Barrister

It bears a mention that legal aid costs have to be paid back from any assets or money recovered or preserved as a result of proceedings. It is sometimes not explicitly mentioned to legal aid clients that they will have to pay back their costs and it comes as quite a shock particularly if there are other categories of work covered by the certificate as there is a potential for the bill to be quite large.

I once saw a case where the certificate covered contact and Ancillary Relief. The latter took about £2k to sort out and the former around £24k. The Statutory Charge laid claim to the first £26k of the financial settlement.

Charles

Charles_prev.fleagal wrote:

It bears a mention that legal aid costs have to be paid back from any assets or money recovered or preserved as a result of proceedings. It is sometimes not explicitly mentioned to legal aid clients that they will have to pay back their costs and it comes as quite a shock particularly if there are other categories of work covered by the certificate as there is a potential for the bill to be quite large.

I once saw a case where the certificate covered contact and Ancillary Relief. The latter took about £2k to sort out and the former around £24k. The Statutory Charge laid claim to the first £26k of the financial settlement.

Charles

I have read that before but unfortunately in my case the only asset to be had is my pension so she won't presumably have to pay back a thing. Which in turn does nothing to discourage her from "taking this all the way."

Nope thats not the case, if you don`t receive any liquid assets you still have to pay it back, it was £25 per month minimum with 8% interest added but that was a while ago so it may have changed.

I think in the case of pensions and/or maintenance the Statutory Charge cannot apply in which case there is no repayment. However, the LSC will not fund a party who does not accept a reasonable offer.

Charles

Charles_prev.fleagal wrote:

I think in the case of pensions and/or maintenance the Statutory Charge cannot apply in which case there is no repayment. However, the LSC will not fund a party who does not accept a reasonable offer.

Charles

My understanding (or lack thereof) was that she had to apply at some point for additional funding from the LSC. This was one of the "delays" we've experienced thus far. At this point there had been no offers on the table therefore they couldn't say she'd refused my reasonable offers. Once this funding had gone through as she said, the offers started. I wonder...does she (or her solicitor) have to periodically update the LSC on the progress of the case at which point they can cut off funding for having a reasonable offer on the table. And if so, what constitutes reasonable in their eyes? I would assume, if you've looked at the previous link given that leads to our stats, my offer has been nothing but reasonable.

The solicitor has a duty to report when their client is unreasonably rejecting a reasonable offer so it is down to the solicitor to report.

It is possible to report your ex to the LSC when your reasonable offer is rejected but this serves to cause delay and making the report doesn't necessarily make your version of events correct.

There is no periodical report to the LSC but each time the costs limitation has to be extended, the form that is completed asks for the chances of success based on the case as it currently stands.

Charles

Charles_prev.fleagal wrote:

The solicitor has a duty to report when their client is unreasonably rejecting a reasonable offer so it is down to the solicitor to report.

It is possible to report your ex to the LSC when your reasonable offer is rejected but this serves to cause delay and making the report doesn't necessarily make your version of events correct.

There is no periodical report to the LSC but each time the costs limitation has to be extended, the form that is completed asks for the chances of success based on the case as it currently stands.

Charles

Well let's hope her sol knows what reasonable is then! I can't imagine any solicitor thinks that 50% of my salary for CM and SM is reasonable (when I'm only 3000/month salary) but I suppose it's all subjective.

If this goes to court I will certainly at the very least make a complaint post proceedings. Although this may not accomplish much I find it disgusting how people are given a blank check for legal services when they're being offered a fair deal.

If I make an open offer is there any chance I can go after her for costs for my sol bills if the judge agrees it was reasonable? Or is this an outdated move made even more difficult given her financial situation (on benefits and unwilling to work)?