We have one client currently sitting in a meeting with the LSC to discuss their "capacity to deliver". We are aware that of a couple of these took place last week and that one in happening tomorrow. They essentially seem to be seeking to persuade firms to hand back matter starts as is discussed in this very interesting article.

It is from a Housing Law blog called "Nearly Legal" which I was directed to over the weekend - primarily because of their converge of the CLP Judicial Review case.

The linked article explains, legally, what we describe as the "makeitupaswegoalongery" being displayed by the Commission post procurement. My thoughts on the subject do tend to concur. This is mainly following a discussion last week where a firm has been advised that any contract sanction based upon failure to meet, say, the 85% NMS delivery KPI, would be unlawful.

Well worth reading the whole thing though.

It took me ages to get logged in to the e-portal today but once there discovered that this weeks maintenance has resulted in a radical, visual change to the site.

You may well get a surprise therefore, if checking for an appeal notification.

It remains to be seen if our under-rehearsed cover of the karaoke classic (but which takes more from this superior version) will work next Saturday night. If you are close to Teesside you are very welcome to come and judge for yourself. If you do you will see West Yorkshire's finest lawyer based band too.

Is the question Andrew Keogh asks in the comments below with regard to this story in the Gazette.

If you have not read it, it covers the comments made by Mr Justice Collins in a JR of the Procurement round brought by CLP of Birmingham. Irrational is a phrase I have used in discussing this process but am surprised not only that a High Court is in agreement but so vehemently so.

The answer to Andrew's question remains to be seen but gives a good indication that things might be about to unravel. I understand that TLS are issuing tomorrow and hope for a hearing next week - perhaps before the same judge.

If you have been awarded a contract you will have received a request for "confirmation", as if this were needed, that you can deliver it from October 14th.

For a very few there will be the need to send a Supervisor declaration or an indemnity form but this will not be common. If this is the case DO SO as I do not think they will baulk at saving matter starts by revoking any contract offer they can.

The only contentious issue remains the PSAIF. That is the non-mandatory Excel spreadsheet which pries into your accounts and asks for diversity monitoring information. It can be downloaded from "Buyer Attachments" in the e-portal. We still believe this to be, as stated above, non-mandatory, however it probably makes best sense to complete one and attach it to your "Confirmation" message.

We are so paranoid that we think that they might try and revoke your contract for not titling the message "confirmation" let alone for failing to supply a PSAIF.

"The days more gray each one than what had gone before".

Cormac McCarthy
The Road

I am finding it hard to digest all the various pieces of new information dropping on my desk concerning Family procurement. I do however get a feeling that the process is beginning to fray at the edges.

Meanwhile "Financial Stewardship" rolls on like a steam roller seemingly crushing everyone it meets in one way or another. Files and appeals everywhere. Lots of chew with UPOA as well.

Not had time to do any practice for next week end either!

You might have thought, given the reduced Family supplier base - though not necessarily achieving the "fewer larger suppliers" they have wanted for such a long time - that the tone of the relationship might change.

For the avoidance of doubt, you will be required to deliver both the volume and breadth of services for which you have tendered. The delivery of new matter starts (NMS) is a key performance indicator (KPI) under your contract and breach may result in contract sanctions (including termination, where appropriate). Failure to deliver in accordance with your tender will also be taken in to account in any future tender exercises.

And these are the lucky ones.

This weeks webinar was originally intended for over a month ago - before Civil procurement interrupted things. Originally it was to be a summary session of July's "new LSC audits" theme nut now we are obviously at the end of August.

Although the session is late it is still a useful one we think covering how to prepare for and handle the various elements of the "financial stewardship" process.

The aim is to provide a series of invaluable checklists for fee earners and supervisors to avoid the process spiralling out of control as it has in certain cases.

Next task today is to get my head into some boxes of files whilst keeping an eye on the e-portal for more appeal notifications.

I was WRONG. Completely and utterly WRONG and have never been so happy to be so in my life.

I thought all Family bid appeals would be rejected out of hand but not so and we have just heard of our first successful result.

This involved mismarking of panel membership and has resulted in an award of contract at minimum matter starts.

UPDATE

Second result - similar issue, same bid zone, full NMS bid for.

Didn't do a Friday song here is a Saturday one

I must get 4 or 5 phone calls a day asking about appeal timescales.

This is what the LSC say;

we are aiming to consider appeals in approximately one month

This might be quicker if you fall into one of the priority groups - though this seems to me to mean just about everyone.

Please note, appeals will be prioritised where:

• Organisations have been assessed as unsuccessful and as a result have no contract offer

• Organisations have been unsuccessful in their tender for Housing and have also tendered for Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme work.

We are prioritising appeals where organisations are challenging the information against which we have verified family accrediation.

The North East JR initiative also features in this weeks Gazette.

Hotel blogging again, for the first time in a bit, - with more on-the-road work ahead for me - but with no diminution in the static workload back at HQ.

I have just had a great night out with Andy, though this confirms what we have reiterated for ages, we need to be talking about work, more often that we do.

With that in mind those of you teasing us about your interest in "jumping the fence" need to stop flirting and make a pass.

I have just done my final read of the CDS Contract documentation in preparation for Friday's Webinar on the changes.

What strikes me most are not the changes but how much stuff is part of our regular phone advice work. A revision session might well be as useful as Friday's offering I think - perhaps even as early as September.

The course does contains some important stuff however so get booking.

I received this through e-mail whilst away over a long weekend, hence nothing here yesterday. Scarily accurate;

Just about to drive the 5-hours down to Suffolk for the weekend and whilst I have an aux input in the car for the iPod we usually grab a handful of CDs from the "most listened to pile" which always develops in the kitchen. These include C B R, Stornoway, Danny and the Champions of the World, The Decemberists and Richard Hawley.

I cannot understand why the latter failed to make the Mercury shortlist with "Trueloves Gutter" this year. If you think you have heard this one before that's because Hargen Daas used it an advert - apparently he got paid in ice cream, which was delivered whilst he was touring, and he saw none of it

For those not on the Grouse moors this afternoon the LSC have released this update.

The key point is:

if an organisation is successful on appeal, it won't affect existing allocations to successful applicants, so long as those applicants have proved they can deliver the work they won.

1 Where will the NMS for successful appellants come from and will they be proportionate to their points score in the PA?

2 What is this about "proving" capacity? That is down to preset ratios in the IFA e.g. 200 family NMS per FTE fee-earner. There is nothing more to prove

I used the old term "makeitupaswegoalongery" yesterday. It seems to be making a return to fashion.

That, I think, is my last Family Bid appeal. It contained a marking mistake but not of enough significance to offer the firm any significant hope of retrieving their contract. The testimonials we attached were, as ever, glowing describing a young, enthusiastic department now deprived of the chance to fulfil its potential in Family Public Law. Cynically I do not think there was any point in attaching them,

That story picked itself by chronological chance. There are just so many others and I have neither the time nor emotional energy to chronicle them all here.

More positively There has been a bit of a resurgence in interest in collective opposition to the situation in recent days and we must now be close to some early indications of Counsels advice on matters. we will keep you posted.

Although most appeal deadlines have now passed things remain frenetic here. Andy's return from Greece next week represents a very bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

I am not posting all our current war stories here - there is enough heat in relationships between our clients and the LSC without us creating more. Any number of our previously defined terms for LSC approaches equally apply to the present whirlwind of activity.

I will however be covering all of this and related issues, in the secure, private space of the webinar on 27th August. This will outline an action plan to manage risk in the current "assurance" environment - so far as it is possible to plan for "makeitupaswegoallongery".

Meanwhile I have a PQQ appeal to lodge, a box of Family claims to "verify", an "on demand" webinar to prepare for the morning, a UPOA response to finalise, a graduate trainee post to advertise, a Formal Review to sketch out, a PoP to agree with clients, one final (?) Family bid appeal to personalise and all before 2 pm when I have a meeting about exciting IT things. (That said I have not yet had time to have a good play with the iPad though I intend to this weekend).

On top of this there are 4/5 new songs to rehearse for Sat 4th September.

No I would not be bored if I had nothing to do.

Procurement round appeals continue to rumble as do RMA outcomes -I am juggling both today before a day of UPOA tomorrow.

I have a refusal of appeal letter in front of me rejecting what I would call "generic grounds of appeal" in Immigration. As anticipated they believe the process to be fair, proportionate and rational.

When I used the word "decimate" to describe the impact of Family procurement on the supplier base I was using it colloquially. Those with a bit of Roman history will be aware of its real meaning.

The effect has been a reduction of more than a tenth and we did, of course, avoid the clubbing and the stoning - although to failed firms it has often felt like that.

It is almost impossible to impart our overview of the scale and nature of things - in some cases because this would possibly allow failed firms to be identified. We are also just starting to appreciate the significantly wider set of unintended consequences which will follow. In snapshot;

Clients faced with significant travel to find a LA firm (if they even can) - minimum 3-hours is the longest reported to date.

Matter starts in large rural areas being concentrated in geographically distant towns.

Large firms with interrelated contracts bounced out whilst smaller firms, without capacity to deliver the NMS awarded, survived (with no blame on them).

Nationally renowned firms losing Family contracts not just as the LSC would like to suggest mainly firms doing less than 100 NMS per annum.

Commercially sensible bids, on the basis of the information available, resulting in staggering numbers of NMS.

Towns the size of Leeds reduced to tiny numbers of suppliers

The general picture, perhaps best represented by where we are based, Middlesbrough, is of solid, longstanding general and LA practices (you have to do the latter in this part of the world) being culled by more than 50%. Years of commitment to working at the lowest rates, investment in franchising and related IT, constant upheaval, never-ending cost auditing, payment delays and latterly dealing with indifference at best from the LSC leading to this nightmare scenario.

I will make a start on untangling the practical ramifications of this on Friday at the regular Webinar.

Those wanting some more direct consultancy impute, either way, should give us a ring.

Today is the deadline for most failed Family/SWL bid appeals.

Please DO NOT miss this deadline.

We have assisted countless firms in a variety of different ways over the last fortnight, the volume has at times been overwhelming - including today.

We are very anxious that there are NO misunderstandings with firms who have contacted us. Especially we do NOT want there to be firms who miss the deadline because they think we are submitting their appeal for them.

If you think we are doing this for you rather than you submitting your appeal, possibly using Generic Grounds for Appeal, yourself, please confirm this with us.

Given volume of work if you are not on our current list we do not have capacity to add new names at this late stage.

Our apologies for the latter, we hope you understand and please bear with us.

These are now available by request only.