Post by juliemoktadir on Mar 30, 2012 20:54:38 GMT
Hi, I am new to this forum. I am an Immigration Practitioner and last year I attended the Law Society Immigration conference. It was discussed that recorded deliveries were claimable disbursements under LH and CLR. Can anyone confirm if this is correct. I am aware that general postage is not allowed, but all correspondence to the UKBA does have to be by RD. I have been claiming the same, and had no problem with the LSC, but my managing partner has recently asked me to seek confirmation. Any ideas?
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Mar 31, 2012 11:29:59 GMT
Hi Juliemoktadir,
First of all welcome to ilegal. It is good to get some more immigration input on the site.
We had a long and torteous debate over this, and I am still receiving counselling from the experience! Postage (normal, special or RD) is not claimable as a disbursement was the outcome, its an organisational overhead
Civil Specification
6.61
(e) You may not claim for matters that properly fall as your overheads, such as internal communications, typing, administration and equipment costs, stationary, postage and courier charges, telephone charges and the time and costs of photocopying, save as provided for in the Costs Assessment Guidance
Costs Assessment Guidance
2.2 Expenses which may be classed as overheads of the contracting Supplier are generally not payable under the Contract. Photocopying in-house is generally an overhead expense as are the costs of postage, stationery, faxes, scanning, typing and the actual cost of telephone calls. However, see section 3.36 in relation to photocopying charges. Whilst courier fees are listed in paragraph 6.61 of the Specification as an overhead, in some circumstances these will be claimable as disbursements, where they are incurred in relation to a particular case or matter and it was reasonable to do so.
Rich is correct. Unfortunately Recorded & Special Deliveries cannot be claimed as a disbursement from the LSC.
I was one of the speakers at the Law Society Immigration Law Conference (I spoke from a small firm's perspective about surviving the legal aid cuts - my talk was countered by Ducan Lewis' practice manager giving a large firm's view). I cannot remember there being a discussion about claimable disbursements - was this part of the public talks or just a private discussion?
Best of luck with everything and please make the most of ilegal.
Chris, thanks for your comment and I actually dug out my conference materials, and was wondering whether to contact you about this before I found this forum. Your talk was really interesting, and more relevant to myself and the firm I work at than the Duncan Lewis perspective.
I cannot recall who said this about Recorded Delivery charges, but I do recall it was in the public speeches, although it may have been during the QandAs.
Since the conference I have been claiming RDs as disbursements, and whilst I have now received categorical confirmation that this is not possible, the issue is that I have submitted a number of applications for extension, and indeed ECClaim1s where Recorded Delivery's have been claimed, and they have never been refused. On a few of the applications for extension I have actually received comments from the LSC NI&A team requesting I provide details as to why RD were sent for future applications, but the RD costs were allowed.
So, it seems that the LSC guidance is clear, RD and SD are administration costs, however as always not everyone at the LSC is on the same page.
Post by Richard Wilkinson on Apr 3, 2012 12:03:50 GMT
So, it seems that the LSC guidance is clear, RD and SD are administration costs, however as always not everyone at the LSC is on the same page.
Very well articulated. And there are several other areas of examples in Immigration/Asylum (and beyond for that matter) where the LSC appear to be enforcing things that havent been enforced in the past (or as some would argue "moving the goalposts")
