortified and I suppose ashamed at having to have done so.

By way of contrast I cannot praise highly enough Mr Simon Fuller of Sillars Insurance Services Ltd where thankfully "excellent customer service" still exists!

Here are the previous Top Tips by way of background. So far they are all telephone related, as is this one.

LSC why not purchase an automated phone answering service which cannot re-route calls but requires the caller to write down another number and then ring back. This will allow you to continue to deliver "excellent customer service".

On the subject of shouting* here is another gig I have lined up in Birmingham. It concerns the very interesting issue of the "out sourcing" of legal work which may well become an important opportunity for legal aid practices in the years ahead. Come along or give me a ring if you can't make it but want a bit of background.

*For non regulars "shouting" is the JRS technical term for Law Society CPD Accredited Training.

PS We are doing this in conjunction with our friends at Freedom Technical and the Birmingham Law Society.

If you have nothing else to read, either at work or beside your holiday destination swimming pool, may I recommend this. Is it just me or does it read like a Soviet self congratulation on the achievement of another glorious 5 year plan?

"The LSC met or exceeded 12 out of its 13 corporate targets for the last year. Highlights include:"

See what I mean, (I can remember "target setting" at Leeds RO in the 90s), bet you cant wait for the "highlights".

Once again the phrase of the moment, "transformation", crops up. As I have observed before:

Choose your side - Protect or Destroy

Sir Michael's point regarding "excellent customer service" and complaints being at "an all time low" represent an interesting take on the last year. They seem to have airbrushed out of history (the usually mild mannered) Richard Miller's view that the LSC are now "loathed" by the profession and the unprecedented vote of no confidence in them by the Law Society.

"Business as usual" in "continuing to build on this success" then.

Does this prove yesterdays point about "perception gap"?

I imagine that like most firms you are dying to get your hands on an iSuppler Portal. For a full list of the benefits this brings have a read of this. Perhaps more importantly you now have only a month and a half to get set for electronic reporting. Yes that's right all Civil controlled work (i.e. your CMRF and CMSF) must be electronically reported from October 1st this year.

A free and (relatively) easy solution can be found in the Resources section of this site to the sidebar on the left in the form of the CMRF Online Wizard.

The other joys of the Unified Civil Contract will be explained in glorious technicolour by yours truly at a series of shouting sessions in September.

I am significantly less confident about the implementation of ECMS than they are however.

Travel again precludes a long post - West Mids yesterday North East today so at least not a long journey ahead today.

I had two snapshots of the perceptual gap between the LSC and the profession yesterday (I will avoid naming names and places etc.) both which seem to me mirror the much mentioned disparity in interpretation over the recent judicial review decision.

We should be very worried indeed that the party line penetrates so deeply into the Regional Offices.

You will know that as a Leeds fan my proclivity for football related blogging has taken something of a nosedive of late. Nothing over the weekend has changed this except to encourage similarly outraged fans of any allegiance to sign this petition.

We are however approaching a new football season and so are days away from those post match interviews where a defeated manager spins a 5-0 thrashing. This usually involves observations as to a bit of bad luck and a few bad refereeing decisions ruining a game in which his team was predominantly the “best team on the day”. I have already used this "were they watching the same match" point.

I take this view all the more so given this summary in last weeks Gazette. It seems clear to me that the LSC press department has been taking lessons from the Football League Managers Association given its response -which is essentially - full steam ahead with the “reform package”.

Credit to the lads they gave 110% commitment. The LSC are clearly hoping that it is going to be a game of two halves!

Add your own favourite clichés in the comments box.

A Health and Safety message : Switch of all laminating equipment after use!

"We remain firmly committed to introducing fixed fees to cover certificated private family work, including the final hearing, as soon as is practical and we urge lawyers to make early preparation for this." (Emphasis mine).

Early preparation?

What like moving out of legal aid work?

A couple of phone conversations, thoughts occasioned by the VHCC BVT experience and general lingering doubts lead me to pose the question:

Is the Preferred Supplier Scheme being kicked into the long grass?

Anonymous answers from our LSC readers in the comments box will of course be welcome.

ANOTHER THOUGHT

If I am wrong, which is entirely possible even given my generally sound predictive powers, then why an I currently reading so many phrases of this nature:

"We regard this as a temporary measure pending the introduction of best value tendering"

I am preparing for the September training tour concerning the move into unified contract and graduated and standard fees. Just came across this gem:

"We will ensure that there is training and guidance for regional office staff to ensure consistency of approach".

As my youngest kid would say ROFLMAO.

If you want to leave a greeting in the comments box help yourself.

Returning like a bad penny (or smell if you prefer) further VHCC news in the form of a limited extension to the deadline. Unsurprisingly it is in very limited circumstances and primarily with regard to Counsel, failure to sign declaration etc.

If you do wish to revisit your application either to add an omitted advocate or one who you left out through a misunderstanding of the qualifying cases criteria. The detail can be found here.