header-logo header-logo

16 February 2017
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Competitive tendering on housing possession

Lawyers have expressed concerns about government proposals for a price competitive tendering process to consolidate provision of help to people facing eviction.

Under the proposals, contained in the Legal Aid Agency’s Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme consultation, due to end on 17 March, law firms will have to bid for contracts on the basis of price and quality. Fewer but larger contracts will be available.

Currently, firms have contracts for each individual court, providing emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings. However, about half of the current schemes have only small volumes of work and some firms have withdrawn, leaving gaps in access.

If it goes ahead, the number of schemes will reduce from 117 to 48 by April 2018.

Lawyers have raised concerns. Carol Storer, director, Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said: “We remain worried about the effect on quality, that organisations who do this work now and do it well may be replaced by organisations that don’t.

“People will feel under pressure to bid lower than the fees they get now, to make sure they get the work, and if they bid too low then they may not be able to continue. We worry that people will underbid and then not be able to deliver the contracts. As most of the new contracts cover more than one court for the first time and some as many as seven, services will probably be more expensive to deliver. We don’t think that there will be economies of scale, this undermines the stated intention to make these schemes commercially viable.

Writing in NLJ this week, Steve Hynes, director, Legal Action Group, says he fears not-for-profit organisations could be badly hit if the plans go ahead since more than half of the current providers are from that sector.

Issue: 7734 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll