The most recent CCA appeal is nearly in the can having taken significantly longer than anticipated. It reminds me, and not in a good way, of the drudge of finding different ways to argue against a determination of “non-chargeable administrative letter”.
Someone prophesised a return to this discredited form of assessment and true to form a client received a file request last week. It is to be hoped that this is not the case not least for my own quality of life, especially on Sunday afternoons.

Reading Contract Compliance documentation also now has a distinctly retrospective feel to it. They are of course fairly few and far between nowadays, except seemingly in Immigration, and so the feelings of despair, bewilderment and anger they engender are no longer a common experience.
I had thought that the practice was now pretty much a discredited one which was becoming obsolete under unified contract and standard fees. The attraction of 5 figure recoupments, as my current correspondents face, is seemingly however too strong for the LSC to resist.
This is a world replete with nostalgia and we can certainly do without a re-run of this appalling episode in Legal Aid history.

…it was safe to go back into the water along comes more CCA related stuff. I should not be here but now I am. Please, please, please can this be the last CCA appeal I ever have the misfortune to have to deal with.

We have just received the result of my final Cost Committee ever. As anticipated this was a success returning a Cat 1 outcome. This will give my memories of the Contract Compliance Wars a somewhat rosier glow.
The final score – we won, or rather they lost, four out of five.

I have been promising a retrospective on the Cost Committee years ever since their demise in October last year, but have held off until my final hearing. This seems finally to have happened.
On balance I will not miss this part of our work, despite the large majority of hearings being at least partly successful. There was a period during the Contract Compliance Wars, when these were so thick and fast that adrenaline took over and carried us through. That said, the daily grind of repetitive arguments began to grate and spending so much time with understandably depressed/disgruntled clients proved somewhat contagious.
Ultimately, the ever-present responsibility of running appeals which had significant, and on occasion firm threatening, recoupments at stake, sometimes running into 6 figures, which made it so draining. The occasional, and only on one occasion unsuccessful, CDS 7 appeals, generally against disallowed enhancement provided a bit of light relief.
Most CCs were friendly and receptive and I experienced less than half a dozen truly unacceptable hearings, one of which represented the very worst day of my life in JRS. (Others have reported similar experiences with the same Chairman). I could name a small bunch, less than 6, of Chairmen (they were men) who were unfit for the role, and probably a similar number with complete command of their brief and the background materials. My assessment of the latter is made regardless of the outcome for my clients. In the main, most did an adequate, if slightly timid job, generally ensuring a fair hearing. The influence of wing members was on the whole disappointing – especially when the Chairman was out of line. (There were notable exceptions to this, at least one of whom has been “punished” by not a single sitting as a new scheme adjudicator since). My main concern moving forward is that it will not be the small band of very capable members who will now be sitting as single adjudicators.
In the final analysis, I think the loss of the CC is to be mourned, if for no other reason for its transparency. As this reverts to largely considering single files for assessment, the actual cost savings of the new arrangements probably do not deliver cost benefit against that background.
That other small group of committee members who did not give my clients a fair break, and if they are reading this they will know who they are, I hope with hindsight you feel ashamed of yourselves.
Simon Pottinger

Simon Pottinger writes:
My final Cost Committee hearing last week was certainly a better one than the two previous and I will now look back on this era with a somewhat rosier glow. We confidently predict a Category 1CCA gradation as a result.
The most interesting point relates to our long standing battle to gain some leverage on the “General Findings” rules, Civil and Crime. These are the rules under which the power to affect any cash “extrapolations” and recoupments were made – often with disastrous impact upon firms. For over 2 years we have tried to get CCs to engage on this point with limited success. More often we have had met with miscomprehension, timidity and confusion, following (mis)advice from Committee Clerks or even adjournments for skeleton arguments.
On one or two occasions we did win agreement with our arguments that, initially, the CC does have the power to consider, and rule upon, the appropriateness of a General Finding. Most commonly we made these arguments where a single perverse file was “unrepresentative” of the firm

The drinks break in yesterdays Peer Review course got diverted into a consideration of the firms QPR and CMRC reports (that’s Quality Profile Report and Contract Management Review Criteria for slackers). The only adverse statistic was a high percentage bill reduction rate on their CDS 7s.
“Ah lost a couple of enhancement claims recently then”, I quipped.
“It is the first time we have ever lost an appeal on enhancement” came the response “and all since the abolition of Cost Committees”.
Is anyone having the same experience? We would like to informally monitor the situation so any experience, confirmatory or otherwise, would be gratefully received.
UPDATE
A North East firm ring to check my availability for a CC hearing. Apparently Chester are still sending out the pre-October standard appeal letter. We have advised them to reply stating that they do want to be represented before a panel!

The latest “after representations” CCA result has just been notified to us. It includes a percentage reduction of the alleged over-claim of 43% and a cost saving of

This hearing ended up adjourned – conflict of interest between panel member and my clients. Sorry that should be, predictable, or easy to spot, conflict of interest had we been notified of the panel in advance – as happens elsewhere, but by no means everywhere. Never mind this is not going to happen much any more. Except, how will conflict be monitored under the new regime? In the one we’ve seen adjudicated to date we do not know who the “cost judge” was. Will they start to tell us in advance like with Peer Review?
Most absurdly this arose because of the two member panel situation (hence even more common sense pressure on the LSC to disclose the committee in advance) and when I offered to go before a single member CC I was told this was not allowed, despite a single member in private being the new preferred option.
Another wasted afternoon.
Off Peer Review training today and tomorrow!

As I head to what I hope will genuinely be my penultimate Cost Committee hearing we receive the first outcome of an appeal sent to an “Independent Funding Review Adjudicator”. The result is an alarming one for those who questioned this change in procedure and the loss of the right to a hearing.
The first main concern is that the file has come back “de novo” reduced below that originally allowed on assessment. This process has of course been a key tactic used by the London RO in Immigration CCA appeals and one subject to much previous argument. We will once again attempt a point of principle this time backed up by the fact there is now a supportive case determined in the Supreme Courts Costs Office.
Secondly, and right to the heart of the changes, these new findings, made by the IFRA represent fresh points to which the firm have no right of appeal. In these circumstances they do not even have the chance to raise immediate objections during the course of the hearing. It also seems to me entirely outwith the requirements of CRIMLA 28.