Interpretation issues of New Matter Starts and level 2 workMental health case:interpretative issues of New Matter Starts and Level 2 WorkMental health caseMental health case:interpretative issues of New Matter Starts and Level 2 WorkMental health caseMental health case:interpretative issues of New Matter Starts and Level 2 WorkMental health caseMental health case:interpretative issues of New Matter Starts and Level 2 WorkMental health caseMental health case:interpretative issues of New Matter Starts and Level 2 WorkMental health case
10.34A consistent problem for practitioners in this area of contract work has been the lack of clarity between different matters; that is, when a new matter should be opened and another closed and reported. The position within the 2014 contract on matter starts boundaries (see Specification para 7.19 onwards) and as set out above, has not been clear for all situations. In order, therefore, to assist with interpretation of the contract the LAA published official guidance, as referred to above, to assist in the interpretation of mental health contract. The latest version is to be found at
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/342667/laa-guidance-mental-health-august-2014.pdf. This guidance was produced following substantial work between specialist representative bodies, including the Mental Health Lawyers Association, and the LAA, including their Mental Health Unit.
10.35However, during 2016, practitioners have been subject to a series of audits which have taken a different approach from the guidance. This has caused great concern and uncertainty; and is undesirable both for the LAA and practitioners. It is also unfortunate that this new approach commenced without any notice.
10.36Two particular areas of difficulties have arisen in this new approach. The first is around the definition of a ‘new legal matter’. This has had an effect on when matters should be ‘rolled up’ and when new matters should be commenced. Illustrations of new areas of dispute include when a MHT case is withdrawn and the client re-applies in the same eligibility period; and also when a client has an MHT reference and in the same eligibility period applies again to an MHT. In both these cases further work and the second MHT would be ‘rolled up’ with the earlier MHT under the new interpretation apparently taken by the LAA. The implications would be that a matter is more likely to be an ‘escape fee case’ but that there would only be one matter. The second area of dispute is what work will satisfy the requirement for level 2 ‘preparation’ level for the required 30 minutes of work (2014 Contract Specification para 7.66).
10.37In order to restore certainty both for the LAA and practitioners a further series of meetings have been held and it is understood that the LAA intended to introduce further guidance in March 2017. Details will be made available on the website accompanying this book.
1www.legalaidhandbook.com In the meantime, if practitioners have any uncertainty as to the correct approach regarding either matter start boundaries or the commencement of level 2 work, they should contact the LAA Mental Health Unit. Details are given at the end of this chapter.
10.38Where a Mental Capacity Act matter is open, and then the client is sectioned or otherwise requires MHT advice, a separate MHT matter should be opened.
2Standard Civil Contract 2014 Specification para 7.29.