Search this site

The Civil Legal Aid (Procedure and Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 , due to come into force on 22 December 2025 , introduce long-awaited increases to civil legal aid remuneration. For firms undertaking Controlled Work, particularly in the housing and immigration sectors, the reforms represent a material shift in funding levels. Controlled Work Uplifts The Regulations provide substantial uplifts to Controlled Work fees: Housing-related Controlled Work : 42% increase Immigration and asylum Controlled Work : 31% increase These increases reflect the time-intensive nature of this work and the sustained pressure placed on providers by inflation and rising operating costs. New Minimum Hourly Rates Minimum hourly rates have been revised and formally set at: £65.35  for work conducted outside London £69.30  for London-based work While still modest by commercial standards, the introduction of updated national minimum rates provides greater clarity and consistency when assessing remuneration under the civil legal aid scheme, particularly where work falls outside fixed-fee arrangements. Fixed Fee Adjustments Fixed fees will either: rise proportionately , or increase by a minimum of 10% , whichever results in the higher figure. This mechanism avoids fixed fees lagging behind hourly rates — a recurring issue in previous remuneration reforms — and should benefit firms operating high-volume legal aid practices. Practical Considerations for Providers From a costs perspective, firms should be alert to: transitional issues for cases spanning the commencement date, updated billing and costing assumptions from December 2025, the interaction between revised hourly rates and fixed-fee escape provisions, and the impact of the new rates on supervision and preparation time allowances. Early planning will be key to ensuring firms maximise recovery under the revised scheme. Our Costs Expertise At SPH Costs , we regularly advise legal aid providers on remuneration disputes, billing compliance and recovery under the civil legal aid framework. The 2025 Regulations introduce welcome change, but careful costs management remains essential to ensure firms obtain full entitlement under the scheme. For practical guidance on preparing and submitting legal aid costs claims following fee changes, see our Legal Aid costs drafting guide.

The Legal Aid Agency’s Client and Cost Management System (CCMS) is now entrenched in everyday practice for legal aid firms. However, despite years of use, many solicitors and caseworkers still face frustrating CCMS rejections, delays, or requests for further information — all of which slow down cash flow and create unnecessary administrative burdens. With the reintroduction of the portal imminent, now is a good time to revisit common reasons for rejection. The vast majority of CCMS problems are avoidable. Below is a practical guide to the most common CCMS errors  we see every week, along with clear, actionable steps to help you prevent rejections and keep your submissions moving smoothly. 1. Missing or Incomplete Supporting Evidence The error: Uploading the wrong supporting documents, missing mandatory evidence, or submitting documents that aren’t legible or properly named. Why it causes rejections: CCMS requires specific evidence to justify both the application and the costs. If the LAA cannot immediately see what they need, they will reject or query the submission. How to avoid it: Use a checklist  for each application or claim type. Ensure all files are clearly titled  (e.g. “Means Evidence – May 2024”). Upload documents as PDFs , not scans of scans or photos. Always check that the document is visible and readable  before submitting. Tip:  Have a standardised internal template of required evidence for each matter type (Family, Housing, Community Care, Immigration, etc.). 2. Incorrect or Inconsistent Time Recording The error: Unclear narratives, inconsistent times between attendance notes and CCMS entries, or time recorded without an explanation of necessity. Why it causes rejections: The LAA must be able to follow your “story of the case.” If the narrative is vague (“Phone call”, “Work on file”), the assessor is more likely to challenge or reduce your costs. How to avoid it: Record who  did the work, why , and what it achieved . Ensure that your attendance notes match your CCMS entries. Avoid vague descriptions — always show the purpose and outcome . Example of weak note: “Email to client.” Strong note: “Email to client explaining next steps in child arrangements proceedings and confirming hearing date.” 3. Submitting the Wrong Matter Type or Level The error: Choosing the incorrect matter type, assigning the wrong level of service, or selecting an inapplicable stage in the proceedings. Why it causes rejections: The CCMS workflow depends heavily on correct matter categorisation. If the wrong type is selected, the assessment team may automatically reject or request amendments. How to avoid it: Double-check the matter type  before starting the application. Train staff on the correct categories for common cases. Use internal crib sheets listing typical scenarios (e.g. “Non-Molestation → Domestic Abuse Matter Type”). 4. Incorrect Disbursement Information The error: Missing invoices, incorrect provider details, disbursements without justification, or trying to claim non-permitted items. Why it causes rejections: Disbursements must be justified, reasonable, and supported by evidence. The LAA is especially strict on expert fees. How to avoid it: Always attach the invoice  or expert quotation . Make sure the expert is LAA-compliant  with correct CV and details. Provide a clear justification  for why the disbursement was necessary. Use clear titles like “Psychologist Invoice – Dr Smith – £650”. 5. Failing to Track and Respond to “Further Information” Requests The error: Missing or late responses to LAA queries, often because they get buried in the task list or no one is monitoring notifications. Why it causes rejections: If you don’t respond in time, the claim can be rejected simply due to inactivity. How to avoid it: Allocate a staff member to check CCMS daily . Use case management systems that integrate CCMS alerts. Maintain an internal “CCMS Queries Log”  to ensure nothing is missed. When responding, answer all points clearly in the same message  to avoid back-and-forth. 6. Incorrect Provider Details or Cost Limit Requests The error: Submitting applications with outdated office details, incorrect fee earner rates, or cost limit requests that don’t reflect the complexity or stage of the case. Why it causes rejections: Incorrect details automatically trigger queries or force amendments. How to avoid it: Keep CCMS provider records up to date . Ensure hourly rates match the relevant Civil Finance Guidance . When requesting an uplift to cost limits, always provide: A short summary of case progress Details of complexity Estimated future work Clear justification for why the increased limit is needed 7. Poor Quality Bills of Costs The error: Bills uploaded with missing narratives, incorrect categories, or inconsistent totals between the bill and CCMS. Why it causes rejections: The LAA relies heavily on the accuracy and clarity of your bill. If it doesn’t reflect the file or doesn’t comply with legal aid billing rules, it will be rejected. How to avoid it: Ensure your bill is drafted by a specialist costs draftsman . Cross-check totals and categories before upload. Include clear narratives describing the complexity and key case events. Never upload a bill that isn't fully checked — errors cause major delays. 8. Using the Wrong Document Type When Uploading Files The error: Uploading vital information under categories like “Correspondence” or “Other”. Why it causes rejections: CCMS uses document type labels to route the case for approval. Incorrect categorisation = delays or rejections. How to avoid it: Always match the document to the correct CCMS label (e.g. “Court Order”, “Means Evidence”, “Bill of Costs”, “Expert Invoice”). Avoid the “Other” category except for genuinely uncategorisable material. 9. Not Keeping Digital Files CCMS-Ready The error: Uploading overly large files, incorrectly rotated documents, poor scans, or bundles with no pagination. Why it causes rejections: The LAA often rejects submissions that are difficult to read or navigate. How to avoid it: Ensure all PDFs: Are scanned at 300 DPI Are right-side-up Are properly paginated Are under CCMS size limits Avoid photographs of documents. Use PDF combining/compression tools. Conclusion Most CCMS rejections are preventable. With systematic checks, clearer narratives, and properly prepared supporting evidence, you can dramatically reduce delays, avoid unnecessary queries, and maintain a smooth funding and billing process. If you’d like help preparing CCMS submissions, drafting Legal Aid bills, avoiding rejections, or improving cashflow through better CCMS workflows, SPH Costing Services can support you with expert, compliant Legal Aid costs preparation . Legal Aid costs claims frequently involve technical issues around billing, assessment, and compliance with Legal Aid Agency requirements. Specialist Legal Aid costs drafting support is often required to ensure claims are prepared and progressed correctly within the applicable framework. Our Legal Aid costs drafting services are explained in more detail on our Legal Aid Costs Drafting

Two days ago, the LAA officially launched LAA Silas , marking a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to modernise and streamline key processes across the sector. The introduction of this new system has already sparked interest, with many welcoming its potential to deliver greater clarity, efficiency, and user-focused functionality. What Is LAA Silas? LAA Silas (Sign into Legal Aid Services) is the Legal Aid Agency’s new digital platform created to enhance the way legal aid applications, assessments, and related workflows are managed. Designed with usability and transparency in mind, Silas aims to simplify processes that were previously time-consuming, reduce administrative burdens, and offer a more intuitive experience for both providers and clients. By centralising key functions and introducing improved digital tools, Silas supports smoother decision-making and helps ensure cases progress more efficiently. Changes to Legal Aid systems such as Silas have direct implications for how costs are prepared, submitted and assessed, which is why specialist support with Legal Aid costs drafting, CCMS claims and assessment strategy  is often required. At SPH Costing Services Ltd , we are fully embracing this development. We recognise the positive impact LAA Silas can bring to costing, case management, and overall workflow improvements. As the system continues to roll out, we are committed to adapting smoothly, supporting our clients through the transition, and making the most of the opportunities this new platform offers. The launch of LAA Silas signals an exciting shift toward a more streamlined future, and we look forward to being part of that journey. Need Help? The LAA have launched a specific learning platform at: https://legalaidlearning.justice.gov.uk/sign-in-to-legal-aid-services/ Or contact us to discuss your requirements.

The Court has published the information below. Below is the latest information on current processing times received from the Senior Court Costs Office: Current Processing Dates : ·         For e-filings that have been submitted but not yet accepted or rejected, we are currently working on new bill filings submitted the week commencing:   17 th  November 2025 ·         Costs Officers  are currently being assigned bills of costs for which supporting papers were received in the last week of October 2024 ·         The Admin Team  is currently sending out assessed bills that were returned to them by the Costs Officers the week commencing 24th November 2025 ·         The admin team is currently sending out certificates submitted week commencing 17 th November 2025 Enquiry Guidance To help us focus resources on reducing the backlog, we kindly ask that you avoid chasing the following: ·         E-filings submitted during or after the week commencing   17 th November 2025 ·         that have not yet been accepted or rejected. ·         Bills for which supporting paperwork was submitted in the last week of October 2024  onwards. ·         Final Costs Certificates where less than two weeks  have passed since confirmation of acceptance. Operational Updates & Improvements We understand delays can be frustrating, and we are working hard to improve the situation. The reduction in follow-up queries is helping us dedicate more time to clearing the backlog. Measures are being taken to improve processing times in the longer term. These include Training of New Staff & Recruitment of New Cost Officers. Additional Notes Any updates provided on individual bills are estimates only . Staff are unable to guarantee when a specific case will be processed.

Managing the affairs of someone who lacks capacity is an enormous responsibility. Deputies must ensure the protected party’s needs are met, all decisions are properly documented, and costs remain reasonable and proportionate. Yet, when it comes to preparing Court of Protection (COP) bills, many deputies unintentionally undersell the time and care involved in their work. At a time of increasing scrutiny by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO), maximising COP bills is not about inflating costs — it’s about accurately reflecting the work actually done , ensuring the deputyship remains financially sustainable and compliant. Below are practical steps deputies can take to ensure their costs are properly recorded, justified, and recoverable. 1. Keep Detailed, Contemporaneous File Notes The single most important factor in maximising recoverable costs is the quality of your file notes. Strong file notes should: Record who did the work , why it was necessary , and what outcome it achieved Be made at the time  the work was done (or as close as possible) Reflect not only actions, but also professional judgment  and decision-making For example, instead of : “Phone call with care home.” Use: “Spoke with care home manager regarding concerns about deterioration in P’s mobility. Agreed urgent review of care plan to ensure appropriate support.” This level of detail demonstrates necessity and avoids reductions. 2. Properly Record Travel and Mileage Travel is often under-recorded or poorly justified, leading to avoidable reductions. To maximise recovery: Record start and finish times Note the purpose  of the visit and why it couldn’t be handled remotely Ensure mileage records are consistent with mapping tools Consider whether the seniority of the fee earner attending is proportionate In-person visits remain vital in deputyship work — but must be clearly justified. 3. Ensure All Work Categories Are Captured Deputyship work spans many categories, but common areas are often missed or under-recorded. Frequently overlooked items include: Liaising with social services Ensuring compliance with deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) Managing disputes with family members Reviewing bank statements and analysing spending Arranging and attending multidisciplinary team meetings Time spent preparing statutory visit packs for OPG visits Responding to safeguarding alerts Small increments of time quickly add up over a year. 4. Distinguish Between Administrative and Deputy-Level Work The SCCO expects deputies to delegate appropriately — but also recognises that certain tasks must be performed by the deputy or a fee earner. Deputy-only tasks typically include: Complex decision-making Financial planning Best-interests decisions High-level risk management If a more junior fee earner or admin staff member completes a task, record it as such — but ensure deputies record their supervisory role . Delegation helps show proportionality and improves recoverability. 5. Review Hourly Rates and Update Annually Many COP bills under-recover simply because the hourly rates are outdated. Deputies should: Ensure annual applications for general management increases are made where appropriate Use guideline hourly rates correctly and update them when revised Clearly justify uplifts (e.g., where a case is especially complex or high-risk) Failing to maintain correct rates results in automatic reductions — even when the work was necessary and reasonable. 6. Provide Evidence of Complexity Complexity supports higher rates and greater time expenditure, but must be demonstrated , not assumed. Useful evidence includes: Challenging behaviour Multi-agency involvement High-value or high-risk financial assets Frequent safeguarding concerns Complex care or medical needs Your file should tell the story of the case’s complexity. If it doesn’t, your bill won’t either. 7. Keep Clear Financial Management Records Financial tasks make up a significant portion of deputyship work, yet they are often insufficiently recorded. Make sure you: Document every financial decision Record time spent reviewing accounts, budgets, and care costs Keep clear audit trails of payments Record time spent liaising with investment advisers or managing property matters This demonstrates due diligence and safeguards against potential challenge. 8. Prepare Yearly Schedules of Work Preparing a year-end summary helps ensure the final bill is comprehensive and consistent. A good schedule should include: Total time per fee earner Key events and decision-making milestones Breakdown of categories (property, finances, health/welfare, supervision, visits) This also supports deputyship reporting obligations. 9. Engage a Specialist Costs Draftsman Early A costs draftsman experienced in Court of Protection matters can: Identify missing work categories Correct inconsistencies Maximise recoverable time Prepare a fully compliant bill Provide advice on future file-keeping improvements Reduce the risk of SCCO queries or reductions Many deputies find that early involvement not only improves recoverability but enhances compliance. Conclusion Maximising Court of Protection bills is not about increasing costs artificially — it’s about ensuring the time, expertise, and responsibility involved in deputyship work is properly captured and justified . By maintaining detailed records, evidencing complexity, delegating appropriately, and reviewing your rates and processes regularly, deputies can significantly improve their recoverable costs while remaining fully compliant with COP and SCCO expectations. If you’d like help preparing or reviewing your Court of Protection bills, optimising your file-keeping practices, or minimising SCCO reductions, SPH Costing Services can support you every step of the way.

Refusal to mediate – sanctions won’t always apply. Following the decision of Briggs LJ in PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, there has been increased focus on the duties of parties to litigation to consider some form of ADR, most usually mediation. In that case, Briggs LJ said: “In my judgment, the time has now come for this court firmly to endorse the advice given in Chapter 11.56 of the ADR Handbook, that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable, regardless whether an outright refusal, or a refusal to engage in the type of ADR requested, or to do so at the time requested, might have been justified by the identification of reasonable grounds” and went on “ this case sends out an important message to civil litigants, requiring them to engage with a serious invitation to participate in ADR, even if they have reasons which might justify a refusal, or the undertaking of some other form of ADR, or ADR at some other time in the litigation…the court’s task in encouraging the more proportionate conduct of civil litigation is so important in current economic circumstances that it is appropriate to emphasise that message by a sanction which, even if a little more vigorous than I would have preferred, nonetheless operates pour encourager les autres” However, in a more recent case before the Court of Appeal, Gore v Naheed & Ahmed [2017] EWCA Civ 369, Patten LJ has made it plain that there is some difference of opinion in that Court as to the approach to be adopted, as may be seen from his rather caustic phrasing: “Mr McNae referred us to the decision of this Court in PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd in which Briggs LJ emphasised the need, as he saw it, for the courts to encourage parties to embark on ADR in appropriate cases and said that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR should, as a general rule, be treated as unreasonable regardless of whether a refusal to mediate might in the circumstances have been justified. Speaking for myself, I have some difficulty in accepting that the desire of a party to have his rights determined by a court of law in preference to mediation can be said to be unreasonable conduct particularly when, as here, those rights are ultimately vindicated” Clearly Patten LJ struggles to accept the basic concept of some form of primacy of mediation over litigation. He went on to note that even if the failure to engage in ADR was found to be unreasonable, this would not necessarily and automatically result in a penalty in costs (a point also made by Briggs LJ in “PGF”). It is a factor to be taken into account, but not determinative of itself. There is perhaps a distinction to be drawn between failing to respond at all to an invitation to mediate and a refusal to mediate, but in Gore the Judge below had taken the refusal into account, but concluded that such a step was not unreasonable – there were complex issues of law which made the case unsuitable for mediation. The decision thus falls within the description of the law as described in “PGF”, particularly bearing in mind the fact that costs remain within the discretion of the Judge, but the emphasis on the question of refusal to mediate as to how this should be applied on any costs award is clearly weaker in Gore. The case may well therefore be a useful one to have in the armoury where there is an allegation of poor conduct on this ground.