Andy Bean writes:

It is not often we at JRS get to sing our own praises, due to Mr Pottinger’s modesty. However, our Mr Barnes was audit-sitting this week for a firm in Birmingham where the auditor was being hot-reviewed by a London LSC Representative, who later confessed to Steve that her heart sank when he was introduced as a Consultant; apparently this was based on her previous experience of some consultancy firms who sometimes set up elaborate systems which suppliers would simply only pay ‘lip service’ to.

The auditor went on to say that this particular audit was a good example of how suppliers and consultants can work together extremely effectively.

We at JRS have always prided ourselves on a more proactive approach and this was borne out in the auditor awarding the firm a new Criminal Contract with no Corrective Action required.

I am now going off to do our annual appraisals, relevant induction and office supervision meetings!

Well done Mr Barnes!

I am asked by one of the few remaining Northern Immigration practices to advise upon the key CCA fail factors. Whilst some of this is quite specific there are some general messages especially to civil suppliers. It is also worth remembering that the new "file assessment" process proposed as part of the Preferred Supplier Scheme will reintroduce a degree of contract compliance assessment of fixed fee matters. It will certainly test the data integrity of your monthly returns.

(In the following when I refer to CAG I mean Cost Assessment Guidance, which is the General Civil Contract Appendix E. Actual references are from my increasingly fragile memory and cannot be verified as I have no LSC manual with me)

1 Proof of Means

Evidence of means compliant with CAG 3.3. This means NASS, sponsor/supporters letter etc. which covers the appropriate computation period. If involved in the NWP ring Simon.

2 LH/CLR Form Completion

Is the form fully completed, the calculations correct, all appropriate boxes ticked, any devolved powers decision (especially those LH ones) properly justified.

3 CLR Grant

If it is a self granted CLR has the merits test been properly recorded in line with the questions to be asked in GCC Rule 5.1 preferably not by way of a pro forma sheet. This remains a testy area of argument with the LSC more info from Simon over the phone.

4 Preparation Basics

Is everything there, especially items prepared for trial bundles.

5 Are Disbursements Reasonable

This is another currently live issue, especially regarding Interpreters fees and is another one worth a call to SP. Travel also sometimes falls under scrutiny. To a degree there is little that can be done retrospectively.

6 Cost Limits

Again by audit time your file will have been billed so if you have involuntarily exceeded and claimed above the limit there is little to be done however as a pointer to the future.

7 Mainstream Assessment

Does your file justify the time claimed? This is of course the main element of the assessment and needs clear explicit file recording in order to succeed. Pay particular attention to long interviews and exceptional circumstances, country of origin material and internet research, translation effect (read back of statements etc). This is always a pretty subjective element of the process so make what you did clear.

8 Billing Time Limits

By CCA time if it was billed out of time this will be intractable, again it is one to watch.

There are of course many more of these points, and a lot of sub divisions, but as a quick start without reference to our archive bank of now nearly 200 completed appeals this will have to do for now.

News reaches us that the MHLA (Mental Health Lawyers Association) is not taking this lying down.

Not being involved in this nor having been at the meeting I don't know what if any of the proposed action is to be made public and so I won't. We can however put any readers interested or affected in touch.

Continuing this theme a delegate yesterday at Gateshead indicated that she had met a colleague facing the same two key audit reductions - justification for attendance at Hospital Mangers meetings and likewise when instructing experts. For advice avoiding such audit outcomes give us a ring.

Another issue which looks set to run and run is this one.

A client reports having been to a "CCA road-show" run by the new Mental Health units. They propose, identically to the very many immigration audits we all have witnessed, retrospectively to apply a significantly more draconian interpretation of contract and cost assessment guidance without consultation nor forewarning. Nothing new there then.

Most instructive are the following statistics garnered at the seminar:

"The LSC said the 2 units have to date conducted 21 audits, 7 of which are cat 1 (3 of those were Liverpool audits) 2 cat 2 and 13 cat 3. They are waiting to see how the appeals work out!"

So 62% of MH practitioners have not been complying with contract to such an extent that they will now face contract notices and the LSC has not spotted this to date (including on previous CCAs).

Hopefully Cost Committees will see through this nonsense.

For the first time in ages we can report a successful franchise application and award, at a branch office. Its not that we are getting failures rather that these are now so few and far between and even the prospect of a new branch office in the current climate is hardly enticing. (Its worth remembering that PSS and PR are undertaken at an organisation level so the "you are only as good as your worst branch" caution needs recording).

Re-thinking your franchise systems in the light of PSS is likely to be a more immediate task in this area more of which later.

I say almost because it is inevitably frustrating when you have to use the best part of a day proving the obvious. Constructive - they, the LSC, have gone away with no concerns about the firm's control of PACE costs and probably with an enhanced view of its management systems.

We slaved over a hot computer, whilst the senior caseworker looked at files, and were above to provide most answers required by way of some very compelling stats. (All this was down to having all the claim data in the CDS 6 Wizard). These included an indication of a clearly reducing average cost, good details on differing fee earners, especially agents, and a range of other comparisons including patterns of bail back cases and frequency of attendance at particular Police Stations. There were no significant findings on the 10 files assessed.

No further action is the outcome so a worthwhile day.

Just been assisting clients prepare for a High Cost PACE audit tomorrow. We've got some strong arguments not least a trend line on a graph showing the firm reducing the average over the last 18 months. There are loads of other things the stats say too. All this is possible because they use our CDS 6 Wizard. Get you copy free from the Middlesbrough office.

The sport we will be able to have tomorrow is however too enticing and I have decided to show up and offer some moral support. Full report to follow.

By way of a bit of light relief from Peer Review back to high cost PACE claiming.

We heard yesterday of a firm who were told, following an onsite assessment of about half a dozen files, that they would be in Category 2 or 3 were they to receive a CCA. Apparently some files were over claimed and some the reverse.

The suggested way forward?

Verify all your PACE claims for the last year or face the aforementioned CCA. Fortunately for all concerned the author was not present at this meeting.

Immediately below we asked about sample representativeness in PACE only CCAs. We now have an answer.

There is no sampling tool and our understanding is that the first two 1C claims from each months CDS 6 returns will be selected. There will, therefore, be no statistical guarantee of representativeness. The up side of this? The firm who put the question for us have been told that there is consequently no possibility that a General Finding will be made as a result of such an audit.

We have spoken to the first "top 10%" club member to receive a request for 20 files for a PACE only CCA. My first thought remains, on what basis are these selected and how does this guarantee a representative sample?

Perhaps we should ask.

With a sinking heart I have to report two more depressing calls in the last few hours.

The first is from a further firm caught in the "reduce PACE costs" corporate target - an examination of all recent investigation claims is to follow. He was particularly miffed having given up 2 days of the weekend to Duty Solicitor commitments. "It’s no fun this" - perhaps being the understatement of the season.

Next up a recent CCA appeal success, previous blogged about here, are told that they are shortly to face a control audit. Purely coincidental of course.

Anyone got any good news?

Minutes after posting the entry below lo and behold the phone goes. It’s a client with a Peer Review request. Not the full scheme but part of the “research project”.

This involves a sample of private law children act matters only, and not a stratified sample. Disturbingly there are a high (and disproportionate) number of "client fails to provide further instructions" endings.

On the plus side the outcome will not affect contract or SQM status. A "below competent" outcome will however trigger Peer Review proper - within the next 6 months.

Fingers crossed for a better result than that.

The LSC have finally called our bluff. Many of us have made the not unreasonable observation that all pre existing assessment methods are not qualitative. We are now faced with the "gold standard" of quality assessment - file review by specially selected fellow lawyers. Boxed into this corner how to respond?

The LAPG make some thoughtful observations here. We too have our reservations not least that some of our thoroughly competent clients have experienced the indignity of being deemed not so on assessment.

The primary objection would seem to be that this is practically little more than "transaction criteria" by Solicitor, rather than the original LSC version. Regardless it is clear that his will become a key element of the new audit regime and one that requires urgent consideration (today's files are next year's sample!).

To this end we are training on the issue at four venues this month. See below for details or contact us via the phone numbers or e-mail address on the left.