It is not possible to explain, in a few words, how this both dovetails into my current world, and is completely infuriating.
I am in the middle of longer piece on related issues (which is not now going to get done today) however just for starters….
Sufficient Benefit Test Prison Law – having spent over an hour yesterday debating this, face-to-face with a perfectly reasonable LSC representative, I think the only thing we can be sure of is that there is a wide area of legitimate disagreement. In this context stating “apply the SBT” represents the chocolate tea pot of costs guidance. Here is my starting point on a recall case – “A reasonable client of moderate means would certainly pay a Lawyer to advise on how to get out of prison asap”. I know there is a second “prospects of success” leg to the test but that, as I say, my starting point and even this seems to be in dispute. Why is there not a new Prison Law section in CBAM expanding the LSC’s stance?
The Magistrates Court Single Standard Fee test. Our recent experience, evidenced by ICA determinations, has been that it is the LSC who do not understand this 3-legged test (especially the meaning of the first element) NOT the profession. In any event try reading section 6 of CBAM, and the related CRIMLA PoPs, and arriving at a simple interpretation, which can be easily applied in every case. The “Janet & John” outline provided is, frankly, worthless. Issues surrounding multiple mags SFs are about the most common question received on our FREE advice line, they cannot be summarised in three partial and badly articulated bullet points.
In any even these matters are most likely to represent legitimate and appealable costs disputes and NOT “errors” in claims.
If this communication is designed to impress the NAO, and is successful in that aim, then things are worse than I originally thought.
