Report comment

If implemented, the proposed SI would not only have been unlawful (as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found), it would also have been outwith the Government's own guidance to departments on the setting of fees. Thus, 'Managing Public Money' (a Treasury publication aimed at all Government departments) at section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 states "The standard approach is to set charges to recover full costs. Cost should be calculated on an accruals basis, including overheads, depreciation and the cost of capital. ... This approach is simply intended to make sure that the government neither profits at the
expense of consumers nor makes a loss for taxpayers to subsidise. It requires honesty about the
policy objectives and rigorous transparency in the public interest." and at 6.3.5 states "The standard approach is that the same charge should apply to all users of a defined category of service, so recovering full costs for that category of service. Different charges may be set for objectively different categories of service costing different amounts to provide."

So, if MoJ has decided to charge the users of the probate service (the 'defined category of service') an average of six times what is justified by the cost of the service, then the Government is in breach of its own guidelines - classic maladministration which is clearly judicially reviewable.