|
 Author | Topic: NMS reallocation exercise underway (Read 1,207 times) |
Colin Henderson
ilegal team
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2577/colinbw0.png)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 163
Location: Cumbria
|  | NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Thread Started on Nov 9, 2009, 5:10pm » | |
It never rains but it pours...
Friday brought yet another letter, this time from John Sirodcar
LSC National Accounts Director who states:
"...we are conducting an exercise that will to (sic) remove any surplus new matter starts from providers who are unlikely to use their current allocation within this schedule period (1st April 09 to 31st March 10). We will then be better able to understand if we can afford to reallocate these matters to areas where demand is highest. Our first step is to reduce allocations for those providers, whose run-rate per category is less than 95%, using matter start information from April to August 09. We have reduced allocations to reflect the number of matters likely to be opened by the end of the schedule using these run-rates."
So we have not been using our allocation of matter starts at a sufficient rate over the summer and they want to reduce our allocation down to our actual rate for that period.
Which ignores one obvious fact - clients and caseworkers tend to go on holiday during these months and performance is usually up during the bleak midwinter.
The letter suggests this reduction is non-negotiable (even tho we are due to meet our Relationship Manager shortly) and if we're not happy we must appeal centrally:
"Performance against your matter start usage is also a Key Performance Indicator in the Civil Unified Contract therefore we appreciate that you may already have had conversations with your Relationship Manager about your under-performance during Key Performance Indicator meetings, however we are now in a position where we must consistently recoup any surplus matters in order to understand if we are in a position to re-allocate any matters to areas of over-performance.
(NB - we've had no warning or discussions)
You have the right of informal review against this decision under Clause 32 of the Unified Contract Standard Terms. Should you wish to exercise this right to review, you will need to inform us within 21 days by completing the attached pro-forma and sending via email to NMSrecoupmentreviews@legalservices.gov.uk Please ensure that you provide evidence to support your reasons for review. For example if you have recently recruited a new fee earner then you could provide a copy of correspondence clearly showing the offer of employment, acceptance letter and confirmation of start date.
Whilst we will consider all requests for review those likely to be successful are where you can demonstrate that circumstances have changed significantly from when your August submission was made. Requests will be considered in the light of overall provision within a category at procurement area level, our goal being to ensure that sufficient provision exists within the procurement area (within reasonable travel time) for there to be access within that category of law. Decisions as to the outcome of the review will be made in writing within 28 days of your request. If you are disagree with the outcome, you may request a formal review of the decision, the details of which can be found within Section 32 of the Unified Contract Standard Terms"
So there. Those budgets really are tightening aren't they?
Has anyone else been similarly stripped of starts? And if so do you intend to go to appeal?
| |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male 
Posts: 74
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #1 on Nov 9, 2009, 7:40pm » | |
I asked my stand in account manager for more matter starts in welfare benefits.
He refused point blank.
I was then told to ask for an informal review.
I asked for one.
He then phoned me, and after hearing my special reasons, he refused and said I had to put in a formal request for a review.
Where is the legislation, guidance etc for such matters?
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #2 on Nov 10, 2009, 9:48am » | |
The process by which you can appeal against these kind of decisions is in the Standard Terms, at Section 32
This re-allocation exercise was promised by the LSC in this LSC news release, which Colin posted previously on ilegal:
http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/cls_news_10446.asp
I think there are two likely scenarios: (1) if the LSC want to reduce your matter start allocation because they say your run rate is less than 95%, and (2) if you want more matter starts but are being refused
The LSC won't give us what we need
Steve is in the latter position, he is presumably over-performing and wants more. If the LSC were not undertaking a re-allocation exercise then I think they would simply rely on the fact that they did not have the matters available in the category requested and/or other priorities precluded them from re-distributing what they did have. I think the LSC would have a pretty strong argument here and I don't think you would get very far with any appeal
However, it is more interesting now that the LSC have undertaken the exercise that is the subject of this thread, as presumably there may be more NMS available in the area (both subject and geographical) you work in Steve
You could follow the review procedure at Section 32 Steve or, alternatively, you could speak to the Account Manager and ask if there will be NMS available after the 'spare' NMS have been recouped from those suppliers running at less than 95%. If s/he doesn't know yet, and s/he won't, then you might want to say that you will re-submit your request when the LSC have this information - ask them to tell you when they will have it
I say that they won't know for sure yet, even though I'm sure they will have identified roughly what they can recoup by region and category, as it's up in the air and they probably know some organisations and firms will appeal. In my humble opinion, they won't reallocate until the hand has been played, the money counted and they know they are in the clear
Additionally, I am assuming also that the LSC will have fully open and explicable criteria for reallocating NMS to over-performing suppliers ie that they won't give them all to one firm or organisation in a particular region when there are two or more who are actually over-performing and who want more. I wonder where that would leave them if they didn't...
The LSC want to take it all away
This is, for all the reasons Colin points out, going to be very problematic for organisations. Yes, reconciliation action has been occurring throughout the year for under-performing organisations however, this action seems somewhat at odds with it - organisations may have had adjustments to their SMPs but this doesn't necessarily mean that they have similarly had adjustments to their NMS allocations
Looking at it the other way, irrespective of whether organisations have had already had adjustments to their SMPs for underperformance, if their NMS allocation is reduced then their SMPs will reduce proportionally as well anyway
Adjustments to SMPs are simply to ensure that the accounts with the LSC are as balanced as possible at the end of the financial year, subject to any transitional provisions of course. Adjustments to NMS allocation is quite different. Most notably, organisations know that they must comply with the Key Performance Indicator 5: Matter Start Usage, currently set at 85%, which states:
Matter Start usage is the percentage of the Matter Starts, allocated to you at the start of each Civil Office Schedule, that you have used by the end of the Contract Year (31 March). You must use at least the minimum specified percentage.
Therefore, it strikes me as odd that the Commission are talking about recouping NMS from organisations whose run rate is less than 95%. Sirodcar's letter even includes reference to KPI5, although the figure of 85% is noticeable by its absence. Shouldn't the LSC at the very least stick with the 85% as the recoupment figure, as per KPI5? I think so
Otherwise, it looks like they are on a very sticky wicket to me and appeal madness pends
Let's keep this thread going right out in the open, it would be good to see how the Commission plays this and the consequences
It would be good to hear if anyone, particularly any of the heavy hitters out there, decide to appeal, particularly on the basis of the 85 or 95% run-rate-v-KPI issue
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
wardoll
ilegal team
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4060/fionatxn7.png)
Joined: Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 98
Location: Berwick uopn Tweed
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #3 on Nov 11, 2009, 4:15pm » | |
Okay, we have had a letter now. I am only contracted as a half time worker. The letter reads just like the one quoted above, and talks of recoupment where the "run rate per category is less than 95% (my emphasis. Then we have the table indicating our run rate/current allocation etc. My category is running at 95% (again my emphasis). This is clearly not less than 95%! As I am only half a contract (reminds me of half man half biscuit!) we are ultimately lokoing at 7 NMS being "recouped" - but that is £1400 for this tiny, running pretty much on a deficit budget all year round most years anyway CAB, and it is for us a meaningful sum of money. So we are going to appeal this decision - on the grounds of changing circumstances since August 09 (a quick look at our run-rate since then has us over 100% I think - I will have to check that again) btu also the fact that we are not running at less than 95%. And the time taken could have been at least one more NMS...
|
"In modern thought, if not in fact, nothing is that doesn't act. So is that reckoned wisdom which, describes the scratch but not the itch? (h3o)" |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #4 on Nov 12, 2009, 3:24pm » | |
How to muddy the water.
So I told my stand id account manager that I would wait until the LSC had conducter their review of matter start allocation before reqesting further matter starts and sent him the link to http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/cls_news_10446.asp
This is his reply
"We will not conduct such a review until you formally request us to, together with your reasons for why you require an increase. Obviously if that is what you want to do, we will contact you when the review has taken place.
Kind Regards"
Have I missed something here?
Does this mean that their earlier post on their website mean that they will not conduct a review into matter start allocation until someone reqests an increase in matter starts?
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #5 on Nov 12, 2009, 3:51pm » | |
@ steveharnden:
I'm confused with what's happening here. The piece you referred him to includes this:
"Once this is completed we will be better able to understand if we can afford to reallocate these matters to areas where demand is highest. At the same we will continue to consider individual requests for modest increases from providers who are at imminent risk of exceeding their contracted amount."
I think you both might be at cross purposes regarding what you mean by 'review'. He would have to review the situation whenever anyone asks for more NMS to see if any were available. This is different from what I think you have said to him, which is that you will wait until the water has cleared following their recapture of the unused NMS
From his response, it seems that he is agreeing with you that the reason he can't decide on allocating now is because they haven't finished the recapture of the unused NMS. Is this correct? You might want to confirm this with him if you are "at imminent risk" as much can get lost in translation
@ wardoll:
The letter from Sirodcar clearly states:
"...whose run-rate per category is less than 95%, using matter start information from April to August 09. We have reduced allocations to reflect the number of matters likely to be opened by the end of the schedule using these run-rates."
If the letter you have got shows you at 95% then I would be on the 'phone to everyone and their uncle asking what the hell is going on before sitting down and writing out an appeal. How about ringing Claire at CitA and asking she speak to the LSC about this? It's clearly at odds with the letter and may just be down to a bit of over enthusiasm on the part of your account manager. It should be something your network rep should be sorting out on your behalf - I don't think anyone envisaged recouping such a nominal amount of NMS
Thinking about it, it might have made sense if the LSC had set a lower limit in terms of how many NMS should be recouped, it might stop things like this happening, which run the risk of being seen as ludicrous
Generally, I'm still unhappy with the 95% figure anyway. The whole thing strikes me as a hit and run. Even ASA weren't told that the LSC were going to set the figure so high, I think they too assumed it would be set at the 85% KPI
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
marya
Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #6 on Nov 13, 2009, 2:17pm » | |
We have had a letter from John Sirodcar, National Accounts Director, informing us that our Debt Matter Starts will be reduced by 25%. This relates to £12,000 pa. We are currently performing at 98% of target. We dipped for a short period in the summer due to a change in staff. We have the full support of our Account Manager but we will still have to go through the appeals process. John Sirodcar told me that 3000 agencies nationally have had Matter Start reductions. These decisions are being taken on the basis of out of date information and without reference to the Account Manager, as I understand it.
| |
|
wardoll
ilegal team
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 98
Location: Berwick uopn Tweed
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #7 on Nov 24, 2009, 2:29pm » | |
I got my 7 NMS back. No formal review, no apology, no comment. And there I was hoping for a quiet week sometime!
|
"In modern thought, if not in fact, nothing is that doesn't act. So is that reckoned wisdom which, describes the scratch but not the itch? (h3o)" |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #8 on Nov 25, 2009, 8:24am » | |
Can we assume then, that the LSC have completed this exercise?
My account manager is off sick, there is someone deputising, but they don't seem to know anything.
Can anybody contact the top of the LSC to find out what is happening.
I can then plan for my christmas party
| |
|
yvonnef
Consistent Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Gender: Female 
Posts: 9
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #9 on Nov 25, 2009, 12:00pm » | |
Our letter came today with a recoupment from our half housing contract running at 80% due to usual hols/sickness in this period, so don't party yet!
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #10 on Nov 26, 2009, 10:43am » | |
I'm glad you got your 7 NMS back wardoll. Common sense, if not courtesy, must have prevailed
One thing I would suggest here is that organisations who want to appeal take into account the fact that the figures the LSC is using will most likely not be up to date. I haven't seen your individual letters of course, but usually the LSC works with information which is 2 months out of date ie if they were looking at your performance to the end of November (which would include your November submission) then they would usually be using figures up to the end of September. Check your letters
This may allow you to explain to the Commission that if they are going to consider making a NMS reduction that it should be on the most recent figures, which may be to your advantage assuming your % performance improved taking the most recent month's figures into account
I was speaking to one organisation earlier today who told me they were very annoyed by this whole 'exercise'. They told me that if they had known the LSC was anticipating doing this then they would have rearranged their holidays through the August period, which even the Commission accepts is the quieter time of the year in performance terms
Amongst other things, this lack of notice and the fact that some are viewing it as effectively a recoupment of monies on terms not described within the Contract or any relevant reconciliation protocol isn't doing the Commission any favours
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #11 on Nov 26, 2009, 6:37pm » | |
Assuming Sirodcar's letter is correct, make that NMS performance information from April to August, not Sept as I said earlier - even older info then
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #12 on Dec 1, 2009, 3:51pm » | |
Ok listen up folks.......
We have had the recoupment. But....because the data they used is so old, its now meant that we have completely run out of NMS in 3 subject areas in one of our offices! So - appeal is being drafted, any guess how long that is going to take?
We are going to put in a request for NMS tommorrow as we are unclear as to whther we will be paid for any work thats being done now. Man alive!
Rich
| |
|
jeffrey
Forum Supporter
member is offline
Joined: Sept 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #13 on Dec 1, 2009, 6:57pm » | |
We have similar letters for both Debt & Welfare Benefits. We are below 95% for debt due to staff absence and running at 98% of target fro welfare Benefits. I filled in the review form with a list of annual leave taken plus our increased targets in months where no leave taken and they have given back all our NMS. Seemed a fairly easy process for an informal review.
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #14 on Dec 2, 2009, 8:25am » | |
Jeffrey's post sounds promising. If the informal review is working then maybe it's not too turning out too bad?
Has anyone else got it sorted out at the informal review stage (using the pro-forma attached to the letter)?
Rich's situation is more problematic however. I spoke to another organisation yesterday with the same problem. Let us know what happens and what the LSC are saying you should do about it or, what you are doing about it
In answer to an earlier post, I don't know if the process has finished yet. I would say not, plenty of informal reviews are still oustanding from what I can gather and I don't know how many have gone for formal review after being refused at the first stage
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #15 on Dec 2, 2009, 9:21am » | |
Can you post the pro forma letter?
thanks
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #16 on Dec 2, 2009, 9:28am » | |
Here it is
Any problems downloading it let me know and I'll put it on the ilegal downloads server
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #17 on Dec 2, 2009, 10:00am » | |
(
Dec 2, 2009, 8:25am, Patrick Torsney wrote:
Rich's situation is more problematic however. I spoke to another organisation yesterday with the same problem. Let us know what happens and what the LSC are saying you should do about it or, what you are doing about it
|
|
Thanks Patrick. We have not actually had our formal letter confirming they are recouping and have only been given the figures via our contract manager. I have drafted a review (but not yet submitted) against a decision that doesnt exist! I worked out the figures including Novembers yesterday aft. It transpires now that we are completely out of NMS for the whole of the contract period (upto March 2010) in all three areas that they have recouped. Indeed in one are of law at one of our offices we have now done 20 more NMS than our revised contract size. We were due tio have an audit today and were going to raise these issues. ie do we request extra nms pending the review etc etc. Undfortunatley our contract manager is on sick leave today so the audit got cancelled this morning.
I am really happy 
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #18 on Dec 2, 2009, 10:56am » | |
So, you're saying you haven't even had the letter from Sirodcar? Have they said why not?
Are the Account Manager's figures correct and reflecting your current performance?
I think the big problem here is going to turn out to be the maths. The idea of recoupment is to take back what NMS the LSC do not believe you will use by the end of the Schedule period
I can understand the LSC using 'old' figures to flag up those it wants to get in touch with, however I think they should really determine and use your current performance figures to make the actual calculation. Aren't they doing this?
To my mind the performance projection should be as accurate and responsive to the current performance of the organisation as possible, otherwise the LSC are shooting themselves in the foot and creating work for their own staff as well as you. It's one thing to project performance on the standard 6 month average claim basis when talking about recouping monies, the accounts can always be rebalanced if it doesn't add up. It's entirely another matter to recoup NMS, which would reduce or remove organisations's rights to legitimately open any matters whilst the Schedule is still in force
Therefore, if your current performance is showing that you are using X NMS per month then the recoupment should be calculated by comparing your remaining NMS available figure against your expected performance target over the remaining months, adjusting wherever necessary as you move towards the Schedule end. Again, it's fine to establish an average claim figure to determine the expected performance but it should be an average claim that truly takes account of current performance. At least that's my take on it
If the LSC has not actually notified you formally that it intends to recoup NMS/amend your Schedule then I can't see any reason at all why you can't be paid for those NMS you have opened or continue to open before you are notified
Let us know how you get on
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #19 on Dec 2, 2009, 11:16am » | |
@NMS review letter.
I can't download it
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| |
marya
Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #21 on Dec 2, 2009, 12:13pm » | |
We had around 60 Debt Matter starts removed. They were reinstated less than a week later after my successful 'informal review'. It was accepted that there was a temporary problem April to August and we are now using 99% of our allocated Matter Starts. Good Luck to everyone else who has had matter starts removed.
| |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #22 on Dec 2, 2009, 2:15pm » | |
Thanks Mayra. Our appeal is going off today. Its good to know its only a week or so.
| |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #23 on Dec 2, 2009, 2:30pm » | |
Quote:| So, you're saying you haven't even had the letter from Sirodcar? Have they said why not? |
|
Yeah no letter arrived. They suggesting lost in post but Relationship Manager (RM) cant even get a copy and email
Quote:| Are the Account Manager's figures correct and reflecting your current performance? |
|
Well she suggested that they werent her figures and had got them from wherever the letter was coming from, but no one able to email us a copy of the letter. I get the impression the RMs are not best pleased with the whole thing. No I dont agree with the figures from Aril - Aug- thought we were 'underperforming' in that phase- we have just gone through a massive expansion over the winter winning out of area work in a new office etc. We knew we would be behind in the first part of the year cos it was running a new office with new subject areas. No context appears to have been obtained. Our RM knows all this.
Quote:
I can understand the LSC using 'old' figures to flag up those it wants to get in touch with, however I think they should really determine and use your current performance figures to make the actual calculation. Aren't they doing this? |
|
Not in our case no- from what i can make out RMs have not been involved in the process
Quote:
To my mind the performance projection should be as accurate and responsive to the current performance of the organisation as possible, otherwise the LSC are shooting themselves in the foot and creating work for their own staff as well as you. It's one thing to project performance on the standard 6 month average claim basis when talking about recouping monies, the accounts can always be rebalanced if it doesn't add up. It's entirely another matter to recoup NMS, which would reduce or remove organisations's rights to legitimately open any matters whilst the Schedule is still in force |
|
Absolutely- this excercise has been about getting a press release out for the LSC to counter what the NAO said about them-the now have press released to say have claimed back £25m from Lawyers - thats my personal opinion and doesnt of course reprsent the views of the agency that employ me ho ho
Quote:| If the LSC has not actually notified you formally that it intends to recoup NMS/amend your Schedule then I can't see any reason at all why you can't be paid for those NMS you have opened or continue to open before you are notified |
|
Well i think they are suggesting that a letter has gone- just not reached us. We are carrying on as normal until someone tells us otherwise. Staff are obviously panicking- the loss is 71K - not far off 10% of our total LSC take
Quote:| Let us know how you get on |
|
Will do ....provided i dont get posted to Kabul for the the contents of this posting 
| |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #24 on Dec 9, 2009, 12:18pm » | |
Hi
I have not been sent to Kabul yet. Does anyone know how long reviews take? Ours went in a week ago
Rich
| |
|
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #25 on Dec 9, 2009, 1:00pm » | |
The LSC says that it will give you a written decision within 28 days in respect of an Informal Review - which is what you have asked for by completing the 'Request to Review' form attached to Sirodcar's original letter
If you disagree with the Informal Review (IR) decision then you must submit a request for a Formal Review within 14 days of the IR decision. Additionally, if you don't get an IR decision within 28 days of your original request for one, then you can go straight to Kabul Formal Review
For further info, see Clause 32 of the UC Standard Terms
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
rwilkinson
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 43
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #26 on Dec 11, 2009, 10:28am » | |
We had our review back- which was partly succesful- but fundamentally a lot fairer and more reasonable. Considering further review to get the rest back . Has anyone been to formal review yet?
| |
|
sharnden
Top Contributor
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
| |
Patrick Torsney
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 718
Location: London
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #28 on Dec 18, 2009, 1:58pm » | |
I've seen the outcome of a couple of Formal Reviews now (the stage after having an informal review turned down). They both failed, with the LSC relying on Standard Terms 11A(2), which gives them the right to amend Schedules where they consider it unlikely you will perform the volume of work allocated under a Schedule
The only option left to both of these organisations now is to seek a Judicial Review of the decision, although it is unlikely they will go ahead
How are other people getting on with their reviews?
Has anyone tried the argument that the Contract specifies that both parties should act in good faith and it is therefore reasonable, for example, for an organisation to allocate its NMS usage throughout the year on the assumption that the Commission would only exercise its right to reduce NMS allocation if the organisation were failing the 85% KPI?
Standard Terms 2(1) specifies:
"In funding services as part of the Community Legal Service we are bound by sections 5(7) and 18(3) of the Act to aim to obtain the best possible value for money. Without prejudice to more specific provisions of this Contract and to your professional obligations in respect of Clients, you and we agree to work together in mutual trust and co-operation to achieve this aim."
And 2(2):
"In relation to this Contract, you and we will act in good faith and we will act as a responsible public body required to discharge functions under the Act."
|
To arrange in house training for your team, visit: http://www.askandprosper.com |
|
ilegal
Global Moderator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/921/supermaniig9.png)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 90
| | Re: NMS reallocation exercise underway
« Reply #29 on Jan 8, 2010, 12:39pm » | |
Here is an example of someone taking the bull by the horns and putting in a Freedom of Information Act request of the Commission, trying to establish just where all these recouped NMS have actually gone
Wasn't it the point that they were meant to be re-distributed?
Have a look:
http://legalaidandme.proboards.com/index....play&thread=686
Well, what are you waiting for...
|
You can email us by clicking here: theteam@ilegal.org.uk |
|
|
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Logged