header-logo header-logo

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

Calls for review of legal aid means test

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll