LASPO LOOMS!! Why the Lords' must reject this!

[nickd]

On Monday 3rd December the Lords'
must reject legislation
which will deny

Thousands a right to justice

The Lords' have a right to refuse
to give their approval

It is right to refuse to approve.

On Monday the 3rd December the House of Lords’ is due to debate whether to give their approval to a small but very significant piece of legislation. It’s a ‘statutory instrument’ which the Coalition government desperately wants to get passed. Not many will realise the devastating effect it will have upon thousands of people battling against the State as they have to go to Court to get their benefits re-instated. This legislation not only damages the claimant's prospects of success but also deprives the advice sector of much needed cash to help highlight cases where the DWP & other statutory authority are all too often wrongly denying people their lawful benefit entitlement.

Appeal chaos

40% increase

People 'petrified by the process'

The approval of this highly damaging piece of proposed legislation will sever the State from its responsibility to ensure that benefit claimants are adequately ensured access to justice whilst fighting for their benefits. In 2010/2011 418,500 claimants lodged appeals with independent Tribunals to get their benefits decided by independently of the authorities; it was a record number of appeals and yet figures for 2012/2013 are already showing a 40% rise on last year. Front - line benefit specialists are repeatedly seeing nothing short of chaos as their clients battle the system. The Guardian reported earlier in the year that the CAB and its specialists are 'buckling under the strain' of an alarming rise in the number of appeals.


The problem which government is refusing to acknowledge is that no sooner has a claimant been through the trauma of an appeal that they find themselves having their benefit reviewed all over again a short while afterwards. One can only suspect that the DWP doesn't want to concede that the numbers on the sick is not materially falling and nor do they want the unemployment numbers to be seen to rise. It explains why over 425,000 Employment & Support Allowance claimants are constantly awaiting 'assessment'.


The process of taking a client through an appeal is something I liken to a hideous & highly stressful journey where they are literally finding themselves dragged from 'the cliff -top to the torturous tribunal room'. The process terrifies claimants who have to go to the County & Magistrates' Courts to beg for their money - I had one the other week who took an overdose in the run up to his case because he was petrified at the thought of having to go to Court. It's humiliating for clients to bare their souls in court houses which should be used to try criminals rather than test the credibility of the disabled. These Tribunals are not as 'user - friendly' as Ken Clarke & co would have people believe.


ONS figures show that despite millions or assessments by both the DWP and Atos healthcare the overall incapacity count has reduced by just 32,900 in over 4 years, it's a telling number which clearly indicates that the chaotic system is not working.


When chaos exists you need to bring order to the proceedings by ensuring appellants are well prepared. The right advice means that chaos can be avoided by earlier settlement with a well reasoned argument which a Decision - Maker understands - it can alleviate the need for an appeal altogether.

Let's not forget who's in the right here.

80% win their cases with proper help.

In 2010/2011 197,400 Employment & Support Allowances (ESA) appeals were lodged with the Tribunals; of which 127,100 were cleared at a hearing. 47,600 were successful (reported to be 37%). When you compare this figure against the total number of legally aided welfare benefit cases at 103,895 with large numbers of specialists reporting that at least 50% of their worked load is taken up with ESA appeals you can see some logic in their argument that 80% of cases are succeeding with their help.


50 % of the overall matter start allocation on ESA appeals = 51,947 of which 80% are reported to succeed = 41,558 bearing a credible association with the 47,600 appeal cases found in the claimant's favour when taking account of a fluctuation in matter start allocation. It's a figure which was widely quoted in the previous LASPO amendment debates and has appeared in the press on a number of occasions.


Ken Clarke's argument was that these welfare benefit cases only needed a bit of 'generalist advice'. He couldn't be more wrong, he also overlooked how a large number of legal aid welfare benefit agencies are conducted not only CAB specialists, but also by law centres and a fair number of solicitors. You can view the full list of contracts awarded to deal with the 103,895 welfare benefit legal aid cases here.


Ken Clarke's argument that the work of fully trained and highly competent specialists can be done by lesser trained individuals is frankly ludicrous. It is nothing short of ridiculous to suggest that our work can be done to the same standard by generalist advisers who work on a voluntary basis with no where near our experience or level of knowledge; and for the same reason nor can our work be done by MP's. For Ken Clarke to suggest that the same department who made the erroneous decision in the first place or the judiciary who must impartially judge the appellant is a suggestion born out of little more than stupidity. In no way do I wish to decry the work of our very skilled and dedicated volunteer force but we work at different levels - generalist and specialist advice are far apart. I think it totally unreasonable for government to rely upon volunteers to fill a justice gap which it has recklessly abandoned.


So why do we win our cases?


Because we present a cogent argument based on the facts of the case and the law as to how we say it should be applied. Ken Clarke's argument over a distinction between 'fact' and 'law' is beyond all reasonable comprehension. As an ex - practising criminal QC he knows the relevance of fact in cases of law. You've only have to look at the Judgement reached in the Farepak case brought by HMRC to see how it essentially 'came down to just the facts', it's not unlike many cases where fact determines the outcome.


Part of the problem in benefit appeal cases such as Employment & Support Allowance is the fact that they all revolve around a person's complex range of problems being simplified into tick boxes & comment boxes. The challenge in something like the Work Capability Assessment is untangling it all and ascertaining a proper history from your client so that can work out which points to argue. It takes a long time to put the Work Capability Assessment under a magnifying glass and properly work out how it can be applied with regard to all the regulations, case law and the endless guidance which goes with it.


No assessment worked out by a professor and subject to self - assessment by the claimant prior to an Atos assessment by computer led healthcare professionals is going to lead to the right boxes being ticked is it? The most common failing is say a claimant who's been in the welfare wilderness for eight years and tells you he's got a bad knee. A proper exploration of the facts all too often reveals a trend where a combination of physical and complex mental issues form the basis for cogent argument over which descriptors apply - it takes skill and a proper legal mind to translate the facts in to the law. Cases like these are won on cogent argument that both physical and mental factors apply and in some cases where the threshold is not met you can argue the case as one of 'exceptional' circumstances.

What about points of law though?

Every case in the first - tier tribunal could end up in the Court of Appeal

And that's a fact

Right at this moment I have a fair number of cases in the first - tier tribunal adjourned pending an application I have made under the Tribunal Procedural rule (18) for a 'lead case' ruling. It's because I'm far from satisfied with the way thousands of claimants are having their claims 'converted' over to Employment & Support Allowance. There are lots of problems with the legislation in my view not least because at no time during the 'conversion phase' is the claimant required to supply medical evidence from his own doctor.


In my view it is entirely logical to apply legislation which requires a claimant's doctor to supply medical evidence which would help fill in the gaps as to why they've been in the welfare wilderness for often a fair number of years. This should happen simultaneously with the Work Capability Assessment in my view so as to provide a more balanced and equal assessment.


The first time an incapacity benefit claimant (under the conversion regulations) is asked to supply evidence from his doctor is if he is disallowed a 'conversion' to Employment & Support Allowance following an Atos assessment. Bizarrely he has to supply the medical evidence only if he appeals when he is then placed in to the ESA 'assessment phase' after being refused his incapacity benefit. It's completely different to how he would be treated if he was claiming Employment & Support Allowance as a new claim - the disparity denies him of a legislative requirement to seek the opinion of his own doctor before he sees the Atos healthcare professional. It's not right; there are a number of other problems over requesting a form and undergoing a medical assessment relevant only to Employment & Support Allowance when he is at the time of the request still bound by the rules pertaining to his (yet to be superseded) incapacity benefit award.


I say that a 'conversion' decision is a two stage test which must look at (a) whether there are grounds to terminate the incapacity benefit before (b) the decision - maker can decide whether an award of Employment & Support Allowance can be confirmed upon conversion. Many pages of detailed argument have already been submitted and directions applied for - it's all part and parcel of the work we do. Believe me it's all to do with arguing legal issues.


Whether I win it or not is irrelevant, it's a point of law based on cogent argument; an argument which must be heard regardless of any parliamentary intention to get people off a benefit they are phasing out - so let's be clear points of law do arise in the first - tier tribunal. It's by no means the only example I could cite of cases where a legal issue arises demanding a judicial determination.

Cost

A fraction of the legal aid bill

Legal aid pays for itself

A very small fixed fee of just £150 per case is paid in legal aid fees to agencies like the CAB and law Centres to employ benefit specialists who can properly prepare clients for their tribunals. From April the 1st 2013 many of these specialists including myself will be redundant, we’re not ‘fat cat lawyers’ who earn fortunes; we earn a modest salary which we work hard for as dedicated professionals. Lord McNally defends the cut backs in social welfare legal aid by telling everyone that overall legal aid is 2.1 billion pounds a year; what he won't tell you is that social welfare legal aid in benefit appeal cases is a tiny fraction of the overall cost around which delivers a saving to the tax - payer which pays for itself in both the short & long term.


You can check the 2010 Welfare Benefit contract awards here and see how much it costs to help 103,895 cases a year. This is important because Government may be misrepresenting the true costs of this crucial area of social welfare work - they have a habit of getting the figures wrong. When you work it out the true cost could be considerably less than £14 million. The proposal put forward by government in what they term a 'solution' is so impractical that it is completely unworkable - the tax payer will bear the cost of leaving people to battle for their benefits at enormous cost.


Ken Clarke has completely misunderstood how tribunal procedural rule 39 (see later link) operates in practice. It is only activated upon the appellant making an application for leave to appeal - without help during the appeal the claimant will have no way of knowing an error has been made.


The greatest cost of all will be in placing claimants in the wrong groups. If a claimant is found 'fit for work' when they are not, a Jobcentre or employer will realise how totally impractical it is to place them in the workplace. No employer will want to take on a risk - there is no economic value whatsoever in wrongly placing people in the benefits system.


Claimants will just go round and round in the appeals system as a number until the right decision is made. You can see how the statistics show no savings are being made. It is also worth noting that Government continually manipulates the appeal figures to hide the problem of escalating numbers. The Tribunal president in his 2012 report predicts 644,000 benefit appeals per year - we are hurtling towards such a figure when you start to look at the numbers of cases outstanding with HMCTS Tribunals & those awaiting assessment within the DWP.


The long and short of it is that despite government's massive reassessment programme with those on incapacity benefits they are fighting a problem which goes back to a welfare wilderness created in the 1980's, that's when 2.6 million were really 'parked on the sick'. Waging war on welfare isn't the answer - the solution is to constructively engage with those who can argue their client's cases properly so that claimants are correctly placed in the reassessment programme. It's to no-one's advantage to place someone who has limitations in the dole queue; they need support to help them in to work.


Government tells you it delivers contracts upon a 'payment by results model' - it's how welfare specialists are paid. We get paid at the closure of the case our fixed fee of £150 often after months of hard work and hours spent helping our clients through an overly bureaucratic benefits & appeal system. We are getting the results but the government doesn't like them despite them being considerably more impressive that those seen in the Work Programme. Government will tell you Universal Credit is the answer - it isn't - click here and see for yourself.


Government will happily pay a start fee of between £400 to £600 just to 'attach' a claimant to a Work Programme; yet we can all see it is not working. You can view the Work Programme figures here and see how they compare with appeal costs.


It is nothing short of absurd to suggest that there is no financial value in the provision of proper legal help for the most vulnerable proportion of appellants who need our help in preparing them for their appeals.


Instead of being sensible over the problem of social welfare legal aid, government has put forward a 'solution' which is totally unworkable & absolutely impractical.

Government has its head in the sand

By putting forward a useless solution

On the 17th April 2012 Ken Clarke made a promise to look at the question of what to do when appellants in welfare benefit appeals have a need of legal help. The promise followed an amendment proposal which was subsequently withdrawn by Tom Brake MP. It's a solution which provides no remedy to the presenting problem and which is a million miles from when the question was debated back in the House of Commons in April of this year.

You can read the full debate here.

You can read how strongly peers voted for legal aid in the first - tier tribunal here.

You can read how why the amendment made sense and read the shamed reasons which the House of Commons provided for rejecting it here..

You can give a massive thumbs down to a totally useless solution.

Which will reduce legal aid from over 100,000 benefit cases..

To just 692 cases when nearly half a million are appealing!.

Legal Aid via procedural rule 39 is totally impractical - Ken Clarke has totally misunderstood the rules which he says just needs 'general' advice!.

Support Lord Bach's move to decline to approve this dreadful legislation!.

Citizens Advice Briefing.

Young Legal Aid Lawyer briefing link.

[nickd]

In the winding up stages of LASPO Ken Clarke promised a serious look at how to resolve what he saw as 'points of law' cases in the First Tier Tribunal which could be funded by legal aid.


It followed hours of debate in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.


Prior to Ken Clarke's meaningless promise Tom Brake (Liberal) & others had put forward an amendment to the Commons which he subsequently withdrew.


After months of waiting the coalition has come up with a solution which is useless to an escalating problem.


The problem


From 1st April 2013 there will be no legal aid funding for any advice centre or law centre for a welfare benefit enquiry unless it involves taking a case to the Upper Tribunal.


The Promise


Mr Clarke: I have obviously failed to make myself completely clear, so I will try again. As it stands, the Government’s amendment in lieu applies only to upper tribunals. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and others argue that something similar should be available in lower tribunals and in other cases. I have undertaken to explore whether we can find an alternative method of identifying those limited numbers of cases and getting them certified when they involve a legal principle. As the matter has been raised at this stage of the debate, we have to fall back on saying that we would use our regulation-making powers through a statutory instrument, because we could not possibly draft primary legislation to cover it in the few days that we have left.


The proposed solution


"The vast majority of Tribunal appeals do not involve points of law, but the Government said that where these could be identified by an independent person it would consider making legal aid available.


Having considered the matter carefully, the Government considers that a system of independent verification is not feasible. But it will make available, subject to merits and means tests being satisfied, legal aid in the form of advice and assistance for those welfare benefit cases in the First-tier Tribunal where the First-tier Tribunal has itself identified an error of law in its own decision."


The Motion





House of Lords Business

Monday 26 November 2012 at 2.30pm

Motions relating to Delegated Legislation

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldordpap.htm

For hearing 3rd December 2012 House of Lords

"Lord Bach to move that this House declines to approve the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012 as it does not fulfil the undertaking given by Her Majesty’s Government on 17 April; and will mean claimants, including a disproportionate number of disabled people, will not receive legal help on a point of law in first-tier tribunals relating to welfare benefits thus denying them a fair hearing on point of law cases."

[nickd]

A massive thumbs down

To a useless piece of legislation!

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT


Tuesday 18 September 2012


MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

[/size]


Legal Aid Reform

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Jeremy
Wright):


During Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, the Government undertook (17 April 2012: Column 226) to consider whether to extend legal aid for advice and assistance to welfare benefits cases in the First-tier Tribunal where these involved a point of law.


The vast majority of Tribunal appeals do not involve points of law, but the Government said that where these could be identified by an independent person it would consider making legal aid available.


Having considered the matter carefully, the Government considers that a system of independent verification is not feasible. But it will make available, subject to merits and means tests being satisfied, legal aid in the form of advice and assistance for those welfare benefit cases in the First-tier Tribunal where the First-tier Tribunal has itself identified an error of law in its own decision.


Under tribunal rules, when the First-tier Tribunal receives an application for permission to appeal, it must first consider whether to review its own decision. The Tribunal may only undertake a review of its decision if it is satisfied that there was an error of law in the decision. If the Tribunal reviews its decision, it may invite representations from parties as part of that review. Alternatively, it may take action as a result of the review (in effect, to change its earlier decision) without first giving every party an opportunity to make representations; in that case any party that did not have an opportunity to make representations may apply for such action to be set aside and for the decision to be reviewed again.


Legal aid will be available to assist appellants in these two situations: to make representations when invited by the Tribunal, and in relation to an application for action to be set aside and for the decision to be reviewed again where representations were not sought.


We intend in due course to lay an Order under section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, for approval by each House, to reflect this position.


You can read the ministerial statement here via the Parliamentary link.

You can also read details on Hansard over the Justice announcement. The links clarifies the position on legal aid contracting for welfare benefits by the Legal Services Commission as follows:


The Legal Services Commission intends to begin a tender for welfare benefits work in 2013. The tender will cover the work described above, and advice and assistance for onward appeals on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as described in paragraph 8 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. One of the criteria for awarding contracts in this tender will be price competition.

The indicative timetable for the welfare benefits contract is:

Pre-Qualification Questionnaire Stage

February 2013

Invitation to Tender

May 2013

Contract Commencement

October 2013

Existing welfare benefit contracts are due to expire in March 2013. In order to ensure that advice and assistance will be provided for welfare benefit cases within the scope of legal aid, we will put in place appropriate interim measures from April 2013.[/i]

[nickd]

The Tribunal's procedural rules






Tribunal’s consideration of application for permission to appeal


These are the rules which a social security first -tier Tribunal is expected to follow in order to meet the overall objective set out in the legislation. Regulation 39 is the one related to Ken Clarke's 'concession'. He appears to fail to appreciate how it is subject to an application being made by any of the parties following a hearing where the applicant seeks permission to appeal; it is a pre - requisite to seeking leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In other words before the applicant can appeal directly to the Upper Tribunal they must first seek permission of the First - Tier tribunal which has the power under this rule to review its own decision. It should be read in conjunction with:

Rule 37 - 'Setting aside a decision which disposes of proceedings'

Rule 38 - 'Application for permission to appeal'

Rule 40 - 'Review of a decision'

Rule 41 - 'Power to treat an application as a different type of application'

An unassisted appellant in the first - tier is highly unlikely to recognise an error of law within the course of the proceedings and is therefore likely to make an unmeritorious application to apply for permission to appeal. The figures made available by Lord McNally show a very low number of these rulings (692 per year 2011/2012) are made in comparison with the high number of appeals - I suspect most would have been made with the assistance of a welfare benefit specialist.


___________________________________________________________________________________________


39.—(1) On receiving an application for permission to appeal the Tribunal must first consider, taking into account the overriding objective in rule 2, whether to review the decision in accordance with rule 40 (review of a decision).


(2) If the Tribunal decides not to review the decision, or reviews the decision and decides to take no action in relation to the decision, or part of it, the Tribunal must consider whether to give permission to appeal in relation to the decision or that part of it.


(3) The Tribunal must send a record of its decision to the parties as soon as practicable.


(4) If the Tribunal refuses permission to appeal it must send with the record of its decision—

(a)a statement of its reasons for such refusal; and

(b)notification of the right to make an application to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal and the time within which, and the method by which, such application must be made.


(5) The Tribunal may give permission to appeal on limited grounds, but must comply with paragraph (4) in relation to any grounds on which it has refused permission.


Link to First - Tier Tribunal (Social Security ) procedural rules

[nickd]

YLAL briefing on the regulations under LASPO coming up shortly


"Parliament debates LASPO Regs


The Government has laid new regulations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which will be debated in the House of Commons on 29 November and in the House of Lords on 3 December 2012. The Regulations introduce the new merits criteria (which will replace the current funding code) and also amend Schedule 1 of LASPO to deal with the provision of legal aid for welfare benefits work.


We are very concerned in particular about two key issues.


Judicial review


In relation to judicial review there is a very specific concern about regulation 53(b) of the draft Civil Legal Services (Merits Criteria) Regulations (these regulations will replace the current LSC Funding Code and were laid before Parliament on 29 October). Regulation 53(b) provides that legal aid will not be granted unless “the individual has exhausted all administrative appeals and other alternative procedures before bringing a public law claim.” This contrasts with the equivalent current wording which is to the effect that the individual must exhaust all reasonable alternatives to JR before funding is granted. Clearly in some cases JR is the only practical remedy and it will not be possible to exhaust all remedies. Legal aid should certainly be provided in these instances.


Welfare benefits


Members will remember that during LASPO's passage through Parliament Ken Clarke (Secretary of State at the time) confirmed that legal aid would remain available for appeals in the first-tier tribunal that raised "points of law". The regulations as currently drafted do not reflect that assurance........"


Rest at link below :

www.younglegalaidlawyers.org/LASPO_Regs_Debates


What you can do

Together with the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, we have produced a briefing for members to send to their MPs and any peers they are in contact with to ask them to attend the debates in Parliament to raise your concerns. You can download the briefing below and you can find out the details of your MP here. If you would like to help us target peers please email us [e-mail]

Briefing LASPO Merits Regulations LAPG and YLAL.pdf

www.younglegalaidlawyers.org/sites/default/files/Briefing%20LASPO%20Merits%20Regulations%20LAPG%20and%20YLAL.pdf


Read more: www.ilegal.org.uk/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=6736#ixzz2DYgJI06t

[nickd]

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat)


The following statistics were obtained from evidence questions in Parliament and relate to the total number of 'error in law' cases, of which a small percentage will result in a decision being re-made without a hearing and a larger percentage will be remitted back to another First - Tier Tribunal for re-hearing :


"The table below shows in how many appeals in the past three financial years, and in the period April to June 2012 (the most recent period for which statistics have been published), the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) has identified an error in law in its own decision under Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, and provided for a re-hearing on that basis.


"The table also shows the number of remade decisions. These occur when the judge, on reviewing the case, remakes the decision on the basis that an error of law has been made and that the matter is so straightforward that a re-hearing is not necessary.


First-tier Tribunal Appeals where an Error in Law was Identified"


Errors in Law

2009-10 - 513

2010-11 - 493

2011-12 - 692

Apr-June 2012 - 173


Remade Decisions[/b]


2009-10 - 23

2010-11 - 23

2011-12 - 22

Apr-June 2012 - 23


Re-hearing


2009-10 - 490

2010-11 - 470

2011-12 - 670

Apr-June 2012 - 150


Data is drawn from management information and include requests to the Upper tribunal via the First-tier Tribunal only: data does not include any errors in law identified by the Upper Tribunal.[/size]

[nickd]

The abolition of justice








Every number represents a person battling for justice against the state over their benefits.


103,895 benefit 'cases' needing face to face advice


They'll all be on their own from 1st April 2013...

The following numbers represent the numbers of people who organisations, including CAB, law centres, solicitors will no longer be able to help from 1st April 2013 because Government is taking this vital funding away. Check your area to see how it is affected. None of these numbers represent the 'routine' type of enquiry Ken Clarke persuaded Parliament to believe should no longer be funded by legal aid. They all represent much more complicated matters like the alarming number of benefit appeals which are soaring out of control. People very often need to go the Court to get their benefits confirmed; it stands to reason they'll need professional help from a specialist who knows what they are doing.


Ken Clarke was never too keen on telling anyone how much work is entailed in these cases and nor did he say how they are remunerated at the rate of a fixed fee of just £150 which is paid to the organisation only when the case is closed. It means cash starved agencies often need to wait for over a year because of the chronic backlog which has built up in the appeals system - even then the Legal Services Commission will often to refuse to pay for the hours of work put in to a case because before they pay up they often audit the file and refuse to pay where a signature has been photocopied or where a box hasn't been ticked...

List of all legal aid welfare benefit suppliers


(Awarded contracts 2010 - 2013 including 'consortium' contracts)

You can access details of all contracts awarded from the Legal Service Commission here. These are in the social welfare areas of Housing, Welfare Benefits and Debt advice in social welfare categories awarded to CAB, solicitors and law firms & centres.


None of these suppliers will be able to help you with a welfare benefit enquiry from the 1st April next year unless an enquiry relates to a very limited number of appeals to the Upper Tribunal. It is not known how many if any of these providers will bid for a new contract or already given up their existing one awarded in 2010.


The following information shows the maximum number of 'matter start' allocations per provider in their area with the first column showing you the numbers of clients who could be helped with a welfare benefit enquiry under legal aid funding. Contracts held by CAB are shown in brackets (CAB) and the other numbers show other 'matter start' allocations in all areas including housing, debt and the welfare benefit figure. If an organisation is in a consortium the data is annotated 'y' if they are a stand alone organisation or firm offering all 3 categories they are shown as 'n'.


Where a '0' value is shown the organisation was not awarded any welfare benefit 'matter start' allocation under the contract bid but will supply either debt or housing advice (sometimes in a consortium arrangement) as part of their service.


To access the source of the data just click on the area name (for instance 'Cambridge'). Areas are sorted by the Legal Services Commission contract office which looks after the organisations so will not necessarily be geographically linked.

Birmingham area.

2500 ------ (CAB) Birmingham CAB Service Ltd Birmingham Birmingham N/A 1800 2500 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Birmingham Birmingham N/A 1800 Y
600 ------ Birmingham Law Centre Birmingham Birmingham N/A 320 360 600 N
250 ------ The Community Law Partnership Birmingham Birmingham N/A 356 935 250 N
100 ------ McGrath & Co Solicitors Birmingham Birmingham N/A 100 100 100 N
450 ------ (CAB) Stoke on Trent CAB Birmingham City of Stoke-on-Trent N/A 730 350 450 N
350 ------ (CAB) Wolverhampton CAB Birmingham City of Wolverhampton N/A 520 150 350 N
100 ------ (CAB) Wolverhampton CAB Birmingham City of Wolverhampton N/A 100 98 100 N
100 ------ (CAB) Wolverhampton CAB Birmingham City of Wolverhampton N/A 100 98 100 N
455 ------ Coventry Law Centre Birmingham Coventry N/A 173 320 455 Y
235 ------ (CAB) Coventry CAB Birmingham Coventry N/A 247 235 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Birmingham Dudley N/A 75 Y
110 ------ (CAB) Dudley CAB Birmingham Dudley N/A 245 110 Y
110 ------ Talbots Legal Advice Centre Birmingham Dudley N/A 245 75 110 N
0 ------ (CAB) Wyre Forest Citizens Advice Bureau Birmingham Herefordshire & Worcestershire Worcestershire 400 Y
500 ------ (CAB) Worcester CAB Birmingham Herefordshire & Worcestershire Worcestershire 750 450 500 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Birmingham Sandwell N/A 150 Y
370 ------ (CAB) Sandwell CAB Ltd Birmingham Sandwell N/A 750 370 Y
200 ------ A4U Birmingham Shropshire Shropshire 75 75 200 N
300 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Shropshire Birmingham Shropshire Shropshire 326 300 Y
0 ------ TJ Legal Services Limited Birmingham Shropshire Shropshire 75 Y
250 ------ A4U Birmingham Shropshire Telford & Wrekin 73 73 250 N
290 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Shropshire Birmingham Shropshire Telford & Wrekin 315 75 290 N
280 ------ (CAB) Chelmsley Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd Birmingham Solihull N/A 143 280 Y
240 ------ (CAB) Shirley Citizens Advice Bureau Birmingham Solihull N/A 240 Y
212 ------ (CAB) East Staffordshire CAB Birmingham Staffordshire East 675 150 212 N
136 ------ (CAB) South East Staffordshire Citizens Advice Bureau Birmingham Staffordshire East 270 75 136 N
160 ------ (CAB) Stafford & Stone CAB Birmingham Staffordshire West 325 175 160 Y
0 ------ (CAB) The Chase CAB Birmingham Staffordshire West 325 Y
690 ------ (CAB) Walsall CAB Birmingham Walsall N/A 780 275 690 N
270 ------ (CAB) Bedworth and District Citizens Advice Bureau Birmingham Warwickshire Warwickshire North 590 140 270 N

9258 Total

Brighton area.

0 ------ Brighton Housing Trust Brighton East Sussex East: Hastings & Rother Districts 530 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice 1066 Brighton East Sussex East: Hastings & Rother Districts 450 Y
510 ------ Hastings Advice & Representation Unit Brighton East Sussex East: Hastings & Rother Districts 510 Y
510 ------ Brighton Housing Trust Brighton East Sussex West: Eastbourne, Lewes & Wealden Districts 530 510 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Eastbourne CAB Brighton East Sussex West: Eastbourne, Lewes & Wealden Districts 450 Y
450 ------ (CAB) Maidstone CAB Brighton Mid and South West Kent East: Ashford & Maidstone districts 650 350 450 N
131 ------ Shelter- England Brighton Mid and South West Kent East: Ashford & Maidstone districts 131 188 131 N
220 ------ Tunbridge Wells & District Citizens Advice Bureau Brighton Mid and South West Kent West: Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling & Tunbridge Wells districts 240 214 220 N
100 ------ Neves Scott Brighton North Kent and Medway N/A 100 200 100 N
305 ------ (CAB) Medway District CAB Brighton North Kent and Medway N/A 475 280 305 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Bureau in Swale Brighton North Kent and Medway N/A 300 305 Y
100 ------ Shelter- England Brighton North Kent and Medway N/A 295 750 100 N
150 ------ Blavo & Company Solicitors Brighton Surrey N/A 150 150 150 N
188 ------ Surrey Law Centre Brighton Surrey N/A 128 244 188 N
520 ------ Brighton Housing Trust Brighton The City of Brighton and Hove N/A 309 1420 520 Y
220 ------ (CAB) Brighton & Hove CAB Brighton The City of Brighton and Hove N/A 381 220 Y
155 ------ (CAB) Canterbury District CAB Brighton The Kent Coast N/A 189 155 Y
0 ------ Canterbury Housing Advice Centre Brighton The Kent Coast N/A 250 Y
475 ------ (CAB) Shepway Citizens Advice Bureau Brighton The Kent Coast N/A 434 153 475 Y
101 ------ (CAB) Thanet District Citizens Advice Bureau Brighton The Kent Coast N/A 222 101 Y
229 ------ Shelter- England Brighton The Kent Coast N/A 235 457 229 N

4,464 Total

Bristol area..

310 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Bournemouth & Poole N/A 280 610 310 N
168 ------ Avon & Bristol Community Law Centre Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 50 100 168 Y
280 ------ South West Law(Legal Services In The Community)Ltd Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 700 280 Y
380 ------ North Bristol Advice Centre Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 200 380 Y
0 ------ Bristol Debt Advice Centre Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 1104 Y
239 ------ South Bristol Advice Service Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 256 239 Y
413 ------ St Pauls Advice Centre Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset Bristol 413 Y
410 ------ (CAB) North Somerset CAB Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset South Gloucestershire & North Somerset 300 410 Y
0 ------ (CAB) South Gloucestershire CAB Bristol City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North Somerset South Gloucestershire & North Somerset 175 Y
430 ------ (CAB) Plymouth Citizens Advice Bureau Bristol City of Plymouth N/A 440 430 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol City of Plymouth N/A 850 Y
230 ------ (CAB) CAB Cornwall Bristol Cornwall & Isles of Scilly East Cornwall 430 230 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Cornwall & Isles of Scilly East Cornwall 150 Y
470 ------ (CAB) CAB Cornwall Bristol Cornwall & Isles of Scilly West Cornwall 1050 470 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Cornwall & Isles of Scilly West Cornwall 400 Y
350 ------ Bideford & District CAB Bristol Devon East, Mid North & West Devon & Torridge 790 270 350 N
220 ------ (CAB) Exeter CAB Bristol Devon Exeter 500 220 Y
180 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Devon Exeter 180 Y
510 ------ (CAB) South Hams CAB Bristol Devon South Hams, Teignbridge, Torbay 525 510 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Torbay CAB Bristol Devon South Hams, Teignbridge, Torbay 645 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Devon South Hams, Teignbridge, Torbay 410 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Dorset East Dorset 70 210 50 Y
50 ------ (CAB) Christchurch CAB Bristol Dorset East Dorset 170 50 Y
0 ------ (CAB) North Dorset CAB Bristol Dorset East Dorset 240 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Dorset West Dorset 70 150 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Dorchester & District CAB Bristol Dorset West Dorset 180 100 Y
240 ------ (CAB) Cheltenham & District CAB Bristol Gloucestershire East Gloucestershire 240 240 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Gloucestershire East Gloucestershire 220 Y
509 ------ Gloucester Law Centre Bristol Gloucestershire West Gloucestershire 241 509 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Gloucestershire West Gloucestershire 439 Y
261 ------ (CAB) Gloucester & District CAB Bristol Gloucestershire West Gloucestershire 740 261 Y
100 ------ Will Rolt Solicitors Bristol Somerset BANES & Mendip 170 360 100 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Bath & District CAB Bristol Somerset BANES & Mendip 347 100 Y
290 ------ (CAB) Mendip CAB Bristol Somerset BANES & Mendip 290 Y
132 ------ (CAB) Taunton & District CAB Bristol Somerset Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Dean and West Somerset 156 132 Y
132 ------ (CAB) Sedgemoor CAB Bristol Somerset Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Dean and West Somerset 194 132 Y
116 ------ (CAB) South Somerset CAB Bristol Somerset Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Dean and West Somerset 174 116 Y
300 ------ Shelter- England Bristol Somerset Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Dean and West Somerset 300 560 300 N
0 ------ Gareth Webb LLP Bristol Somerset Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Dean and West Somerset 55 Y
721 ------ (CAB) North Wilts CAB Bristol Wiltshire Rest of Wiltshire 475 157 721 N
59 ------ Shearer & Co Bristol Wiltshire Rest of Wiltshire 75 244 59 N
50 ------ Shearer & Co Bristol Wiltshire Swindon 50 50 50 N
780 ------ Wiltshire Law Centre Bristol Wiltshire Swindon 810 500 780 N

8,530 Total

Cambridge area.

0 ------ Luton Law Centre Cambridge Bedfordshire Bedford & Central Bedfordshire 61 Y
61 ------ (CAB) Bedford CAB Cambridge Bedfordshire Bedford & Central Bedfordshire 216 161 Y
161 ------ Noble Solicitors Cambridge Bedfordshire Bedford & Central Bedfordshire 100 100 100 N
100 ------ Luton Rights - TUC Centre Cambridge Bedfordshire Bedford & Central Bedfordshire 63 Y
108 ------ Luton Law Centre Cambridge Bedfordshire Luton 50 112 108 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Luton CAB Cambridge Bedfordshire Luton 349 100 Y
149 ------ Noble Solicitors Cambridge Bedfordshire Luton 172 74 149 N
223 ------ Luton Rights - TUC Centre Cambridge Bedfordshire Luton 267 104 223 Y
250 ------ (CAB) Cambridge CAB Cambridge Cambridgeshire Cambridge 740 180 250 N
750 ------ (CAB) Peterborough CAB Cambridge Cambridgeshire Peterborough 400 320 750 N
100 ------ Peters & Co Solicitors Cambridge Cambridgeshire Rest of Cambridgeshire 99 175 100 N
103 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 117 102 103 N
137 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 121 112 137 N
0 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 157 Y
87 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 84 87 Y
87 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 84 87 Y
248 ------ (CAB) Colchester Citizens Advice Bureau Cambridge East Essex N/A 238 248 Y
248 ------ (CAB) CAB - Tendring Cambridge East Essex N/A 238 248 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge East Essex N/A 303 Y
75 ------ Fisher Jones Greenwood LLP Cambridge East Essex N/A 157 75 Y
160 ------ (CAB) Southend-on-Sea Guild of Help & CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 175 160 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Southend-on-Sea Guild of Help & CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 75 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Southend-on-Sea Guild of Help & CAB Cambridge East Essex N/A 75 Y
160 ------ (CAB) Yare Valley & District Citizens Advice Bureau Cambridge Norfolk Great Yarmouth 100 160 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge Norfolk Great Yarmouth 130 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Cambridge Norfolk King's Lynn & West Norfolk 100 100 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge Norfolk King's Lynn & West Norfolk 130 Y
1500 ------ (CAB) Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Cambridge Norfolk Norwich 1150 1500 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge Norfolk Norwich 1000 Y
150 ------ (CAB) Norwich & West Norfolk CAB Cambridge Norfolk Rest of Norfolk 180 150 Y
150 ------ (CAB) Yare Valley & District Citizens Advice Bureau Cambridge Norfolk Rest of Norfolk 550 150 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge Norfolk Rest of Norfolk 250 Y
350 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge North Hertfordshire Rest of Hertfordshire 380 310 350 N
360 ------ (CAB) Stevenage CAB Cambridge North Hertfordshire Stevenage 390 300 360 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge South Hertfordshire Dacorum, Watford & Three Rivers 160 Y
110 ------ (CAB) Dacorum District CAB Cambridge South Hertfordshire Dacorum, Watford & Three Rivers 100 110 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Cambridge South Hertfordshire St Albans, Hertsmere & Broxbourne 160 Y
110 ------ (CAB) Dacorum District CAB Cambridge South Hertfordshire St Albans, Hertsmere & Broxbourne 100 110 Y
73 ------ (CAB) North East Suffolk CAB Cambridge Suffolk N/A 201 73 Y
132 ------ (CAB) Ipswich & District CAB Cambridge Suffolk N/A 117 132 Y
50 ------ Financial Inclusion & Advice Service Cambridge Suffolk N/A 50 117 50 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge West Essex Braintree & Uttlesford 100 120 100 N
370 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge West Essex Brentwood & Basildon 328 124 370 N
100 ------ Addison Oliver Moore Solicitors LLP Cambridge West Essex Brentwood & Basildon 100 100 100 N
0 ------ (CAB) Saxon CAB Cambridge West Essex Chelmsford 120 Y
180 ------ (CAB) Chelmsford Citizens Advice Bureau Cambridge West Essex Chelmsford 510 180 Y
220 ------ Harlow Welfare Rights & Advice Service Cambridge West Essex Harlow & Epping Forest 230 170 220 N
240 ------ (CAB) Thurrock CAB Cambridge West Essex Thurrock 620 440 240 Y

7,602 Total

Wales - Cardiff.

0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Bridgend 100 Y
160 ------ (CAB) Vale of Glamorgan Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Bridgend 120 160 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Cardiff 575 Y
465 ------ (CAB) Cardiff Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Cardiff 655 456 Y
625 ------ Riverside Advice Ltd Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Cardiff 655 625 Y
609 ------ Cardiff Law Centre Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale Cardiff 375 609 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale The Vale of Glamorgan 250 Y
420 ------ (CAB) Vale of Glamorgan Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale The Vale of Glamorgan 320 420 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Central Wales Ceredigion 100 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Cardigan and District Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Central Wales Ceredigion 220 100 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Central Wales Powys 200 Y
180 ------ (CAB) Powys Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Central Wales Powys 440 180 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Neath CAB Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 284 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 75 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 75 Y
0 ------ Jestyn Jeffreys A R Harris & Partners Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 130 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Port Talbot CAB Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 200 Y
216 ------ Neath Port Talbot Welfare Rights Unit Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Neath, Port Talbot 216 Y
650 ------ (CAB) Swansea Citizens Advice Bureau Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Swansea 540 650 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Swansea 260 Y
75 ------ Ty Arian Ltd Cardiff Neath Port Talbot and Swansea Swansea 75 75 75 N
147 ------ (CAB) Denbighshire CAB Cardiff North East Wales Denbighshire 330 147 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff North East Wales Denbighshire 250 Y
270 ------ Rhyl & District Benefit Advice Shop Cardiff North East Wales Denbighshire 270 Y
420 ------ (CAB) Flintshire CAB Cardiff North East Wales Flintshire 330 420 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff North East Wales Flintshire 250 Y
300 ------ (CAB) Wrexham & District CAB Cardiff North East Wales Wrexham 300 300 Y
0 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff North East Wales Wrexham 320 Y
170 ------ Allington Hughes Solicitors Cardiff North East Wales Wrexham 121 88 170 N
74 ------ J W Hughes & Co Cardiff North West Wales Conwy 91 74 Y
116 ------ Shelter Cymru Cardiff North West Wales Conwy 116 Y
57 ------ Rhyl & District Benefit Advice Shop Cardiff North West Wales Conwy 57 Y

5,054 Total

Leeds.

200 ------ Howells LLP Leeds Barnsley N/A 480 230 200 N
102 ------ Williscroft & Co Leeds Bradford Bradford 87 102 Y
0 ------ CHAS Housing Aid Centre Leeds Bradford Bradford 125 Y
260 ------ Keyhouse Leeds Bradford Bradford 70 260 Y
50 ------ Keyhouse Leeds Bradford Bradford 50 Y
50 ------ Keyhouse Leeds Bradford Bradford 50 Y
0 ------ Stachiw & Bashir Leeds Bradford Bradford 50 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Bradford & Airedale Citizens Advice Bureau Leeds Bradford Bradford 250 Y
0 ------ CHAS Housing Aid Centre Leeds Bradford Keighley 75 Y
290 ------ Keyhouse Leeds Bradford Keighley 120 290 Y
560 ------ (CAB) Calderdale CAB (Mid Valley Branch) Leeds Calderdale N/A 440 210 560 N
450 ------ (CAB) Doncaster CAB Leeds Doncaster N/A 340 450 Y
80 ------ The M25 Housing Group Leeds Doncaster N/A 320 80 Y
300 ------ Doncaster CVS Leeds Doncaster N/A 300 Y
200 ------ Kirklees Law Centre Leeds Kirklees Huddersfield District 200 Y
0 ------ CHAS Housing Aid Centre Leeds Kirklees Huddersfield District 570 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Kirklees Citizens Advice Leeds Kirklees Huddersfield District 320 Y
0 ------ Parker Bird Whiteley Leeds Kirklees Huddersfield District 100 Y
110 ------ Ridley & Hall Leeds Kirklees Huddersfield District 100 110 Y
220 ------ Kirklees Law Centre Leeds Kirklees North Kirklees 220 Y
0 ------ CHAS Housing Aid Centre Leeds Kirklees North Kirklees 380 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Kirklees Citizens Advice Leeds Kirklees North Kirklees 210 Y
300 ------ Harehills & Chapeltown Law Centre Leeds Leeds N/A 200 300 Y
750 ------ Henry Hyams Leeds Leeds N/A 320 750 Y
100 ------ Davies Gore Lomax Leeds Leeds N/A 100 300 100 N
220 ------ (CAB) Leeds CAB Leeds Leeds N/A 320 220 Y
210 ------ (CAB) Grimsby Cleethorpes & District CAB Leeds North East Lincolnshire & North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire 278 210 Y
0 ------ Beetenson & Gibbon Leeds North East Lincolnshire & North Lincolnshire North East Lincolnshire 192 100 Y
0 ------ Pheby & Co Leeds North Yorkshire Harrogate & Craven 100 Y
140 ------ (CAB) Harrogate Citizens Advice Bureau Leeds North Yorkshire Harrogate & Craven 180 140 Y
50 ------ Keyhouse Leeds North Yorkshire North Yorkshire Rural 50 100 50 N
50 ------ Clark Willis Leeds North Yorkshire North Yorkshire Rural 50 50 50 N
50 ------ (CAB) Scarborough & District CAB Leeds North Yorkshire Scarborough & Ryedale 50 Y
0 ------ Thorpe & Co Leeds North Yorkshire Scarborough & Ryedale 50 50 Y
0 ------ Thorpe & Co Leeds North Yorkshire Scarborough & Ryedale 50 50 Y
50 ------ Keyhouse Leeds North Yorkshire Scarborough & Ryedale 65 160 50 N
230 ------ (CAB) Selby Citizens Advice Bureau Leeds North Yorkshire York & Selby 220 230 Y
0 ------ Pheby & Co Leeds North Yorkshire York & Selby 160 Y
299 ------ Howells LLP Leeds Rotherham N/A 340 300 299 N
1310 ------ Howells LLP Leeds Sheffield N/A 760 1425 1310 N
310 ------ Castle Advice Service Leeds Sheffield N/A 167 310 Y
198 ------ (CAB) Pitsmoor Citizens Advice Bureau Leeds Sheffield N/A 175 198 Y
143 ------ Foxhill & Parson Cross Advice Service Leeds Sheffield N/A 131 143 Y
250 ------ Heeley Advice Centre Leeds Sheffield N/A 179 250 Y
0 ------ Sheffield Law Centre Leeds Sheffield N/A 450 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Sharrow Citizens Advice Bureau Leeds Sheffield N/A 370 Y
150 ------ Shelter- England Leeds Sheffield N/A 150 500 150 N

7,682 Total

Liverpool.

270 ------ (CAB) Knowsley District CAB Liverpool Knowsley Huyton, Prescot & Halewood 210 100 270 N
175 ------ (CAB) Knowsley District CAB Liverpool Knowsley Kirkby 320 100 175 Y
225 ------ Kirkby Unemployed Centre Ltd Liverpool Knowsley Kirkby 225 Y
698 ------ Jackson & Canter LLP Liverpool Liverpool N/A 569 698 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Liverpool Central CAB Liverpool Liverpool N/A 958 Y
1308 ------ Merseyside Welfare Rights Resource Centre Liverpool Liverpool N/A 147 205 1308 N
523 ------ Merseyside Welfare Rights Resource Centre Liverpool Liverpool N/A 147 205 523 N
523 ------ LSAS Head Office Liverpool Liverpool N/A 244 523 Y
523 ------ LSAS Head Office Liverpool Liverpool N/A 244 523 Y
419 ------ LSAS Head Office Liverpool Liverpool N/A 269 419 Y
720 ------ LSAS Head Office Liverpool Liverpool N/A 416 720 Y
785 ------ Linskills Liverpool Liverpool N/A 785 Y
523 ------ Local Solutions Liverpool Liverpool N/A 523 Y
247 ------ F.A.I.R Ltd Liverpool Liverpool N/A 446 362 247 N
0 ------ Debts Rescue Ltd Liverpool Liverpool N/A 587 Y
380 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Sefton Liverpool Sefton Bootle & Crosby 250 160 380 N
300 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Sefton Liverpool Sefton Southport & Formby 250 140 300 N
300 ------ Stephensons LLP Liverpool St. Helens N/A 1300 800 1200 N
1200 ------ Advocacy In Wirral Liverpool Wirral N/A 300 Y
1090 ------ (CAB) Wirral CAB Ltd-Birkenhead Liverpool Wirral N/A 1140 600 1090 Y

10,209 Total

London

165 ------ Saul Marine & Co Solicitors London Barnet N/A 100 250 165 N
75 ------ Blavo & Company Solicitors London Barnet N/A 75 225 75 N
75 ------ Scully & Sowerbutts London Barnet N/A 75 75 75 N
75 ------ Donald Galbraith & Co London Barnet N/A 75 250 75 N
75 ------ Williams & Co London Barnet N/A 100 95 75 N
75 ------ Rawal & Co London Barnet N/A 75 75 75 N
340 ------ Cross Street Law Centre London Bexley N/A 50 200 340 N
30 ------ Dorcas Funmi & Co Solicitors London Bexley N/A 50 50 50 N
100 ------ Community Law Clinic Solicitors London Brent N/A 100 100 100 N
300 ------ Brent Community Law Centre London Brent N/A 100 353 300 Y
450 ------ (CAB) Brent CAB London Brent N/A 100 303 450 Y
0 ------ Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group London Brent N/A 368 Y
576 ------ M2M Community Solicitors LLP London Brent N/A 630 495 576 N
180 ------ Streetwise Community Law Centre Ltd London Bromley N/A 150 260 180 N
100 ------ Blavo & Company Solicitors London Camden N/A 100 100 100 N
250 ------ Camden Community Law Centre London Camden N/A 200 300 250 N
110 ------ Osbornes London Camden N/A 100 200 110 N
1000 ------ Mary Ward Legal Centre London Camden N/A 590 645 1000 N
75 ------ Central London Law Centre London City of Westminster N/A 75 75 Y
180 ------ Paddington Law Centre London City of Westminster N/A 200 180 Y
75 ------ West London Law Solicitors London City of Westminster N/A 75 75 75 N
50 ------ Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre London Croydon N/A 50 50 50 Y
300 ------ Braidwood Law Practice Solicitors London Croydon N/A 542 350 300 N
50 ------ (CAB) CAB - Thornton Heath London Croydon N/A 50 Y
0 ------ Daniel Curry & Co London Croydon N/A 50 50 Y
50 ------ Grants Solicitors LLP London Croydon N/A 50 50 Y
300 ------ Polpitiya & Co Ltd London Ealing N/A 200 600 300 N
100 ------ Warnapala & Co Ltd London Ealing N/A 200 150 100 N
100 ------ West London Law Solicitors London Ealing N/A 100 100 100 N
2000 ------ Law For All - Acton Law Shop London Ealing N/A 1199 1500 2000 Y
100 ------ Blavo & Company Solicitors London Enfield N/A 117 190 100 N
65 ------ Foster & Foster London Enfield N/A 64 64 65 N
100 ------ Kimberly Wayne & Diamond Solicitors London Greenwich N/A 100 100 100 N
210 ------ Greenwich Community Law Centre London Greenwich N/A 100 118 210 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Greenwich Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd London Greenwich N/A 140 Y
0 ------ Greenwich Housing Rights London Greenwich N/A 259 Y
310 ------ Plumstead Community Law Centre London Greenwich N/A 173 310 Y
1720 ------ Duncan Lewis Solicitors London Hackney & City of London N/A 340 1250 1720 N
200 ------ Moss & Co London Hackney & City of London N/A 200 300 200 N
250 ------ Hackney Community Law Centre London Hackney & City of London N/A 100 600 250 N
600 ------ (CAB) Hackney CAB (Mare Street) London Hackney & City of London N/A 600 600 Y
100 ------ Blavo & Company Solicitors London Hackney & City of London N/A 100 100 100 N
0 ------ Shelter- England London Hackney & City of London N/A 600 Y
380 ------ Hammersmith & Fulham CAB London Hammersmith and Fulham N/A 270 380 Y
0 ------ Hammersmith And Fulham Community Law Centre London Hammersmith and Fulham N/A 300 Y
65 ------ Fahri Jacob London Haringey N/A 100 265 65 N
555 ------ Fletcher Dervish & Co London Haringey N/A 225 464 555 N
59 ------ Haringey Law Centre London Haringey N/A 54 56 59 N
53 ------ Mang & Co London Haringey N/A 52 52 53 N
640 ------ M2M Community Solicitors LLP London Harrow N/A 370 540 640 N
497 ------ (CAB) Havering CAB London Havering N/A 497 Y
0 ------ Edwards Duthie London Havering N/A 240 310 Y
160 ------ MTG Solicitors London Hillingdon N/A 150 196 160 N
200 ------ Hillingdon Law Centre London Hillingdon N/A 150 350 200 N
150 ------ West London Law Solicitors London Hounslow N/A 150 180 150 N
187 ------ (CAB) Hackney CAB (Mare Street) London Islington N/A 116 187 Y
100 ------ Islington Law Centre London Islington N/A 75 215 100 Y
120 ------ Burke Niazi Ltd London Islington N/A 75 150 120 Y
0 ------ Harter & Loveless London Islington N/A 129 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England London Islington N/A 387 Y
109 ------ Islington People's Rights London Islington N/A 99 109 Y
300 ------ North Kensington Law Centre London Kensington and Chelsea N/A 245 300 Y
299 ------ Nucleus London Kensington and Chelsea N/A 75 299 Y
0 ------ Alan Edwards & Co London Kensington and Chelsea N/A 95 Y
460 ------ (CAB) Kensington CAB London Kensington and Chelsea N/A 315 460 Y
183 ------ Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre London Kingston upon Thames & Richmond upon Thames N/A 147 161 183 N
92 ------ (CAB) Kingston CABx Service London Kingston upon Thames & Richmond upon Thames N/A 131 92 Y
155 ------ Law For All - Acton Law Shop London Kingston upon Thames & Richmond upon Thames N/A 102 140 155 Y
145 ------ Lambeth Law Centre London Lambeth N/A 120 265 145 Y
80 ------ Hansen Palomares London Lambeth N/A 215 80 Y
205 ------ Brixton Advice Centre London Lambeth N/A 140 205 205 Y
200 ------ Centre 70 Advice London Lambeth N/A 190 165 200 Y
265 ------ Clapham Community Project London Lambeth N/A 265 Y
60 ------ Duncan Lewis Solicitors London Lewisham N/A 100 60 60 N
160 ------ Lawana & Co London Lewisham N/A 90 200 160 N
0 ------ Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre London Merton & Sutton N/A 121 Y
223 ------ (CAB) Merton Citizens Advice Bureaux Ltd London Merton & Sutton N/A 352 223 Y
125 ------ Springfield Advice & Law Centre London Merton & Sutton N/A 125 75 125 N
125 ------ (CAB) Sutton Borough CAB London Merton & Sutton N/A 510 194 142 Y
142 ------ (CAB) Hackney CAB (Mare Street) London Newham N/A 381 600 Y
600 ------ Community Links London Newham N/A 381 190 600 N
250 ------ Hereward & Foster London Newham N/A 100 100 250 N
120 ------ Edwards Duthie London Newham N/A 200 1337 120 N
0 ------ Shelter- England London Newham N/A 413 Y
100 ------ Edwards Duthie London Redbridge N/A 100 540 100 N
75 ------ Morgan Hall Ltd London Redbridge N/A 75 75 75 N
120 ------ Southwark Law Centre London Southwark N/A 110 120 Y
300 ------ (CAB) Bermondsey CAB London Southwark N/A 100 300 Y
0 ------ Hartnells London Southwark N/A 100 Y
0 ------ Pierce Glynn London Southwark N/A 100 Y
100 ------ Cambridge House and Talbot London Southwark N/A 110 100 Y
290 ------ Blackfriars Advice Centre London Southwark N/A 290 140 290 Y
0 ------ Anthony Gold Solicitors London Southwark N/A 100 Y
223 ------ (CAB) Hackney CAB (Mare Street) London Tower Hamlets N/A 193 223 Y
0 ------ T V Edwards LLP London Tower Hamlets N/A 528 Y
1114 ------ Tower Hamlets Law Centre London Tower Hamlets N/A 165 945 1114 N
788 ------ Island Advice Centre London Tower Hamlets N/A 144 230 788 N
572 ------ Toynbee Hall London Tower Hamlets N/A 202 572 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England London Tower Hamlets N/A 158 Y
600 ------ (CAB) Leytonstone CAB London Waltham Forest N/A 500 600 Y
0 ------ Edwards Duthie London Waltham Forest N/A 380 Y
0 ------ Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre London Wandsworth N/A 131 Y
120 ------ Wandsworth & Merton Law Centre London Wandsworth N/A 272 120 Y
886 ------ (CAB) Battersea CAB London Wandsworth N/A 120 386 Y
403 ------ (CAB) Battersea CAB London Wandsworth N/A 289 403 Y
150 ------ Springfield Advice & Law Centre London Wandsworth N/A 100 131 150 N
0 ------ Threshold Wandsworth London Wandsworth N/A 526 Y

24,216 Total

Manchester.

900 ------ (CAB) Bolton & District CAB Manchester Bolton N/A 620 320 900 N
0 ------ Bury Law Centre Manchester Bury N/A 270 Y
390 ------ (CAB) Bury District CAB Service Manchester Bury N/A 350 390 Y
230 ------ (CAB) Cheshire East CAB North Manchester Cheshire Cheshire East 380 230 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Cheshire Cheshire East 400 Y
490 ------ (CAB) Cheshire East CAB Manchester Cheshire Cheshire East 450 490 Y
212 ------ E J Bamforth Solicitors Manchester Cheshire Cheshire West & Chester 209 178 212 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Cheshire Cheshire West & Chester 222 Y
194 ------ (CAB) Cheshire West CAB Ltd Manchester Cheshire Cheshire West & Chester 215 194 Y
131 ------ (CAB) Cheshire West CAB Ltd Manchester Cheshire Cheshire West & Chester 190 131 Y
184 ------ (CAB) Cheshire West CAB Ltd Manchester Cheshire Cheshire West & Chester 215 184 Y
0 ------ Cumbria Law Centre Manchester Cumbria Allerdale 100 Y
200 ------ (CAB) Allerdale CAB Manchester Cumbria Allerdale 180 160 200 Y
210 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Cumbria Barrow in Furness 190 280 210 N
290 ------ Cumbria Law Centre Manchester Cumbria Carlisle & Eden 250 370 290 N
0 ------ Cumbria Law Centre Manchester Cumbria Copeland 105 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Allerdale CAB Manchester Cumbria Copeland 105 Y
160 ------ (CAB) Copeland Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester Cumbria Copeland 140 160 Y
0 ------ Cumbria Rural Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester Cumbria South Lakeland 140 Y
159 ------ (CAB) South Lakeland CAB Manchester Cumbria South Lakeland 210 159 Y
430 ------ Shelter- England Manchester East Lancashire Blackburn including Darwen & Hyndburn 200 430 Y
530 ------ (CAB) Blackburn Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester East Lancashire Blackburn including Darwen & Hyndburn 390 530 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester East Lancashire Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale & Ribble Valley 250 Y
300 ------ (CAB) Blackburn Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester East Lancashire Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale & Ribble Valley 350 300 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Halton District CAB Manchester Halton & Warrington Halton 550 220 270 N
170 ------ Warrington Community Law Centre Manchester Halton & Warrington Warrington 200 100 170 N
170 ------ (CAB) Warrington Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester Halton & Warrington Warrington 264 144 170 N
242 ------ Oldham Law Centre Manchester Oldham N/A 182 242 Y
498 ------ (CAB) Oldham Metropolitan Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester Oldham N/A 210 385 498 N
0 ------ Keoghs & Nicholls Lindsell & Harris Manchester Oldham N/A 210 203 Y
0 ------ Rochdale Law Centre Manchester Rochdale N/A 200 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Rochdale CAB Manchester Rochdale N/A 495 270 Y
497 ------ (CAB) The Combined Hospitals Citizens Advice Bureaux Manchester Salford N/A 497
270 ------ (CAB) Salford CAB Manchester Salford N/A 520 470 270 Y
520 ------ Stockport Advice Manchester Stockport N/A 570 520 Y
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Stockport N/A 220 Y
410 ------ (CAB) Bolton & District CAB Manchester Tameside N/A 281 157 410 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Tameside N/A 157 Y
157 ------ (CAB) Manchester Central Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester Tameside N/A 157 157 Y
200 ------ (CAB) Trafford CABx Manchester Trafford North Trafford 250 200 Y
0 ------ Dobsons Solicitors Manchester Trafford North Trafford 250 Y
200 ------ (CAB) Trafford CABx Manchester Trafford South Trafford 250 200 Y
0 ------ Dobsons Solicitors Manchester Trafford South Trafford 250 Y
100 ------ Roland Robinsons & Fentons Manchester West Lancashire Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre 100 107 100 Y
0 ------ Barker Booth & Eastwood Manchester West Lancashire Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre 169 Y
540 ------ (CAB) Blackpool CAB Manchester West Lancashire Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre 430 540 Y
375 ------ Atkinson Cave & Stuart Manchester West Lancashire Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre 280 375 Y
290 ------ (CAB) Chorley & South Ribble CAB Manchester West Lancashire Chorley & South Ribble 460 270 290 N
151 ------ (CAB) Lancaster Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester West Lancashire Lancaster & Morecambe 240 145 151 N
149 ------ (CAB) Morecambe & Heysham CAB Manchester West Lancashire Lancaster & Morecambe 240 145 149 N
200 ------ (CAB) West Lancashire Citizens Advice Bureau Manchester West Lancashire Ormskirk & Skelmersdale 280 170 200 N
200 ------ (CAB) Preston & District Citizens Bureau Manchester West Lancashire Preston 350 200 Y
210 ------ Keoghs & Nicholls Lindsell & Harris Manchester West Lancashire Preston 210 Y
119 ------ (CAB) Wigan CAB Manchester Wigan Leigh 308 119 Y
451 ------ Stephensons LLP Manchester Wigan Leigh 302 102 451 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Wigan Leigh 108 Y
119 ------ (CAB) Wigan CAB Manchester Wigan Wigan 308 119 Y
451 ------ Stephensons LLP Manchester Wigan Wigan 302 102 451 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Manchester Wigan Wigan 108 Y

12,239 Total

Nottingham

360 ------ Nottingham Law Centre Nottingham Greater Nottingham N/A 243 543 360 Y
344 ------ French & Co Nottingham Greater Nottingham N/A 379 332 344 N
220 ------ (CAB) Nottingham Citizens Advice Bureau Nottingham Greater Nottingham N/A 281 220 Y
0 ------ Gregsons Nottingham Greater Nottingham N/A 415 Y
287 ------ St Anns Welfare Rights Advice Group Nottingham Greater Nottingham N/A 228 287 Y
310 ------ (CAB) Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau Nottingham Leicestershire & Rutland North East & North West Leicestershire & Rutland 400 310 Y
0 ------ Leicestershire Money Advice Service Nottingham Leicestershire & Rutland North East & North West Leicestershire & Rutland 230 240 Y
280 ------ Charnwood Citizens Advice Bureau Nottingham Leicestershire & Rutland South East & South West Leicestershire 365 280 Y
0 ------ Leicestershire Money Advice Service Nottingham Leicestershire & Rutland South East & South West Leicestershire 215 200 Y
0 ------ The Ringrose Law Group Nottingham Lincolnshire Boston & North Kesteven 82 Y
0 ------ The Ringrose Law Group Nottingham Lincolnshire Boston & North Kesteven 50 Y
240 ------ (CAB) Boston CAB Ltd Nottingham Lincolnshire Boston & North Kesteven 250 240 Y
220 ------ (CAB) East Lindsey CAB Nottingham Lincolnshire East Lindsey 240 190 220 N
0 ------ Burton & Co Nottingham Lincolnshire Lincoln & West Lindsey 200 Y
320 ------ (CAB) Lincoln & District CAB Ltd Nottingham Lincolnshire Lincoln & West Lindsey 340 320 Y
0 ------ The Ringrose Law Group Nottingham Lincolnshire South Holland 50 Y
120 ------ (CAB) South Holland CAB Nottingham Lincolnshire South Holland 130 120 Y
0 ------ The Ringrose Law Group Nottingham Lincolnshire South Kesteven 71 Y
190 ------ (CAB) South Kesteven CAB Nottingham Lincolnshire South Kesteven 210 190 Y
0 ------ Chesterfield Law Centre Nottingham North Derbyshire Chesterfield, Bolsover & North East Derbyshire 150 240 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Chesterfield CAB Nottingham North Derbyshire Chesterfield, Bolsover & North East Derbyshire 170 270 Y
0 ------ Chesterfield Law Centre Nottingham North Derbyshire Derbyshire Dales & High Peak 150 Y
150 ------ (CAB) High Peak CAB Nottingham North Derbyshire Derbyshire Dales & High Peak 180 150 Y
0 ------ Hopkins Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Ashfield & Mansfield 100 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Mansfield & District CAB Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Ashfield & Mansfield 500 270 Y
270 ------ Notts Unemployed Workers Cntrs Assn Ltd Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Ashfield & Mansfield 270 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Ashfield Citizens Advice Bureau Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Ashfield & Mansfield 160 Y
0 ------ Hopkins Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Bassetlaw 109 Y
270 ------ Notts Unemployed Workers Cntrs Assn Ltd Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Bassetlaw 270 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Ollerton & District CAB Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Bassetlaw 330 Y
0 ------ Hopkins Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Newark & Sherwood 109 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Ollerton & District CAB Nottingham North Nottinghamshire Newark & Sherwood 330 270 Y
350 ------ Community Law Service (Northampton and County) Nottingham Northamptonshire Corby & Kettering 170 140 350 N
1030 ------ Community Law Service (Northampton and County) Nottingham Northamptonshire Daventry, South Northamptonshire, Northampton 450 370 1030 N
141 ------ Community Law Service (Northampton and County) Nottingham Northamptonshire East Northamptonshire & Wellingborough 84 75 141 N
100 ------ Derbyshire Housing Aid Nottingham South Derbyshire N/A 200 100 100 N

6,012 Total

Reading

590 ------ Shelter- England Reading Berkshire Slough, Bracknell & Windsor & Maidenhead 560 550 590 N
440 ------ (CAB) Milton Keynes Citizens Advice Bureau Reading Buckinghamshire N/A 390 200 440 N
300 ------ Shelter- England Reading Buckinghamshire N/A 300 680 300 N
300 ------ (CAB) Rushmoor CAB Reading Hampshire North Hampshire 300 250 300 N
0 ------ Swain & Co Reading Hampshire South Hampshire 300 Y
125 ------ (CAB) New Forest Citizens Advice Bureau Reading Hampshire South Hampshire 200 125 Y
165 ------ (CAB) Eastleigh Citizens Advice Bureau Reading Hampshire South Hampshire 75 75 165 N
0 ------ (CAB) Havant & District CAB Reading Hampshire South Hampshire 260 Y
200 ------ Isle of Wight Law Centre Reading Isle of Wight N/A 350 350 200 N
65 ------ Turpin & Miller LLP Reading Oxfordshire N/A 590 840 65 Y
148 ------ (CAB) Banbury CAB Reading Oxfordshire N/A 425 148 Y

2,333 Total

Newcastle.

154 ------ (CAB) Darlington CAB Newcastle Darlington N/A 125 105 154 N
154 ------ Clark Willis Newcastle Darlington N/A 125 105 154 N
65 ------ (CAB) Sedgefield & District CAB Newcastle Durham Chester le Street, Durham City 150 65 Y
0 ------ (CAB) East Durham Citizens Advice Bureau Newcastle Durham Chester le Street, Durham City 50 Y
95 ------ (CAB) Wear Valley CAB Newcastle Durham Chester le Street, Durham City 67 95 Y
0 ------ (CAB) Derwentside CAB Newcastle Durham Chester le Street, Durham City 100 100 Y
100 ------ (CAB) Derwentside CAB Newcastle Durham Derwentside 220 100 100 N
0 ------ (CAB) Sedgefield & District CAB Newcastle Durham Easington 100 Y
100 ------ (CAB) East Durham Citizens Advice Bureau Newcastle Durham Easington 210 100 Y
50 ------ (CAB) Sedgefield & District CAB Newcastle Durham Weardale, Teesdale & Sedgefield 250 150 50 Y
115 ------ (CAB) Wear Valley CAB Newcastle Durham Weardale, Teesdale & Sedgefield 180 115 Y
360 ------ Tilly Bailey & Irvine LLP Newcastle Hartlepool N/A 340 150 360 N
340 ------ (CAB) Middlesbrough Citizens Advice Bureau Newcastle Middlesbrough N/A 400 220 340 Y
0 ------ Watson Woodhouse Newcastle Middlesbrough N/A 190 Y
100 ------ Askews Solicitors Newcastle Middlesbrough N/A 100 100 100 N
200 ------ Ben Hoare Bell LLP Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne N/A 200 200 200 N
256 ------ Shelter- England Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne N/A 124 340 256 Y
434 ------ (CAB) Newcastle CAB Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne N/A 256 434 Y
446 ------ North Tyneside CAB Newcastle North Tyneside N/A 746 446 Y
194 ------ Hadaway & Hadaway Solicitors Newcastle North Tyneside N/A 414 333 194 N
0 ------ Ben Hoare Bell LLP Newcastle North Tyneside N/A 167 Y
219 ------ Alderson Dodds Newcastle Northumberland South East Northumberland 405 121 219 N
0 ------ Shelter- England Newcastle Northumberland South East Northumberland 95 Y
104 ------ (CAB) Blyth Valley CAB Newcastle Northumberland South East Northumberland 86 104 Y
270 ------ (CAB) Berwick CAB Newcastle Northumberland North Northumberland 240 270 Y
0 ------ Row & Scott Newcastle Northumberland North Northumberland 200 Y
190 ------ Stockton & District Advice & Information Service Newcastle Redcar and Cleveland N/A 410 150 190 N
750 ------ (CAB) South Tyneside CAB Newcastle South Tyneside N/A 350 250 750 N
180 ------ Tilly Bailey & Irvine LLP Newcastle Stockton-on-Tees N/A 300 100 180 N
800 ------ Stockton & District Advice & Information Service Newcastle Stockton-on-Tees N/A 820 520 800 N
620 ------ (CAB) Citizens Advice Sunderland Newcastle Sunderland N/A 1030 380 620 Y
0 ------ Ben Hoare Bell LLP Newcastle Sunderland N/A 280 Y

6,296 Total

[nickd]

The concessionary 'promise'







4 Hansard April 17 2012 Extracts related to amendment 168



Kenneth Clarke: ..."Lords amendment 168 seeks to bring the majority of welfare benefits matters into the scope of legal aid funding. Lords amendment 169, along with Lords amendment 240 and amendment (i), tabled by my right [17 Apr 2012 : Column 224] hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to our amendments in lieu, would have similar effects, so I will discuss them together shortly.


The first point to make about Lords amendment 168 is a financial one. Even bringing advice and assistance into scope for reviews and appeals concerning all welfare benefits, which is the intention behind the amendments, could cost as much as £25 million, and we cannot afford provision in an area of relatively low priority. As I said, we will ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment 168, and we will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. In particular, this is because, in line with the principles I have set out, welfare benefits matters should not generally require specialist legal advice.


Before discussing the other issues, let us consider legal aid for advice on welfare benefits. Every Member sitting in the Chamber is used to giving advice on social security benefits, because we do it all the time, and there are other voluntary bodies that give advice, but we do not get legal aid. I suspect that in an ordinary case, where there is no issue of law and it is a matter of fact, because of the huge complexity of social security regulations, the advice given by MPs and some members of their staff can be superior to that which is available from a large number of general family solicitors, but those solicitors get legal aid. No one else gets legal aid. Legal aid should be for those cases where legal advice and expertise are required, and it should be financed by the taxpayer on legitimate grounds.


Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): In cases, of which there are many, where people seek advice from citizens advice bureaux to help them prepare a review or an initial appeal, is it not in everybody’s interests, including the Government’s, that they should be able to get some advice before going forward with their review request?


Mr Clarke: I value citizens advice bureaux as highly as the right hon. Gentleman, and ever since the Bill was introduced we have said that we will come forward with proposals to improve the support given by the Treasury. As I have said, at the time of the Budget there was an announcement, which was not much noticed at the time, of £20 million a year to be made available for voluntary advice.


For most citizens advice bureaux, legal aid is not the biggest source of their funding, and some do not get any legal aid funding at all. Their advice is very valuable general advice to people with a combination of debt, housing and every other problem; it is not specifically legal advice in most cases. Our Department is not the biggest Department that contributes to such bureaux; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has the biggest budget, for debt advice and other forms, and I think that it has ring-fenced its budget and still provides funding.


Most citizens advice bureaux have lost a lot of money because local government funding has been cut quite severely, and the Government are producing money from the Treasury to compensate in part for that, so we—not my Department; the Cabinet Office—are now distributing that £20 million to ensure that such valuable general advice is still available. What we cannot do is [17 Apr 2012 : Column 225] start inventing legal aid scope, or fail to narrow legal aid scope, as a roundabout way of maintaining funding for citizens advice bureaux, many of which do not receive legal aid funding now—giving them funding that is spent on general advice as much as on legal advice. Of course, the more we extend the scope to help the citizens advice bureaux, which are busy lobbying the House, the more we also help professional lawyers, who also qualify for all the legal aid scope that we are happily enlarging.


Yvonne Fovargue: The citizens advice bureaux that are so busy lobbying are actually lobbying on behalf of their clients. Some 77% of the funding being removed from the scope of legal aid is going not from solicitors’ firms, but from citizens advice bureaux and law centres—and from specialist legal advice. The Legal Services Commission will not provide the money, which I remind the Secretary of State is £160 for a legal aid case at the early stage of a welfare and benefits case, but it prevents the case from becoming much more expensive later.


Mr Clarke: The hon. Lady’s experience of citizens advice bureaux greatly exceeds my own, but I am pretty certain that fewer than half of such bureaux receive any legal aid funding at all. I have not sought to deny the financial problems of citizens advice bureaux, but we cannot solve them by being so generous in scope with legal aid when the issues involved in most welfare cases are not legal problems. What people require in these difficult times is general advice on a general combination of problems from which they suffer.







Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): On points of law, I welcome the concession in relation to upper tribunals and welfare benefits, but can the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government intend to ensure that all cases in which points of law are in contention, whether in the upper or lower tribunals, are funded through legal aid? If that is his intention, what will he put in place, either in the Bill or in some other way, to ensure that it happens?


Mr Clarke: My right hon. Friend anticipates the concession that I was going to explain; it is in the documents before us, and he has spotted it. Legal aid issues are usually, as everybody knows, about the factual basis of the claim or the proper application of this country’s extremely convoluted social security regulations, which I hope the current Government’s reforms, when we eventually get to a universal benefit, will greatly simplify, but most such issues are not legal. We have a tribunal system that was deliberately designed so that ordinary citizens might access it and argue their case, and when we invented all those tribunals, we went out of our way to say, “They are not courts and you don’t require lawyers, as these are places where people will argue,” but, as my right hon. Friend says, sometimes legal issues are raised in them.


The Government, in response to these debates, have tabled an amendment, which is a concession. It is Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 169 and 240, and it would make legal aid and assistance available for welfare benefits appeals on a point of law in the upper tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It would also include funding for (17 Apr 2012 : Column 226) applications for permission made to the upper tribunal, and it would also make legal representation available for welfare benefits appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court.


Most surprisingly, that Government amendment in lieu was put forward in response to the argument. We did not wish to argue that in such cases, when the whole thing is a point of law, the applicant himself or herself should be expected to represent themselves without legal assistance, so we have tried to define those cases in which legal advice should certainly be available.


My right hon. Friend’s amendment, on the face of it, goes back to the whole of business of whether we should apply legal aid for legal advice in every welfare claim, but the question that concerns him most is, “What about the ones that involve legal issues?”, and I can conceive of cases in the lower tribunals in which what is raised really is a point of law. He wants me to find some equivalent to the upper tribunal, asking, “Is there some situation in which somebody, preferably the tribunal judge, certifies that there is a point of law involved where legal aid should be available?” We do not have such a situation at the moment, and we will have to try to devise one, as there is no system for it: just as we have accepted the argument about legal issues in the upper tribunal, we could of course do so if the same thing arises in the lower.


We will go away and work on the matter. We already have discussions under way with the Department for Work and Pensions, whose help we will also require, to see whether we could have some equivalent—whereby somebody other than the claimant or their lawyer certifies that a point of law is involved—and provide legal aid. I suspect that at this stage of the Bill’s passage through Parliament it is far too late to start introducing primary legislation in the House of Lords, but we have retained for ourselves powers to amend the scoping through regulation, so if we could solve the problem, we could bring something forward through statutory instruments. We are quite open to the argument for ensuring that we have legal representation when there is a legal issue that we cannot expect a lay person ordinarily to argue.


Mr Llwyd: I follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s logic on that, but surely if the point of law is a good one in the upper tribunal and all the way up to the Supreme Court, it is equally good in the first tier, but if the case is unrepresented in the first tier, it is not going to go anywhere else.


Mr Clarke: I should like to see whether we can devise, with the help of the DWP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and anybody else, a system whereby we identify in the lower tribunal such issues that involve a legal issue. We think that the number is comparatively small, because it is not the business of lower tribunals normally to find themselves arguing points of law, as they normally argue points of fact and of regulatory interpretation, but we will work on the matter, and if we can devise such a system, we undertake to respond as my right hon. Friend asks me to.


Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is being very helpful, and my constituents are absolutely not bothered whether this is a primary or secondary legislation matter, as they just want to know that they will have the (17 Apr 2012 : Column 227) support that he talks about. May I, however, clarify two things? Will any such measure apply to a matter of law and to judicial review when there is a proper matter of law—and, in those cases, not just to social security but throughout the tribunals service? When the agency turns down somebody’s application and that person wins their appeal to the tribunal, there absolutely has to be a parity of arms at a further stage of appeal if the state appeals again. The applicant is there not because they want to be there, but because the state or the agency has sent them there.


Mr Clarke: On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I can assure him that we are continuing legal aid in all cases involving judicial review, so legal aid is available to someone who is trying to have a welfare decision judicially reviewed. That applies to every kind of judicial review, because we do not think that the Government or a public body should be resisting a claim about abuse of their powers from a litigant who cannot get legal advice. This is not an easy concession to make, because quite a lot of people who seek judicial review are not instantly popular with all sections of society, but we still give them legal aid.


On the other matter involving situations in which the state is busily arguing against a successful appellant that some kind of law is involved, I will add that to the list of things that we are studying with the DWP to try to identify whether, in cases where the state thinks that it is worth arguing about the interpretation of something, the litigant should be able to do so as well.


Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I am listening to my right hon. and learned Friend’s arguments with great care, but I am still puzzled about the unavoidable problem of the ability to work out what is a legal issue as opposed to a merely factual one. Fact management and legal issues often come hand in hand, and they are often best handled by a lawyer. I worry that we are making an artificial distinction, and that if, as he is suggesting, we are to rethink a number of issues raised by Members of the House, we should rethink this one too.


Mr Clarke: Of course there can be borderline cases, but, with great respect to my hon. Friend, in the vast majority of cases it is fairly obvious whether one is arguing a point of fact or a point of law. In an ordinary welfare case, the question will be whether someone is fit for work or not fit for work, or living or not living at a particular address. When a point of law arises whereby it is not a question of the complexity of the regulations but of the actual meaning of the regulations, somebody like a tribunal judge will know that instantly and think, “That is quite an interesting point of law that I’ve not had before; this will go to the upper tribunal and I will certify that it would be rather nice to have some guidance.” In the end, we have to leave it to tribunals themselves to decide on the facts. Some may be blurred, but by and large, in the vast majority of cases, they will be reasonably clear.


Andrew George (St Ives) (LD) rose —

Glenda Jackson rose —

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) rose—

17 Apr 2012 : Column 228

Mr Clarke: I will give way once more and then I must get on; otherwise I will take up all the time available myself.


Andrew George: Further to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), does the scope of the Secretary of State’s amendment exclude lower-tier tribunals, or can it be interpreted in such a manner that lower-tier tribunal appeals that are brought forward on the basis of evidence relating to a matter of law and then taken to an upper-tier tribunal might be included without the need for further regulations?


Mr Clarke: I have obviously failed to make myself completely clear, so I will try again. As it stands, the Government’s amendment in lieu applies only to upper tribunals. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and others argue that something similar should be available in lower tribunals and in other cases. I have undertaken to explore whether we can find an alternative method of identifying those limited numbers of cases and getting them certified when they involve a legal principle. As the matter has been raised at this stage of the debate, we have to fall back on saying that we would use our regulation-making powers through a statutory instrument, because we could not possibly draft primary legislation to cover it in the few days that we have left.


Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): Before the Secretary of State moves on, may I ask him to give us a time scale?


Mr Clarke: The amendment was tabled only at 6 o’clock yesterday evening, so we have moved quite quickly to get to where we are now. I suspect that the relevant officials at the DWP have not yet even been involved in discussing this. I cannot give a time scale, but we will move as rapidly as possible.


Glenda Jackson: The Lord Chancellor referred to a majority of cases. Citizens Advice says that the proportion of appeals that are upheld in work capability assessment cases, for example, rises from 40% to 90% when a legal adviser is involved. I am not saying that it will necessarily be about a point of law, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but there are occasions when a legal mind can clarify the situation. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor understands who the people are who go to appeal. He said that in domestic violence cases, they go to a solicitor. None of my constituents in that situation has a solicitor; they go to the CAB or to a law centre, many of which, in my constituency, are in grave danger of having their ability to provide those services reduced—


Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. The hon. Lady has had a good go at intervening three times. Could interventions please be shorter, because we have to get in a lot of other speakers who want to make points?

6.45 pm

Mr Clarke: The cases that the hon. Lady mentions do not depend on a lawyer. When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was sitting behind her in the previous debate, he said that in (17 Apr 2012 : Column 229) his experience as an MP, when one discusses the matter with somebody, one gets clarity on what the real point is and how they should present it. A general adviser can help to sort somebody out in going along to argue their case by telling them what is relevant and what is not and giving them some guidance on what they should get evidence of in order to pursue their claim. That is not the same as legal aid. That is why we are producing the money for Citizens Advice and other voluntary bodies to give general advice. It is no good claiming that it is all about legal aid. Some lawyers are better at this than others. Just a friend who is a good advocate can be adequate in marshalling a case that is being argued on appeal about a question of fact as to whether, say, somebody is able to go back to work.


Helen Goodman rose—


Mr Clarke: I give way for the last time.


Helen Goodman: It would help the House if the Secretary of State could tell us what he means by a point of law. Does he mean that it is a disagreement about the proper interpretation of the rules, or does he accept that it might be about whether the rules have been properly interpreted, which is not a dispute about facts?


Mr Clarke: It would be reckless of me to try off the cuff to make a tight definition of a point of law. It is about a situation where a particular question arises out of the interpretation of a regulation and there is no clear and binding precedent for exactly what the law should be when it comes to applying it to the set of facts involved, and it is then up to the tribunal judge to decide. Following the concessions that I have introduced about upper tribunal and Court of Appeal cases, the judge will certify that a point of law is involved in a case because he thinks that it is one in which the guidance of the upper tribunal or the Court of Appeal is required on what exactly the law will say that it means. That is what is meant by a point of law. We have made considerable concessions. No one is arguing about the vulnerability of groups of people who are arguing about their welfare benefits. The Bill is about how much money the taxpayer pays to how many lawyers. We are trying to concentrate on spending that money on paying lawyers for cases in which a lawyer is required to sort out a welfare benefit dispute. That is the basis on which our amendments were produced.

__________________________________________________

Fact v law

__________________________________________________




Brake backs down



Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a strong point that legal aid lawyers need to be available to provide legal aid advice. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is the case.


I would welcome some clarification about the timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is no longer in his place, intervened to ask for clarity about the timetable for reaching a conclusion on identifying lower tribunal cases that involve points of law and on how the certification process would work. I look forward to seeing how that will be resolved. I accept that the Justice Secretary’s proposal will not address all the complex welfare benefit cases to which Citizens Advice has referred. It has confirmed to me that it is working on some cases of general advice that are funded through legal aid. It acknowledges that there are already cases where there is no requirement for the work to be legally aided, or legal aid funded, in order for it to be completed.


Members may have looked at some of the case studies in the briefing from Citizens Advice, “Out of scope, out of mind”. For example, there is the Kelly case where her care needs were set out in detail in a three-page letter to the DWP appeals officer, but it was not immediately clear to me that there was a requirement for legal aid to write that particular letter, as it was suggested there was in the briefing. It acknowledges that there are cases where the issues are more about general advice, so the additional Government funding—the extra £20 million, or the £16.8 million this year, and the £20 million next year and thereafter—is welcome.


Of course I acknowledge that local authorities are cutting funding to their citizens advice bureaux, but I would ask all Members what pressure they are putting on their local authorities, which can make choices. It is clear that some have chosen to continue funding for their CABs, while others have chosen not to. Local authorities have some options on where to make the cuts. If some choose to support their CABs, which I welcome, others are choosing not to, which I regret.


Simon Hughes: I hope I am not pre-empting my right hon. Friend’s argument, but the other thing the Justice Secretary said that was welcome in respect of this part of the Bill was the commitment he gave that judicial review cases would be covered by legal aid. They are exactly the cases that people were most worried that there would be no support for. Here, legal aid is clearly necessary.


7.45 pm


Tom Brake: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and for putting on the record the fact that the Justice Secretary has made that point clear, which is welcome.


Finally, with respect to our Liberal Democrat amendment, I am satisfied with the undertakings that (17 Apr 2012 : Column 245) the Justice Secretary has given to look at points of law relating to lower tribunals, so it is not my intention to press it to the vote.


Mr Llwyd: That last comment winded me, because I fully expected the Liberals to vote on their amendment, particularly given the right hon. Gentleman’s performance in Committee—where he said absolutely nothing during the entire Committee stage.


I must say to the Lord Chancellor that I accept and am grateful for how he has moved on the definition of domestic violence, which is most welcome. On the gateway, things have greatly improved, too. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is greatly experienced in these matters, has made her speech, so I can curtail what I had intended to say. Suffice it to say that I think three years might be better than the two-year limit, but two years is still an improvement. In any event, this represents a great improvement on where we were just a few weeks ago—certainly a vast improvement on where we were in Committee. I hope that this will be a far fairer regime on domestic violence and on assisting the most needy in society.


As to the welfare benefit cases, the Government have now accepted the relevant amendment. Again, it is an improvement, but there is a lack of logic in saying that a second tier would be covered in respect of points of law for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Let us just face the fact that the number going to those two courts will be a handful in any year, if even that. The truth is that it would be far better to extend downward to ensure that where a genuine point of law is at stake —I am not sure how exactly we are going to measure it—it is only right that something should be done at the very lowest level. Again, the cases will be few and far between.


Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have seen 200 or 300 benefit cases of various kinds before the tribunal—gratis, I have to say. It is necessary to put your ducks in a row and prove that the medical officer has been less than honest in assessing the needs of the individual. We heard one glaring example from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) earlier and I could provide many more. As I have said in this place before, the system is wrong because the people who do the tests are most keen on getting them through in 25 minutes and picking up their cheque—and that is that. I have seen some abominable cases. I remember one case in which a young lad was invalided out of the Air Force, having lost a leg and badly damaged a shoulder. He was alleged to be able to walk 100 metres in the given short space of time. That was absolute nonsense. He went to appeal, and in 10 minutes the tribunal said yes.


There are some cases where points of law are relevant. They are few and far between. The Justice Secretary said this evening that he will look to provide some cover there, and it is particularly important to include any points of law that arise lower down, as it were.


www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120417/debtext/120417-0003.htm

[nickd]

Cost of benefits Legal Aid

The cost is small change from the legal aid budget

But it makes a big difference

In the Legal Aid debates we were constantly reminded how the legal aid bill had grown to £2.1 billion per year to cover the cost of both civil and criminal legal aid of which the tax payer foots the bill at a rate of £39 per year (per head of population. It's highly misleading to talk in cash terms without having some idea of the true cost of social welfare legal aid in welfare benefit cases.


So let us take a look at the true cost:


With a reported allocation of 103,895 welfare benefit cases (these relate to face to face advice) in 2010 the initial costs would have been:

103,895 * Fixed fee of £167 per case = £17,350,465 (17.5 million)

However with effect from October 2011 the Ministry of Justice slashed the fixed fee from £167 to £150 per case.

103,895 * Fixed fee of £150 per case = £15,584,250

The Ministry of Justice also acted on a number of providers who were not 'delivering' on their contracts by reducing the numbers of cases which were initially allocated. The Ministry of Justice will not inform you how agencies were struggling with reduced staff and having to very carefully what they could charge for as 'one matter'. In real terms if a client came in about say an income support dispute, they would also expect you to deal with a whole variety of other matters such as their Housing & Council Tax Benefit as well as a multitude of other issues which you could only claim under one case. In practice you would need to wait and see how the file progressed and only be able to open another new matter if it became an appeal in its right. It would probably account for around a 10% reduction on the overall number of 'matters' even though the number of enquiries with he same matter had increased.

So let's subtract 10% from £15,584,250 - £1,558,425

= £14,025,825 (£14 M)

In addition to which the Legal Services Commission has conducted a 'financial stewardship' exercise where fixed fees are deducted in cases where it is found that evidence of the client's income is not on the file, where something as trivial as a photocopied signature is on the Legal Aid application form (where two relate to the same data and the original is copied) and in cases where the overly bureaucratic rules do not allow a provider to claim a fixed fee of £150 on two matters where the commission deem it should have been dealt with as one. A typical example would be a client asking for legal assistance with their benefit application, then a review of a disallowed decision, then dealing with an appeal to the first - tier tribunal and then if the need arises an appeal to the upper tribunal - the commission would say this should all be dealt with under 'one matter'.


The Ministry of Justice has applied these punitive sanctions and the financial 'claw back' will account for a significant reduction in the overall welfare benefit legal aid bill. The same department concedes to being unable to collect millions of pounds from wealthy defendants who are convicted with untraceable assets.


The overall legal aid benefit bill is therefore likely to be well below Ken Clarke's quoted £25 million in the debate stages. To quote:


"Even bringing advice and assistance into scope for reviews and appeals concerning all welfare benefits, which is the intention behind the amendments, could cost as much as £25 million, and we cannot afford provision in an area of relatively low priority."

[nickd]

A few final words

As it stands the concession offered by Ken Clarke is next to useless, I genuinely think it is an absurd solution to a very real problem; - the problem being we have thousands in need of help with their benefit appeals. There are not or rather should not be straightforward appeals. Even a relatively straightforward ESA appeal is potentially littered with legal issues because it's relatively new and untested legislation with a distinct lack of case law upon which to refer to binding precedent.


If anyone says an ESA appeal is as straightforward as portrayed in the Ministry of Justices' (now withdrawn) 'self - help' video I have to conclude they cannot be doing it correctly. If you are simply checking off the answers provided by the claimant in their self - assessed ESA 50 questionnaire then you are neglecting a duty to apply the statutory test.


The claimant needs to be probed very carefully in order to work out which ones apply; it can require a lot of invasion in to their often very private lives. In many cases there will be a distinct lack of medical evidence simply because for years the DWP will not have required a claimant to see their doctor, the process of assessment will have been left to the DWP. It means filling in a void of a fair number of years in many cases and I would routinely call for evidence relating to any records held by the GP or DWP to get some insight into what are all too often the real barriers to work. You can judge people who drink or take drugs but the real challenge is to leave judgements to one side and ask; why?


What you will hear time and time again are harrowing accounts of how people have flitted in and out of work sporadically for years, they've often not done well at schools, you ask why? - they tell you because they were hardly ever there: again you ask - why? You will hear accounts of how they suffered at the hands of often physically abusive parents, often drunk - in trouble - on drugs - it all rubs off on those that were once young. They sometimes shadow what they fear and take to all the things which have made their lives 'dysfunctional'. It surprises me how often sexual abuse comes up - in a fair number of cases from the age of 4 or 5. These are people who live with secrets and learn to keep quiet for fear of reprisal. Unsurprisingly drink and drugs take them away from memories which taunt them.


The ones who take cannabis in their early teens all too often end up fuddled; I'm not sure what it is about the stuff but when taken regularly it nearly always seems to bring with it a history of psychosis and paranoia. I get them in the office believing there's someone else in the room, there isn't of course but they don't see things clearly. Not all my clients are like this, others come in having led perfectly 'normal' lives until something like a serious car smash turns their life completely up side down. You pick up trends, those in the caring, building and haulage world of work will often present with the much scoffed at 'bad back'. A fair few have held down professional jobs only to end up getting completely stressed by it to a point that they just go in to 'melt down'.


Some are overweight, some are distinctly underweight, broken relationships and the loss of a loved one take their toll on their hearts. If not broken emotionally they end up being damaged arterially. They go from being 'providers' and 'breadwinners' to broken by having to rely on the state.


Many of course do have severe illnesses and yet this 'tar all with the same brush' approach brings their claim in to disrepute. Let's not kid ourselves - we are a nation of accusers and everyone loves to accuse the benefit cheat - they're an easy target.


Many of those I see (and it's a good number I can tell you) were conveniently cast adrift and thrown in to the welfare wilderness. Politicians on one side say 'it's all Labour's fault' but I don't buy it - sorry to break it to you but the Tories really did create the welfare wilderness. What sickens me most is how they were all left there as an unforgotten but convenient 'lost' figure - highly helpful to those trying to hide the real numbers left 'on the dole'.


But now they are being flushed out from the wilderness, labelled a fraud by the majority and now having to beg for mercy in the indignity of a courtroom. Not a cosy chat room like a doctor's surgery, a proper court, a County Court, A Magistrates' Court or a Tribunal room made to look like a courtroom. People who've had the life knocked out of them have next to zero confidence. They come in with their heads held down & their eyes looking down at the floor.


It's our job to help them through an ordeal which starts with the dreaded manilla envelope effectively saying 'I am sorry to tell you but we think your'e faking it'. Our job is to empower them to face the rigours of baring their soul. The last thing these people need is to be on their own as the State wages war on the poor.


I hasten to add we are not their to accompany and befriend them; our job is to professionally represent them by empowerment against the ridiculous decisions of the State.


They come out of as more confident and say 'I could never have got through it without you'. You feel humbled but at the same time you know that what they are saying is the truth of this.


Ken Clarke should be ashamed of himself for proposing this ludicrous solution; - it's nothing more than a deliberate attempt at completely isolating the forgotten in to any prospect of getting proper justice. It's just another way of kicking the poorest in society in to what government no doubt call 'compliance' - this is no way to correctly place people in our benefits system.


This is no time to abolish a state funded right to challenge your accuser - no government is progressive unless it gets a better grip on the age old principles of affording its citizens some form social justice.


Resist this ghastly piece of legislation with all your might is my plea to any peer with a conscience - reject this by refusing to approve it.


Thank you to those that do what's right.

[nickd]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20588876

www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/about_us_main/LSC-Stats-Pack-2011-2012.pdf

www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/about_us_main/LSC_AnnualReport_2011-12.pdf