i am employed with CAB under an nfp LSC contract. i have had some recent correspondence with the TAS regional chair in this area regarding representation at SSATs/DATs etc.

currently i represent at tribunals only in complex cases as LSC refuse to accept representation as permitted work. my majority of cases are presented by written submission only, sent with the client to oral hearings.

i raised the issue at a recent TUG meeting and have corresponded since with the RC.

i post this to ask nationally if anyone is aware of LSC allowing representation in exceptional circs, and how other bx cope with thiss issue.

on speaking to some colleagues it appears a two-tier system is evolving, my own bx employ a non-LSC funded WR officer who regularly represents - but cannot afford the time to represent my cases.

on a side-note, following publication of stats for paper/oral/rep'd/non-rep'd hearings, my succes rate is at least on par with appeals won at oral with representativess present, though (not wishing to blow my owwn trumpet) this could relate to the application of the sufficient benefit test

i hope to get enough feed-back to present a request to TAS to lobby the LSC into allowing representation to be recorded as permitted work where it can be shown there is a real need i.e. severe mental health/complex HB cases

Jason

This post is for my own clarifation more than anything else. When I worked under LSC nfp in 2000 we were allowed to represent at any tribunal but could not claim the time spent in the hearing itself for our output hours. I know there have been some changes since then. I believe you cannot now claim the travel time (can you still claim waiting time?).

Am I right in thinking, therefore, that as long as you fulfill your output hour requirement then representation is a matter for the adviser, or have there been radical changes since 2000.

I really dont envy advisers under the LSC contracts. Those of us who work for LA's are quite lucky really as we dont have to achieve output hours or have as much paperwork to do compared with LSC advisers. We also have access to much better resources as LA's have a lot more money than CAB's.

On the other hand trying to avoid the politics and the potential conflicts of interest within an LA can be a royal pain in the arse and the feeling of being completely independent of 'the system' that I got working for a CAB is one that I really miss. It would be interesting to know what others' experiences and thoughts are.

Regards
Paul

Yes- it's still the same- you can't claim for representation at the tribunal hearing or for the travel/waiting time. However, you can claim for time spent discussing the case/tactics with your client before you go in and in explaining the outcome to the client/effect on other benefits, etc, afterwards (within reasonable limits). However, I agree that it's a pain in the backside.

There is provision for LSC to pay for representation at tribunal (or the Commissioners)in exceptional cases. I'm not sure if it's under Legal Help or full Legal Aid, but I suspect the latter. It's covered at para 3C-021 of the Funding Code.

I'm 90% certain I've seen something somewhere recently saying that the first grant of funding for a tribunal had been made. I've tried to find it again but without success. It might have been in Legal Action.

It's got to be worth trying to get funding on occasions, but I would imagine the case would have to be very exceptional before you'd have much chance.

I'm sure I heard of a pilot project for phone or something advice where there was funding for actual repping from the off. The people doing the pilot had just assumed that it was a reasonable thing to ask for and the LSC had let them.

(I may have been hallucinating)

I always used to have a pre appeal appointment to discuss the format etc but now just do it on the day half an hour beforehand, and record everything except travel and tribunal time, making notes of the in/out time as I go; it's a much more efficient use of client time anyway. I explain the potential outcomes whilst waiting for the decision. In about 10% of cases the client is so overwrought or has absolutely no-one to hold their hand that I count the in-tribunal time on a Mackenzie friend basis. I'm expecting to be pulled up on it at audit and I'm ready to fight my corner on it; the rules do allow exceptional Mackenzie friending, and a large proportion of my clients have serious mental health problems.

thx for the posts so far

andrew - where do the rules state mackenzie friending IS allowed in exceptional circs? half the problem my bx have had with getting the contract up n running is the apparent LSC approach of keeping us all in the dark

i have seen rep'ing possible under full legal aid, this primarily for OSSC appeal i beleive but the nfp contracts are only for legal help

Part 4.11 of the General Civil Contract (Not for Profit)(abridged): "You may claim time for acting as a Mckenzie adviser as part of Legal Help, However, you should not attend as a Mckenzie adviser at a hearing where it is more appropriate to provide Help at Court.

Legal Help as a Mcenzie adviser will only be justified where

(a) the unusual complexity of the case and/or

(b) the client's material disability or insufficient knowledge of English

means that the services of a legal adviser at the hearing is necessary, and in either case the importance of the matter to the client justifies the costs of attending the hearing.

By unusual complexity of the case we mean significantly moire complex than the average case of that type.

...material disability or English problems will not suffice on their own ... Legal Help must be justified rather than the help from family, friends, an interpreter or social worker

The case must be of sufficient importance that a fee-paying client of moderate means would fund the attendance... other cost-effective method of dealing such as writing a letter..

Mckenzie adviser therefore be exception rather than the norm

Legal assistance without representation, so the client must be present. Must not instruct counsel or agent..."

You're meant to know all of these rules off by heart you know!