header-logo header-logo

03 October 2011
Issue: 7488 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

LSC overspend £51m on legal aid

National Audit Office criticises the Legal Services Commission's mistakes

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has been criticised by auditors after it overpaid legal aid providers by more than £51m this year.

Applicants who were ineligible or whose eligibility could not be proven were paid £21.2m and £29.5m was wrongly paid out due to solicitors’ errors. The overpayment equates to just over two per cent of the LSC’s total expenditure.

This is the third year running that the National Audit Office (NAO) has qualified the Community Legal Service Fund and Criminal Defence Service accounts. Last year, the LSC overpaid by an even higher amount—£76.5m.

During the course of the year, the LSC recovered more than £7m of overpayments made to legal aid firms, 50% more than last year.

Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, says: “While the LSC has made considerable progress, it still faces difficulties in reducing the level of error in payments to legal services providers.”

On a more positive note, the LSC reduced its administration spend by 8.4%, funded more than 2.7 million “acts of assistance”, and beat its target to make one million legal help acts of assistance via face-to-face or telephone advice.

Sir Bill Callaghan, chairman of the LSC, says: “The NAO acknowledges that the LSC has made substantial improvements in reducing the amount of overpayments made to legal aid practitioners.

“To make further improvements that respond to the NAO’s recommendations, the LSC will continue to concentrate on strengthening its financial management through its internal financial stewardship programme.”

Law Society chief executive, Desmond Hudson, said: “The system remains too complex and susceptible to errors—all the more unacceptable when every possible penny should be spent on improving access to justice.”

Issue: 7488 / 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