Report comment

I thought it might be sensible before October to get used to it. I won’t be using it again until then and hope it won’t come in at all. It is cumbersomely slow. You can’t always access it. It sometimes times out. It has rules that aren’t flexible that create issues. You are left dealing with that issue rather than the LAA taking a common sense view as was previously the position.

Every means review results in you having to deal with the LAA and gathering information when previously they wrote to your client about this. This was a genius piece of work re-allocation (not in our favour) and which can take hours to deal with. I have been asked for information several times which has already been provided.

On one occasion I wasn’t sure if I needed to amend something. I realised I didn’t and was then forced to go through the means assessment again rather than just cancel what I had done. There is no menu – tree on the left hand side for easy access to parts that need to be amended. You have to go through everything! It is not user friendly. It no longer works with Firefox which appears to be a problem with the system and not firefox. I guess despite the cost of the system it doesn’t have the resources of firefox to be up to date.

One of the biggest issues I have is sending in queries or information and then not getting a response. It may be that resources are still with paper matters and this will improve? It feels like sending information into a black hole or an online rubbish bin. It’s quite confidence sapping. I can’t see that you can print queries raised with them which means pasting into a word document to print so you have a record of communications. You can’t access previous notifications, responses and communications.

The thought of having to use this in October is frightening. To try and be fair I can imagine that if the client is on a means benefit then this may be a lot easier. I do private law family matters. I understand care applications are a bit easier. I’ve only done one application! I had lots of questions due my client not being on a means benefit and her finances changing at the time of separation as inevitably occurs with emergency matters.

Perhaps on a separate note our claim was rejected because she didn’t make a rent payment in the month of separation despite her having done so previously and subsequently and still being liable for it. The guidance issued by the LAA suggests there is s discretion to take this into account if the circumstances dictate that is reasonable. The LAA’s guidance suggesting it is reasonable unless there is a history of non payment i.e she is never going to pay anyway so it certainly shouldn’t be taken into account. Seems sensible. Didn’t apply here. Appeal Rejected. No common sense. No confidence matters are being dealt with to assist and favour vulnerable clients needing an injunction or the return of their child. Every confidence that rejecting matters results in lower LAA expenditure.

This is one of the problems in general with emergency legal aid and the LAA at the moment particularly where it isn’t a means based benefit. Beware granting emergency legal aid and doing any work pending the granting of a certificate because the application will often come back with an issue (often trivial) which once remedied may result in a certificate being granted at that point, often weeks maybe months later with no work done in the meantime being paid.

With more criteria and hoops to jump through to obtain legal aid this is much easier to do. The Twelve Tasks of Asterix and obtaining Permit A 38 in "The Place That Sends You Mad” comes to mind.

Your client of course just needs to get on with obtaining an urgent order. The time and effort in trying to get legal aid now is such that with non means based clients you can’t help despairing of the effort needed to assist someone and whether it is time well spent. The system is not designed to be helpful to those in need. Lip service comes to mind. Private clients? We just get on with doing their work. It’s a stark comparison.