From tomorrow we hope to ratchet up the "dressdown Friday" theme with a weekly Quiz. Don't miss it!

UPDATE

Sorry - lack of time (forgot I was going out again today) will try next week.

For the third time this week I am off on my travels to deliver some in-house shouting. Consequently I have little time to blog (am going early as I suspect we might have some problems on the M62 due to strong winds and high sided vehicles).

So what might I have posted on if I had had the time?

More horror stories regarding contract payments. Despite their claims to the contrary a continuing litany of disasters at the DSCC - one firm was not informed of an "own solicitor" client within the target 2-hours rather 2 days, can anyone beat this? More bad Peer Review and CCA news. Post Wise Leeds lose at Southend. My birthday present trip to Amsterdam to see Plant and Krauss live falls through.

Yeah you've got the usual uplifting tone of my week.

Does this cheer you up or are you just weary of it? Anyhow good luck to the Law Society good to see them stealing the initiative.

I cannot let this pass without comment.

As a lifelong Leeds fan I never viewed Bates as the saviour figure he presented himself as, in fact I found his emergence from the administration ahead of higher bidding consortia deeply depressing. The fact that genuine servants of the club ended up not being paid and a 15-point deduction followed confirmed this. He has nothing to do with Leeds United and has, in my opinion, his own and not the clubs interests at heart.

Bringing in his godchildren's dad, Wise, as an essentially untried manager did nothing to allay these fears. Those who praise his performance this year forget that he took us down last. (It is also becoming clear that Poyet was the power behind the throne in any event). Wise too has no connection with our club, was/is not up to the job and like his sugar daddy is motivated primarily by self interest. His departure proves this, as do comments reported in today's Times that he became disillusioned after Poyet left, but did nothing about it.

I am glad he has gone and hope that Bates will follow shortly.

Normal service will shortly be resumed.

UPDATE

Another unwanted appendage departs.

My old boss at the Legal Aid Board, Joe Cowley, appears to have drawn the short straw and got to manage the national project to recover Unrecouped Payments on Account (UPOA).

Here is some new guidance on how the process is to work. It looks as though there will be some activity taking place very shortly.

Don't forget that the Law Society are taking an interest too (you will have to scroll down to the "General Issues" section).

Well this doesn't take things much further forward does it?

"We will let you know more as soon as we can".

So will we!

I suspect people are getting a little tired of songs tenuously linked to substantive subject matter, filling this Friday (and other) space. So I am going to resist Steve's suggestion of "Please, Please, Please (let me get what I want)" by the Smiths - we also featured them a couple of weeks ago.

I also like to prosthyletize on behalf of my current obsessions and know that this is, on occasions, appreciated by regular readers - even leading to album sales.

British Sea Power have been a favourite of mine for a number of years (they even performed in Middlesborough last year). This is one of the highlights from their excellent third album "Do you like Rock Music":

I think some delegates were silently bemused about the section on one of the recent courses regarding the issue of payment for staff for out of hours Police Station work. It was however, at time of preparing the course, a live issue for some of our farsighted clients.

It came alive yesterday in very real terms for a couple of callers both struggling to arrive at payment arrangements with staff - in one case it may lead to very far reaching consequences. As I said on the course, whilst there is no magic solution there are certainly a range of options which have proved successful in other circumstances.

Perhaps however I am underestimating the psychic ability of the policy-makers and that this side issue was intended rather than the alternative. Especially if it does result in reduction in the supplier base.

If you want to discuss the issue give me a ring.

I have two Peer Review reports, both Crime, in front of me.

The first, in chronological order of receipt by the firm, is for a long standing client and a solid Category 3. (In fact I have examples of similar findings being categorised as Competent Plus but as we can't currently make representations we are sitting on our hands).

The second is a Category 4.

The former was undertaken in December and reported this month. The latter, received yesterday, was completed in the middle of the summer. Yesterday I heard of a case, also conducted in the middle of last year, where all the files from the three categories reviewed have been returned but only one report. The findings on the other 2 categories, despite assurances from their Account Manager that these were "awaiting verification by a senior panel member" have not materialised.

The average waiting time for representations to be considered , across our 2 outstanding appeals, is nearly 6 months.

Now I know that the LSC only administer this scheme and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies actually run it, but nonetheless are there any of their functions which are currently "fit for purpose"?

It remains very quiet over at the LSC website - mind you it's still early.

Can't resist another You Tube link - (have another guess before clicking).

The LAPG have a new Director. Can we welcome Carol Storer to the post and wish her all the best.

The LSC web-site is not normally reticent about about the level of take up for one of its new initiatives. I cannot be bothered linking to previous examples, you already know the type - "95% coverage delivered by signatories to new CDS/CLS contract". Such headlines normally appear within 24 hours of the relevant deadline.

So why the silence concerning numbers joining the VHCC Advocates panel?

The first inside guess I've heard says 5% in the North. Anyone fancy a sweep-stake?

UPDATE

This just in, via a client, from our fieldwork team:

Q. "Only one member of my VHCC Advocate team has signed the new contract - what do I do"

LSC A. "If you are unable to deliver your VHCC contract we may have to terminate it".

Can this really be the approved script?

Indications from bidders for new Immigration contracts, concurrent with the outcome of the Court of Appeal case, suggest a retendering of Civil contracts as indicated here.

Can't therefore resist this You Tube link - see if you can guess before going there.

It seems that is it now no longer possible to ring the person you want at your Regional Office. Instead you have to be "routed" through the main switchboard. Today I wanted to avoid a long conversation, on a complicated eligibility issue, with a generic adviser from something called, I'd wager, "the customer service team".

I have today also discovered this new way of swearing.

'ஸ்ரீ[ற அஐஊ அ ஙறலொக ட் ஒடரணதூஏஊ ஃறொமனலெ ஈஅலமூஐஇ'

I am pretty damn sure that they cannot translate that!

Most of us have natural rhythms to their working lives - not liking Monday being the most common one.

Fridays, as well as being song day on this blog, have a particular significance at JRS, especially with regard to telephone enquiries. On most Fridays for instance you can almost set the clock, at 3 pm, when the phones start ringing out of their cradles with billing enquiries. This usually starts at 1pm when it is the last week of the contract reporting cycle. Last week we had a deluge given the continuing "off-line reporting disaster", the new CDS fees and the first batch of Civil claims coming through under the standard fee scheme.

Allied to this have been a bunch of requests for a repeat of the two recent practical billing training courses from people unable to attend at the two dates earlier in the month. We are happy to run these again subject to there being sufficient delegates in any one time and place.

If you would like to make, as the LSC call it, and "expression of interest" please contact Sandra by phone or e-mail.

I have an early start and a drive over the Pennines to shout at a bunch of lucky punters.

Yesterdays late afternoon news -a change to the Police Station "script" announced.

If I can post any news on the advocates VHCC panel take up I will.

As this article reminds us today is the day for Advocates to sign up to the VHCC contract.

More interesting is the news, following last weeks cheery correspondence from the LSC, that its author Richard Collins, has been reported to the Met. Police Commissioner for alleged "blackmail".

Perhaps he will end up sharing a cell with a Barrister!

UPDATE

Here is a response to Richard Collins from Timothy Dutton QC.

I like the penultimate paragraph if you do not have the time to read it all.

We still have a Mexican stand-off over the VAT issue.

This week I combine a news post with the Friday song - the latter being vageuly themed on the former.

Before the musical entertainment however - compare and contrast

11/1/08

We’ve already received many completed contracts from both solicitors and advocates and we’re expecting all contracts to be accepted and returned within the deadline. (emphasis added)

Today

We are aware that a very high proportion of advocates have still to sign VHCC advocates’ contracts, and although those contracts do not have to be returned until 21 January, the present indications are that a substantial number of advocates are currently intending not to do so.

This has created sufficient panic to occasion the following "legal advice" from the LSC to the Bar Council:

The Bar Council is, we believe, aware that it is unlawful under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 and a criminal offence under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for parties, including members of the Bar, to collude in the terms on which they offer their services. All that is required for a breach of the Competition Act is a “concurrence of wills” or, as recent case law has established, that information supplied by any party is supplied to another with the intention of, or knowledge that, it will facilitate the making of an anti-competitive agreement. Under the Enterprise Act secrecy concerning the steps taken to enter into an arrangement to limit the supply of services is presumed by practitioners to establish the necessary dishonesty. (You can read the whole letter at the "today" link above or via the Bar Council link below).

The LSC goes on to implore the BC to "provide this advice itself" to its members. Their suitably measured response is here.

Is this the point at which we cease "being all in this together" as the LSC resorts to 11th hour legal threats to its erstwhile "partners" to try and save a flagship initiative? Will they succeed?

I have made my willingness to run the "No. 6 are Innocent" campaign, know to Tim Collins and may well be making requests for readers to bake cakes containing files later next week.

The song - obvious wasn't it:

Here is an "explanation" as to how your February SMPs will be calculated. Why do they always send this stuff at 4.30 in the afternoon, in this case the day before the deadline.

I have had two calls so far this morning from firms who did not receive the original communication in this regard and save for our News Flash alert yesterday would now be in difficulty.

The same Gazette article mentioned below also considers the additional chaos likely to follow from the Bar declining to sign VHCC contracts, as they must do by next week.

Now we have only limited contact with Chambers. We have only really done any work with one set down the years - No 6 in Leeds. They occasionally have the pleasure of being thoroughly depressed by my take on the future for Legal Aid and the Bar. We also have more regular and very useful information exchanges with their Practice Director, Tim Collins. (Long term friend of JRS and well know legal typing error Steven Switlaski also resides there nowadays).

They are, in my view, pretty clued up and were certainly the best prepared set we came across when going through the tortuous VHCC BVT process last year. Their members were consequently highly successful as a result.

It is therefore of some import that their successful applicants are, individually, about to decline to contract with the LSC. If you click on the blue "continue reading" link below you can read Tim's thoughtful explanation of their reasoning:

Nearly all our criminal team were included in successful tender applications for local panel firms. However, individually and for a variety of reasons they came to different initial decisions on whether to sign contracts with the LSC for VHCCs.
 
Having considered the implications of the contracts, the bid rate, the reduced refresher rates and the LSC's drive to dismantle legal aid our silks and a number of juniors immediately decided not to sign the contracts.
 
Other counsel initially reached different conclusions, some were more confident that in reality there are only a small number of cases and with their overall mix of work the new contracts would have little effect, others recognise that the volume of crown court work is declining and commercially if they want to continue with criminal work they believed they had no option but to be available to accept appropriate VHCC work albeit at reduced rates. However, having had more time to discuss the possible implications of some of the details in the contract they now believe it to be an unreasonable contract and it would not be in their interests to contract with the LSC.
 
Our counsel remain committed to supporting their instructing solicitors but are united in their concerns about the LSC's inability to listen or meaningfully engage with the professions and their apparent determination to undermine our justice system while spinning their mantra of access, quality and value. 
 
The issues involved in these decisions are both varied and complex and I am more than happy to try and explain some of the reasoning and arguments for the positions our counsel have adopted. Please do not hesitate to contact me or speak to counsel if you would like any issues clarifying.
 
Kind regards
 
Tim Collins
Practice Director
D: 0113 213 5207

The Gazette also reflects upon what it titles "Legal Aid in Chaos" (as ever can't provide a link on a Thursday because the paper snail mail copy is ahead of their web version).

It will be interesting to see if these "minor teething problems" with the DSCC are easily ironed out or whether this description represents another potential entrant for the "Civil Service Spin Doctery of the Year" award.

One, hopefully tractable, problem has arisen for firms who supplied a multiplicity of phone numbers in their returns to the DSCC last year. This has lead to requests for attendance being made to a variety of staff including those not on rota. We know of a number of firms who have now contacted the DSCC to ask them to use, for instance, one central number as an alternative. Please let us know if they have agreed to this or similar requests.

Don't forget as reported last Friday you have until tomorrow to complete and send this form to confirm your October, November and December claims information. This is essential to ensure a reasonable SMP in February.

Yes I know it is you doing their job for them but there you go!

The training sessions and feedback from the phones has indicated a bumpy start, to say the least, to the Defence Solicitor Call Centre - computers down (whadda you know), wrong firms notified re own client instructions, inability to answer reasonable questions (I'm only answering the phones and taking messages don't have a clue what you should do") and so on.

Use the comments box if you like to record your interesting experiences.

UPDATE

The CLSA have instigated a much more practical reporting system for problems with the DCSS. Here is their reporting form which can be e-mailed to dscc@clsa.co.uk

If our experience is anything to go by they are going to be busy.

Pre Xmas there was something of a hoo haa about fee exemption in the County Court for those in receipt of Legal Help. The MoJ have considered the issue and issued the following guidance. Seem to me to say that if you certify the original proof of means supplied to confirm your grant of LH the Courts will now accept this. Let us know if this is what happens.

Sorry no time to blog today as I have 2 sittings of training to deliver. With only an afternoon session tomorrow I will hopefully have a bit of time tomorrow however a lame dog and another potential CCA appeal to look at first, might put an end to that.

We have had a further chapter in Peter Beckford's story from down under so if you would like a copy just get in touch.

This from the CCLF Guidance

2.1.6 - The LSC will also produce hard copy claim forms for providers who do not have access to the Internet, and these will be available on our website by 4 February 2008.

Hat Tip
Nigel

Here, in a spirit of saving paper, are a series of links and downloads to new reference materials and forms related to the new schemes. Use them wisely.

First up is the CDS Funding Order 2007 which can be accessed or printed either in whole (takes a bit of faffing about) or in part.

The Table of Offences (Schedule 6) might be worth a print however.

For notification of acceptance of Police Station instructions from a relative you need to use this form.

and similarly there is a new VHCC Notification Request Form.

You might want to bookmark this post for future reference.

UPDATE

The LSC essentially refute the LS/CLSA/Crimeline point on VAT plus confirm arrangements regarding calculation of the escape threshold. N.B. there is no reason to change how you complete the CDS 6 in any event and if the LS prove correct the LSC will have to amend credits to your contract.

The new crime scheme starts today, PACE Standard Fees and the Crown Court Litigators Fee.

You can here me shouting about both tomorrow at Bradford and on Wednesday afternoon in Gateshead. (I can do this 2-hour practical guide in-house if you like).

You can read about the CCLF here.

Have you just received an e-mail from your RO starting with this Guinness World Record attempt at understatement?:

"...our new LSC Online system is not yet performing as effectively as we would all like."

Er shouldn't that read "is completely f@&*ed".

You might remember that we had quite a prickly episode with the "Award Winning Off-line Marketing Team" concerning paper submissions at the time the scheme was launched (translated sank). Guess what? That's right they now want paper submissions, for civil contract claims at least, from here in. Admittedly this is not for your line-by-line claims, these they still want by bulk load spread sheet, but rather it is your New Matter Start data they are after and it has to be in by the 18th of this month.

I shall be nominating the author of the e-mail for this years Civil Service - Best Spin Doctor - award.

Here is the belated guidance on reporting Mental Health matters post January 2008.

We will turn the penultimate page into a laminate for practitioners next time we have some slave child labour (one of my work shy offspring) in the office.

I can't find Steve's suggestion for the Friday song - football fans singing "you don't know what you're doing" - on You Tube. Here is my stab at a musical expression of the Zeitgeist:

Your suggestions are welcomed!

Good summary of the current state of play here - bit like my IL piece mentioned yesterday.

Can I draw peoples attention to the LS activity regarding unrecouped payments on account?

If you have easy access to the paper copy have a look at the front page where a pictorial case for keeping solicitor advocates out of wigs is cogently put!! (Just kidding Ged).

Been busy as my monthly Independent Lawyer copy is due, had a Crown Court re-determination letter to prepare for tomorrow and a second Contract Compliance appeal has suddenly come back to life - all against impending deadlines.

I'm supposed to provide a bit of light relief in IL, similar to the way we try do things here, but I found it a bit hard this month given the chaos, makeitupaswegoalongery and applied Muppetry surrounding us right now. You can guess how I feel about the CCA appeal from the post below and fortunately the re-determination wasn't too difficult.

I can now therefore do some further preparation for Tuesday and Wednesdays courses in Bradford and Gateshead (without the benefit of a properly amended CBAM or the Litigators Fee regulations). Bradford has now actually sold out and so we have booked the room for the morning as well and are still taking bookings. There are also a few places in the N. East so if you want some practical billing guidance on the new Criminal schemes give Sandra a ring.

We have had a few calls regarding the VAT issue and SMP reductions resulting from the "Great Offline Reporting Disaster 2007".

I have nothing much more to add regarding the former except to express my surprise at the LSC's radio silence on the matter (beyond their immediate comment quoted in my original post). I think this is called a Mexican Standoff. Watch this space as there is undoubtedly more travel in the story!

The SMP issue is frankly much more depressing and we have a number of callers facing an incredibly difficult month. Make sure you do not suffer in silence would be our advice - which we are happy to expand upon over the phone.

If you are familiar, as I guess all parents of a certain age are, with the Harry Potter books you will understand what the title of this piece refers to. Dementors, as this definition expands, are creatures who suck the soul from their prey. They are generally regarded as "amongst the foulest beasts on earth". They are the guards of Wizard prison Azkkaban. (Does anyone really not know this stuff now?)

I currently feel as though I have been attacked by them.

That's correct I am once again involved in a full 20 file Contract Compliance Appeal which is slowly eroding my will to live. With hindsight I find it hard to believe I survived nearly 200 of these damn things. A large part of the frustration is the almost certain knowledge that they are wrong as best demonstrated by the most recent previous such appeal I was involved with. After a full year of wrangling an initial finding of a 92% was reduced, on appeal, to 9%.

Fortunately this job is not anyway close to the same scale. Here's hoping FAVFM does not become equally as stupid.

I did not get to see this article until last night. For those without the time or inclination to read it in summary it raises concern about the decline in the Legal Aid supplier base. Not a new story but one it is nice to see in the mainstream media.

The LSC response employs their sadly too common defence:

"The most important figure is the number of people receiving help from legal aid, which is at a record high, not the number of lawyers carrying out the work".

These continuing attempts to establish volume of "acts of advice and assistance" as the schemes key performance indicator must be resisted, especially in a funding regime which implicitly encourages firms to take on more, lower value cases. Their fundamental statutory duty is to guarantee access to justice via quality assured supply not to monitor, arguably manipulate, a single, largely meaningless figure as a fig leaf for all the other at least equally vital measurements.

The intensity of the Law Society's "What Price Justice" campaigning has risen rapidly in recent times, just look at the frequency of our links to their site. I'm pretty damn sure that Richard Miller's move there from the LAPG is both indicative of, and responsible for, this.

The first time I spoke to Richard in his new post was with regard to unrecouped payments on account - which has been a constant irritant to our clients over a number of years. By the normal measure of speed in circumstances such as these this response is positively supersonic.

If you have been affected by this process you might just want to give him a call.

This appeared on the Law Society website on Friday. Yes that's right the LS have got the LSC to state that you can charge VAT on top of the published PACE standard fees, effectively making the previous VAT inclusive figures VAT exclusive.

The "Award Winning" Online Marketing team responded promptly to rebut the suggestion via e-mail, though not as yet on the web site. So we have another point of impasse to be resolved.

My predicition?: the only people to benefit will be the Lawyers - if the LS prove correct!

Give the item below it was a toss up between this and Pink Floyd - the lyrics are more apposite on this I reckon!

I imagine that you have all received one of these letters yesterday or today. Apart from the obvious blame shifting going on, "an unexpectedly high proportion of claiming errors" by suppliers, this is also another example of "make it up as we go alongery".

Unsurprisingly there are no contractual provisions for circumstances where the LSCs own maladministration has such a direct impact upon the reporting process. Those that do exist however are clear and can best be summarised as - SMPs can only be reduced when reporting drops 10% below monies paid. I doubt that the Commission, through their own fault, are anywhere close to being able to make such a calculation. So to cover their own backs they intend to pay you the lowest of either the 3, 6 or 12 month average calculated from the last time (September) in which their systems allowed you to make verifiable submissions. This approach was of course not explained to those facing reductions, during discussions with their autorecbots in December. This is all to be undertaken with no consideration for the cash flow impact upon firms who for no fault of their own have been forced to report in a deeply unsatisfactory, ad hoc manner for the last two months and seemingly the foreseeable future.

Their thanks for your "continued patience" might not however help cover increased overdraft charges.

FRIDAY AFTERTHOUGHT

Would a national campaign of phone calls like this work?

UPDATE

Worst example to date is a firm receiving only a quarter of its usual SMP.

It is snowy and quiet at JRS HQ today and equally so on the LSC site - I am anticipating the publication of further technical information on the Litigators and the new PACE standard fees.

I am therefore engaged in admin tasks and consequently have little of interest to post about.

One phone conversationalist however remarked how quickly the 14th January has crept up upon us with the need to make the practical arrangements for the above mentioned PACE fees. How are you planning to remunerate out of hours work? Give me a ring if you feel like a chat on the subject.

Lets start the year on as positive a note as possible - every VHCC application we were involved with was successful congratulations to the firms involved! Furthermore we have only heard of one firm not making it, and that sounds like a mistake on the marking.

There were a couple of those applications which frankly we though did not have a hope and yet came up trumps. I have a strong suspicion that, in the final analysis, there was not the surfeit of applicants anticipated. Was this therefore a pointless and highly time consuming charade which did little more than allow firms who have previously done VHCCs to continue so to do?

Given that we are discussing scheme wide BVT some public evaluation of the experience would seem sensible.

First job of the New Year is obviously to wish a Happy and, dare we hope it, a prosperous one to all our readers.

What seems clear is that we will not avoid further turmoil. It looks as though the Unified Civil Contract will now be revisited and that we might have some better idea of what they mean by Best Value Tendering in Crime. There are of course some more imminent changes to the CDS to cope with, on which we will be training in Bradford and Gateshead on the 15th and 16th of January respectively.

Lets hope 2008 sees a change in the fortunes of the Legal Aid scheme.