LSB confirms PC fee rises
The Legal Services Board today confirmed its acceptance of higher practising certificate fees for 2013, as agreed by the Law Society’s Council in early July. The practising certificate (PC) fee for 2013 will increase by 5%, from £328 to £344, following a reduction of 23% from 2011 to 2012.
The 2013 compensation fund levy, to cover uninsured losses faced by clients, will increase by £32 (per individual) and £568 (per firm), to £92 and £1,340 respectively.
Des Hudson, Law Society chief executive, said the 2013 levy remains low by recent historical standards. Contribution rates in the two preceding years were set substantially lower than recent averages, partly in preparation for the introduction of alternative business structures, the Society said.
Hudson added: 'The agreed 2013 PC fee and compensation fund levy package represents an increase over this year, but remains less for most firms than the equivalent charge three years ago. We are acutely aware of the challenging conditions many firms face and minimising increases to the PC fee has been a major target for the Society.’
On the compensation fund Hudson said: 'Our strategy for the last few years has been to keep the compensation fund levy as low for members as is practically possible, by maintaining a reserve fund just large enough to cover expected annual payouts.
'This does risk significant year-to-year variation but we felt it better that funds sit in our members' bank accounts rather than the reserves of the compensation fund.
'When the present scheme was introduced, it was agreed that it should be open to review, in particular the element of the compensation fund levy paid by firms which is the same irrespective of scale. We concluded that the level payable this year by all firms is at the maximum that can be considered reasonable; we will work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to review the compensation fund allocation formula before the 2014 levy is set, with a view to requiring smaller firms to pay less than larger firms.'
Comments
With respect if the SRA had
With respect if the SRA had not wasted a great deal of money with the online version of the role which is now to scrapped and no doubt the money that was wasted last year with the online renewal fiasco perhaps our P.C's wouldn't have gone up!
I am currently retraining in a different area of law to that which I used to practice in. This means I am technically unemployed. The PC fee increase will really hit me as I am sure it will hit small firms too. I continue to hold a PC as opposed to just staying on the role as I feel it helps my job prospects.
If one got value for money one might not mind but I cannot say I got that last year as the renewal of my PC was very difficult.
Quango agrees that another
Quango agrees that another quango can rob the people it is supposed to regulate-how unusual!
Mrs R Waring - It's a £16 increase, not end of the world!!
I agree with Anon, the quango which is supposed to regulate is in fact robbing us. Moreover, the money they rob off us they waste anyway on their stupid ventures.
I think there are more serious abuses to talk about.
Did any of the pen pushers at the SRA do a risk assessment before trying to implement on online Roll?
As per my comment below I was
As per my comment below I was also meaning the rise to the compensation fund so in total it will be an increase to £72. If you have that going spare send it my way please!
PC fee rise
On 21 November 2011 the Gazzette reported that "Transferring the renewals process online, which will enable the SRA to cut staff numbers by about 75, is expected to save the profession about £5m a year." If so, why is the PC fee rising at all?
Yes, it's nice to know the
Yes, it's nice to know the SRA values its staff and doesn't just consider them as numbers to be culled in the interests of "efficiency".
Insurance industry lurking just over the hill as ever.
There's no justification for the fees to be as high as they are anyway. 'They're not as high as they were 3 years ago' That's a fact but not even a weak explanation. They're trying to kill small firms and sole practitioners, or 'competition' off.
Moaning vs arguing
There is a difference in my opinion between the two. If a small firm or a sole practitioner cannot afford an extra 16 pounds per year then I simply hope it or he does not practice law. How credible is a professional who cannot afford 16 pounds extra per year? How stable his situation is and how much trust is he selling to its customers? Put it this way would you engage the services of a decorator whose business is about to collapse if it suffers a 16 pounds hit? I would not risk my house being left in a state of limbo becasue the decorator had to take the train one day becasue his van had a flat tyre. Now how about a property surveyor, lawyer, doctor?
Forget the first and focus on the second.
There is also a difference
There is also a difference between whether something can be afforded and whether it should cost so much in the first place. It is the latter which is the point. And whilst you deride the increase as "just £16", it is quite simply money which is effectively wasted. So, take £16 out of your wallet and throw it away-you can afford it, and, after all, it's just £16.
Moaning v Arguing - the sequel
Therefore the argument should not be about the increase nor about the total value of the fee but about what it is provided for that fee. That is my point if a law practice or a law practitioner is at risk of closing down as 344 pounds or an increase of 16 pounds is too much of a charge then please make a list so I can avoid them.
I certainly do not want to instruct a conveyancer who is concerned that his practice may fail becasue is short of 344 pounds or 16 pounds.
Once again the argument as to what it is provided and delivered through the PC fee and ways to ensure that the desired regulatory purpose is met should stand but the one as to the 344 or the 16 pounds posing a threat to the balance of practices across the country is unqualifiable.
Isn't the point that these
Isn't the point that these fees are considered too high to begin with and so the affordability of the whole exercise is worsened by the £16.00 increase, not bettered. Also bear in mind that sole practitioner, as entities, will suffer a higher regulatory fee burden overall compared with, say, an employed solicitor.
Submitted by R Waring on Sat,
Submitted by R Waring on Sat, 18/08/2012 - 21:31.
Re my comment I was meaning the increase in the compensation fund too. To a SP it's a £72 increase. To a firm it's even more than that.
Re my comment I was meaning
Re my comment I was meaning the increase in the compensation fund too. To a SP it's a £72 increase. To a firm it's even more than that.
Sorry this was meant for the
Sorry this was meant for the above comment!
Hudson should resign!
Why should we accept these yearly hikes in our PC while the £400k Chief Executive leaps from one cock-up to another? Take the proposed ban on referral fees and the hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted on closing down ‘solicitors from hell’ (Now: solicitorsfromhell.net) to name just a couple.
We are only a small high-street firm and we need help to survive and not line the pockets and spending sprees of fat-cat CEO’s.
Is he really paid £400k a
Is he really paid £400k a year? If so, that's just too much. I have no doubt he is in a challenging job, but any sane and sensible profession would have the capacity to regulate itself, not rely on an expensive regulatory salariat.
Interesting that no-one is
Interesting that no-one is talking about the 50% and 135% rise in contributions to the SRA Compensation Fund for individuals and small firms which would be more of a concern to me that the 5% increase in the practicising fee levied...
Re: PC increase
There is too much inconsistencies on the part of Law Society and I suggest the head of this August body needs to be examined.
It's more than £16 isn't it?
Because the individual compensation fund is going up - so its an increase of £72 surely?
That to me is a lot of money. As I say I'm retraining so I don't have a wage at the moment. If anyone who thinks I'm moaning wants to ping £72 my way feel free!
SRA Compensation fund
Totally agree with Lavender - the PC increase is nothing compared with the Compensation Fund increase for small firms and SP's!
PC fees
Nobody minds paying fees when they know they are getting value for their monies.
With the SRA I am afraid there is no value given and Mr Townsend should have been sacked. When this is done then the members of the SRA may come to realise they are accontable to the profession and the public at large. At present they are like the average government, if they are incompetent they can merely increase the cost of their services to paper over the terrible job they are doing.
How much is Mr Townsend paid and hase he received any bonuses?
Reporting
When can we expect a decent article from the Gazette on these sorts of issues, rather than a verbatim transcript from a press release. Why do we have to rely on unnamed 'commentators' to provide the balance to the official 'dirge'. Come on Gazette...