Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Legal Services Commission - selected cases
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
Chapter 2
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
Alleged failure to follow correct procedure
The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) had failed to send him a show cause notice. While LAB were unable to provide a copy of the show cause notice, they did provide a copy of a screen-print from their computer system which showed that a letter had been sent to Mr X on the date in question on the subject of Mr X’s failure to comply with requests for information. The Ombudsman criticised LAB for failing to retain a copy of the show cause notice on their file. The Ombudsman welcomed the Chief Executive’s confirmation that in future show cause letters providing full reasons will generally be printed and retained on file if there is a subsequent appeal to the area committee. The Ombudsman noted that Mr X had had a number of opportunities before the revocation of his legal aid certificate to provide the information required by LAB, and he also had further opportunities before the area committee hearing. Mr X said that he had misunderstood the situation; however, the Ombudsman found no evidence to suggest that LAB had provided Mr X with anything other than clear requests for information for which they were reasonably entitled to ask. The Ombudsman did not agree that Mr X was unable to supply the information within the specified time limits and so had no grounds upon which to question LAB’s discretionary decision to revoke Mr X’s legal aid certificate.
Back to top
Mishandling of figures for the amount owing under a statutory charge
Ms C complained that between May 1997 and June 1999 the Legal Aid Board (LAB) had mishandled their statutory charge on her house and sent her many conflicting statements of the amount outstanding; and that they had failed to give her proper redress for those problems. The Ombudsman found that there had been a series of errors by LAB. The charge covered two solicitors’ bills, and LAB had made mistakes, some of them persistent, about the dates and periods over which interest should be charged on different parts of the costs, and how to treat a refund of part of one of the bills. They had made mistakes about the amount of equity available to be charged and the amount of the payments Ms C had made toward her debt, and a series of other errors. As a result, they had given her a confusing series of statements, often varying widely. None of them was right, and even the last statement on which she had redeemed the charge was slightly wrong, though the mistake there was in her favour. The Chief Executive apologised to Ms C, agreed to make her a goodwill payment to cover the cost to her of a half day which she had taken off work to visit a Citizens’ Advice Bureau; and agreed to increase from £50 to £100 the amount paid to console her for worry and botheration caused by LAB’s errors.
Back to top
Alleged mishandling of a postponement of statutory charge and sending information erroneously to a third party
Mrs L complained that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) had sent annual statements that did not reflect her full liability to the legal aid fund; had delayed their decision on the postponement of the statutory charge on her property; had sent correspondence erroneously to her opponent’s solicitor; and had offered inadequate redress for those errors. LAB accepted that they had provided incorrect information to Mrs L, that there were elements of maladministration in their handling of her request to postpone the statutory charge so that she could re-mortgage, and that they had sent personal correspondence to the wrong solicitor. In recognition of those errors they had apologised and had offered Mrs L compensation of £100.42 to meet the direct costs which she had incurred progressing her complaint and £100 for the worry and distress that their maladministration had caused. Although the Ombudsman criticised LAB’s poor performance, he noted that Mrs L’s solicitor had had a responsibility to ensure that LAB had been provided with the information they needed to calculate Mrs L’s statutory charge liability and to provide Mrs L with copies of his bills. The Ombudsman also found that LAB could not be held solely responsible for the delays that had arisen when Mrs L had sought to postpone the statutory charge on her property. The Ombudsman considered reasonable the redress already offered by LAB.
Back to top
Misleading information about costs relating to assisted parties
Mr and Mrs B, the assisted parties, complained that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) had wrongly demanded costs from them which they did not owe and had then wrongly told them that their opponent had paid costs, part of which would be due to Mr and Mrs B. The Ombudsman found that many of LAB’s papers had been lost, that there had been delay and poor handling of the case, that there was no evidence to explain many of the figures LAB had quoted and that LAB had failed to appreciate the implications of a court decision to set off Mr and Mrs B’s costs against those of their opponent. He found that Mr and Mrs B had money wrongly demanded from them and that they had been misled into believing that they would be paid money. The Chief Executive apologised for the handling of the case and offered £75 compensation to Mr and Mrs B to cover the costs of letters and phone calls and for botheration.
Back to top
Alleged financial loss resulting from inadequate investigation into representations about opponent’s entitlement to legal aid
Mr J complained that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) failed to take appropriate action on the representations he had made about his opponent’s financial eligibility to legal aid. The Ombudsman found that between 1993 and 1995 LAB had delayed taking action on Mr J’s representations and those of his solicitors, but he considered that an ex gratia payment of £500 paid by LAB to Mr J in October 1995 had been reasonable recompense for that delay and other administrative failings on their part. He did not consider that LAB’s actions had led directly to Mr J not recovering from the opponent the judgment sum in his favour and found the complaint of continuing financial loss to be unjustified.
Back to top
Handling of representations about an award of legal aid to a third party
Mr P complained that in 1993 the Legal Aid Board (LAB) granted his opponent legal aid to pursue an action against him while that opponent was financially ineligible and allowed it to continue over several years despite his representations. On 1 November 1996 the opponent obtained a court order with costs against Mr P. On 6 May 1997 the opponent’s legal aid was revoked. On 26 June 2000 LAB's Costs Appeals Committee refused Mr P’s application for compensation. Although the Legal Aid Assessment Office papers had been destroyed, an action that the Ombudsman criticised, LAB’s own papers showed that the representations had been fully investigated. The Ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration in LAB’s handling of the representations and did not find Mr P’s complaint against them to be justified.
Back to top
Mishandling of an application for legal aid
A firm of solicitors complained that unreasonable and avoidable delay by the Legal Aid Board (LAB) in granting legal aid had caused Mr C financial loss, unnecessary expenditure and stress. The Ombudsman criticised LAB for their admitted failures in their handling of Mr C’s application, but found no evidence that Mr C’s former solicitors had had the requisite authority to act for him under the legal aid scheme. The solicitors had not alerted LAB to the fact that any delay in Mr C continuing his action might be prejudicial to him; they had not chased the progress of the legal aid application, nor applied for emergency legal aid. The Ombudsman was not persuaded that LAB should be held entirely responsible for the costs which Mr C had incurred. The Chief Executive apologised to Mr C for LAB’s failings and offered him £500 in recognition of the unnecessary delay in dealing with his application for legal aid, and for the time and effort he had expended in pursuing his complaint.
Back to top
Failure to apply a costs condition on legal proceedings
Mr X complained that because the Legal Aid Board (LAB) did not apply a costs condition on his legal aid certificate he had not received any financial benefit from his legal action. The Ombudsman concluded that because LAB did not pay sufficient attention to the costs/benefit aspect of the case, Mr X had received legal aid funding for much longer than he should have done. Far from causing an injustice to Mr X, that had led to his receiving the benefit of legal aid until a settlement offer had been made. The Ombudsman noted that, as a result of the efforts of a member of LAB staff, the solicitors who represented Mr X in the proceedings had agreed to waive £5,000 of their legal aid costs and Mr X had received a payment of £5,153.17. The Ombudsman found, however, that there were shortcomings in the way LAB had handled the notice to show cause and the merits representations that had been received from Mr X’s opponent’s solicitors and that that had caused unnecessary confusion. The Chief Executive agreed to pay Mr X compensation of £100 in recognition of the botheration he had suffered in pursuing his complaint.
Previous < Contents > Next
Back to top
|
