Tag: SCCO

New update from SCCO on COP assessment delays

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

This evening, the SCCO have released a further notice in relation to the ongoing delays with COP assessments.

In summary, turnaround is as follows at present:

  • Bills received at the beginning of September 2021 are currently being assessed
  • The Admin Team are processing the return of assessed bills received back from the Costs Officers in the third week of January
  • New filings for assessment received around the middle of January are being considered for acceptance/rejection
  • Certificate request filings received in the last week of February are currently being reviewed and actioned

Please see the link below for the full notice released:

Notice-to-COP-customers-07-March-2022-SCCODownload

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Further update from SCCO on COP assessment delays

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

Please see below an update notice released by the SCCO this afternoon, providing a further update on the current turnaround times for COP assessments.

In summary, the Costs Officers are currently assessing bills received around mid August 2021, and the Admin Team are working on returning bills that have been assessed, and are currently up to those assessed just before Christmas.

With regards to e-filing, new filings submitted towards the start of January are currently being dealt with, and final costs certificate requests received towards the end of January are being processed at present.

Update-Notice-to-COP-customers-21.02.22Download

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

Who are the interested parties and who should be served in COP cases?

Casey McGregorLeave a comment

An interested party is anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment. Rule 47.19 of the CPR enables the court to direct under rule 47.19(3) that the receiving party must serve a copy of the request for assessment and copies of the documents which accompany it, on any person who has a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment.

Practice Direction 47, para (18.2) explains what is or is not a ‘financial interest’. It states ‘A person has a financial interest in the outcome of the assessment if the assessment will or may affect the amount of money or property to which that person is or may become entitled out of the fund. Where an interest in the fund is itself held by a trustee for the benefit of some other person, that trustee will be treated as the person having such a financial interest unless it is not appropriate to do so. ‘Trustee’ includes a personal representative, receiver or any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity’.

The SCCO expect the professional Deputy to determine who such an interested party may be and for the Deputy to take a sensible, pragmatic approach. It may not be appropriate to serve every beneficiary of P’s estate, for example. It is recommended that any interested parties are highlighted for the SCCO’s attention when e-filing your bill of costs.

Sometimes the SCCO will indicate on the assessment that the bill of costs needs to be served on the interested parties, but even where they don’t state that, it is up to the Deputy or Claimant to decide if the bill should be served. There have been instances where a Final Costs Certificate has been obtained and an interested party has come forward asking why they were not served at the time, wishing to challenge the outcome of the assessment. If the SCCO decided that party should have been served, the Claimant may be liable for the costs of that additional process as a result of not following procedure.

The link to the procedure rules can be found at: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-47-procedure-for-detailed-assessment/practice-direction-46-costs-special-cases2#18.1

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Casey Mcgregor at casey.mcgregor@clarionsolicitors.com

Changes to the SCCO requirements following assessment

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

As of 1 January 2022, the SCCO will continue to require all provisionally assessed bills to be submitted alongside a completed bill summary, and for this to be e-filed to request the issuing of the Final Costs Certificate.

However, the bill will also need to be recalculated in accordance with Practice Direction 47 of the Civil Procedure Rules. As such, this will necessitate the recalculation of the bill of costs on a line-by-line basis, with the new amounts for each item of work annotated onto the bill.

Previously, only annotating the totals allowed across the bill on assessment in respect of VAT, profit costs and disbursements has been accepted. This will not be the case as of the New Year. This is an onerous task and time spent preparing these line-by-line recalculations will not be recoverable.

Clarion are currently working with the SCCO and Professional Deputies Forum to identify a suitable interim solution before the New Year for the firms that we work with. Further updates will be circulated in due course.

The E-bill continues to be developed for use and the eventual introduction of this will remove the need for archaic recalculations. We hope to find a solution in the meantime, which results in no additional cost to the Deputy or P whilst complying with the SCCO’s requirements, until the E-bill is introduced. We will publish further information on this topic as soon as possible.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com.

The Process of a Request for Reassessment

Stephanie KayeLeave a comment

Unlike any other area of law, there is a process regarding Court of Protection assessments that is not in any written case or law, however a spoken arrangement passed down by Costs Judges in order to save judicial time – the Request for Reassessment.

What is it?

Once a Court of Protection Bill of Costs has been assessed at the SCCO, there may be various reductions made that you would not agree with, whether that be a reduction to your hourly rate, time spent liaising with P that was deemed ‘too excessive’ without any reference to case law or document reviews that were ‘unnecessary’. There is a chance to appeal this with the correct justification, prior to arranging a hearing.

It came about following a review of the appeal process by Master Haworth, as only oral hearings, which are expensive and time consuming were used for appealing amounts of time which did not justify the use of the process. Often the cost and time spent in an appeal outweighed any proportionate benefit.

Upon reviewing the assessment, if you are unhappy with it, you can lodge a request for reassessment with the SCCO.

The process for the request for reassessment is as follows:

  • If you are unhappy with the outcome of the assessment, you can request a reassessment within 14 days of the original assessment.
  • The Bill of Costs is returned to the Costs Officer who undertook the initial assessment for reconsideration in respect of the issues requiring reconsideration.
  • The Costs Officer will generally accept where they have made an error. They base their assessment on the points raised before them, so these points need to be justified and they need to have all of the facts to make an informed decision. It is not worthwhile to simply disagree with their approach – you need to explain why you disagree with particular reductions and on what grounds they should increase the amount allowed.
  • The assessment will be reconsidered on paper and returned to you with additional comments following the Costs Officer’s reassessment.
  • If you are still unhappy with the assessment, you can proceed to an oral hearing before a Costs Master; but be aware that this can be an expensive and timely process.

Here at Clarion, we are more than happy to review any assessments and consider an appeal; we can also lodge the request for reassessment on your behalf. Please get in touch with a member of our Costs Team to find out more.

Joshua Sidding is a Paralegal in the Court of Protection Team of the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact him at Joshua.sidding@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 222 3245, or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 246 0622.

Feature Title

This is a feature block that you can use to highlight features.

Feature Title

New guidance from the SCCO on electronic supporting files in COP cases

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

We have received updated guidance from the SCCO on the process for uploading electronic supporting documents for Court of Protection assessments via the DUC [Document Upload Centre]. Please note that the use of this is not compulsory, and that hard copy files can still be submitted as usual.

Is CE-File still relevant?

As per the current procedure, the Bill of Costs, N258B and Court Order providing authority for the assessment will still need to be e-filed via the CE-File system in place, however the electronic supporting papers cannot be uploaded via this system, and will not be accepted by the SCCO.

Can you use the DUC system for only select cases, or do you need to use it for all matters?

The DUC system needs to be used to submit any electronic supporting papers following receipt of the e-filing acceptance notification (as currently, you have 28 days following receipt of this to provide your papers, whether electronically or in hard copy). This can be used for all of your bills to be assessed, or can also be used on a selective basis, where you wish to provide electronic files in some cases, but hard copy papers in others.  

If you intend to use the DUC system for all of your matters, then you will need to email Costs Officer Leggett at Christine.leggett@justice.gov.uk, providing details of the email address to be linked as a user to the DUC, with a request to be added as a permanent DUC user. Once confirmation of this status has been received, you will not need to inform the SCCO every time you wish to submit electronic supporting papers via the DUC.

If you are not registered as a permanent DUC user, then the presumption of the SCCO is that they will receive physical files in the post/DX from you. If you do decide to make use of the DUC on a bill, then a comment should be left in the filing comments section when submitting the bill via CE-File, clearly stating your intention to submit the supporting papers electronically via the DUC. Not doing so could cause delays in your assessment, if the clerk reviewing the e-filing request is not aware that the files are to be submitted electronically.

How should electronic supporting papers be formatted?

Guidance was also provided as to how electronic supporting papers should be presented, summarised in the below points:

  • Files should run in chronological, from oldest to newest
  • Copies of the OPG102, OPG105, client care information and any disbursement invoices or Counsels’ fee notes should be included at the start of the files
  • The file should be named as the SCCO case reference, the Protected Party’s surname, and the dates of the general management period if relevant
  • It is preferable that there is an index, including hyperlinks
  • If more than one file of papers is uploaded, each should be clearly labelled with the SCCO reference number, the number of the file (e.g file 2), and the period of work which the file covers

Can you use the DUC for a matter you have already e-filed?

If a case has already been e-filed via CE-File and the acceptance notification received however you decide that you would like to submit your papers electronically, you will need to contact scco@justice.gov.uk, informing the SCCO that you wish to now provide electronic files, and providing the 18 digit submission number from your e-filing acceptance notification.

How do you register to use the DUC?

In order to register, you can contact Christine.leggett@justice.gov.uk, confirming the email address to be registered on the system. A response will then be provided outlining the next steps to progress the sign up.

You can find the full guidance issued by the SCCO on the below PDF document:

Senior-Courts-Costs-office-guidance-for-Court-of-Protection-Bills-and-the-Document-Upload-Centre-2Download

Ella Wilkinson is a Legal Apprentice in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion. You can contact her on 0113 288 5693, or by email to ella.wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at costs.support@clarionsolicitors.com

2021 Senior Courts Costs Office Guide now available

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

The updated SCCO guide has now been published and is available here.

The changes since 2018 are not extensive. The document provides a comprehensive guide to costs procedure and a helpful section of precedents for practitioners.

The guide will now exist only electronically to enable future changes to be included by regular revision.

Helen Spalding is an Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion. You can contact her at helen.spalding@clarionsolicitors.com or on 0113 288 5639.

Is it possible to claim payments at Grade C?

Leave a comment

In the case of Kirby & Others (2013) it was decided that arranging payments should be reduced and limited to 3 minutes at a Grade D rate. This is because the SCCO see that making payments is routine and traditionally, no higher rate or time would be allowed.

Clarion have recently received a Bill of Costs back from the SCCO where the Cost Officer has allowed making a payment at 6 minutes at Grade C. This is something that we have not seen or heard anything about prior to this Bill.

In this matter the Cost Officer has allowed 6 minutes at Grade C stating ‘Payment of invoices is 3 minutes @ Grade D. If completed or high value, 6 @ C can be given.’  The ‘high value’ is discretionary as to the Costs Officer’s views and no further guidance was given about this decision.

We suggest that Deputyship teams should delegate payments to Grade D fee earners wherever possible, but bear this decision in mind if a high value transaction is required. It might be reasonable for a Grade C fee earner to make high value payments and the SCCO may allow this time at 6 minutes.

Scott Kemp is an Apprentice Paralegal in the Costs Litigation and Funding team at Clarion Solicitors.

You can contact him on 0113 288 5688 or scott.kemp@clarionsolicitors.com

PLK and Others: What we know now…

Ella WilkinsonLeave a comment

On 30 September 2020, a judgment was handed down by Master Whalan following a hearing in the matter of PLK and Others on 26 May 2020.

This case was brought by a number of professional Deputies, to bring the issue as to the guideline hourly rates not being altered for 10 years, despite factors such as inflation and an ever increasing workload raising questions as to the sustainability of Court of Protection work for many practitioners. The Costs Team at Clarion prepared the four bills of costs concerned, in which rates with an uplift of approximately 31% of the guideline rates were claimed, to reflect RPI inflation.

The outcome of this hearing was that ‘if the hourly rates claimed fall within approximately 120% of the 2010 GHR, then they should be regarded as being prima facie reasonable’. Master Whalan summarised that the new rates could be applied to all outstanding assessments, irrespective of the year in which the work was undertaken.

Since then, the SCCO have released further guidance by way of a Practise Note. The main points to note from this are:

  • The uplifted rates can be applied only to work undertaken in 2018 or after, and that the judgment does not disapply the indemnity principle. As a result, where a retainer letter limits the hourly rates for conducting fee earners specifically to the 2010 guideline rates, the Costs Officers will not allow firms to claim for the uplifted rates.
  • Deputies cannot withdraw or amend bills already submitted without further authority from the Court.
  • Deputies can make an informal request for reassessment, however that if this is done for the sole purpose of seeking the uplifted rates, that the request for reconsideration will likely be unsuccessful
  • Deputies should take into account their terms of business and OPG105 estimate when considering applying the new rates, as the Costs Officer’s will keep these under consideration when conducting assessments

Since the judgment was handed down, we have applied the uplifted rates to the majority of bills prepared on behalf of our clients, however have recently received a number of assessments back from the SCCO, whereby the rates claimed have been reduced back to the 2010 guideline rates on each occasion. The Costs Officer has stated on these bills that ‘the Deputy under the indemnity principle could not expect to apply new rates to old work’, and that ‘the Solicitor cannot expect to apply new rates to old work that they did not expect to achieve when doing the work’.

The comments of the SCCO are extremely frustrating for deputies who are not breaching the indemnity principle when claiming the higher rates. We recommend that if your costs are limited on assessment to the 2010 rates for retrospective claims for costs, that you submit your retainer letter and terms of business for the attention of the Costs Officer to support that you are entitled to recover rates in excess of the old 2010 rates.

The view of the Costs Officers is contradictory to the judgment and deputies should work with their costs provider to try to recover the higher rates where there is no breach of the indemnity principle. 

Ella Wilkinson is a Legal Apprentice in the Costs & Litigation Funding Team at Clarion. You can contact her on 0113 288 5693, or by email to ella.wilkinson@clarionsolicitors.com