Centre for Justice

Booking now: CPD Seminar: 'ADR in Practice'

Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:00 -0400

Join Centre for Justice and other lawyers at our 90 minutes breakfast seminar on 23 May on ADR techniques including mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, and expert determination.

This CPD accredited course for solicitors, costing only £24, explains the growing need for effective alternatives to the courts.

For information and bookings contact gsp@centreforjustice.org or phone 020 7263 2553.

Feature about CfJ for building industry

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:44:00 -0400

Construction Magazine

Centre for Justice is the leading dispute resolution service provider, resolving construction disputes quickly and cost efficiently.

It was set up by leading lawyers to resolve legal and contract disputes in a straightforward and constructive way without the need to go to court or arbitration. The model is non-adversarial. It does away with the unnecessary contest between expensive teams of professionals using complex and confusing rules of engagement, which only serve to draw out and complicate the resolution of often simple problems. Litigation on this basis can too frequently throw up the wrong result. Many lawyers place process risk at 25-30%.

CfJ recognises we are here, not to put parties into opposition with each other, but to help sort out their problem quickly and constructively. The best way to do this is to have an adjudicator (or ‘assessor’) deal with the parties, the issues and the evidence direct. The CfJ assessor will be a leading lawyer and a construction specialist. After a thorough investigation of the evidence he or she will make an award on the merits, if this is needed. We say “if needed”, because, along the way, those in dispute are encouraged, usually successfully, to agree an outcome through inbuilt mediation.

Use of mediation in this way can bring about an earlier resolution and help restore relationships. It can look at the underlying problems and needs of the parties, not just the narrow issues the court or arbitration can decide. Importantly though, if mediation does not work, our assessor goes on to make an award, under the Arbitration Act, ensuring that, one way or the other, the parties have a definite and binding outcome. This reduces the time and cost spent by 80-90%. Going to court also causes avoidable stress and disruption, alienates the parties and consumes enormous amounts of staff time and money.

Centre for Justice provides:

Quick resolution

Lower cost

Greater reliability

Legally binding outcome

Positive and practical solutions

To find out more

Call us on 020 7263 2553

Email: info@centreforjustice.org

Visit our website www.centreforjustice.org

To read the full article online go to: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/30d47067#/30d47067/35

Law Centres Network issues guidance to branches on use of CfJ

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:13:00 -0500

The Director of the Law Centres Network gives national guidance to branches on the use of CfJ as an effective alternative to court.

Centre for Justice: A vital resource for Law Centres

For those who cannot afford to go to court, Centre for Justice (CfJ) provides an effective alternative. It resolves disputes, settles claims and achieves legally binding results in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost of litigation.

Centre for Justice provides users with quick resolution, allowing people on low incomes a way to protect their rights and obtain access to justice. Using its service there is no need for formal legal representation or complicated hearings.

CfJ combines the certainty of binding arbitration with the flexibility of mediation. It can take on any case that might go to the County or High Court and to most tribunals.

CfJ is working with several local authorities and companies to provide an effective, reliable and independent forum for people with issues with local government, banks, insurers and large corporations.

CfJ operates nationally and we welcome opportunities to work with Law Centres in England and Wales. We aim to increase access to justice for the 95% of citizens who are unable to protect their rights through the courts.

Please visit our new website to find out more www.centreforjustice.org or contact us on 020 7263 2553 or by email info@centreforjustice.org

Bulletin on Leveson and the proposed press arbitration scheme

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:50:00 -0500

In his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press, Lord Justice Leveson recommends an arbitration scheme for claims against the press. This will be run by the new regulatory body he recommends in his report. It will be cost free to the claimant and it will be inquisitorial. It is to be ‘fast, fair and inexpensive’.

All of these are laudable aims. They borrow, indirectly, from a CfJ style model, but they do suffer from drawbacks.

The proposals assume membership by the press organisation of the regulatory body. Membership and use of the scheme will not, unlike the Financial Ombudsman Scheme and other services, be mandatory, but any parties that do not avail themselves will have to justify their decision, when it comes to costs, if they choose to go to court instead. This is not very different from the way parties who refuse to use ADR currently have to justify themselves. The possible costs sanctions of not using the scheme will be the principal incentive. This has not to date been very effective in persuading parties to take up other forms of ADR.

The scheme is to be free to the complainant, and paid for by the defendant. The press will have a strong incentive to keep down the costs of the scheme, and as with other ‘Ombudsman’ style schemes, there will be limits on jurisdiction and it will have its own rules and process. In other schemes, even where membership has been compulsory, the fact that the defendant is paying results in great pressure from the members of the scheme to cut the cost and to underfunding, resulting in a poorer, less thorough investigation of issues.

Here the scheme is to be voluntary, which will increase the likelihood of under-funding, even if it is eventually supported by statute.

This will be seen as a scheme embedded in an industry and paid for by that industry, which may carry perceptions of partiality and ineffectiveness, as happens with other Ombudsman schemes.

To suggest that there may be a costs sanction on an individual complainant, who fails to agree to its use, unconvinced as to its merits, and who believes he will get a better service from the courts, is worrying.

We believe this is the occasion to introduce a CfJ style model. This model anticipates and avoids the problems Lord Justice Leveson has yet to address. An immediate advantage is that the CfJ scheme operates across all industries and is not funded by the press industry, achieving complete neutrality and ensuring a full investigation. Its use is paid for by both parties; but to ensure it remains affordable to all, a party with limited means can have any contribution means-weighted. This ensures a quality service and fair and reliable results. It is inquisitorial. It is effective and remains highly affordable. By incorporating mediation within the arbitration, outcomes are generally agreed rather than imposed, and it is rare a decision is required. We believe this is to be preferred, as it leads to better outcomes and usually leaves the parties happier with the result.

CfJ arbitration service achieves £240,000 cost saving for local authority

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:48:00 -0500

Litigation Futures

The London Borough of Havering has saved an estimated £240,000 of costs and significantly reduced the time required to resolve three recent disputes, according to arbitrators, the Centre for Justice.

Centre for Justice uses lawyer assessors to investigate and then adjudicate on the case if a settlement is not possible, and claims that the public sector is losing up to 10% of its revenues annually in handling complaints and disputes through the courts.

The three cases, which were all resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, within two months of the Centre for Justice being appointed, represent the wide spectrum of the borough’s legal issues and involved sums ranging from £20,000 to more than £4m.

One case involved the claim to a new tenancy by a local business with a counterclaim for arrears of rent and breach of covenant by the borough. The case was successfully concluded with the business now fully operational with a new tenancy from the borough.

The second case involved a dispute over a contract for the provision of social care services to council adult social care clients, with the supplier, council and clients all as parties. This case was settled amicably, the contract renewed and the clients remain in situ.

The third concerned an alleged error in the council’s registry offices, which was claimed to have resulted in the postponement of a marriage and the costs of postponement.

Alex Cumming of the London Borough of Havering’s legal department said: “The Centre for Justice was cost effective and met all our objectives. I would be very happy to recommend the process and we will be using it again.”

Anthony Hurndall, director of the Centre for Justice, said: “Our form of arbitration does not rely on an adversarial approach to arrive at a result. Our trained arbitrators deal directly with the parties and usually achieve an amicable settlement without the need for a formal award.

“It is evidence of the integrity of the service that, with each of the London Borough of Havering cases, relationships have been restored and the parties continue to do business together.”

CfJ appoints panel of silks

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:00:00 -0400

The Lawyer

Centre for Justice, an adjudication service for business, government and the public, has established a panel of silks for its insurer service users.

The panel is made up of four insurance silks: 7 King’s Bench Walks’ Julia Dias QC and Adam Fenton QC, Devereux Chambers’ Colin Edelman QC and Hardwicke Chambers’ Paul Reed QC.

Anthony Hurndall, founder and director of Centre for Justice, said: “Our dealings with the insurance industry have revealed a need and desire for a very tailored approach and the new panel means we’re excellently prepared to meet the particular challenges faced by insurers.

http://www.thelawyer.com/centre-for-justice-appoints-panel-of-silks/1008913.article

CfJ resolving cases in Camden

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Voluntary Action Camden

Centre for Justice has been resolving disputes for businesses and the community in Camden and the surrounding area now for over a year. Developed by a group of leading London barristers and solicitors, the Centre offers a new and independent legal service which can resolve disputes without the need for parties to go to court.

The organisation, through a streamlined process, ensures justice is accessible at minimum cost and disputes are resolved quickly with minimum stress and disruption. It can handle almost any kind of legal dispute including disputes involving property and leases, housing, personal injury, insurance, compensation, finance and banking, contract, business and employment.

Parties can jointly refer their case to the Centre or individuals and businesses can refer a dispute and the Centre will contact the other party. After parties agree to engage with the process, the Centre appoints an assessor from their panel of fifteen leading lawyers and experts, who will investigate the issues in dispute and help resolve them where possible through mediation at a meeting or series of discussions. If the parties do not agree the assessor will make a final and legally binding award.

The process is reliable, cost-effective, practical, user-friendly, fair and quick because the assessor is dealing directly with the parties and the evidence. There is no need to go to court, hire lawyers, and get involved in complex rules or hearings. Individuals and businesses can control costs and risks as they are given clear cost and time estimates, and can request the assessor’s view and know the likely risks and result from an early stage. Parties have the chance to explore more practical solutions outside the narrow legal issues and can rebuild relationships. Ultimately the service ensures a certain outcome in the form of an agreement or award (which is final and legally binding under the Arbitration Act).

As one example of a successful result to a case in the Borough, the Centre recently helped an elderly lady avoid the stress of going through the court process, saved her from eviction, and improved her relationship with her housing association. The lady disputed the association’s claim she was in rent arrears and should be evicted because they thought the flat was a fire-risk. She was unable to leave her home and so the Centre’s staff went to her house to get more information. After reviewing her documents and speaking to the housing association, the Centre spoke found this lady, in fact, had no rent arrears and persuaded the association not to evict her.

The Centre is helping local businesses and NGOs save time and costs. The Centre recently resolved a dispute between two businesses over a commission payment. The claim was worth £10,000. Although the dispute had been running for nearly a year, the assessor helped the parties resolve the dispute in less than four weeks.

As a part of the Centre’s commitment to access to justice and to help launch the service within the community, we are allocating funds to take on a number of cases at no charge.

Visit the Centre’s website at www.centreforjusice.org to find out more about the organisation’s services. To make an appointment for a free initial consultation, please contact Miss Umbarin Rahman on 020 7726 6117 or email her atur@centreforjustice.org.

What future for standards in local government?

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Local Government Lawyer

Peter Keith-Lucas looks at the options open to councils when the present standards regime is replaced by a new duty to promote high standards of conduct next year.

The Localism Bill will place a new duty on principal authorities in England to promote and maintain high standards of conduct among elected and co-opted members of the authority, but remove the present means of discharging this duty by abolishing the General Principles, the Model Code of Conduct, the Standards Board and local authority Standards Committees. In its place will be a new statutory Register of Members’ Interests, with criminal penalties for failure to comply.

Some members have suggested that their authority should do nothing other than implement the new statutory interests regime. But I would suggest that high standards of conduct go beyond mere compliance with a statutory interests regime. The General Principles indicate that Parliament considered that standards covered such issues as honesty and integrity, openness and accountability, respect for others, personal judgement and stewardship, so an authority which simply implemented the statutory interests regime would fail to address substantial areas of standards of member conduct, and so fail to discharge its new duty.

Non-statutory Code of Conduct

The Localism Bill envisages that authorities may wish to adopt their own non-statutory Code of Conduct, and it is hard to see how any authority could claim to promote and maintain high standards of conduct unless it had set out what standards it expected of its members. The simplest course would be simply to re-adopt the general conduct rules in paras. 3-7 of the Model Code, as these are the parts which will not be replaced by the statutory interests regime.

If this non-statutory Code were applied to conduct as a councillor (and not getting into the complications of trying to apply the Code to conduct in private life), it is hard to see what can really be objected to. Does anyone seriously consider that it is appropriate for members to bully, breach confidentiality, misuse their positions for personal advantage, fail to treat people with respect, cause the authority to discriminate unlawfully, intimidate or victimise witnesses, bring their offices as members or their authorities into disrepute, misuse council resources or ignore statutory officers’ advice? Such a non-statutory Code could be supplemented by guidance to members on danger areas such as use of IT and the Internet, planning and lobbying, member- officer relations and gifts and hospitality.

However, the Localism Bill provides that, where a local authority does adopt a non-statutory Code of Conduct, it must then respond to any written complaints that a member or co-opted member has failed to comply with that Code by considering whether the matter should be investigated and, if satisfied by the investigation that a member or co-opted member has failed to comply, decide what action if any to take. This removes the un-lamented review subcommittee, and gives considerable freedom to delegate more of the process, to enable speedier investigation and resolution of simple matters.

Investigation of complaints

It is possible to do all of this between the Monitoring Officer and full Council. But full Council is not a convenient forum for detailed examination of an investigation report so most councils will find it more convenient to set up a committee to advise them on how best to discharge the new duty and to undertake casework on complaints. The Bill removes the rigid bureaucratic process for handling of complaints, so that this committee could allow the Monitoring Officer to seek local resolution and determine that a complaint need go no further if the complainant is satisfied with the member’s response. To speed the process, the committee might say that the consent of the Chair would be required for a decision not to investigate a complaint, but that the Monitoring Officer could take the decision to initiate an investigation. The Monitoring Officer’s investigation report might then go to the Standards Committee for examination, and to give the member an opportunity to respond.

Independent members

That raises the issue of whether such a committee can include co-opted independent members. Section 102(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 enables the co-option of non-councillors onto the committee, but s.13 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 prevents them from having a vote on the committee unless it is purely advisory. So, at present, it would be necessary for the committee to recommend any matter on to Council for decision, if the co-opted independent members are to have a vote. This may be positively advantageous on individual complaints, as full Council would have ownership of the matter, could remove the errant member from outside bodies and, with the approval of the member’s Group Leader, remove the member from committees.

But it would be tedious to have to wait for the next Council meeting where the committee was undertaking administrative steps such as trying to arrange member training. It would be welcome if the Government were to indicate a willingness to amend either the Localism Bill or the Committees and Political Groups Regulations 1990 to allow co-opted members full voting rights on non-statutory Standards Committees.

Ability to deal with member misconduct

Some councillors will misbehave. Their conduct can seriously disrupt the ability of an authority to discharge its functions effectively. They can discredit the authority with the public. Repeated leaking of confidential information deters citizens from confiding in the authority. They can drive out good officers and deter good candidates from seeking election to the Council. Breaches of the general conduct rules are rarely visible to the electorate and are rarely resolved through the ballot box, and an authority may need to limit the damage which an errant member can wreak before the next election.

Without the statutory sanctions of suspension, an authority’s ability to deal with serious member misconduct will be strictly circumscribed. It can name and shame. Full Council can remove as Leader or, with the Group Leader’s support it can remove from committees, and the Leader can be persuaded to remove the errant member from Cabinet. Where there is a failure to register interests, it can seek to persuade the Police to take an interest.

Few Standards Committees will mourn the loss of responsibility for parish and town councillors, but where a member is seriously disrupting the ability of the authority to discharge its functions effectively, such new non-statutory committees may feel that they lack the tools to fulfil the new statutory duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct among members.

CfJ’s Comment

The difficulty with most complaints procedures is they are run by or under the aegis of those being complained of. The public perception is that complaints are not independently investigated. This is a concern Centre for Justice wishes to help enable local authorities and their members to address. We would encourage all councils to engage with us in securing the best way to ensure the highest standards are maintained and seen to be maintained.

See the full article at:http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6810:-what-future-for-standards&catid=59:governance-a-risk-articles&q=&Itemid=27

Non-adversarial approach could save councils money

Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Guardian.co.uk Article on Public Leaders Network

Up to 10% of public resources are being lost by local authorities in handling disputes and complaints, a cost that is wholly avoidable and which could be redirected instead to frontline services.

At the heart of this waste is the adversarial system. When a problem is raised, staff are placed in a defensive position and have to justify their actions through proper complaints procedures. The focus, then, is on process not resolution, where positions often become entrenched and the original issue no longer addressed.

To that end, the Centre for Justice (CfJ) launched an initiative last month aimed at encouraging leaders and senior management to adopt our service. We believe it will help councils retain valuable resources, lost through expensive legal costs and also through the vast amount of unrecorded time staff spend dealing with conflict.

So how can local authorities provide the early resolution essential to defuse situations and restore relationships? Courts and tribunals are acknowledged to be slow, risky and expensive. These and internal complaints procedures can inflame a sense of grievance and alienate parties. Ombudsman schemes also have serious limitations on what they can do effectively and are not well perceived among the public.

What is needed is an efficient, affordable and independent alternative. It was to meet this need that the centre, an independent, not-for-profit body, was established – to resolve disputes quickly and cost efficiently, and to put councils in control of cost, risk and outcome. To make this possible, the centre uses modern arbitration, adopting a wholly non-adversarial approach. Instead, a specialist arbitrator deals directly with the parties involved and the evidence. We find that this delivers sounder and more predictable results, and at a far lower cost because the expense, uncertainty, delay and risk of an adversarial court process is removed.

Modern arbitration blends in mediation, with the arbitrator actively offering to mediate between parties at each stage to find a constructive solution to the issue in hand, leading to positive outcomes that no court can provide.

The case involving Stephen Nearly that came before the courts last year is a good example of how a non-adversarial process could have saved both time and money. Hillingdon council spent more than a year – and probably several hundred thousand pounds – defending its decision to keep Neary in care.

A judge later overturned that decision, saying the care was neither wanted or needed. If these decisions go to court, on judicial review or otherwise, it results in a great deal of legal cost and staff time. Not only can this generate considerable stress and hostility, but it can still leave both parties in limbo. While a judge can quash the original decision, this still provides no solution and can force the case back to the start.

If the case goes instead to our centre, a specialist arbitrator helps council and client agree the right outcome. The arbitrator advises on the legal issues and decides these where necessary. This enables council and client to find positive solutions for the most intractable and emotive issues.

The Centre for Justice service is now being taken up successfully within the sector and needs to be adopted more widely. On cases to date, it is saving councils in excess of 90% of the legal costs and staff time of going to court or tribunal, and with more reliable and better results.

The centre believes local authorities will quickly see several million pounds of savings through use of the service. If you would like to find out more you can do so on the Centre for Justice website

Universities just cannot afford law suits

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:23:00 -0400

The Guardian

Universities must look at mediation to settle disputes rather than spending vast sums of money, time and energy fighting claims by staff or students

Not long ago, the University of St Andrews spent more than £200,000 on legal fees in successfully defending a claim for constructive dismissal by a lecturer. He claimed he had been forced out by bullying and intolerable working conditions. But the legal fees were 10 times the amount the university might have paid in compensation had it lost the case.

Disputes in academia tend to arouse powerful emotions, as the reputation of an institution or the intellectual credibility of an individual is often at stake. The desire to protect these is understandable, but is it excessive pride that drives people and institutions to seek vindication in the courts and tribunals? They go to extremes to achieve “justice” or “fairness”, waging war on “matters of principle”.

Higher education institutions are still investing vast sums of much-needed funds fighting claims by students, staff, or governing bodies, just to maintain their institutional and professional integrity. But with the recent National Audit Office report warning universities of the high risk of financial failure, continuing such expenditure in the future will be little short of scandalous.

In 2006, an eminent professor, aggrieved at his marking being subject to two reviews, brought proceedings for constructive dismissal against Bournemouth University. After the case had been through the employment tribunal and the appeal tribunal, the court of appeal finally decided in the professor’s favour. It took four years of litigation and countless time, energy and costs on both sides.

In 2005, a student with a sleep disorder lodged a disability discrimination complaint against Salford University. After five years of litigation, judgment was given in the university’s favour. But the judge commented: “The engagement of a suitable mediator at an early stage could result in a rapid and satisfactory resolution from the point of view of all parties before positions become entrenched.”

Mediation is a way of resolving disputes quickly (in a matter of days) and effectively (approximately 85% success rate) while maintaining the reputation and credibility of higher education institutions, and keeping staff “on side”.

A 1998 survey by Professor Dame Hazel Genn showed that 65% of successful litigants were dissatisfied with the outcome: either their compensation was inadequate, or it came too late, or the process had been too costly and damaging

The mediation works like this: a trained mediator acts as a “facilitator”, seeing and listening to both parties in confidential sessions. Both sides are helped to arrive at a resolution themselves. Any settlement is legally binding, with the force of a contract or court order. This system provides an opportunity for a candid exchange of views – and for venting rage if necessary – in a safe environment. A skilled mediator can cut through emotional blockages and effectively deal with those “points of principle” that can cause parties to dig in their heels

The government is urging us all to resolve disputes without the intervention of courts or tribunals. When will universities see that this is something they too need to learn?

Paul Randolph is a barrister at the chambers of Ami Feder and teaches mediation at Regent’s College, London

Comments in chronological order:

I agree broadly with the narrow focus of the article, namely that cases which are going to court really ought to be settled at the preliminary stage through mediation.

More widely, however, as someone working at the chalkface in an institution that is clearly terrified of the threat of legal action, this fear (much more than the very occasional reality) is being allowed to drive policy and practices in all sorts of dysfunctional ways.

At my place we are now told, in order to protect the institution from litigation, that we should write real-time minutes of every one-to-one conversation we have with our own students; that we should never discuss student cases in emails or on paper (lest DPA be exploited by a litigant); and that we should not discuss anything sensitive in formal minuted staff meetings (because FoI, backed by threats of legal action, is also a paranoid concern).

We are told that whatever a student claiming to have Special Needs wants must be granted: thus, we’re now giving degrees to kids who won’t talk in class, can’t work to a deadline, can’t produce coherent written work and say they can’t cope with the “stress” of attending classes regularly, let alone taking an exam. So worried are my employers about being dragged into the courts that they have long since lost the confidence to ask what the word “reasonable” in the DDA might actually mean and how far we should really be prepared to go in compromising the academic integrity of our awards.

All of this and much more is going on, and indeed getting worse, because university managements have become ever more nervous about the mere potential for legal action. And it’s a far more serious and substantial problem on a daily basis than how they respond on the very rare occasions when a real court case actually hoves into view.

Mr Bendy 3 May 2011

Paul Randolph is quite right. Mediation is of course an eminently sensible way of putting an adversarial procedure on hold while those involved try to find a solution which is in everyone’s interests. In a higher education dispute it allows for creative solutions far beyond the range of remedies a court or tribunal can offer.

But isn’t improving dispute-resolution in the complex world of higher education something which should be tackled at a higher level in each institution? A culture- and climate-change could save institutions a lot of money as well as being better for students and employees in trouble.

There is bound to be a rise in student complaints and disputes about academic redundancies as the new funding system comes into use. The signs are there already.

The right way forward is surely for universities and colleges to review their ‘systems’ for dealing with disputes and overhaul their procedures, not ‘defensively’ but in the interests of promoting just treatment and common sense and early resolution.

Those who first hear of a student complaint or notice ‘trouble brewing’ in the departmental workplace need to be confident that they understand the rules of fairness. It can be difficult for managers or senior academics with management responsibilities to know what to do at the outset. They need to know where to find the institution’s procedures and how to use them and who they can ask if they are not sure.

Getting it right at the beginning can make all the difference. Someone to carry out a ‘reality check’ at the beginning can help - few institutions yet have a campus ‘ombudsman’ or early dispute assessor.

The not-for-profit Improving Dispute Resolution Advisory Service which has grown out of a HEFCE-funded project on Improving Dispute Resolution has a website at www.idras.ac.uk, full, we hope, of useful information for institutions and individuals.

Professor GR Evans 3 May 2011

I agree with the previous comment that Higher Education Institutions should review their internal procedures and include mechanisms to enable early resolution of complaints and disputes. Where disputes cannot be resolved internally, the often disproportionate expense, lengthy time delay, stress and disruption of a court case should be avoided at all costs.

What is needed is a straightforward approach that keeps costs and timescales to a minimum, is non-adversarial, focusing on the merits of the case rather than the skills of opposing teams of lawyers. The result - a fair and conclusive outcome with the chance to maintain or mend reputations and relationships.

Mediation is one way forward. It is though not overly used because it smacks for some of undue compromise extracted under threat of court action. For others the lack of a certain outcome can put them off, with unsuccessful mediations only adding to the cost and delay. While the best mediators, of whom Paul Randolph is one, can achieve success rates of 85%, the reality for most is a success rate far lower, with even leading mediation services quoting 60-70% and some forms of mediation being less than 50% successful.

Centre for Justice has developed a non-adversarial process which provides the benefits of mediation but also guarantees certainty. It has the additional advantage of not requiring the parties to enter into unfair or unsatisfactory compromises. The Centre is an independent not for profit organisation that works with a panel of assessors, all experienced and well respected lawyers, to investigate and adjudicate cases with ongoing mediation available as part of the process. The website centreforjustice.org.uk has useful information about its unique approach to dispute resolution that HEIs, their students and employees may find useful.

Carolyn Smith, Director, Centre for Justice 4 May 2011

Legal action pledge for Croydon

Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Croydon Guardian

Centre for Justice, which acts as an arbiter in civil disputes such as insurance claims, neighbourhood disputes and employment issues, is sending questionnaires to every Croydon Councillor in the next fortnight and has already met with its legal department.

The company, based in the City, was founded by Anthony Hurndall, a solicitor with more than 25 years experience in property law.

He said: “Because of the price of lawyers and the time the courts take seeking legal action for all but the very rich is simply not possible.

We work to settle disputes out of court in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost.”

He explained Centre for Justice appoints an arbiter from a database of lawyers who listen and investigate both sides’ claims before making a judgement.

The award is then pursued through the courts by the lawyer, should payment not be forthcoming.

Mr Hurndall said: “The legal system set up is adversarial, claimants are encouraged to essentially fight it out. We want to encourage people to talk and reach a solution that pleases both sides.”

The group is already working with Havering Council, East London, and in negotiations with Westminster and Camden.

Mr Hurndall believes his company could save the council millions.

He said: “Hundreds of hours are wasted by council workers having to go back and forth in disputes that are never resolved. We estimate at least 5 - 10% of public revenue is lost in conflicts and disputes.”

Croydon Council confirmed negotiations had taken place but nothing had been agreed.

Launch of Major Cost Saving Initiative

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Centre for Justice Circular to Local Authority Leaders and Chief Executives

Centre for Justice is launching an initiative with local government to help councils save time and money lost through complaints and disputes. These are currently estimated to be consuming 6-10% of public revenues.

The service is now being taken up by local government with immediate benefits and significant results.

CfJ is raising awareness of this service with local authorities interested in sharing the benefits - it is being shown to save over 85% of the costs and staff time lost to conflict. This is money that can be redirected to frontline services.

CfJ is an independent public service providing the community and government with a safe and reliable way to resolve their disputes quickly and efficiently. It is an effective alternative to going to court, and to councils’ complaints procedures and the Local Government Ombudsman.

CfJ is one of few current initiatives which can both substantially reduce costs and help local authorities improve services and performance.

Centre for Justice.

26 April 2012

For further information please contact Sarah Nagle or Ivan Daffern at

Local Government Liaison

Centre for Justice

50 Gresham Street Tel: 020 7726 6112

London EC2V 7AY Fax: 020 7600 7702

www.centreforjustice.org

Calls for submissions from Public Administration Select Committee

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0400

The PASC has called for submissions on its inquiry into future oversight of administrative justice and proposed abolition of Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC)

Response of Centre for Justice (CfJ) to the proposals for the abolition of the AJTC.

Executive Summary

It is essential that society has effective mechanisms for the oversight of government and for providing the citizen with redress when there is administrative injustice. With our without AJTC, it is CfJ’s concern that there is still no adequate forum for securing redress and accountability, and it has set itself the task of researching the issue and providing effective solutions.

Introduction

Proper redress for users of public services and those dealing with government is a matter of intense concern to all those involved with the public sector.

CfJ’s role in the sector has been to focus on a) securing proper redress and access to justice for those who deal with central government, local government and public sector organisations; b) improving dispute resolution and complaint handling within the sector for the benefit of both the organisations involved and those who deal with them; and c) achieving efficiencies and savings to enable the public sector to focus resources on frontline services.

The proposed abolition of the AJTC is a source of some anxiety to all who have an interest in good government, and highlights the question of what mechanisms are available to the individual, the citizen, to challenge the decisions and actions of local and central administration. It is crucial the community has the right mechanisms and that these mechanisms are effective.

Having such mechanisms is fundamental to any free and democratic society. They are essential not only for the individual but for society as a whole. A right is of no value without effective redress. The right can be ignored with impunity and is illusory. Without effective mechanisms to enforce the rights of the citizen, there can be no pretence that we are in any real sense a just society.

What every citizen and society therefore needs is a straightforward, affordable, speedy, independent and effective mechanism or forum which will protect and enforce the rights of the individual.

The existence or right to access such a forum is part of the contract between the state and its members.

It is our concern at CfJ that we lack any adequate forum. This concern needs to be explained before we address the potential roles of AJTC and CfJ in safeguarding redress.

What mechanisms are available: the present landscape

Present mechanisms for the protection of rights in the public sector consist of the courts, a variety of tribunals and the various ombudsman services (principally the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSLO) and the Housing Ombudsman (HO)). The courts are viewed by many as slow, costly, cumbersome and high risk. It can still take years for a matter to work its way through the courts to final appeal. The stress and cost for the individual can be damaging, if not ruinous, and going to court is beyond the means of all but the wealthy, or those rare few who will in future still qualify for legal aid or be able to persuade a lawyer to take on their case on a conditional fee agreement. Lawyers working in the field acknowledge that litigation or process risk is of the order of 30% making the outcome of court proceedings highly uncertain. Lawyers consistently advise clients not to go to court, if this can be avoided, and the courts themselves are encouraging increasing use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

It is CfJ’s central conclusion that it is the adversarial nature of court process that creates the problems of cost, delay, complexity and risk. It is the contest and confrontational approach to dispute resolution that is at the heart of the problem, and it is this which necessitates the employment of expensive teams of lawyers and experts to guide and protect the parties through a complex process, which itself adds to the cost and delay.

The numerous tribunal services, while less formal, are equally adversarial. Through their multiplicity and complexity, they represent an even more impenetrable world for the layman, who can negotiate them usually only with the help of a specialist lawyer.

For those who cannot face or cannot afford the court and tribunal services, there is supposedly a remedy to be had from the ombudsmen. The difficulty here is ombudsman services suffer from a number of limitations. They all have different rules, jurisdictions and procedures. What they do though have in common is that they cannot usually be used until all internal complaints procedures within the organisation complained of have been followed through and concluded, resulting in long delays. These delays can seriously exacerbate the problem and cause further injustice.

As just one example of the many limitations that apply to Ombudsmen schemes, the LGO, the most relevant scheme for most people, is precluded by statute from deciding any issue which could be decided by a court or tribunal. It is therefore not an alternative. This severely restricts the role and relevance of the service. There are a whole range of further limitations.

Ombudsmen schemes are commonly viewed with scepticism. Their effectiveness and the likelihood they will deliver a fair and just result is often doubted. (We are carrying out a survey as to public confidence levels).

The figures unfortunately seem to bear out the concerns expressed. Last year the LGO upheld the highest number of complaints, but this was only 26% of cases raised and the PHSO only upheld 1.6% of those raised. We await figures from the HO. The average compensation awarded to those complaining in the last year was £19.57 (LGO), £7.38 (HO) and £54.95 (PHSO).

For every £1 spent on their investigation service the ombudsmen awarded only 11p (LGO), 1.2 p (HO) and 1.4p (PHSO).[1]

It is hard to answer critics who question the justification for this level of cost and the huge disproportion between cost and compensation awarded, and those who question the independence and effectiveness of these schemes.

(These figures compare with the compensation ratio for the service CfJ have been trialling where for every £1 spent, the compensation awarded or agreed averages £10.03. What is particularly interesting is that these figures are generally agreed and the ‘defendant’ has in each case expressed itself satisfied with both the service and compensation agreed. This indicates that the service is delivering the right results but very much more cost efficiently. It is evident that government bodies can have a service which awards compensation they are happy to pay, but at a very much lower cost than they are presently paying).

What is indisputable is that if the courts and ombudsmen schemes are the only options available to a member of the public, there cannot be said to be any real or effective way to challenge government or obtain compensation or redress when an individual or SME dealing with the administration is wronged and suffers injustice. (Mediation as part of the court process makes a useful contribution, but is not taken up due to its own perceived shortcomings, which CfJ addresses in its own dispute resolution model on which we comment below).

It is here we believe that CfJ has a significant role to play, and it is reassuring that there is now a workable alternative on offer.

The abolition of the AJT

It is important, particularly in the light of the concerns we have highlighted, that there is at least some effective scrutiny of the process of challenge. This is where the AJTC has a function and there can be no question that the oversight of government can be undertaken by government itself as the Ministry of Justice propose.

Our own concern is that the retention of ACTC is nowhere near adequate in itself to deal with the lack of proper scrutiny and redress. It can be seen that even with the AJTC proper redress has not been secured.

What is needed

What is unquestionably needed is an affordable, truly independent, quick and straightforward forum for public and government to sort out their issues.

It was to help fill the void that CfJ was established as a not for profit service and an effective alternative to courts, tribunals and ombudsman schemes.

We have concluded that the key to meeting this need is the removal of the adversarial approach from the handling of problems. It is by taking a non-adversarial approach that the cost, stress, delay and hostility are removed from the resolution of disputes and grievances. It is by treating these as problems to be resolved with the positive assistance of a CfJ style service, rather than as battles to be fought between opposing adversaries, that speedy and constructive solutions can be found, for the benefit of both the individual and the government body concerned.

What is needed is a supportive but inquisitorial adjudication model as provided by CfJ. This gives a decision through adjudication when required, but helps the parties to agree a solution through mediation where possible. Importantly, where mediation is unsuccessful, or not attractive to the parties, the CfJ service carries out a thorough investigation of the issues and makes a binding award. It does this without hostility and without the need for complex process, protracted hearings or the need for teams of lawyers to represent the parties. It is a fully non-adversarial model. It has worked well in the initial stages of simulated and actual trials and is being well received.

This paper is not intended to promote or set out the CfJ service and its benefits in detail. What we want to show is that there is a demand for an effective model which can meet the needs of the public and government; and that it is possible to find such a model, one which answers the call for greater accountability and redress set out in the recent Open Public Services White Paper, to which CfJ responded in October, and which saves money for the public sector. CfJ has demonstrated the model and established that this provides the public with redress and the public sector with reduced settlements and substantial savings in costs.

Cost savings and efficiencies

On this last point, our research at CfJ has shown that, from full blown disputes, fought through courts and tribunals, down to the low level problems that cause ongoing friction and dissension through endless fruitless meetings, correspondence, telephone calls, and which continue to fester unresolved sometimes for many years, public sector conflicts consume enormous amounts of staff time and public resource.

These disputes draw in councillors, MPs, media and senior staff; often escalating through various levels of complaints procedure to sometimes repeated references to the ombudsmen, and then to the courts. These disputes and grievances, resolved or not, are enormously damaging to relationships, health, morale and reputations, causing loss of productivity, absenteeism and untold further fallout within the organisations concerned not to mention for the complainants and their communities.

It is estimated that anything up to 10% of public resources can be consumed in low to high level conflicts and disputes. This is in addition to the unnecessary legal costs of pursuing and defending claims through the courts. Even in the private sector top executives have been shown by research to spend 20% of their time in dispute resolution and that a dispute of no more than £1million in value will, if contested in court, typically take up over three years in total management time[1]. The resources diverted from front line services in this way are enormous. This waste is avoidable.

There are clear and substantial efficiencies and savings that can be achieved through proper use of an effective dispute resolution service.

The CfJ approach is designed to provide these efficiencies, and ensure resources and funding are directed where they are needed.

We understand that studies have further shown that with checks and balances through independent scrutiny and through customer/user challenge and feedback, services improve and become more efficient, staff morale and motivation are improved and all parts of the organisation flourish.

It is of interest that the level of settlement can also be reduced using the model we advocate. Where the parties are put into a more constructive and less confrontational environment, they are usually willing to settle on more reasonable terms.

Conclusion

Through this modern and more enlightened approach to dispute resolution the government can not only improve redress and access to justice, but save money and safeguard and improve services. It is a clear win-win situation and one that needs to be pursued urgently in these difficult times.

CfJ are opening up discussions with central government, at present through the Ministry of Justice and Cabinet Office, to explore the benefits of the CfJ approach.

We would expect government to welcome the opportunity offered, though we have had no immediate response to date. We hope in early 2012 to have meetings with ministers to explore and progress the introduction of the service and would welcome the assistance of the Committee to facilitate discussions.

Anthony Hurndall, Director

Centre for Justice

4 January 2012

[1] Figures given in this paper can be substantiated and sourced on request. Sources have not been included due to the shortage of time as CfJ has been asked to make a late submission.

[1] See note 1 above on sources.

Review of Russell on Arbitration 23rd edition (Sweet & Maxwell)

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Centre for Justice

‘Russell on Arbitration’ provides an extremely clear and thorough explanation of the practical process of arbitration, written with the practitioner firmly in mind and covering the topic of arbitration through every stage, from the arbitration agreement right through to the role of the court in the enforcement and challenge of an arbitral award. The straightforward writing style of the authors makes this book very easy to read and an invaluable and handy resource for those involved in the practice of arbitration.

Russell covers the main aspects of the arbitration process in concise paragraphs over eight chapters, commencing with a succinct introductory overview to the topic of arbitration and its treatment in the book, followed by an admirably detailed discussion of the arbitration agreement, the parties, the institutions, the tribunal, the conduct of the reference, the award, the role of the court before and during the arbitration, and the role of the court after the award.

The practical experience of the authors is evident too in the layout of the book. Its thoughtful layout enables the reader, with the help of an index and the convenience of margin paragraph numbers, to quickly find information in the text of the book cross-referenced with the appendices.

The comprehensive appendices are an excellent complement to the chapters. The brilliance of the appendices is their immediate accessibility in this single portable book and include the principal statute - the Arbitration Act 1996 and related statutory instruments including the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction, The Department Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law Report on the Arbitration Bill (DAC Report) which provides the English legal thinking behind the 1996 Act, a guide to statutory arbitration, and very conveniently for those concerned with international arbitration in one of the fifty other foreign jurisdictions now following the increasingly popular Model Law, a comparison between the 1996 Act and the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law).

The references are excellent–being relevant and well organised. The practical focus of the work is of great benefit to those using the book as a reference tool; the reader is pointed in the right direction for further study and in no way does this detract from the comprehensiveness of the work which explains the arbitration process in excellent detail whilst remaining readable. The most recent cases on arbitration law are covered with the expert analysis and commentary.

The 23^rd edition of ‘Russell on Arbitration’ like earlier editions of this work, covers everything an arbitration practitioner is likely to need to know with a refreshing simplicity and clarity which will ensure that Russell on Arbitration will continue to be the favourite companion for many arbitration practitioners.

Future of Litigation Costs: Government Position on Jackson LJ's response

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Centre for Justice

A brief summary of the Government’s proposals on litigation costs following the Jackson response to the Government’s consultation paper.

In its proposals for the future funding of civil litigation, the Government has taken up some but not all of the proposals contained in Sir Rupert Jackson’s report. Sir Rupert has responded to its proposals and appears to agree with much of what Government suggests.

No one argues with Sir Rupert’s principal finding that costs are too high and are disproportionate. The main proposals that the Government has selected for consultation are:

Reform of CFAs (Conditional Fee Agreements)
Introduction of one way costs shifting (explained below)
Contingency fees (described as Damages Based Agreements or DBAs)
10% increase in damages payable by defendants who do not accept reasonable offers to settle

What are the proposals and what do they mean?

Reform of CFA regime

Under the existing CFA regime, a claimant can instruct a solicitor on the basis that the client is only charged if he wins. In the event he wins, the solicitor is entitled to charge the client his usual fee, plus a success fee to compensate him for the risk of not recovering any fees should his client be unsuccessful.

The success fee can be up to 100% of the solicitor’s normal fee and 100% success fees are common for cases that go to trial. In addition, the claimant will want to cover himself against the possibility that he may lose and have to pay the defendant’s costs. His solicitor will therefore arrange insurance against the possibility of his paying the other side’s costs, using an ATE (After the Event) policy. The cost of insurance varies but the premium can be a large percentage of the likely costs liability. If the defendant loses he will pick up all the costs including the success fee and the ATE premium.

ATE is usually set up on the basis it is only payable on conclusion of the case. For claimants there is no interest in keeping costs or premiums down. While improving access to justice for some claimants, CFAs have had the opposite effect for most defendants, leaving them with a total costs liability sometimes three to four times what they themselves incurred.

To cater for this problem, it is now proposed that the success fee and ATE premium should no longer be recoverable from the defendant. This will obviously have some effect on the willingness of claimants to pursue their claims, as they will have to pay the success fee and ATE out of their damages. To protect against this, and preserve the principle that successful claimants should keep all their damages, three further measures are to be introduced:

General damages, i.e. those for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, are to be increased by 10%. (The Government suggests restricting this increase to CFA claims on the basis that it is only CFA claimants who need the uplift to cover the success fee they will now have to meet out of their damages, but Sir Rupert insists it should be universal).
The amount of the success fee in personal injury claims is to be limited to 25% of the damages (excluding any sum for future loss).
ATE is to be made unnecessary by relieving claimants from the liability to meet the other side’s costs if they lose (known as ‘one way costs shifting’ - see below).

There are some difficulties highlighted by the Government in relation to aspects of these proposals: there will be cases where the claimant cannot afford the success fee because he is not seeking damages, e.g. in housing disrepair or judicial review cases; the 25% cap may make the success fee inadequate in cases where the complexity of the investigation that has to go into the claim may make it unattractive for solicitors to take on the case; unsuccessful claimants will still have to meet all the incidental costs or disbursements, e.g. counsel’s and expert’s fees, unless they can find insurance. Sir Rupert does not accept these are problems of any significance.

Qualified one-way costs shifting

The usual principle in litigation is that the loser has to pay the winner’s costs. The Jackson report proposes that this rule only now applies to the defendant. The claimant will not pay the defendant’s costs, if he loses, and so will not need to need to take out ATE insurance. The claimant will only have to pay the other side’s costs if he behaves particularly unreasonably, e.g. brings a frivolous or fraudulent case, or the claimant is so wealthy, or the defendant is of such modest means, that the claimant should pay a proportion or all of the defendant’s costs, if he loses.

One of the questions the Government has left open is for which areas, and for which types of party, this ‘one way costs shifting’ should apply. There is clearly going to be some debate over this. Sir Rupert has stated in his response that it should not just be limited to CFA cases, to low value cases and those involving individuals.

Contingency fees (or Damages Based Agreements (DBAs))

A further alternative method of funding to be made available to claimants is through the adoption of contingency fees or DBAs. These are already allowed in certain tribunal cases. The suggestion is that the solicitor may charge his client up to 25% of any damages, excluding future loss. The solicitor may possibly be allowed a higher percentage if he pays his client’s disbursements, or accepts liability for the other side’s costs should his client lose.

If his client wins, the solicitor will be allowed to recover from the defendant the normal fee he would charge his client (his normal hourly charges and disbursements). If the contingency fee he actually charges his client is greater than his normal fee, the solicitor will recover this excess from his client’s damages, just as he would, as now proposed, recover the success fee under a CFA out of any damages his client recovers.

Offers to settle (Part 36 offers)

To encourage parties to settle, the Civil Procedure Rules confer benefits and rewards on claimants who make offers and beat them, i.e. secure a better result, at trial. At present higher costs and interest are awarded to claimants who beat the offers they make. As a further inducement to defendants, the defendant who does not accept a reasonable offer is to pay an additional 10% in damages.

CfJ Camden Pilot

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Camden New Journal

The Centre for Justice, an independent service which aims to resolve disputes without the need for parties to go to court, is being piloted in Camden before going nationwide.

Anthony Hurndall, a well-known property lawyer, believes it could provide an alternative for those who find the court system too expensive.

He said: “If you have a dispute, the Centre simply appoints an investigator, who is an experienced lawyer from their panel, to investigate and decide the issues in dispute. There is no need for the parties to hire their own lawyers.

“There are no complex procedures and no formal hearings.”

The investigator’s conclusion is a legally binding outcome that has the “same force as a high court judge.”

“The parties will have to pay something - but the costs will be absolutely minimal compared to the cost of going to court,” said Mr Hurndall.

“We are throwing open the system to the 99% of people who cannot afford to go to court. We will be working with area forums and going out into the community.”

The service is designed for private and business disputes of all kinds including landlord and tenant, property, insurance, partnership, business, finance, accidents, and employment.

The Centre for Justice was welcomed by councillors at a meeting in the Town Hall earlier this month.

Councillor Andrew Marshall, Camden Council’s executive member for community development and planning, said: “The Centre for Justice is a welcome addition to the borough’s already rich array of legal services, offering an alternative route for litigants.”

For more information on the Centre for Justice contact 020 7920 0018.

To read the full article online go to Feature on Centre for Justice.

Rights of redress, savings and efficiences

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

C’llr Magazine For Councillors from the LGIU

The Centre for Justice offers an adjudication service, settling disputes in a non-adversarial way that saves stress and money. The Centre’s Director Anthony Hurndall describes its work.

A councillor’s life is a tough one. Apart from the enormous range of stakeholders to consider, information to absorb, and priorities to juggle, there is the overriding need always to remain accountable and steadfast to voters.

In this difficult landscape, the Open Public Services White Paper and Localism Act are going to be of great interest to every councillor. The Localism Act signals the end of the ‘quango state’ and a move to greater local influence while the White Paper is challenging in its call for greater accountability and a more effective right to redress when users are unhappy with public services. Both of these policy drivers will put users at the heart of public services. The issue of redress is where Centre for Justice comes in. We set up Centre for Justice because we recognised the inadequacies of the courts, tribunals and Ombudsmen schemes.

The Centre is a modern adjudication service for public, business and government. It is an independent and not for profit service based in central London but working nationally. The Centre adjudicates all types of claim and dispute and is a straightforward and effective alternative to the courts. It is reducing the time and cost spent in resolving disputes by more than 80%. I believe that to deliver on the White Paper’s aims of openness, accountability and redress, and fair access for users of public services, government must offer users an effective, independent and affordable forum to enforce the right to delivery and a reliable service.

Without effective redress for non-delivery, the right to a service is illusory. The great thing for councils is that, with the right approach, providing redress does not cost them money, but saves it. Existing options do not serve the public or local authorities well, whether it’s over a housing repair complaint, a social care issue or a dispute with a supplier. Presently, there is only the option of going to court or to the relevant tribunal or the Ombudsman. However, courts and tribunals are notoriously costly, slow and unpredictable – and out of the reach of typical service users. The Ombudsman scheme is not viewed by the public as being effective or independent and your constituents have to exhaust all internal complaints procedures before even being referred. This can take months if not years.

Senior local government officials tell me the Centre for Justice approach ‘ticks all the boxes’ – it saves money, helps win the trust of service users and improves social well-being, health and cohesion.

An example of how our non-adversarial approach can not only make substantial savings but also keep reputations intact was a recent case involving a mistake in service delivery by a council in the South East. This resulted in a claim against that council of around £30,000. When the matter was referred to us, more than this amount had been run up in costs on the claimants’ side alone and the costs at that point were less than a third of the amount it was likely to cost the council if the case ran the full course. The claimants had nothing to lose as they were on a no-win, no fee contract. Within two months of referral to the Centre, the matter had been resolved, the claimant accepting less than a third of the amount claimed, and the council paying only our fee, less than £1,000. The saving in costs alone was over 90%, before you even consider the cost of staff time had the matter continued. This is not the exception but typical of the results on offer.

By adopting a Centre for Justice approach, your local area can similarly do the ‘right’ thing in policy terms and save money. Our research already shows the efficiencies can result in as much as a 10% reduction in total public sector expenditure. That’s 10% that can be redirected to securing frontline services. If you add to this, the value of a preserved reputation and less ‘wear and tear’ to staff morale and health, the savings are incalculable.

We will soon be issuing a call to action for all in the public sector. Tell me of a local authority facing massive cost-cutting which can afford not to embrace this service, especially when commentators predict policy changes are likely to lead to more disputes not less. You should be insisting on knowing the figures behind your local authority’s spend on complaint and dispute handling, not just in direct legal and complaint staff costs, but in time spent by other staff in dealing with long-running disputes and complaints, since this is a guaranteed route to savings which will help preserve vital services. We’re ready for this challenge – are you? www.centreforjustice.org.

If you would like to find out more or assist us with our research, please contact me on 0207 263 2553

or email me at dah@centreforjustice.org

Link to Cllr Magazine - December 2011:

http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Cllr-December-2011.pdf

Is Jackson the answer, or a reminder of the need for a new approach?

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The Chartered Insurance Institute Thinkpiece

This article argues that the reforms to the civil litigation costs in England and Wales stemming from the Sir Rupert Jackson review are not sufficient. Anthony Hurndall calls for an alternative model that avoids the aggressive adversarial approach of litigation whilst actually bringing about workable results. At a time when insurers are looking for cost effective and proportionate approaches to settling claims disputes, what is proposed here might just be the fresh approach that is needed.

- There is a need for a less adversarial and more efficient and cost effective approach to settling claims disputes, and the author suggests adjudication as an alternative dispute resolution process. He highlights some of the issues with the current litigation system, and argues that the Jackson reforms will only obliquely resolve some of the matters.

- Currently litigation is the preferred approach to settling disputes, but its adversarial nature lies at the heart of the cost, time and risk issues. It is a process that often amounts simply to a contest with an umpire basing the final decision on his perception of the most convincing performance.

- Arbitration is now considered by many to be even slower and more expensive, and has become as formal, proceduralised and adversarial as litigation. Mediation is considered less adversarial, but suffers from the parties not having faith in the willingness of the other party to agree any solution. So all in all the options for settling disputes efficiently are not ideal.

- The Jackson reforms are unlikely to address some of these issues. Litigation driven by Conditional Fee Agreements will probably drop, and it is likely that the individual and SMEs will find it even more difficult than previously to find a solicitor. The real difficulty is that these reforms are mere tinkering with a system which is no longer fit for purpose in a twenty-first century world.

- Adjudication of the sort offered by the Centre for Justice provides a viable and efficient alternative to the other routes. It takes away the need for complex and expensive legal counsel, focusing on an expert adjudicator to interview the parties and develop a solution. It still offers an avenue for the mediation option if the parties desire.

- The benefits to the insurer of this approach in terms of cost and time savings, risk management, and savings in staff time, are considerable. In addition it offers the ability to challenge a larger number of questionable claims, with greater certainty of the right outcome, and for less money.

Follow link below for main article by Anthony Hurndall, Director, Centre for Justice:

http://www.knowledge.cii.co.uk/resource/cii-thinkpiece-65-dealing-disputed-claims-jackson-answer-or-reminder-need-new-approach

Enhancing the Student Experience - The King's Fund

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Anthony Hurndall speaks at Enhancing the Student Experience at the Kings Fund, with scheduled key note speaker the Minister for Universities David Willetts.

For the Policy Review video of his talk see:

http://www.policyreview.tv/video/620/4537

Centre for Justice 15 November 2011

Email: info@centreforjustice.org

www.centreforjustice.org

Sector needs a viable alternative to the ombudsman

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Inside Housing

Tenants, the National Housing Federation and the Housing Ombudsman will be delighted that Baroness Hanham has announced a watering down, if not complete removal, of the proposed ‘democratic filter’ from the Localism Bill, which would have prevented tenants from approaching the Ombudsman service directly.

Complaints to the ombudsman have risen by more than 100% in the past three years and this rise is likely to continue.

In our experience, tenants are stressed and often confused when they get to the Ombudsman service. Just imagine how much more upset they would have been, if they had had to negotiate another ‘layer.’

The way Ombudsman schemes are set up in this country make them often a barrier, not a means, to justice. They are subject to complex and obscure rules and limitations, cannot be invoked until all internal complaints procedures have been complied with, have very tight limitation periods and suffer from a lack of credibility and take up among the public. This means they often aggravate the problems they are meant to address. To add another hurdle for the aggrieved to overcome would not have been in the interests of a sector which needs increased efficiency and better dispute handling. We need something new if things are to be improved.

We set up Centre for Justice to provide an independent and not for profit adjudication service suited to present day needs and capable of resolving all types of dispute quickly, affordably and reliably. The Centre adjudicates all types of housing claim and dispute and is a modern, straightforward and effective alternative to the courts and Ombudsman services.

We can be thankful the proposed democratic filter has not taken us a step backwards. The debate has been a harsh reminder of the far more pressing need for an entirely fresh approach to the way we handle disputes in the housing field.

Anthony Hurndall, director, Centre for Justice