header-logo header-logo

Calls for review of legal aid means test

22 March 2018
Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Law Society claims current test excludes those below the poverty line

The Law Society has launched a campaign for a review of the financial eligibility test for civil legal aid, referencing Unison’s legal victory on tribunal fees.

New research commissioned by the Law Society and produced by Professor Donald Hirsch of Loughborough University reveals that people on incomes 10% to 30% below the poverty line are being excluded from legal aid. Consequently, many impoverished families are unable to obtain legal help to tackle issues such as eviction, housing disrepair and debt.

The Law Society points out that the Supreme Court held, in July 2017, that employment tribunal fees were unlawful because households on low incomes were expected to sacrifice ‘ordinary and reasonable expenditure for substantial periods of time’ to save for legal costs, R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. It argues that the formula to determine eligibility for legal aid has the same effect as tribunal fees.

‘The financial eligibility test for civil legal aid is disqualifying people from receiving badly-needed legal advice and representation, even though they are already below the poverty line,’ said Law Society president Joe Egan.

‘The position has been getting progressively worse, because the means test thresholds have been frozen since 2010, while the cost of living, of course, has not.’

Egan called on the Ministry of Justice to review the means-testing regime and restore it to its 2010 real-terms level—prior to 2010, the means test levels were uprated every year in line with inflation—and to exempt those on means-tested benefits from capital assessment.

Capital assessment takes account of the equity in people’s homes and excludes those who have savings or assets worth more than £8,000, or in some cases, £3,000.

Professor Hirsch said: ‘The assumption that someone could sell their home to cover a legal bill is out of line with other forms of state means-testing, such as help with care costs.’

Issue: 7786 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll