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