I am off to see Mariza in that London tomorrow night, having just missed her in Portugal this year so it was tempting to put something by her up today. I felt we needed something a little more upbeat with a Halloween theme however:
This letter deals with the issue of establishing the correct PPE levels for Litigators Fee claims. It is a live issue both for our costs drafting team and many of our clients.
We will happily collate and forward information of any firms wishing to participate in the consolidated appeal Aryeh proposes.
Last week of October sees me more on the road than not, for obvious CPD related reasons. This meant I have not been able to post news on the interim settlement of the VHCC panel until now. (We did predict it last week mind).
Just a quick reminder about our next Billing 'Masterclass' sessions - 10% discount for CLSA & LAPG members - Further discounts for multi-bookings - JRS Retainer clients qualify for half price tickets -
Both are of benefit for first time billers, those with remaining doubts about the new schemes or just as a bit of a revision session. If our phone casework is correct, there are both costs out there not being claimed and some potentially costly errors which need to be avoided. Just a couple of extra standard fees will justify the course fee.
As ever the Civil session is in the morning and CDS in the afternoon. We shall be at:
Manchester on Tuesday, 18th November
Leeds/Bradford on Thursday, 20th November
Newcastle on Tuesday 24th November
These courses are also available In-House for those firms with 6 or more potential delegates. You might also consider hosting the event and inviting local firms to share the costs - call Sandra on 01642 225553 or send an email to us at jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk to discuss these options.
http://www.jrsconsultants-uk.com/archives/001133.html
I have found it difficult to pin down a track this week, this kind of catches my mood and the season (don't play if intolerant to folk music):
I am informed that some further consideration of the Family Private Law Level 2 threshold is under reconsideration. ONe hopes they will seek to avoid circumstances like these.
The VHCC panel is back in the news.
I understand that an interim deal is imminent.
Is it possible that the long-term solution could be worse than the present? We will have to wait and see.
I wonder how this will impact upon LSC targets for the payment of bills.
Quiet start to the week involving little more than a couple of phone enquiries. These involve as ever some billing issues but more depressingly advice to another firm who have failed Peer Review.
I have to say you can almost write the script for these conversations and it is never the type of firm you expect it to be either. It is difficult to encourage much optimism about the chances of success via the written representations process however that's what I tried to do.
Someone ring me with some good news please.
At the weekend I discovered a Belle and Sebastian album on my i Pod I did not know I had (certainly don't have the physical CD). Up till then all I have ever heard are occasional tracks on sampler CDs. I think it is great (and the missus is worried about a back catalogue buy out this weekend) and here they are:
Apparently your single parent client, on income support, without childcare or private transport has to trudge down to your office, with double buggy, on the bus, to meet with you, "face-to-face", before you can progress the case into Level 2 Family Private Law work. Telephone instructions are insufficient. (She then has to spend more of her benefit whilst waiting the 2 hours for the return bus).
If you have a case of this type and are thinking of an appeal give us a ring we will be more than happy to assist in the writing of a potential Point of Principle.
Andy is doing some on-site work on contract reconciliation with clients today. I will cut to the chase - due to a daft, unrequested overpayment last year the LSC now want a significant reduction in SMP from next month.
What if the firm had sensibly placed the overpayment on deposit not wanting to fritter this "fools gold". However I wonder what the LSC's reaction would be if it had, lets say, been an account at Icesave.
Might be worth trying to find out!!
Just back from a appeal hearing which resulted in our client being reinstated to a Duty Solicitor scheme.
The best bit was that the Committee declined to accept the advice of the LSC supplied "clerk" on the scope of their jurisdiction. We both can and will make a decision they said. I have long been uneasy about the role of an LSC employee providing such advice - it is really refreshing for a panel to be so robust in their rejection of a clearly partial interpretation of contract rules.
Well it is all change again at the top of the LSC with three new Directors set to arrive in January. A couple of stalwarts, such as Richard Collins, are leaving, others such as Crispin Passmore take a move sideways.
This is all very interesting indeed and this is presumably what has lead to the feeling of rudderlessness some have commented upon in recent times. What it holds for firms on a day-to-day basis remains to be seen.
Is this a virtual post or an actual post? I ask because a consultation on the Virtual Courts pilot, and the related Virtual fee has been launched.
The pilot area is Central and South East London so for many of you this will currently be of virtually no importance.
I have seen the software behind this service demonstrated and had a couple of long chats with its suppliers about the benefit it delivers to users.
Essentially it digitises large files making them portable and allowing for easy electronic access. The process is also an allowable disbursement. It works too.
As my kids might say it seems a "no brainer" to me.
Swift start to the week with a bevy of Monday morning phone queries plus some appeal correspondence to whiz off. After that its a bit of prep for a hearing later in the week - to be done by video link of all things.
Does anyone have any positive stories about getting reinstated on Duty Schemes?
Be grateful if you do.
I have received correspondence regarding the time-scales for the payment of the new Crown Court LF. One client reports some being outstanding 8 weeks after dispatch.
8 weeks is significant is because it represents this years bill "check and payment" target. Now I, for one, am slightly surprised that they are not currently meeting this, though only by low, single percentage points. This not least because it does not seem that demanding to me. I also suspect that some corners are being cut to achieve the current 99% performance against CDS 7 bills, for instance.
My scepticism relates in particular to the LF1s which require only minimal "checking" and certainly no significant taxation style activity. Surely these could be targeted for more speedy return?
Yesterday audit/assessment notifications went one beyond a hat-trick with clients informing us of four types of forthcoming LSC activity.
First up a Civil "Fixed Fee Contract Compliance Audit" of the type discussed in my last training round. Essentially a check of main contract rules, e.g. eligibility, rather than line-by-line cost assessment. Their expressed intent, as the gradation of results demonstrates, is to find files which can be "nil assessed". 7 or more and you are in for a much more thorough examination and potentially significant "recoupment". It is the usual 20 file sample.
Next a standard Peer Review sample, a process which continues to rumble on and about which I was training yesterday afternoon.
As we have stated before KPI audits are also being arranged especially in the CLS, with your performance especially against the 20% fixed fee margin proving an important trigger of their interest.
Finally, and most surprisingly, the notification of an old fashioned "Control Audit" to a CDS client. The surprise is caused by the strong probability, on our experience, that the underlying data on which this is based is likely to be flawed.
All of which suggests an upsurge of the LSC inspection regime.
I got to listen to both a bit of Marconi and Radcliffe plus all of Bob Harris Country on my way home form Northants last night. The latter has a session from Hayes Carll who has just won the song of the year at the annual Americana Music Awards with this humorous take on redneck "culture". (Don't think it should offend the religiously minded).
This issue has raised its head again this morning. The firm in question are not to receive their current SMP because they cannot prove that the LSC was at fault for the loss of their most recent submissions. Instead the money owed, (as calculated under the new protocol discussed in the link) will be paid back over the next 6 months.
Keep proof of you e-mail submissions and demand acknowledgement if that is going to be the attitude.
Steve writes:
It has come to our attention, during our visits to firms across the country, that the LSC have not communicated the recent form changes very clearly* and there are a number of firms who were unaware that new forms became mandatory from 1st October 2008. This includes the Legal Help form and CDS1's and 2's, amongst several others listed in an LSC Circular (email us for a copy). We wanted to make firms aware of these changes.
*It is likely that the changes were notified to you via an e-mail update from the LSC, so please ensure that such messages are being directed to the right person.
NB
Please note the exceptions regarding CDS 14-17 as outlined here last week.
I listened to both Richard Hawley's albums last night. This is from the the first which was Mercury nominated the year the Arctic Minkeys won and started their acceptance speech with "someone ring 999 Richard Hawley has been robbed". Wise young men.
Depressing edition of the Gazette with a cover story about the level of professional indemnity insurance premiums forcing firms to close.
The next story deals with the continuing fall out of the standard fee schemes with Steven Hewitt of Fisher Meredith going public on the loss of income this has occasioned. (Story irritatingly not on their site to link to).
The leader also tackles the same subject and the top letter uses the same headline as Andy's piece below to criticise the Litigators Fee.
I doubt our news, of another client with a Category 2 Peer Review outcome, is likely to lift the gloom.
Andy writes:
This phrase has now become the LSC's back stop as to whether or not many of their fix fee schemes are as economical as the old style hourly rate.
Fix fees, Graduated fees, Litigator fees and Standard fees all work on the premise of "Some you win, Some you loose". The important question therefore is do you as a supplier know on which side of the coin you fall.
This week I managed to get a firms Civil billing information transferred across form the Bulk load spread sheets they had been using onto our CMRF Wizard (lots of copying and pasting required).
By using the filters and pivot tables I was quickly able to break down there billing profile into the relevant billing levels i.e FPL01 or FPL02 etc. The results were not good i.e. average case cost for FPL01 claims £176. especialy when your only getting £94 per claim and this doesn't even take into account the admin costs of opening and billing a file never mind archiving it for a number of years. Clearly this firm is now going to look closely at the reasons behind these averages.
The monitoring of such information is so important as is the monitoring of all contract information and KPI's. In fact the monitoring of such information by suppliers is a contract requirement. If you want to discuss ways in which JRS can assist you in doing this then please get in touch on the usual numbers.
Do you like me get the new LSC e-mail news updates?
If you don't you may have missed this:
Civil consultations delayedWe’re still working with ministers on the civil consultations we expected to publish this month. Our guiding principle must be to get this right even though it means a delay in the dates we published in the civil route map.