Post by StephenMichael on Sept 2, 2010 14:36:15 GMT
What happens if all these JR proceeding succeed? Does this mean the contracts from Oct 2010 are invalid. They cannot extend the Unified Contract, so does the position revert back to prior to the introduction of the Unified Contract and fixed fee regeime?
Update on verification process for social welfare law tender 08 September 2010
As a result of the continuing verification process, the Legal Services Commission will be able to make an offer of an allocation of work to the Community Law Partnership to deliver social welfare law services in the Birmingham procurement area.
As a result, the Community Law Partnership has withdrawn its judicial review claim against the LSC.
We’re pleased we have been able to resolve this matter without the need for litigation.
Post by Colin Henderson on Sept 8, 2010 12:27:57 GMT
Seems like it, but only if you're prepared to litigate. Here is the object lesson to all suppliers; If you accept the sham appeal procedure the LSC laugh at you; if you get into court you get bought off. It looks very like a green light for lots of other suppliers to have a go in the courts, but don't expect a thing unless you're prepared to litigate.
Also reads like the LSC was NOT prepared to test the rationality of the welfare benefit Tribunal criterion and took the judge's advice.
Here's hoping the heroic CLP have boarded up the front door as I wouldn't be surprised to see an army of LSC bureaucrats at the door wanting to talk financial stewardship, bid verification, NAO business etc etc.
Post by Colin Henderson on Sept 9, 2010 8:16:09 GMT
The partners at Community Law Partnership have issued the following statement in explanation of why they had to go it alone. It is very instructive:
"COMMUNITY LAW PARTNERSHIP AWARDED SOCIAL WELFARE CONTRACT
On 21st July the Legal Services Commission (LSC) informed us that we had failed to obtain a Social Welfare Law (SWL) contract to start on 14th October 2010. Since SWL is all we do this would have meant the end of the firm. We were refused a contract because we lost one point on one criterion in the tender process – the tribunals criterion.
Our appeal to the LSC was rejected. Therefore, we continued with our judicial review challenge that we had already lodged. The Law Society failed to back our court challenge despite a personal plea to Law Society President, Linda Lee.
On 2nd September the Law Society Gazette reported the initial hearing before Collins J where he stated: “I am bound to say this is a dreadful decision and on the face of it the approach [taken by the LSC] is totally irrational.”
The hearing was adjourned to 8th September. On 6th September the LSC stated that, after a verification process, they were offering us a contract which will allow us to continue with our work. We are delighted with this news. In these circumstances the court action has been settled.
We would like to thank all those who have provided us with letters and messages of support in this process – this support has been vital in enabling us to continue our fight. We would like to pay tribute to the barristers who have assisted us in our challenge: Marc Willers of Garden Court; Zia Nabi of 1 Pump Court; and David Lock of No 5 Chambers.
Above all we would like to thank and pay tribute to the loyal and dedicated CLP staff who have stuck with the partners through this most stressful process. We look forward to continuing to provide an excellent service to the homeless, others in housing need, and those with benefits and debt problems in the West Midlands and to Gypsies and Travellers nationwide for a long time to come."
Chris Johnson, Rosaleen Kilbane and Michael McIlvaney