Post by Colin Henderson on Nov 22, 2012 10:05:22 GMT
Another news item on this appeared yesterday. Seems that until a new (tiny) contract is tendered and starts in a year, the CLA telephone service will somehow plug the gap. Not sure how that will work - who is the current contractor for that?
"More information is now available on our interim approach to welfare benefits work remaining in scope from April 2013.
The route we have decided on will involve delivering advice on the areas remaining in scope through the current Community Legal Advice (CLA) telephone contracts. This will be for a six month period from 1 April until 30 September 2013. Face-to-face advice will also be provided through these contracts, where required.
The volume and value of this work will be small and what it will involve was confirmed by the Government in a written ministerial statement. This was published on 18 September 2012 and we explained at the time that an interim approach would be needed. This is because there was insufficient time to run a procurement process to have new face-to-face contracts in place from 1 April 2013.
The LSC will run a tender for the 2013 welfare benefits face-to-face contracts starting on 1 October 2013. We are finalising this approach and will provide further details in due course.
What is staying in scope?
- Appeals to the First-tier Tribunal in Social Security and Child Support for all welfare benefits cases (including housing benefits, war pensions, State pensions, vaccine damage payments or similar benefits) where the Tribunal reviews its own decision because there has been an error in law; and - Appeals on a point of law to the Upper Tribunal and onwards appeals on a point of law to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
All other welfare benefits work previously delivered under the 2010 Civil Standard Contract, will not be covered by legal aid from 1 April 2013."
Post by Patrick Torsney on Dec 3, 2012 11:00:40 GMT
I believe the Government would have to reword the particular proposed regulation and then re-submit it to the Lords ie get rid of the very narrow interpretation in their current offending version and honour the promise they made during the LASPO debates, rather than trying to wriggle out of it
Here's more info + context + video live link posted this morning:
Post by nickd (Mylegal) on Dec 4, 2012 21:52:43 GMT
Yes it was great to get a mention even if by McNasty himself!
It was quite telling over what he said in the debate on the costings. Essentially despite all the 'promises' to do something for those with a points of law issue in the FTT; he revealed that whether it cost £25M, £15M or £5M; they don't want to be paying any of it!
Which means 'we don't want ANY ONE' on benefits to be able to get ANY help with a challenge against the State whether they're disabled, 'questionably able' or down on their knees and up to their eyes in the glaringly obvious complexity of social security law - utterly deplorable or what? The 'points of law' promise prior to LASPO's enactment was just a sham. On more than once occasion McNally reminded everyone how LASPO was now an act - too late to hold us to promises is what he really meant.
My understanding on the fatal motion is that HMG has to come back with something more generous than they absurdly offered before.
McNally is clueless to suggest there is no cost implication upon HMCTS with an application under Procedural Rule 39. The first step is for the appellant to request a full statement of their reasons.
How judges will love rushing though thousands upon thousands of appeals only to end up having to spend a good few hours typing up and reasoning their decision because appellants aggrieved by unjust judgements will continually want to know why; what's more advice agencies will be telling them to do just that!
What a wicked agenda they are running here - wickedly disrespectful to the age old principles of justice and wickedly oblivious to the consequential costs which will arise.