The Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman gives Advice Resolution’s client’s complaint its 100% backing by making an adverse decision against the Legal Aid Agency.
The Legal Aid Agency in England and Wales helps people deal with their legal problems. One of its responsibilities is making sure legal aid services from solicitors, barristers and the not-for-profit sector are available to the general public.
In order to get legal aid, an applicant will need to show that:
their case is eligible for legal aid,
the problem is serious, and,
they cannot afford to pay for legal costs.
The Legal Aid Agency failed to make our client aware of their right to appeal a decision against no award of legal aid. They had no adequate explanation to have done so.
The Legal Aid Agency said they made a mistake, and it took proportionate action to resolve the issue. It confirmed it should have offered the complainant’s solicitor the opportunity to refer Mr X’s legal aid application to the Independent Funding Adjudicator (IFA) and apologised this did not happen.
The Legal Aid Agency claimed a member of staff made an administrative error and had established they needed to ensure this did not happen again. The Legal Aid Agency provided feedback to the caseworker responsible for the error and provided refresher training to the ‘Exceptional and Complex Cases Team’ regarding the use of CCMS.
The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman made it incontrovertibly clear the Legal Aid Agency is responsible for the failing.
In addition, the Ombudsman’s principles of good administration, ‘Getting it right’, states public bodies, like the Legal Aid Agency, should comply with their processes and competently provide an effective service. This did not happen in this case.
As such, there is evidence of a failing with the way the Legal Aid Agency handled Mr X’s request for legal aid.
The onus falls on a statutory body to ensure that it protects the rights of the individual as they are part of the legal system. Otherwise, there could be, arguably, oppression and an abuse of process.
This case took a year to settle which is a disappointment, and the most proportionate and fair action should have been the Legal Aid Agency following their regulations to the letter
ACTIONS AGAINST THE POLICE SPECIALISTS LEAVES NO STONE UNTURNED TO SUCCESSFULLY SUE THE METROPOLITAN POLICE
Advice Resolutions Law Consultancy instructs exceptional solicitors, and successfully sues the Metropolitan Police on behalf of Client on the death of their mother, and Police settle out of Court
Advice Resolutions Law Consultancy were instructed in a matter to bring an action against the Metropolitan Police for failing to exercise their high standard of duty of care to a vulnerable female elderly tenant with acute mental health. Police Officers involved in a search of the missing tenant, although they accessed the tenant’s property peering in through the flat door, had failed to enter right into the property to find the missing person who had sadly passed away for some time. They visited the property more than once. No matter of explanation can illustrate the Police’s plain sheer negligence, incompetence, disrespect to family, degrading treatment, and non-feasance.
Advice Resolutions acted as advisor and provided a number of seminal European Case Law to help progress this winning case.
The Metropolitan Police settled out of court with no admission of liability.
Ombudsman finds in favour of Advice Resolutions’ client in Anti-social behaviour case leading to meritorious win
‘Special Announcement’:
Advice Resolutions, an Alternative Business Structure, as Legal Aid’s answer to access to justice, secures a landmark victory from the Ombudsman in an historic long running anti-social behaviour case, resulting in a record level of compensation award against a large London local authority.
The local authority’s legal department failed one of their residents for several years in maladministration, dismissed many of the valid and proven complaints we and our client brought, failed to even take the complaints on board seriously, breached the Data Protection Act 2018 \UK GDPR 2018 several times over, attempted to use iniquitous tactics to label our client as the tortfeasor instead, which failed abysmally. Their multi-agency approach lacked proper diligence, probity, and fastidiousness to protocol regimes, and they seem to have broken every conceivable rule by not having given regard to their own publication scheme policies, and far from assiduous.
The public sector has thrown us a gift of maladministration breaches. Our key message to local authorities is simply this “Anti-social behaviour and neighbour nuisance must never go unchallenged by the sector that holds the key to resolving either of these social ills”.
This case is our very first win of such a high level of compensation in recent months, in which the Ombudsman use their most robustly and rigorously applied regulatory powers. This complex case management is one of the kind, that not even our company thought could ever be achieved by our law consultancy and never before by Solicitors and Barristers alike within the complaints regulatory framework.
The complex data exchanges between the public sector local authority and our company certainly raised the bar for all Solicitors and Barristers who have dealings with the Ombudsman on behalf of their clients, to secure their clients the most favourable wins. This case demonstrates our use of a high degree of detective work and lawyerly investigative skills.
Advice Resolutions secures that the Data Protection legislation is enforced against a London Borough Council
In response to a regulatory complaint by Advice Resolutions, the Information Commissioners office adjudicates against London Borough Council ordered to produce an Action Plan after breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The London Borough Council delayed responding for over a year to several requests to furnish Advice Resolution’s client with subject access data they were entitled to pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018.
Although protracted documents were exchanged over the course of the year, little or no attempt was made to provide the data. The seriousness of which led Advice Resolutions to apply for a regulatory assessment from the Information Commissioner’s office.
The London Borough is a public authority and there was a higher expectation that their efficiency of a response would have been forthcoming much sooner.
The delayed provision of a data subject’s personal data can result in severe distress, financial loss, distrust and a breakdown of relations between the Data Controller who has initial control of the data and to whom further consent is given to process the data, namely, the Data Processors.
Solicitor firms must comply with the regulations which govern them
Advice Resolutions Law Consultancy uncovers irregularity of solicitor firm giving misleading information constituting misrepresentation
A recent landmark decision by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) has resulted in a solicitor firm being given advice on complying with the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012, 23 (4).
Advice Resolutions Law Consultancy was instructed by a client to investigate the accuracy of a solicitor firm’s reading of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.
The client initially instructed the solicitor firm in community care matters. The client later withdrew their instructions to the firm. For the purposes of whether another legal aid solicitor could be instructed, thereafter, the firm’s advice cited that the time began to run from the date the client instructed them until the withdrawal of the client’s instructions.
The client disputed by way of complaint the advice given by the solicitor firm who refused to accept the client’s complaint that they were, indeed, incorrect. As a result of a complaint being brought to the Legal Aid Agency by Advice Resolutions Law Consultancy concerning the firm’s erroneous advice of the civil legal aid regulations, the Legal Aid Agency had investigated and decided in the client’s favour by addressing their serious concerns directly with the solicitor firm.
What this case tells us is that not only should solicitors be familiar with the regulations which govern them, but that they could resolve client’s complaints early on before they are referred to their regulators to decide against them.
In the worse case scenario, if a client in these circumstances was subject to a time limit to bring a claim and lost that opportunity to do so, the case could have resulted in a lost chance to litigate. The result of which could have escalated the case against the solicitor firm for their misleading advice in misrepresentation.
Actions against against the police – Police verbal warning given illegally
Our client, Mr A was accused of assault by another. Two Police constables attended on the scene and advised that there was no corroboration of the alleged assault. However, contrary to law, a verbal warning was given to our client, illegally. From our established research, and found to be contrary to primary legislation and the Police guidance procedures given the authority of primary legislation, the verbal warning was given. On behalf of our client, Advice Resolutions sought to make a complaint to both the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the Police Standards departments. After the senior officer of Police investigated, the Police conceded that when there is no corroboration in Scottish law when an allegation of assault is made, then they can take no further action and the law is very strict in that regard.
The Police constables called to the incident were both given corrective advice, and this action would not have been taken if both Police Constables had not acted with misfeasance in public office. No explanation, justification nor excuse was offered. Prima facie, we proffered that this case was also a claim for discrimination based on race, one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. There was no adequate explanation given by the Police constables for not following the enshrined legislation they ought reasonably to have known existed and were not exempt from.
If you have a complaint against the Police please contact Advice Resolutions, as we will research Police protocol, legislation and guidance to assist you in your case. We cannot represent you in criminal cases, but can work alongside your chosen solicitor, barrister and/or undertake research.
“Social Care and Health funding in many parts of the UK is continually denying the basic fundamental rights of care for all age groups”
The public is facing a growing “care injustice” as people are finding it more difficult to get help in England, the regulator is warning.
The Care Quality Commission highlighted growing hospital waiting lists, delays at A&E and record dissatisfaction levels with GPs in its annual report.
Mental health and old-age care were also becoming harder to access.
And the report said even where there was care available many people only had the choice of failing services.
In its 130-page review, the regulator pointed to
- the lack of out-of-hours GP care
- rising rates of preventable admissions to hospitals
- overcrowding on wards and worsening A&E waiting times
- the growing waiting list for routine operations
- mental health patients being made to travel long distances for treatment
- older people going without the help they need for daily tasks such as washing and dressing
Don Redding, of the patient group, National Voices, said it was clear the system was “malfunctioning” and the report should act as a “loud alarm bell”.
He urged the government and NHS leaders to take notice as they prepare to publish their 10-year NHS plan later in the autumn, setting out how the extra funding for the health service will be spent in the coming years.
The report is being published as the BBC relaunches its NHS Tracker project, which enables users to find out how their local areas are performing on cancer, A&E, hospital care and mental health services.
Error: Contact form not found.
Employment Tribunals can no longer charge fees to employees to bring their employment dispute cases – A long awaited triumph set to re-regulating employment law
It comes after a government review found the number cases taken to employment tribunals had fallen by 70 per cent following the introduction of the fees four years ago.
Unison, the UK’s largest trade union, won the “landmark” victory after they argued that the fees of up to £1,200 discriminated against workers.
In their ruling, the court said: “A significant number of people have found the fees unaffordable.”
The Ministry of Justice said the Government will take immediate steps to stop charging employment tribunal fees and refund those who have paid.
General secretary Dave Prentis said: “The Government is not above the law, but when ministers introduced fees they were disregarding laws many centuries old, and showing little concern for employees seeking justice following illegal treatment at work.
“The Government has been acting unlawfully, and has been proved wrong – not just on simple economics, but on constitutional law and basic fairness too.
“It’s a major victory for employees everywhere. Unison took the case on behalf of anyone who’s ever been wronged at work, or who might be in future. Unscrupulous employers no longer have the upper hand.
“These unfair fees have let law-breaking bosses off the hook these past four years, and left badly treated staff with no choice but to put up or shut up.
“We’ll never know how many people missed out because they couldn’t afford the expense of fees, but at last this tax on justice has been lifted.
The decision marks the end of a four-year fight by Unison to overturn the Government’s introduction of fees.