Andy Bean writes:

After a long search by many, Sandra (Indiana Jones) Ozturk has finally unearthed the newly released Legal Help & Graduated Fee Rates for cases started on or after 1st July from the LSC's website: Download file (right-click the link and 'save target as' to save onto your PC).

Our Civil Handouts will be updated and available on here soon - to order your (free) shiny laminated version(s) please send an email to us: jrs@we-are-jrs.co.uk with your postal address.

Steve is also now in the 'Boro with a damaged car (not his fault). He has been helping firms register Online and discovered this on the LSC Online site:

"We are also producing a tool that can be used in Microsoft Excel to aid the creation of bulk load files".

Keep up guys!

"Tipping the hat" is also customary in such circumstances.

The original (and best) JRS Wizard should also be available shortly.

I have today renamed one of the trays, in the bank behind me, "Autorec Ongoing".

With the number of skirmishes growing daily it seems to make sense.

The issue in the last day or so relates to the oft discussed "7.5% balance of payments pull forward", issue. We have seen some interesting proposals and comments including a statement that there is (note not "will be") no pull forward in the unified contract, although it is not to be published and will not be introduced until July next year. This was in an example where the firm were within reporting profile and there was no contractual right to amend the SMP.

It is also the case that all these attempted reconciliations run to March 08 and not January 13th 08. It remains unclear how the "pull forward" issue will be resolved when we arrive at the day when it does disappear.

The "Autorecbot Antidote" spreadsheet has been getting a bit of hammer. You can have a copy if you like.

Setting - a solicitors office Autumn 2007

Autorecbot: We need to reduce your SMP by £2K tomorrow is that OK?

Franchise Rep: No, could I see some paperwork first please, perhaps a financial statement?

Autorecbot: Er OK but we really do need to reduce your SMP

Franchise Rep: Fax me and I'll ring you back

Autorecbot: Fax coming through, oh and by the way we only need to reduce by £1K now

Franchise Rep: I'll get back to you.

Franchise Rep: Hello is that you Auto?

Ansafone: No it is his girlfriend Ansafone - he'll ring you back

Senior Autorecbot: Hello

Franchise Rep: Ah hello - you have miscalculated the situation in fact we are in credit with you and there is no possible justification for a reduction in the SMP

Senior Autorecbot: Yes you are right.

Franchise Rep: Why have you wasted my time in this way?

Senior Autorecbot: It is a bit time consuming isn't it (metallic chuckle)

Franchise Rep: Right good-bye then

Senior Autorecbot: Hang on, we still have concerns about your levels of billing so from next month we will only pay you the same amount as you report.

Franchise Rep: Eh?

Senior Autorecbot: I repeat - we still have concerns about your levels of billing so from next month we will only pay you the same amount as you report.

Franchise Rep: Please put that in writing. (Scratches head)

Music and fade to credits

The soundtrack is available here.

I had not expected such a swift notification of a similar incident. The major similarity is the cursory nature of the notification and the emphasis placed on the lack of "discretion" available. Phone negotiation demonstrated similar inflexibility despite there being unambiguous evidence of lack of a need for an SMP reduction.

Be under no illusions it is coming to a place near you and remember we have a helpful spreadsheet available.

We have predicted the demise of the Preferred Supplier Scheme and its replacement with an age of "more proactive contract management". With this the proposed, central "can do", "soft skilled" human engine for these developments - the "Relationship Manager" - becomes a mere chimera* from a previous epoch.

In the light of recent events nobody can doubt that the LSC's brutal honesty and concern about the breakdown of it's relationship with suppliers, in the March 06 proposals, is likewise a feint shadow of the past.

We began to identify this trend when it became clear that rather than a new tier of RMs we were more likely to get a team of "re-sprayed" Account Managers. More recently we have frequently commented about the rise of the Autorecbot. (For more Autorecbot stories use the "search" feature in the sidebar).

If you doubt our concern regarding the latter how about this, just in:

"I have no discretion in making this (potentially fatal) change to your current SMP and intend making this change tomorrow" (parenthesis mine).

Yes. The Autorecbots are coming make what preparations you can!

*a figment of the imagination, for example, a wildly unrealistic idea or hope or a completely impractical plan - Encarta® World English Dictionary

UPDATE

To help with your preparations we now have an easy to use "Autorecbot Antidote" spread sheet available on request.

We have mentioned a number of times our intention to have an Online CMRF (and CDS 6) Wizard in place for compulsory electronic billing this Autumn. If you have not come across the requirement yet your November reporting of your October Civil Contract work (controlled work) has to be submitted online.

Having got an Online version "to market", well sort of - it is still free, earlier in the year it is of course a complete pain to have to start again. This is compounded by the proximity of the deadline and more so by the yet incomplete disclosure of the information necessary to begin the task - some sample CMRFs would be helpful for instance.

Against this backdrop we will do all we can to make this happen, Andy and Steve met with our programming wonk yesterday. Those relying on mainstream software suppliers should give them a ring for a progress update. You should however be sensitive to the fact that they are struggling under the same LSC created difficulties as we are. The latter might like to consider a delay to the timetable as a sensible peace offering.

The "goin' back in time" theme continues with calls about UPOA and CCA taking up most of my air time this morning.

I mentioned the former last week because the Law Society are taking an interest in it. As it has raised its ugly head in our world again I would be very grateful for a chat with anyone with recent experience of this lengthy archive trawl.

The following is connected to the title but nothing else, i.e. it is little more than a crude attempt to justify more youtube on this site:

Just spotted this Law Society initiative regarding UPOA (unrecouped payments on account) and thought it deserved an airing here.

Follow the link and answer the questionnaire if you have been affected.

Hot on the heels of yesterdays autorecbot sighting comes a second. Similar in content, this must mean we are now in a period of auto reconciliation activity.

Please take the necessary evasive action.

Somewhat differently to the second part of this post we have had our first genuine Autorecbot sighting of the year. Much as last year it involves hassling firms slightly under the 90% reporting threshold to agree reductions, however small, in their SMPs. From the tone of my last conversation it seems that they intend to enforce these petty reductions regardless of any representations and despite solid evidence that other payments, CDS 7s and File Review, will resolve the problem.

The following para from their (standard?) correspondence is somewhat more ominous and of potentially wider impact:

"On a separate note I thought it would be prudent to ensure that you are aware that the 7.5% pull forward will not be applicable after this contract finishes, and, therefore, in order to avoid us us recouping a significant amount of money all at once it may be worth considering reducing the overpayment more gradually over the year".

Seems that it is repayment time for those "interest free loans" then.

It also appears that there is now a new breed of more junior and cost effective Autorecbot undertaking this task:

I am in the middle of two or three appeals against savage reductions to Crown Court bills, one of which looks likely to go the full distance. Yesterday evening we received instructions regarding a further case where the reduction is two thirds.

Is this a developing theme?

SP

Is it just me or is the taxation and assessment process getting harsher? Certainly my anecdotal evidence is backed up by that of a couple of clients and a recently published SCCO case report. That said another corespondent reports a good decision under the new LSC appeals process.

Let us know you experiences.

Longer ago than I care to remember we spotted the move towards remote monitoring based on contract reporting data. (It was an intelligent spot about which we are really quite smug). At the time, and I do not think this has much changed, there was not a single proprietary brand of accounts software which provided reporting functions to meet this development.

This created a number of problems, not least challenging the LSCs statistical assumptions became a significant manual task. Our hope was to come up with an easy to use solution which would not involve duplication of data input - either into a secondary piece of software or in addition to the manual completion of CMRF or CDS 6 forms. So the aim was something which would produce report forms and hold onto the data in a format that could be extensively, but speedily, interrogated.

We pondered on this for some time, not being computer experts, to no avail.

The next part of the story is both true and also now part of JRS folklore. (And I recount it although it makes me appear slightly obsessive). I had a dream in which I created a Microsoft Excel workbook, involving a "cut and paste" macro, which met all our specifications. I woke up, and before the image faded, walked across the landing and into my home office (where I am typing this now) and spent the next few hours making it a reality. So were born the CDS 6 and CMRF "Generators" as we originally called them.

We have more recently renamed them "Wizards" and today proudly launch the new post April 2007 on-line versions. They are available FREE from the "Resources" section on the side bar and can be used to report either on-line or traditionally.

There is a new downloadable "users guide" to accompany them too.

We could not manage this entirely alone this time and would like to publicly thank Chris for this help.

Finally let us know of any glitches so we can sort them out.

Happy Wizarding

I have just faxed a copy of CRIMLA 12 (available here in the Points of Principle Manual) to a client appealing a CDS 7 determination. For those of you equally sick and tired of one-line justifications for reductions, especially regarding enhancement, which never engage with your special features submissions, this is one we perhaps should begin using a bit more often. The key phrase is:

"reasons must always be given sufficient to enable the solicitor to identify the relevant issues"

A mouse-mat to anyone has had a determination which meets this requirement.

I am preparing correspondence to this Autorecbot seeking an early reinstatement of a clients SMPs. Interestingly in this case the "overpayment" is almost exactly the same as the first contract payment made in 2001. I have commented previously about how this was then described as an "interest free loan" and that now the bailiffs have now been called in.

Yesterday I had sight of a clients letter to another requesting the full 107.5% balance of payments allowance which has been tenaciously refused to date.

On a positive note I spoke to a firm yesterday ruminating over whether to hold back some claims this month to put through next. I advised that it is a good Autorecbot defence to be underpaid - you never get any contact in those circumstances - unless you know otherwise?

Here is some secret film of an LSC training session earlier this year, taken by a good, rebel Autorecbot:

Here is their new "company song":

By way of thanks to the good Autorecbots out there here is:

My version of the latter is available on the album "Start" by the "slow time mondays" ("Best debut album of 2006" - M.R., Solicitor, Doncaster) for £5 - £4 of which goes to Lawcare.

We have had encountered more Autorecbot activity this morning (yes 105% balance of payments reconciliations rather than 107.5%)

I then spotted this. Read the bit on civil bills.

The two key phrases are:

"we have an obligation to manage our cash flow within our resources at the end of the financial year"

and

"you will notice us reverting to our published target times when processing your civil bills"

This translates into - "we will hold back paying you, despite our ability to do so (and perhaps even having assessed your bills), to massage the end of year figures".

Or in JRS speak.

Autorecbots are Green, Autobillbots are Red.

The answer to yesterdays last question, in essence how little per month will the LSC reduce a Standard Monthly Payment to help massage figures for the DCA?

Yesterday we heard of a firm who will receive a reduction of £90 on each of their last two contract payments this year. That is the lowest yet, unless of course you know better!

UPDATE

After posting this I received a call from a client currently struggling on a very low SMP - I am now going to meet their Autorecbot face-to-face next week. Andy and Steve will therefore have a very nervous few days.

This theme will just not go away. One of those battling it out on the front line reports a pyric victory today by achieving a 7.5% positive "balance of payments" figure. He did not however succeed in avoiding a reduced SMP by gaining allowance for all the costs on CDS 7s in the system awaiting assessment.

In describing the conversation with his Account Manager he, fairly in my view, made the point that she was allowed no discretion and had no room to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Furthermore he made clear he would be back immediately in the new contract year for an increase to reflect his actual billing position. I guess many other firms will be in exactly the same position.

There can be little doubt that this exercise is designed to massage the figures for, presumably, DCA consumption at the end of this contract year. There seems little doubt too that this will be a false picture. Sadly somebody's job is probably on the line for this bit of slight of hand.

Anyhow Account Managers might soon be about to become Relationship Managers (and what a good start to that development this is) in the meantime they are Auto Reconciliation Robots. In true LSC fashion this has a three letter acronym - ARR or, as I prefer "Autorecbot". Any comments from disgruntled, anonymous Autorecbots will be treated in complete confidence.

After posting this yesterday my very next client call obviously had to redress the balance.

We have been discussing this issue quite a bit here. In brief the LSC are chasing firms, often on a monthly basis, to try and effect a 100% reconciliation of contracts by the end of March this year. (This despite promises and contract rules guaranteeing a "balance of payments" between 5 -10% in the firms favour).

Yesterdays call involved a firm with a projected 20% under claim by April. Inexplicably they have not had any communication from their Account Manager seeking to redress this over the remaining months.

For some time we have been offering protective advice regarding the Preferred Supplier Scheme and "bill assessment rates". It was originally proposed that a civil or criminal bill assessment rate (the percentage taxed off on assessment of civil certificates and CDS 7s) would form one of the entry criteria. (Indeed we know of a firm excluded from the pilot because of failure against this factor).

Para. 4.59 of the consultation response says the following:

"The ongoing monitoring of bill assessment rates should be used as a forward looking performance indicator only"

But then seems to contradict it with:

"bill assessment rates are measured as a key performance indicator with a benchmark percentage assessment rate"

Hopefully however the top quote does take some of the risk out of claiming enhancement .

As ever the Gazette "online" version is running a day behind. Given that your paper copy will be unopened, on a pile of earlier editions still inside its plastic bag, you will not have seen page 34. Here Senior Costs Judge Peter Hurst summarises the latest guideline solicitors hourly rates, as used for guidance with regard to costs and defence costs orders.

Taking the middle of the three bands (metropolitan areas outside London, and not including Teesside where I am sitting) anyone want to hazard a guess at the Grade A, senior solicitor rate?

If I were to offer you now, blind, the chance to be paid the Grade D trainee/paralegal rate - would you take it?

Put your response in the comments box and then click the blue continue reading link for the actual figures.

Hat Tip- Nigel Ford

Continue reading "Show Me The Money" »

The firm who visited us last week regarding the LSC's wish to severely reduce their SMP met with their Account Manager this week.

They ran through the numbers (as we did in our office) and have INCREASED the firms SMP.

That is apparently what real computer bods call trying out new software. Andy and Steve are doing this today with the On Line CDS 6 Wizard. Hopefully by next week we should have a working version, incorporating the new changes to the form itself, available. Again you can reserve a copy by ringing the office.

Yesterdays penultimate Cost Committee hearing may well not be that with perhaps two more remaining. (Todays was cancelled yesterday afternoon leaving me with a free day).

It was quite a low key affair with the now standard panel of two and no presenting officer as all five cases were CDS 7 matters. Felt we got a fair hearing which will one bit missing from the new schema.

In that regard it looks like the result I mentioned yesterday is not as draconian as reported to me by the firm (read the paperwork first yourself before blogging in future then Ed.) It looks as though s/he seriously thought about allowing less than the assessor, thinking the enhancement allowed "generous" but did not do so. As indicated yesterday I think that this possibility must surely lead to a reconsideration of CRIMLA 28 and 53 especially in light of R -v- Bhatti [2006] 2 Costs LR 356. Any comments very welcome and if you'd like a copy of that case give me a ring.

The Response to the Consultation on the reform of cost and funding appeals is now out. It is an issue we have discussed before, most recently here.

The headlines - single adjudicators will replace three member panels and the automatic right of audience will likewise disappear. A full eulogy for the Cost Committee will follow.

Am I right that suppliers have had this sent directly and so will know where their next report forms have to go?

This slightly Orwellian sounding form, otherwise known as the CDS 17 can be found along with the other new forms at the bottom of the right hand side bar. The new application forms CDS 14 & 15 are also there.

There are also some changes to the CDS 7 and CMRF forms too.

Further comment and guidance to follow in the days ahead. Happy filling.

UPDATE

We can now supply a link to this fairly important document too. Please let us know if and when Courts start to apply these standards.

It is a thoroughly Peer Review day here today. Andy and I are testing our consistency in arriving at categorisations and later I am off to talk to a North East firm about helping them confront this new assessment process. In the background I can hear Sandra talking to people about live file requests and the growing hysteria this is creating in certain practices.

I have also just received the latest Costs Law Reports publication which contains at least one interesting judgement relating to legal aid work which I will do a more detailed post in the near future (ASBOs and sentencing hearings in the Crown Court). If you can't wait give me a ring.

Have just finished my first criminal contract compliance audit in some time. In many ways it is a classic of the genre. Out of twenty files it comes down to two proceedings class claims. One is an HSF reduced to an LSF on assessment, the other an unfortunately correct allegation of "claim splitting" (wrongly claiming more than one standard fee for a single case). We might just reverse the first, though it will be very close, probably, and again classically, it might come down to a couple of units either side of the lower limit. With the second case we have a convoluted technical defence which, hopefully, will succeed once again. Watch this space - in about three months time probably.

On a similar theme Andy recently spent a day with one of our most switched on CDS suppliers and identified a basic, and long-standing, billing error. Looking at yesterdays sample, and thinking of the above problem, the message, that near perfect criminal billing remains a major priority, still has a great deal of force.

We have recieved a result from the Manchester CC hearing mentioned here.

This involved, predominantly, two enhancements arguments, an issue we have discussed many times before, most recently in the context of the LSC's poposals for "reform" of the appeals process. (In this post we share some of our thoughts on this subject).

You might notice this assertion in the article:

"I wonder if someone directed - "allow no uplifts and leave it to Costs Committees to decide" and LSC caseworkers are just following orders?. I think we should be told.

Well on the basis of this latest outcome it seems we are not far from the truth, winning both enhancements as claimed.

I reiterate the substantive proposal regarding placing the LSC at risk as to costs as the most suitable remedy to poor assessment decisions.

I promised some more thoughts on this.

In fairness I can say little about the Funding Review element of the proposals (appeals against merits refusals of funding applications) however I have some (considerable) experience of Cost Committees. In fact I have made proposals to solve the problem in the past.

I do not have time for a lengthy post today (see yesterday for reasons) so lets cut to the chase.

The paper identifies a high success rate at FRC, or an appalling failure rate depending upon your point of view. Our experience of CCA has been discussed elsewhere with something over 80% of initial gradings proving wrong following appeal - either resolved before or after a CC hearing. In an executive summary making five key proposals the first two seem to me to be the most important. These suggest the need for better LSC decision making and then "more robust and consistent internal review". With this implemented arguably the remaining three might become unnecessary.

I will go further and take you back to this quote from the October link above:

"I wonder if someone directed - "allow no uplifts and leave it to Costs Committees to decide" and LSC caseworkers are just following orders?. I think we should be told.

The CCA experience of recent years was of a cost inspired feeding frenzy, largely to recover the LSC's position in Immigration created by its own policy failures when responding to dispersal via "expansion contracts" (link to Focus article not possible). The same cash imperative and a wish to discipline the profession, under pressure from the audit commission?, lead to its implementation across all categories. We are currently witnessing this process repeat itself in Mental Health.

I think more general orders, of the type alleged above, went out 2 to 3 years ago and have recently been repeated regarding MHRT work. This is both contrary to the letter and spirit of the first two thoroughly sensible proposals. If I am wrong then lets have those LSC readers of this blog (yes we know you're out there!) put the record straight.

In brief I would support the move to a combined committee but would strongly resist the loss of a general right of audience and the move to a single adjudicator, though specialist training remains an ongoing necessity. Finally I can find absolutely no objection to better links with the "relationship management process".

That said we should be under no illusions, these are knee jerk responses created to resolve the effects of knee jerk responses and past LSC policy/practice and my single proposal of placing the Commission at cost risk at CC/FRC would sort this out over night.

If you look closely on the LSC site you can find this. It is a set of proposals for the reform of the costs and applications appeals procedures. I haven't time to say much on it today but perhaps later in the week. You have until the last Friday in July to respond. Once again I am indebted to Mr Ford for finding this in the first place.

Have you been finding it harder to get extensions to Crown Court billing time limits recently? We have, especially retrospectively. Perhaps the reason is the case of R v Judd in the Supreme Court Costs Office. (Sorry cannot find a link on the web, we can however supply a photocopy by snail mail).

This case confirms that the civil and criminal schemes are "entirely separate" especially when comparing the more liberal civil out of time regime. It goes on to reinforce what we have always reiterated that "time can only be extended if exceptional circumstances are shown". In this case administrative errors were to blame and they we deemed not to be exceptional.

Get your bills in on time then!

Hat Tip
Nigel Ford

It looks as though we got a result on this this one which is remarkably similar to this one.

One might conclude that the assessors are operating to a completely different definition of "reasonableness" than Cost Committees and that the message is not filtering back from these final determinations. Isn't it a simple management task to ensure that this is not the case?

I have a good old fashioned taxation hearing this afternoon. It is a CDS 7 Criminal NSF subject to four major "reasonableness" reductions. There are none of the potential, wider considerations of a CCA appeal, general findings and extrapolation and ultimately only a small amount of costs at stake.

It has trundled on for ages and seems to me, preparing for the hearing, that it should never have come to Committee. Nonetheless me and the fee earner will wander along this afternoon to expand upon the written representations. Thankfully I have other appointments in the area which will make it much less of drudge and hopefully leave me less angry than previously.

Remember our motto - Appeal, Appeal, Appeal.

Update

Arrived at the hearing in advance so as to review a file we haven't seen in months. Attached to this is a copy of our written reps. with some hand-written notes conceding around half of the contentious points. Needless to say we had not had these communicated to us in advance of today. It might have saved us a trip out though but.

One of my tasks in London was a chat with a Solicitor facing a High Cost PACE visit from the LSC in the near future. He seems to me to have very strong arguments, high percentage of Duty work and some truly exceptional claims which skew the average. The LSC don't even seem to have considered this point despite sending a print out of the files they wish to inspect containing four £1,000 plus claims.

The outcome of the Carter situation might make this a thing of the past however until then it seems to persist. Our CDS 6 Wizard remains both an essential tool in understanding the nature of your own PACE claiming and Free. Get in touch if you want one.

Regular readers might remember this story. We have just had the result in and this looks like a very acceptable outcome. We didn't win every point but were successful in overturning the "Singh" reduction, got back most of the enhancement and the disallowed attendance at the second post mortem. Oh and we got the costs requested. All in all a grand day out.

Update

Having read and considered the written determination three points stand out.

1 If you seek uplift for attendance at court with Counsel the attendance note have clearly to indicate the "exceptional" nature of the work undertaken i.e. it must be more than sitting behind and taking notes.

2 You can, if brave enough, attend post mortems.

3 The Taxing Master clearly sees an interplay in the application of Singh decisions between the grades of fee earners utilised and consequently the total claim.

If you want to discuss these more either use the comments box or give me a ring - the number is on the sidebar.

On Monday I took a day trip to London - not to see the sights and experience the faster lifestyle down there - but to attend a costs appeal.

Planes, trains and automobiles later I land up in the reading room at the Law Society for a sandwich and a pre hearing discussion with my client. We are both a little apprehensive. The Supreme Court Costs Office at the Royal Courts of Justice does sound a bit grand for us provincial boys and it is, on both our parts, our first foray into this type of appeal.

The main point of this post is to put other potential appellants at greater ease. Far from the anticipated venue the office is a fairly nondescript modern one just off the Strand. The panelled chambers we foresaw turn out to be fairly regular ones not unlike those in your local County Court. There is even a lights system rather than an usher to alert you to your appointment time. The only really arcane element is the form of address for a Cost Judge, namely, Master. (We made slightly nervous private jokes about David Caradine in Kung Fu or Master Jedi Yoda) .

Most importantly we had a fair and friendly hearing/discussion with a clearly very sharp Costs Judge. There was no edge to this and it was pretty informal even including a couple of fairly light moments.

We await the result and will let you know of any interesting points.

Events have conspired against being able to give a comprehensive report on a recent CAC/CRB hearing. The headline news is however that we do not have a breakthrough on the application of General Findings rules. More later in the week - off on a very cheap flight to London now.

Lightning has struck twice. To be clear this is another "refusal of 100% enhancement" decision immediately overturned, without a word spoken in anger, at a CC. This time there was only one wasted journey (our cleint), but nonetheless, for him, this represents an afternoon lost to fee earning whilst regaining costs he was clearly entitled too all along.

I wonder if someone directed - "allow no uplifts and leave it to Costs Committees to decide" and LSC caseworkers are just following orders?. I think we should be told.

Who was it suggested the introduction of some cost (or other more draconian) risk for the LSC to stop this nonsense? Oh it was me.

Preparing my first ever Crown Court appeal to a Costs Judge today (and not even on one of our bills). Very different discipline to LSC cost appeals though no less cash at stake. Given the time its taken I sincerely hope it is the last I have to do.

Any helpful hints will be gratefully received.

It probably will not feature in the great journeys of our time. Nonetheless rushing from an enforced overnight stop in Nottingham to Newcastle (with a break in the middle to change into business clothes and pick up the papers which should have been "prepared" yesterday) for a Cost Committee hearing is difficult for an aging consultant with a bad neck.

The hearing? Not a word in anger, the Committee are with us regarding enhancement on a CDS 6, properly applying the Broudie test, and we are out in less than 3 minutes. At least home is now only 50 minutes (sorry 60 minutes Mr Traffic Cop) away.

Is it time for cost penalties against the fund in these circumstances? They have nothing to risk when making woeful initial decisions of this type, which are only compounded by some other numptie trying to justify them on redetermination. And as for then so wrongly putting it to CC.

Oh come on lets be radical, not cost orders but a return to something Medieval - like the stocks! Not for the assessor, who was probably simply following orders to drive down claims for enhancement, but for the managers responsible.

One last question - would you take the tomatoes out of the tin?

Theme of the month seems confirmed as "corporate targets". The phone lines have once again been busy with worried criminal practitioners caught in the crosshairs of this new process.

I will hazard a guess here (actually it's a little more than that) that someone in the higher echelons of Greys Inn Road has had a visit from above, and one not bringing tidings of comfort and joy.

We predict an autumn cost recovery frenzy.

Just spent a happy couple of hours demonstrating that one of the "out of profile" firms referred to in the "SOOPER" threads below is not so. Rather than having escalating average Police Station claims the undeniable trend is downwards.

This was only possible after they had input over 3000 claims into our CDS 6 Wizard. We strongly urge you to start using it now. Get your copy for free from the Middlesbrough office.

We have notification of a further firm under scrutiny for PACE average claims. Further to Andy's comment below it does appear that there has been a software update (or some training on how to use it) followed by a decision to chase 'out of profile' firms.

Let us know if it impacts upon you - you can contact direct or use the comments box remaining anonymous either way if you prefer.

Similar early morning emergency calls, two days running. Coincidence? Or is there something afoot?

Part deux involves the civil Tailored Fixed Fee scheme. See if you can guess what the LSC want to discuss this time? Click below for the answer.

Continue reading "Not so SOOPER part II" »

We have, this minute, received an urgent advice call. In correspondence this morning the firm in question has been accused, by their regional office, of being a "high cost" PACE provider. The allegation is that they are in the top 10%, on average, of CDS suppliers in the investigation class of work. This we imagine is determined by one of the SOOPER reports which generate league tables of "out of profile" suppliers from the grading of CMRC data.

The LSC want to meet to see how this might be resolved.

Our advice is to meet fire with fire and to respond with detailed stats and to demand the LSC's background data (using Freedom of Information provisions if necessary). Their immediate task is to get their CDS 6 data into an IT format that allows detailed interrogation.

We have banged the drum about our CDS 6 Wizard for some time. It remains the best vehicle we have seen to allow a robust response to the LSC on such issues. IT IS FREE and vital to all modern interaction with the LSC. Get your copy today from the office. Details on the left.