I read some moths ago, that the Law Society was working towards the provision of LPC courses that would be targeted at training intended solicitors providing services in 'advice deserts' such as housing and welfare rights...

Does anyone know how far those proposals have gone, and whether any LSC providers are currently acting as trainers for trainee solicitors in the welfare rights areas?

We did have a trainee solicitor, and as a law centre we would only have been able to give her experience in benefits, housing, employment and immigration since we don't do anything else. I'm not sure what arrangements were being made to give her experience in other areas of law. Unfortunately she left only 3-4 months into her training contract, because funding cuts made her post very insecure. In theory, our policy is still to encourage anyone eligible to consider doing a training contract, but the funding cuts are likely to mean we wouldn't have the time available to provide the support and supervision needed.
I think some other Law Centres have trainees, LCF would probably know.

Thank you...

i have to say i find it hard to see why any firm would want to take on a trainee to do welfare rights. the remuneration rate is so low, it can hardly be profitable. now hb has been brught into the tribunal system the chances for a judicial review to make money are pretty limited.

i do deal with benefits in private practice, but there aren't many of us around at all. it is really down to the not-for-profit sector to deal with this, and increasingly immigration i suspect.

my boss isn't desperate for me to train anybody in benefits law, presumably because it is not profitable.

the desert encroaches.

We have two trainees in the welfare benefits department, which I think works well for all concerned. I suspect we are the only private firm to do so, however, but then we have a department of 8 doing mainly welfare benefits, which is obviously unusual in the private sector.

Simon Ennals
French & Co
Nottingham

Thankfully (I am gladly able to say, Simon) you are not the only firm who does this. We here have a lengthy record of trainees who undertake their seats in our Welfare department (which also has eight dedicated advisors, plus trainees). We have done this for many years. We have one at the moment, but often have two or more at any one time.

To address some of the other issues brought up in this thread:-

I have to agree about the low rates of remuneration under LSC contracts (I would, wouldn't I?), and also about the limited scope for "higher value" work per se. But we work in partnership with many, many local NFP agencies to provide services to our clients which they - unfortunately - cannot provide, and the NFP agencies - in return - pass many interesting (and "higher value") cases our way.

We here also have contracts in Housing, Debt and Community Care, and see the WB contract as an absolutely vital augmentation to the services we can provide to our customers in all these areas of law.

We see the "holistic" approach to clients (many of whom - almost by definition - will have problems in all four contracted areas) as the only approach. Clearly, the housing and community care challenges can be more beneficial in a costs sense, but we would not obtain the majority of these clients if we did not offer the whole service, as it were.

The spirit of this thread is (I think) to show that advice deserts existed, continue to exist, and will continue to exist. I think that view is correct, and I also agree that the major players in plugging the gaps are likely to be (in the prevailing, current climate) NFP...but this greatly depends on the increase of funding, particularly by the LSC (which is itself uncertain at best).

On a more positive note I do feel that referral schemes and partnerships (properly run and adhered to) would (and do) allow both private practice and NFP to conjoin to meet their communities' needs
That is certainly our experience.

(if an adviser shouts in the middle of an advice desert, does anyone hear his cry?)

Peter

My understanding is that most LPC's - and it does depend on which college you attend as far as course content is concerned - already offer courses in housing, immigration (how much longer?), employment and benefits - they are usually in the "optional" part of the course, were you have to pick some options out of a range.

I believe benefits is usually one of the options, and am suprised if that is not the case. Perhaps they meant they would prefer it if these were in the mandatory part of the course?

"Trainers" would be lecturers already employed to teach in these subjects I guess.

As for what happens during the training contract - the others have replied! The LSC have talked about encouraging certain agencies to provide training contracts, and for paying for some individual's LPC's (before and after the event) if they do their training contracts in social welfare law. I understood that something along the (second) of these lines was put into place, but the amount of "burseries" for want of a better word was small - cannot remember exact figures.

Not sure if anyone has got any help in starting a training programme - help might be advice only.

The obvious, but perhaps more expensive option - to pay already experienced and committed adviser's a fair hourly rate, thus retaining their services, has obviously not met with approval.

The reason I posted this thread, and although I did not say so at the outset (a deliberate intention), was because after having spent some 16 years in HB many at more 'senior' decision-maker levels, I have become increasingly aware of the lack of any real representation available to those on HB... (no offence to the many excellent advisors out there, and these comments are not directed at them), but there are I think some million plus people in the UK claiming HB/CTB and perhaps as few as a few hundred advisors with the specialist knowledge to challenge the worst excess of decisions made by less well able (and sometimes incompetent), decision-makers... So I decided to 'jump ship' and become 'gate-keeper turned poacher' gave up my (v.well paid), appeals and presenting officer type function, and set off to law school... to do the GDL and LPC full time at one of the better law schools (and therefore the more expensive), even though I am self-financing...

But the GDL and LPC provide little (no!), real law experience for anyone wanting to work outside of commercial law... neither in HRA, welfare rights, or any other kind of practical experience of LSC/NfP work… The nearest that we come to it is Judicial Review... of course no mention is made of the sheer cost of bringing such an action, nor the fact that people are therefore denied access to it as an effective remedy... The lack of any real JR actions on HB DHP decisions being made every day is testament to that…

So, I have decided not to do the LPC next year... and will again be working for LA's from the summer... seeing appeal letters that give no real grounds for appeal, because of the fact that there are just too few advisors out there who know their stuff... I do always seek to look at appeals in greater depth than the claimant or their advisor says, and amend decisions to be ‘fair’, but I amb aware that I am one of the few LA Presenting Officers who do this…

Case in point... I am currently acting 'pro-bono' (not through my law school, but I have been approached privately), for someone who's solicitors 'dropped the ball' on a £50,000 HB/CTB O/P case on reg 7 issues with a W. London LA... the solicitors billed for legal aid, but never even spotted that reg 7 can't apply to CTB...

The Submission from the LA, is disgusting... the appeal was made in 2000 and it was sent to TAS in Sept 2004... (though HB had been paid for over 8 years previously to the claimant), the solicitors did not raise HRA considerations... The O/P has not been discussed in the submission (other than it exists), no mention is made as to it's recoverability... The O/P was made to several parties but the appeal has not been referred ‘tri-partite’, only the existing version of reg 7 has been quoted, no reference has veen made to case law… the LA has discussed contrived, (reg 7 (1) (l)), as being not-commercial (in fact reg 7 (1) (a)….

When I have completed the submission to TAS later this week, I will e-mail to this site to see if they want to post it anywhere... it might assist some reader’s of this site in challenging decisions of LA's... as it will have many. Many reference to the above…

But my point is, whats the point in giving people rights to appeal, if they have no chance of a basic and fundamental part of the right to a fair hearing (aka the rules of natural justice), "equality of arms"? I would have really liked to rep for members of the public... and was willing to take a substantial pay cut to change career paths... (even though I have Commissioner experience repping for LAs), but without adequate LPC providers, (and for that matter training contracts, I am a realist and no commercial firm is going to give me a training contract in commercial practice at 36, but I don't want that anyway) - I just wanted to give people claiming benefits what they deserve... their rights !!!