The most recent CCA appeal is nearly in the can having taken significantly longer than anticipated. It reminds me, and not in a good way, of the drudge of finding different ways to argue against a determination of "non-chargeable administrative letter".

Someone prophesised a return to this discredited form of assessment and true to form a client received a file request last week. It is to be hoped that this is not the case not least for my own quality of life, especially on Sunday afternoons.

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.

...it was safe to go back into the water along comes more CCA related stuff. I should not be here but now I am. Please, please, please can this be the last CCA appeal I ever have the misfortune to have to deal with.

We have just received the result of my final Cost Committee ever. As anticipated this was a success returning a Cat 1 outcome. This will give my memories of the Contract Compliance Wars a somewhat rosier glow.

The final score - we won, or rather they lost, four out of five.

I have been promising a retrospective on the Cost Committee years ever since their demise in October last year, but have held off until my final hearing. This seems finally to have happened.

On balance I will not miss this part of our work, despite the large majority of hearings being at least partly successful. There was a period during the Contract Compliance Wars, when these were so thick and fast that adrenaline took over and carried us through. That said, the daily grind of repetitive arguments began to grate and spending so much time with understandably depressed/disgruntled clients proved somewhat contagious.

Ultimately, the ever-present responsibility of running appeals which had significant, and on occasion firm threatening, recoupments at stake, sometimes running into 6 figures, which made it so draining. The occasional, and only on one occasion unsuccessful, CDS 7 appeals, generally against disallowed enhancement provided a bit of light relief.

Most CCs were friendly and receptive and I experienced less than half a dozen truly unacceptable hearings, one of which represented the very worst day of my life in JRS. (Others have reported similar experiences with the same Chairman). I could name a small bunch, less than 6, of Chairmen (they were men) who were unfit for the role, and probably a similar number with complete command of their brief and the background materials. My assessment of the latter is made regardless of the outcome for my clients. In the main, most did an adequate, if slightly timid job, generally ensuring a fair hearing. The influence of wing members was on the whole disappointing - especially when the Chairman was out of line. (There were notable exceptions to this, at least one of whom has been "punished" by not a single sitting as a new scheme adjudicator since). My main concern moving forward is that it will not be the small band of very capable members who will now be sitting as single adjudicators.

In the final analysis, I think the loss of the CC is to be mourned, if for no other reason for its transparency. As this reverts to largely considering single files for assessment, the actual cost savings of the new arrangements probably do not deliver cost benefit against that background.

That other small group of committee members who did not give my clients a fair break, and if they are reading this they will know who they are, I hope with hindsight you feel ashamed of yourselves.

Simon Pottinger

Simon Pottinger writes:

My final Cost Committee hearing last week was certainly a better one than the two previous and I will now look back on this era with a somewhat rosier glow. We confidently predict a Category 1CCA gradation as a result.

The most interesting point relates to our long standing battle to gain some leverage on the "General Findings" rules, Civil and Crime. These are the rules under which the power to affect any cash "extrapolations" and recoupments were made - often with disastrous impact upon firms. For over 2 years we have tried to get CCs to engage on this point with limited success. More often we have had met with miscomprehension, timidity and confusion, following (mis)advice from Committee Clerks or even adjournments for skeleton arguments.

On one or two occasions we did win agreement with our arguments that, initially, the CC does have the power to consider, and rule upon, the appropriateness of a General Finding. Most commonly we made these arguments where a single perverse file was "unrepresentative" of the firm’s usual practice and consequently had an unfair impact upon the audit rating. More often though, we had confusion, often orchestrated by the LSC's representatives’ incomprehension of their own rules, guidance and issues like "Audit Precision".

I began to remake the argument on Wednesday last, to be stopped by the Chairman who directed we have a short adjournment (less than 30 mins) for legal advice from the LSC to be sought. On our return he read from what was described as an Induction Guide for CC members, which I have not seen, to the effect that they both had jurisdiction in such matters and specifically could "exclude from the audit sample a rogue file".

Given that the CCA process is now all but finished and that the "General Finding" on a Cat 2 CCA outcome is the single most important factor for a firm in such circumstances, why has this Guidance only just appeared now? More importantly, why was this interpretation, identical to our own, not published to appellants and in the forefront of the minds of every LSC CC Clerk at every CCA Appeal throughout this assessment technique’s disgraceful history? Instead of the pitched battle we had at times, why could it not be as simple as it was last week?

There are very many firms who will have been prejudiced because of this, often with severe financial penalty. If there is anyone out there who can think of a way in which this can be retrospectively revisited, we would love to here from you.

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!

The latest "after representations" CCA result has just been notified to us. It includes a percentage reduction of the alleged over-claim of 43% and a cost saving of £36K on "recoupment". And yet I feel empty and disappointed and will probably have to go to Cost Committee (my last!).

I am cheered further by a fax from a firm we helped with another "successful" CCA appeal last year who have now been "failed" on a subsequent PR.

Both working in the same category - anyone care to guess which?

As I like to remind people we are working in the new world of "more constructive, genuine partnership relationships" and are all in this together.

This hearing ended up adjourned - conflict of interest between panel member and my clients. Sorry that should be, predictable, or easy to spot, conflict of interest had we been notified of the panel in advance - as happens elsewhere, but by no means everywhere. Never mind this is not going to happen much any more. Except, how will conflict be monitored under the new regime? In the one we've seen adjudicated to date we do not know who the "cost judge" was. Will they start to tell us in advance like with Peer Review?

Most absurdly this arose because of the two member panel situation (hence even more common sense pressure on the LSC to disclose the committee in advance) and when I offered to go before a single member CC I was told this was not allowed, despite a single member in private being the new preferred option.

Another wasted afternoon.

Off Peer Review training today and tomorrow!

As I head to what I hope will genuinely be my penultimate Cost Committee hearing we receive the first outcome of an appeal sent to an "Independent Funding Review Adjudicator". The result is an alarming one for those who questioned this change in procedure and the loss of the right to a hearing.

The first main concern is that the file has come back "de novo" reduced below that originally allowed on assessment. This process has of course been a key tactic used by the London RO in Immigration CCA appeals and one subject to much previous argument. We will once again attempt a point of principle this time backed up by the fact there is now a supportive case determined in the Supreme Courts Costs Office.

Secondly, and right to the heart of the changes, these new findings, made by the IFRA represent fresh points to which the firm have no right of appeal. In these circumstances they do not even have the chance to raise immediate objections during the course of the hearing. It also seems to me entirely outwith the requirements of CRIMLA 28.

Regulars will know that we have been watching the proposals for changes to cost appeals for some time now.

Yesterday saw the first indication that these are being implemented. I was instructed to represent a client at a CC regarding a significant reduction on a CDS 7. The firm have been told however that the case has already been forwarded to a single adjudicator and we will receive the results later. We will then only have the opportunity (usually in vain) to get a "point of principle" certified.

I have not seen anything on this above that linked to in the earlier post. (It might be that as we are not a law firm we have not seen the relevant correspondence if so we be grateful for a fax). Should there not be some contract changes however? Do these exist? Beyond that what are the new arrangements? What happened to the suggestion that there might be occasions where you can be represented? What about the opportunity to provide further written representations once the LSC have reviewed their original decision? Do we even get to see the appeal bundle?

Today could be my penultimate CC hearing then.

I am off to do the Cost Committee hearing on the first of these appeals, (the one involving two officers).

I am hoping that it will be another 3 minute hearing. The firm only claimed enhancement for trial preparation and advocacy, which went to two days. It involved a detailed "no case to answer" submission at half time, consideration of complicated evidence and chronology, plus the use of detailed expert reports. I think it justifies enhancement over the entire claim however the LSC say none at all.

What do you think?

In the last two weeks I have written/prepared two appeals to Cost Committee on reduced CDS 7 claims. Both coincidentally involve clients ultimately acquitted of assault charges against police officers. The officers in both matters (two in one, 6 in the other) are effectively caught out lying. The first attendance note on the latter remarks how difficult the case will be given the need to discredit at least half a dozen serving officers.

In the light of all the Carter comment here this week one does wonder how such cases are likely to be defended in a post Carter world. By defence lawyers effectively working for free I expect.

I have expressed my pessimism about the chances of making successful Peer Review representations before. I've just had a call saying that our most recent appeal (and strongest to date) has failed. I have taken to reading out some of the findings which are deemed "major areas of concern", to training delegates. Generally to incredulity.

They now walk a 6-9 month tightrope before a second and final assessment.

Just to cheer people further our latest Immigration CCA appeal has only moved 6% on review and will now require a Cost Committee hearing. (The savings on extrapolation are significant however).

I feel much more like this than this.

Have just had a call regarding a forthcoming Cost Committee hearing raising an issue recently encountered with the new Mental Health cost assessment unit. In both cases the Commission are insisting that the appeals be heard out of region - Liverpool for MH and London for Immigration. This can't be right can it? Has anyone out there successfully Internally Reviewed such a decision?

Think we might be just about to try.

Over the years we have moved from pencil, hand-written booklets through various forms of electronically produced reports to the current version of CCA documentation. As I start on my third or fourth appeal based on the latest paper work I cannot understand how they have arrived at this format unless they have spent weeks in committee constructing the most difficult and infuriating scheme possible. Have they done this just to p**s me off or am I just getting either above myself or paranoid?

For crying out loud there is not even a single sheet summarising the cases reviewed and the costs involved anymore!!!

Sandra is having an equally frustrating experience with Parcelfarce.

We are having a Friday afternoon swearathon.

UPDATE

The managing agents of our office block have just changed and the new ones (who charge us considerably more) no longer supply a trolly for moving storage boxes of files. Is this the third and final oath inducing incident of the afternoon?

And YES I blame the LSC for all this!!!

Steve is with me today and we are working on two of the four appeals currently occupying minds here in Middlesbrough,

I have, yet again, an immigration CCA containing the usual heady mix of lack of evidence of means and arguments about the time taken to prepared trial bundles. There is a further sample of asylum files, with a similarly high audit rating, in transit.

Steve has an SQM audit failure including much to be avoided Critical Quality Concerns which we are challenging. Audits of this sort are rare nowadays (as training audiences confirm) and likely to become more so under PSS. Nonetheless having such findings on your record at this time is not a good idea so yet again we are at loggerheads with the LSC over what looks like fairly sloppy auditing. (Perhaps it is just rusty auditing due to lack of practice).

So its head in files again for pretty much all this week except Thursday when we anticipate a Carter related day.

I know there have been a couple of cryptic posts recently and that this is another one but its just so nice to be told when you are right and the LSC is "wrong". This a finding on the consideration of a PoP by Cost Appeal Committee.

What is interesting is that no PoP was certified because the LSCs Corporate Legal Team did not oppose i.e. they agree with us that the Regional Office was "wrong". So why did this whole issue have to go into extra time and now onto penalties?

More detail when the final ball has been kicked.

And that's enough blogging for today down to some real work.

I wish we had been doing this blog thing for years. It allows you sagely to add a little blue link back to a particularly perspicacious article. Unfortunately the prediction which currently seems to be coming true predates my conversion to cyberspace, so you will just have to take my slightly (and regretfully) smug word for it.

The use of CCAs as a deliberate mechanism to drive Immigration practices out of business, generally unfairly, is pretty much established history. It got off to a haphazard start very much dependant upon the confidence of the regional auditing staff with the subject matter. Latterly of course this has been transferred to a "specialist" unit in London ensuring that the real purpose of the process could effectively be prosecuted.

We have been warning clients undertaking Mental Health work that it appeared to us to potentially be the "new immigration", for years. Sure enough the appearance of "specialist" units, conversant with MH casework and the category specific Contract and guidance, were announced in December (see Focus 49). This promised that all CCA audits would be undertaken by these units from April 2006.

Yesterday was 25th April 2006.

Yes you are ahead of me - yesterday I was notified of the first Cat. 3 outcome of an appeal conducted by the new unit. A one off or are there more to come?

These clairvoyant skills are a real burden you know!

Posts here about Contract Compliance Appeals tend to be a bit triumphalist. This is hardly surprising given that we win in excess of 80% of those in which we are instructed.

So by way of balance today we have been notified of one of the small percentage of failures. I do spot a number of possible points of principle however so all might yet not be lost.

Todays hearing went ok I think. If we lose the two main issues we certainly have scope to consider PoPs. The Commissions tenacity with reagrd to these final hearings still suprises me. It is as though the money "saved" was going into their own back pockets.

Twice today they sought to introduce new "de novo" points from only the most cursory passing glance at the file. This despite a fairly agressive direction from the Regional Panel of Chairmen stating that new issues of law or fact cannot be introduced on the day - a roadblock I've come up against elsewhere.

In addittion to that more Carter related misery on the phones - remember now is not the time to panic but to prepare.

Do you remember this CCA issue? The CC Chairman directed that we have the records translated into English and we duly did. Today the LSC have accepted these and further reduced the audit rating which is now tantalisingly close to a Category 1. A further hearing will be needed however.

A curious, though thoroughly satisfactory decision, on a CCA appeal reaches us today. Initially our written representations achieved a reduction to a Category 2 outcome from a Cat. 3 starting point. An agenda document containing only part of our representations followed which we subsequently challenged. These further representations concentrated upon the LSC seemingly substituting their procedural directions for those of the CC itself.

Today notification of the cessation of the appeal and the granting of Cat 1 status arrive. Yet again I'm left wondering why this still has to be quite so hard.

I have just had a phone conversation with a colleague who has also been involved in the circus which is Contract Compliance Appeals. Like me he is currently searching for the Holy Grail of this activity, a certified Point of Principle on general findings and extrapolation.

With a mounting sense of deja vu on my part, he describes how his last two attempts have resulted in one committee determining there is absolutely no jurisdiction here and hence refuse to certify. The second committee also refused to certify the point this time because existing guidance is clear and such discretion certainly exists.

The difference in interpretation of Contract between Regional Offices continues to surprise me. I'll save you the (somewhat dull) detail but how can polar opposites be argued at two different Cost Committees, 7 days apart, by LSC representatives?

Fortunately I only have 3 ongoing CCA appeals left (and hopefully not many more to follow) and so this unhappy period of relations with the LSC and suppliers seem to be coming to an end. Peer Review and Preferred Supplier to follow hopefully with some lessons learned.

The week begins with another piece of good news in the form of a further successful appeal against a termination notice. Do not however take this as a green light to go slow on franchise requirements, especially file reveiw.

Off south again later today for another appeal hearing tomorrow. Will attempt a post from the hotel but if not I will be back on Wednesday.

Another week another appeal hearing in London to prepare for.

This is a fairly straight forward immigration CCA appeal (if there was ever such a thing). It is the one involving the issue discussed here.

I am still finding it hard to see how this has gone to Committee not least that the LSC's arguments as summarised on the agenda are so sparse; the notes in a foreign language are "illegible" and cannot be "compared" to Home Office record which is in English. Doesn't seem a very substantial argument to me!

Will let you know the outcome - and I shall be back here on Wednesday.

Earlier in the week we posed a question. For those awaiting the answer it is 8.1%.

That's right an initial audit rating of 84% reduced to single figures, an "acceptable" Category 1 outcome, on appeal. A massive relief for the firm but little compensation for the months of worry about the prospect that the practice, and the Partners professional lives, might have been destroyed.

In other CCA related results this week two good results.

The LSC have decided not to appeal a CC decision to refuse to extrapolate the audit findings and to limit the recoupment only to the files subject to reductions.

We also have two further PoPs certified which will now proceed to Cost Appeal Committee.

A home win, an away win and a score draw for those of you doing the pools.

Back from that London and the Supreme Court Costs Office - more of which tomorrow.

Whilst on my journey home we received news of a CC hearing which took place just before Christmas. I posted about it here briefly.

A sample of 20 immigration files was assessed by the national CC unit in London returning a Category 3 outcome at 84%.

The final result? - have a guess in the comments box - closest by Friday wins a bottle of wine.

One (free) working day to respond a two lever arch CCA appeal bundle so only a short post today. The main question raised in the appeal:

Are Home Office interview notes recorded in the asylum seekers first language "illegible", consequently inhibiting case progress ?

No post on Monday as I am off to London on a Crown Court taxation matter - more from Tuesday.

In the days before this blog we used more traditional methods to publicise the one occasion a client was successful in obtaining an ex gratia payment for the costs of an appeal. Last week a second firm were similarly successful in this regard. The decision is hardly a floodgate one and was made in a quite tight set of circumstances nonetheless anyone wanting the detail of the determination should get in touch.

I have spent all today looking at an Immigration CCA appeal based almost entirely proof of means issues. What an infuriating rule. No one involved in this business thinks these are ineligible clients. We must however engage in this shadow boxing regarding what is and isn't acceptable proof of their lack of means. Neither has the LSC told this firm that retrospective evidence is acceptable on appeal so we now have very limited time to go out and find it.

Why can one public body, the LSC, contact another one, The Home Office, and confirm this in a matter of minutes? Why not simply give them access to the NASS data base? As Jim Royle would say "Joined up Government my arse".

Had a fantastic autumn drive over the Pennines to see clients on Friday (hence no post here). We met to consider a fairly unusual form of appeal of which I will spare you the details. I have a standard CCA hearing tomorrow.

I am often struck by the intransigence of the current day LSC and how sensible negotiated solutions seem to be impossible to reach. Tomorrows case might end up with further adversarial exchanges despite transparent errors on the part of the LSC.

Consequently I have a long journey, an overnight stay and a sad commercial traveller meal to look forward to.

Continuing with the theme of the week, and breaking the run of good luck, we have had our first request to assist with a Peer Review appeal. Knowing the firm and files I am very surprised by the "below competent" outcome, but then I'm not a peer reviewer. That said I doubt there is a peer reviewer in the country who has looked at as many files from as many firms as I have over the years.

I have a strong impression that we need to run the "Are you Competent?" course some more, especially remembering that competent will not be sufficient for Preferred Supplier status. We can do this very cost effectively for groups of local firms (some have even made a profit by "promoting" the event). Anyone interested should contact Sandra.

We are also very keen to hear of firms experiences of this new assessment either directly or through the comments boxes below (you can remain anonymous). A "data base" of findings will be essential to successful appealing we suspect.

Last weeks first chance to argue about General Findings before the CAC/CRB achieved only minor changes - a promise of further guidance on CC powers. It is to be hoped that this will be made available to all appellants from now on. There is however an acceptance that individual files can be excluded from samples and thus extrapolation and that if CCs have misdirected themselves in this regard, perhaps on advice from LSC committee clerks, there is a possibility of reopening the decision.

Ring up to talk this through if it affects your firm.

Consistency of approach, between fee earners and across departments, has always been a franchise requirement. It tells an auditor something about overall management control and commitment to the standard.

Two recent appeals have been in Regional Offices where you attend on the day files and representations in hand and get your afternoon before the Cost Committee. (In one of these offices they copy the contentious documents - insufficient attendance notes etc. - into the agenda document).

Tuesday this week another Regional Office, at some distance from our northerly outpost, informed us that we could not have the files back before the hearing to allow us to prepare. They would however allow us to attend at thier office to view the files, in situ and they would make space available for us to do this. To be fair to the LSC on consistency this is an argument I've had before with another RO.

Further correspondence, and objections, later we are advised that they will photocopy the files and send us the copies. I nearly responded with an insistence on receiving the originals whilst they retained the copies but had run out of energy by that point in the day.

What they think we would do with the files is beyond me, we have also never failed to return files to the Commission by imposed deadlines.

I am alone in finding this ridiculous? And does it really have to be such hard work?

Perhaps consistency across ROs does not form part of the ISO 9000 standard.

The LSC proposes a serious course of action against a firm, serious enough to jeopardise it's ability to continue to deliver it's contract. The firm, not surprisingly, objects. That objection is sustained by someone else at the commission. Leaving aside the time, expense and anxiety involved in all of this what about simple common sense. Couldn't someone have asked "someone else", a colleague in the same organisation, if this was a sensible course of action in the first place?

Meanwhile despite now knowing the views of "someone else" they intend to continue progressing the same course of action with another firm in a parallel situation.

Perhaps it me that's mad!

Two good CCA results in this week

The first returned an 11% Cat 2 from an original CAT 3, rated at over 80%. Arguments about general findings and extrapolation will now follow. One hopes that, at the very least, simple embarrassment at having got this assessment so wildly wrong might persuade them against this course of action. (The firm have of course been working this entire year with the threat of a 6 figure recoupment hanging over their heads).

In the second we successfully reopened a case previously determined upon by CC with regard to the CLR merits grant. We won both in specific and general. The former saw the CC agree with us that the substantive merits decision had properly been made. In any event however they confirmed our general view that the LSC cannot second guess merits decisions. This raises the prospect that there are firms out there who have suffered cash extrapolation on the basis of the LSC wrongly applying their own devolved powers guidance in CCAs. We would be very keen to discuss this with anyone in this situation.

We have been grappling with the issue of post CCA general findings and financial extrapolation for a long time now. We suspected a breakthrough when a Cost Committee (CC) finally got interested and insisted on skeleton arguments from both parties. A decision in that case and a Contract Review Body hearing in another should follow shortly.

Somewhat surprisingly a recent result from a CC resolutely determined both that it had jurisdiction in such matters and, substantively, that there should be no general finding and cash extrapolation in the case in question. Less surprisingly the Regional Director used her contractual powers to self certify a Point of General Principle by way of appeal against the committees decision.

The firm in question have recently received correspondence from the LSC seeking to amend contractual payments, whilst the appeal is pending, so that their contract including a recoupment will reconcile by April next year. Do they know something about the appeal we don't?

Just back from holiday with an exciting tale to tell regarding an airline company for those interested.

The first day in-tray is pretty much as one would expect, not least with regard to ongoing CCA appeals. Most interestingly there is to be a Cost Appeal Committee or a Contract Review Body meeting concerning "general findings" tomorrow. The seeming merger of these bodies is interesting in and of itself however the importance of substantive issue will be obvious to most practitioners.

We also have had a very positive result in this regard from a recent CC hearing. The committee simply determined, without any of the jurisdictional issues to be considered tomorrow, that the findings were genuine mistakes and that this should not therefore be extrapolated offer a 12-month period. Unsurprisingly the Regional Director has self-certified a PoP to challenge this.

We will keep you up to date - if you have outstanding extrapolation issues please get in touch.

UPDATE

Tomorrows hearing of the CAC/CRB has been adjourned this gives firm's a bit more time to get in touch if they have similar concerns.

Another good resolution to a CCA appeal has been notified to us.

We became involved post Cost Committee to advise on possible Points of Principle. It was an "extended sample" audit (50 or more files from memory) which ended up a tiny amount over 10% and in Cat. 2. We first checked the outcome and found a typo on the agenda document and therefore the CC's determination. In our view this indisputably showed the firm had been allowed an extra 3 hours by the CC on this case and hence were in Cat 1. The LSC, unsurprisingly, said this was not so and the determination supported the lower, original interpretation.

Cutting to the chase - following a myriad of letters and a threatened Internal Review the matter was remitted to a new CC. (Even this was not without an argument about the agenda of the proposed CC hearing). Finally, some months later, this CC determined in the firm's favour on the substantive assessment. They are now Cat 1 again.

And the moral of this story - never give up!

Some day I will write the whole story of the CCA appeal with which I was involved yesterday (the reason for no new post here). It is a Wagnerian epic, however I will spare you setting it to music and the caterwauling that might follow. Today I only want to reflect upon one element.

This was a unique Cost Committee hearing where the agenda was entirely de novo findings made by the CC at a previous hearing. So for a change it was not me and my clients arguing against the LSC but rather against the tribunal itself. I turned up half expecting to be in a somewhat uneasy alliance with the LSC presenting officer. Why so?

The LSC had made an assessment, hence the appeal. They had reconsidered this assessment when our written representations were presented and again on preparation of the agenda document. In short they had at least 2 if not 3 opportunities to get it right.

The CC clearly thought they had not done so and made a series of further, adverse (that is more draconian than the LSC) observations. I naively imagined that the LSC might wish rigorously to defend the integrity of their auditors and the consistency of their audit practice. Not so.

Ah you are thinking they maintained a dignified and professional silence. Not so again. Their representations on the day were to endorse the CCs new findings contrary to their own thrice made assessment so as to achieve a higher audit rating and recoupment.

I call this "opportunism" you might have other descriptions!

We are notified that an outstanding, certified Point of Principle concerning the operation of Civil Rule 2.15 and Criminal Rule 1.10 - "General Findings" and extrapolation - is now awaiting determination by either the Cost Appeal Committee or Contract Review Body. (We are unsure why the latter tribunal might become involved however).

It seems that we are not the only case in this bundle and others will be presented en masse. It appears to be an attempt to run to ground this highly controversial contractual provision and the associated cash recoupments.

It is an understatement to say that this is of general importance to the profession, we alone know of a number of firms awaiting this determination so as to resolve outstanding financial issues with the LSC - many of some magnitude.

If you too have an outstanding PoP, a pending CCA appeal or an unresolved "General Finding" (or even perhaps want to reopen one) please get in touch.

Your last resort following even a perverse Cost Committee finding is via an application for a Point of General Principle to Cost Appeal Committee. Not only do you have to identify a potential issue you have to get the Regional Cost Committee to certify it as a PoP - the Regional Director does not have this hurdle, s/he can self-certify. The certification process has proved very difficult. Cost Committees are generally reluctant. Moreover they are inconsistent. 2 of the PoPs we have had certified have previously failed on exactly the same wording in another region.

Today we celebrate a certification! Unfortunately this is only part of the way to a final determination by CAC and not the final result. It is also only regarding a fairly narrow point of Mental Health guidance. But what the heck it's worth one of these later today. We will keep you informed of progress.

A more significant PoP regarding "General Findings", or extrapolation as it's more commonly referred to, is also outstanding. If you are facing, or have suffered, a post contract compliance recoupment you might want to talk to us!

There have been very few, if any, Immigration suppliers who have achieved two consecutive Category 1 contract compliance (CCA) outcomes. We know of a firm who has achieved this. These results were obtained in a provincial city with the assessment undertaken by the local Regional Office (RO).

Their third audit, conducted as all now are in London, returned a Cat. 3 and was accompanied by a request for a staggeringly high recoupment.

A successful Internal Review later, the audit redone on the firm's home turf and they were back in Cat. 1.

This of course is only the dust cover summary of a much more interesting and intriguing story. It is a compelling if somewhat unnerving narrative which raises more questions about the conduct of CCAs (especially in Immigration) than it provides answers.