Law Centre fights back against the LSC

South Manchester Law Centre was claiming victory this week in the first round of its legal battle against the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to stay open.

The Law Centre, which is under threat of closure after having cash withdrawn from it by the LSC and Manchester City Council, brought a judicial review claim against the LSC to challenge its decision to withdraw the bulk of the Law Centre’s funding for immigration work. The judge in the case, after a day of legal argument on Monday, ruled that two key elements in the tendering process under which the LSC awarded the contracts for the work could be illegal and that the case should proceed to a full hearing. The Law Centre expects the case to be heard early next month.

Paul Morris from the Law Centre told LAG, 'The ruling throws into doubt the LSC’s entire national immigration and asylum legal aid contract. The judge said that he believed the winner takes all approach to the contracts in Manchester was irrational.'

The case will turn on the criteria adopted by the LSC to select between the different organisations applying for contracts. The LSC adopted criteria which, according to Morris, were unfair: 'The successful bidder scored a crucial single point more than the other providers just for putting in an application for level three accreditation. This accreditation has no practical value as it is of no help to clients.'

The LSC brought up a QC from London to present its case while the Law Centre had to rely on barristers from Manchester chambers Kenworthy's, working for no fee, to present its case. The Law Centre has had other support in its campaign to stay open. Actress Julie Hesmondhalgh, who plays Hayley Cropper in Coronation Street, turned out to join a demonstration outside the court to support the Law Centre. They were joined by supporters of Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, which is facing similar cuts after losing out in the tender bid round.

'We are delighted with this result especially given the LSC, at public expense, sent one of the country’s leading QCs from London to argue its case. For a small community-based organisation such as ours to win in the High Court is a substantial achievement,' said Morris.

All of the immigration law providers who lost out in the tender round will be following what happens in Manchester closely. Like the Law Centre, many are not convinced that the level three criterion adds anything to client services and argue it penalises smaller organisations, which provide good quality services, but which do not have the resources to invest in acquiring the accreditation.

Image: South Manchester Law Centre

More immigration advice providers could close

LAG has learnt that only 252 out of over 400 applicants were successful in their bids for immigration and asylum contracts from the Legal Services Commission (LSC). Providers were told the results of the tender exercise this week. Many are also disappointed over the number of new cases, or to use the jargon new matter starts (NMS), they have been allocated. One London firm told LAG that it had been allocated less than half of the immigration cases and only 70 per cent of the asylum cases it had applied for. According to the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG), which represents both solicitor firms and not for profit legal aid providers, some of them are facing closure due to not being allocated sufficient NMS to make their services viable.

The NMS had been allocated to geographical areas and providers had applied for blocks of them. LAG estimates that between 30-40 per cent of providers have had the number of NMS allocated to them reduced. The situation is particularly severe in London as LAG understands that the LSC, which administers the legal aid system for the government, received applications for over double the number of NMS available.

An LSC spokesman told LAG that the overall number of NMS for immigration and asylum cases had not been reduced, but that in most areas they had been 'oversubscribed' for the ones available. According to the LSC, 47,744 NMS for immigration cases and 48,761 NMS for asylum cases have been awarded in the tender round. It believes that there is no right of appeal against decisions on the number of NMS allocated and providers can only appeal against a decision not to grant them a contract. The LAPG, though, is advising its members to put in appeals if they disagree with the number of NMS allocated.

LAG believes the number of applicants for the available work must have played a part in the government’s decision not to help Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ). It represented over 10,000 immigration and asylum clients a year and had been forced to call in the receivers two weeks ago due to cash flow problems caused by the change over to fixed fees for cases. Despite raising over £76,000 in a few days in an effort to save the service, Caroline Slocock, RMJ's chief executive, was forced to admit defeat, saying, 'RMJ has received the most amazing support from supporters and we were overwhelmed and touched by the offers of financial help in response to our campaign. We would like to thank everyone who has tried to save RMJ and very much regret that it has not been possible.' Unfortunately it appears that RMJ will not be the last immigration provider to go under this year.