All three of us seem to be involved in and around FFCCA issues today. It is a subject we have discussed before. In that link there is a helpful summery of the key question and how to avoid a nil assessment – which is central to audit success.
These questions however primarily relate to civil files and I cannot find a CDS equivalent – unless some hawk eyed reader knows better. It seems to me, having advised a number of firms that the key risk points are as follows:
Police Station
Is the work in scope and the Sufficient Benefit Test met?
Is the adviser properly accredited as per the grid at UCC B 1.1.8(2)? (Page 293 of volume 4)
Was CDS 1&2 work, such as DSS interviews, wrongly claimed as a SF?
Is the DSCC number recorded? (although there is no contractual requirement for this, justifying a nil assessment, that I can see)
On Mags cases make sure you have a rep order to file and be careful with pre order and early cover etc.
Beyond that there seems only to be the general risk of “claim splitting” SF claims in both classes though this method of assessment does not seem to be focussed on that problem.
Ring regarding any of the above for greater detail or share your experience in the comments.
We have passed our crime fixed fee audit with an A1 result. We were, however, nil assessed on our two Prison Law files as they did not pass the sufficient benefit test. We cannot see where we went wrong and will be contacting the LSC soon.
Prison Law, good point!
I think the biggest FFCC issue in relation to police station work is the declaration as to whether or not the client has received previous advice and assistance in relation to the same matter. In effect extending the cds2 declaration to PS A+A. In my view a failure to state this means a void claim due to what I think is clear contract wording.
I suspect that case splitting on PS cases will be the big issue for the LSC when they are able to compare cases allocated against cases claimed.