LSC reverses contract decision following judge's warning
The Legal Services Commission has averted one legal challenge to its tender process by awarding a social welfare contract to a Birmingham firm which sought a judicial review of the LSC’s initial decision not to make an award.
Housing specialist the Community Law Partnership claimed the criteria and scoring system used by the LSC in awarding social welfare contracts were irrational because they rewarded firms that took more appeals to the upper tribunal and penalised those who were more successful in the lower tribunal The firm failed to obtain a contract because it lost one point on the tribunal criteria. Its subsequent appeal was rejected.
At a directions hearing last week in the High Court, Mr Justice Collins said the criteria used by the LSC were ‘utterly absurd and totally irrational’, declaring that the decision not to award the firm a contract was ‘dreadful’.
Adjourning the hearing, Collins advised the LSC to ‘carefully consider’ its position. ‘If you fight this and lose it, you could set a precedent,’ he warned. Collins said if the LSC’s decision not to award a contract to CLP remained unchanged, he would expect a judicial review to succeed.
On 6 September the LSC informed CLP that, after a verification process, it would now be offering the firm a contract.
A statement issued by the firm’s three partners said: ‘We are delighted with this news. In these circumstances the court action has been settled. We would like to thank all those who have provided us with letters and messages of support in this process – this support has been vital in enabling us to continue our fight.
‘Above all we would like to thank and pay tribute to the loyal and dedicated CLP staff who have stuck with the partners through this most stressful process.’
An LSC spokesman said: ‘As a result of the continuing verification process the LSC will be able to make an offer of an allocation of work to the CLP to deliver social welfare law services in the Birmingham procurement area.
‘As a result the CLP has withdrawn its judicial review claim against the LSC. We’re pleased we have been able to resolve this matter without the need for litigation.'
Comments
I wonder which kind firm
I wonder which kind firm surrendered the new starts or where the LSC found them?
Verification
They were feasibly relinquished during the verification process?
LSC reverses contract decision
I am delighted for the partners and employees at CLP.
I wonder how much this has cost CLP and the taxpayer (through the LSC) which could have been used to help vulnerable clients. I hope that those who designed the"utterly absurd and totally irrational" criteria now have their jobs on the line.
The LSC is really "not fit for pupose"
Surely that means the whole
Surely that means the whole process is irrational as the criteria was the same for each applicant firm?
No, because the court did not
No, because the court did not decide the point - it is still technically arguable. The LSC caved in and settled in order to avoid the court finding against it. Other firms could take the same action, but there is no general precedent.
They still don't get it, do they?
"Without the need for litigation"! The litigation is the only thing that got the LSC to agree to be reasonable. I hope CLP got their costs.
The message is simple -
The message is simple - litigate or you won't get anything. If this isn't a call to arms I don't know what is.
LSC Contracting Process
Havent seen any published comment to this effect,but I have little doubt that the LSC will either voluntarily or be compelled to do a complete volte-face and come the end of the year we will all be where we were a year ago.
My firm got everything we asked for but at some expense to magic those points up.
Commercially,bully for us.Professionally,its a disgrace.
At a time of govrnment cut backs lets see how much this fiasco has cost.Not only LSC expenditure but the expense to which each tendering firm has been put.
LSC Contracting Process
Actually I'm seething and yet as I said before my firm was successful.
My friends down the road didnt get contracts.I wish they had and we got less matter starts.
Im talking about highly competent solicitors.
What did the Law Society do? Nothing.It has decided now to JR but why didnt it JR when the criteria were introduced?
Grrrr
LSC Contracting process
I'm afraid I think that the Law Society - due to this mess - have been exposed as an example of a failed representative body. This is not a matter of representing "parts" of the profession, but a matter of protecting the integrity of the profession as a whole. There is no excuse.
Protecting the profession includes protection from the "utterly absurd and totally irrational" critieria used by the LSC to award contracts. That includes family AND social welfare firms, yet we can see from the CLP statement in the article, that it has failed to do so. This failure is a continuing one. Indeed, the very fact that firms can give matter starts back suggests that the entire procurement process is a sham.
In light of the CLP case, why has the Law Society has failed to support all social welfare firms who have been the victims of this LSC contracting debacle? Perhaps someone from the Law Society can, as representative bodies should, account for that?
LSC reverses contract decision
Can we ask the BMA to represent us in future ?
Given the rise in my blood
Given the rise in my blood pressure, the BMA may well be a good choice!
This issue needs collative
This issue needs collative action: the Judge has given a stark indication of his view on the tendering debacle. Even if
It costs money to put together JR, it sounds like it'll be worth it. Annoy the LSC and make it clear they have failed
Miserably in fair and just allocation of work to competent solicitors.
A bit of balance
I do not know why the LS did not issue proceedings in relation to SWL, but any suggestion that they are not up for a fight lacks any evidential foundation in the posts so far. Certainly when issues arose in relation to criminal contracting the in-house lawyers at the LS did not hesitate to run with issues, and where there was doubt spend a lot of money on external advice; so I do bring a little experience, albeit limited to crime, to this particular debate, and I have clear evidence that the LS works very hard to fight for members when it comes to litigation. The (civil) unified contract battle was not that long ago, and the battle in relation to DCO's only a few weeks ago, and family tender just a few days back. Just because an individual firm can show a tender process to be flawed does not necessarily mean the entire process is. Had they not fought any battle at all then one might want more information as to why, but having taken the battle over family tenders to court, and left SWL alone, you can surely draw the inference that they have reached a reasoned conclusion (even if you personally do not agree with it). I am not in the habit of jumping to the defence of the Law Society, they are able to do so themsleves, but I imagine that the policy officers and lawyers working on these issues are perhaps just a little exasperated at the criticism being levelled.
A bit more of a balance
Reasoned conclusion? How would we know what that? Let them tell us exactly because so far we have not been provided with even summary reasons for them not being involved in any action on behalf of those SWL firms affected by the contract round. That is not the behaviour of a representative body acting in accordance with best principles, best practice or indeed the best interests of their members. Is that clear enough evidence?
I do not blame the Law Society for failing to envisage what has happened, but they have not dealt with the SWL issue properly, fairly or at all. If their policy officers and lawyers are a "little exasperated at the criticism being levelled", let me tell you that for that terrible pain and awful discomfort, skilled members of this profession, their employees and colleagues across the country are left without jobs, with little hope and without the support of the body chosen to represent them.
Balance redress
I can understand your view Andrew but I have been corresponding with the LSC begging them to take up the fight for SWL. All they kept saying was that there was no merit and good luck with our appeal which I had said in my first email we had lost. By the time they wished me luck in the third email exasperated is not the word. One provider has now got SWL for virtually the whole of our county (3 procurement areas) and despite my badgering the LSC do not accept conflict of interest or access to justice issues in SWL. I can accept this maybe in welfare benefits but not in debt or especially housing. No-one in our procurement area got a family and housing contract either so there really is one supplier. It is outrageous and I fail to see how there is no merit. We were advised by Counsel to JR but being a small NfP we can't afford to. Unfortunately that is the end for us. We supply a number of other services that are now all lost and there will be no supplier for them at all in our area. Even if the whole tender process implodes which is certainly being speculated, it will not save us and another highly reputable firm is gone. I am not proud to call them my representative body becuase they certainly haven't represented me.
The end is nigh
I am genuinely interested to observe how far Solicitors are prepared to be manipulated by the LSC. It can be likened to an abusive relationship within a domestic setting. Eventually the complainant has such low self esteem that making any further objection to being treated badly lies beyond their capability.
Our firm was more than happy to carry on with a small and perfectly formed Housing department. In fact the LSC could find no fault with it. Unfortunately as we did not have a full-time Debt Supervisor our whole application failed.We no longer have our Housing Department. It would seem that a total of 29 points out of a possible score of 29 is not good enough. Speaking of 29, our Supervisor has been in practice for exactly that number of years.
Perhaps the LSC could introduce another e-portal to compile lists of experienced, committed Solicitors who are consigned to the scrapheap. I know loads of them...
The LSC was daft to hand out
The LSC was daft to hand out contracts before completing the appeals / verification process. They've managed to wangle their way out of this one by finding New Matter Starts for the CLP, but I can't see how they are going to do this with every single case given there are hundreds of appeals outstanding - sooner or later this is going to end up back in court.
A possible view of the
A possible view of the future.
The LSC cancel the tender after criticism from the Court (hopefully!). A review of legal aid starts in October.
The LSC then commences a round of cost compliance audits of firms who were unsuccessful in the tender process. Lots of non-compliances are then "found" by the LSC and over the next few months firms lose their contracts.
Is that a plausible scenario?
The squeaky wheel got the
The squeaky wheel got the grease...it has come to this !
At last I hope
Having retired I have watched from the sidelines what is the falling apart of my former profession. I am amazed that it has taken so long for you to wake up & now that you have I suggest you form a fighting fund to take on such matters becaues your 'representatives' won't
Justice served! Everydog has
Justice served! Everydog has its day