Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - May - September 1998 > C.1353/97
First Report Session 1998-99
Volume 3 - 1st Report - Session 1998-99
LEGAL AID BOARD
Delay in paying a solicitor's accounts
Matters considered:
Three instances of delay by an area office of the Legal Aid Board (LAB) in querying and paying a solicitor's accounts; LAB's refusal to pay compensation for the delays.
Summary of cases
Case A: On 30 June 1997 a solicitor sent the area office a claim for costs supported by taxation certificates from two courts. On 2 August the area office replied asking why he had submitted two certificates in respect of one set of proceedings. On 6 August the solicitor replied explaining how that had come about. LAB paid the claim on 9 September.
Case B: On 14 May 1997 the solicitor sent the area office a claim for costs. On 16 June the area office replied asking whether the client had been informed of her right to make representations about the costs. On 20 June the solicitor confirmed that she had. LAB paid the claim on 28 August.
Case C: On 26 March 1997 the solicitor sent the area office a claim for costs. On 25 June the area office replied saying that LAB's statutory charge on property which had been recovered by the client under a earlier court order would include the account in question, so the client should be informed of her financial interest and right to make representations. On 21 August the solicitor replied disputing the link between the recovery of property and the account in question. LAB paid the claim on 29 October.
The solicitor claimed compensation from LAB in the form of interest on the delayed payments. LAB refused on the grounds that the delays from the time the area office had received all the necessary information had not been exceptional and the amount of compensation calculated under the rules of their scheme did not exceed a de minimis threshold of £15.
Findings
There were delays by the area office in dealing with the accounts submitted by the solicitor. LAB were correct, in the absence of any evidence of special circumstances indicating otherwise, to apply to the solicitor's claims their standard rules for the payment of compensation, including the de minimis threshold. In so doing they were entitled to take account of normal processing time and to exclude the time taken by the solicitor to reply to their query in case C, but they were wrong to suggest that the period of delay should run only from the time they received answers to their queries.
Remedy
The Chief Executive of LAB explained the administrative background against which the delays had occurred and steps which had been taken to improve the situation. He apologised for the additional inexplicable delay in case C. He also apologised that LAB's response to the solicitor's compensation claim had been inadequate; he had put in hand remedial training measures. The Chief Executive arranged for the solicitor's claim to be redetermined by a process consistent with the rules of LAB's compensation scheme, Treasury guidelines and the Ombudsman's approach to financial redress for maladministration. He undertook to reconsider the outcome if the solicitor showed that it did not adequately reflect his loss or that there were special circumstances which made the application of the de minimis rule inappropriate.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
|
