Open for business

Legal help is the system of legal aid which pays for legal advice and some initial assistance in cases. Complex cases, including those requiring representation in court, are usually moved on to an individual funding certificate which pays more.

Fixed fees for legal help cases were introduced by the Legal Services Commission in October 2017. Those organisations that can get more clients through the system seem to have adapted to this change. Some have not. Five law centres have gone under since October 2017, and the change over to fixed fees has been a factor in the closures.

Michael Ashe, chief executive of South-West London law centre, says the crisis was caused by underinvestment, which meant the law centre was ill-equipped to deal
with change ‘let alone major changes like fixed fees.’

Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group and the former manager of Shelter’s legal department says, ‘The problem with fixed fees is that they often don’t pay enough to provide a quality service. For example, a homelessness case may require many hours work – but not sufficient to attract an exceptional payment, (the exceptional fee kicks in when the case goes above three times the fixed fee).

‘Some organisations are carrying out cases for the fixed fee of £171 and regularly doing seven or eight hours work rather than the 3.5 hours which it is designed to cover.’
Danni knows nothing about legal aid. He just wanted some advice, but found it hard to come by. He went to a Citizens Advice Bureau and was told they could not advise him. His local young people’s advice centre told him he was too old to qualify for their service.

Two years ago, Danni’s mum and dad moved back to Jamaica. Danni, now 20, remained in the family’s two-bedroom council flat. He managed to pay off most
of the £2,000 rent arrears his family had accrued by finding work as an apprentice joiner.

Then things went wrong. He lost his job and was told (wrongly) he could not claim housing benefit as his mum was the tenant.Not able to get advice, Danni found himself at the county court after his local council applied for a possession order.

This is where his luck changed. Niki Goss, a housing solicitor at the law centre, was on duty at the court that day. Goss is one of those breed of housing lawyers devoted to their clients and steeped in knowledge of the subject, who, as his boss Michael Ashe admits, are not so reliable at charging the Legal Services Commission for their work. ‘Billing is not something they do,’ says Ashe of his specialist lawyers. Ashe believes they need support staff to satisfy the legal aid bureaucracy while they get on with legal work.

After talking to Danni, Goss quickly concluded that he had no grounds to resist the possession proceedings other than an argument under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article eight includes a provision for the protection of a person’s home. Though Danni was not the tenant, Goss knew this is not necessary for article eight to be engaged.

At this point, two other factors worked in Danni’s favour. The council representative appreciated that Danni had made efforts to pay off the arrears and was in danger of losing his home through no fault on his part. On hearing the submissions from Goss the district judge felt the article eight argument needed exploring and was sympathetic to Danni’s plight. He ordered an adjournment.

The council has undertaken to find Danni a suitable one-bed roomed flat. Until this happens, he is allowed to remain in his family home.
Danni expressed great satisfaction with the outcome. ‘Before going to court I had no idea what was going to happen. Without the law centre I’m sure the council would not have helped me,’ he says.

Goss freely admits he does little legal help work. The county court duty scheme is paid for by a grant from the Legal Services Commission. Most county courts are
covered by such schemes. Unlike legal help, clients do not have to undergo a means test to qualify.

In the five or so years the service has been running the law centre has found about 75 per cent of tenants and about 50 per cent of home owners would pass the means test.
Most of the cash to fund Goss’s post comes from the duty scheme, and work on individual legal aid certificate cases. He believes that it would be difficult to raise sufficient funding from
legal help work to pay for his post, despite earnings below the average London primary school teacher.

Goss argues that it is better to see clients before a court hearing, but in many cases this is not possible. The law centre says Goss would earn more money if he’d seen Danni under the legal help scheme before the court hearing and then applied for a certificate to represent him at court.

So it would seem safe to argue that the county court rota scheme is cost effective. It gets experienced lawyers, Goss has been with the law centre 12 years, in the front line where lawyers can analyse a client’s problem quickly and come up with a solution.

The question that hangs over legal aid, especially with legal help work, is firms and other providers are tending to give the work to less qualified and experienced staff. They argue it’s the only way they can make the work pay – but cases such as Danni’s are likely to fall through the net if there isn’t someone on hand with
sufficient knowledge.

Another of Ashe’s lawyers, Finola O’Neill, undertakes welfare benefits cases and has an outstanding record of success in representing clients in appeals before benefits tribunals, which are outside the scope of legal aid. Her work is paid for by legal help and according to Ashe, the law centre has to claim the exceptional cases fee, another bureaucratic hurdle in all her cases.

It seems shameful to Legal Action Group that to provide a decent service to clients South-West London law centre has to rely on handouts. The law centre has survived by the skin of its teeth. It has good connections with City firms and the political establishment, helped by its location in central London.

Above all, it has a team who will endure the uncertainties around funding because of their commitment to their clients. Both the clients and staff deserve better.