Couple prevented from arguing their case for legal aid

What happened

Mr and Mrs T made an application for legal aid. This was so they could apply for a judicial review of an earlier decision about legal aid that the LAA had made. However, although Mr and Mrs T explained why they intended to ask for a judicial review, they failed to provide documents in support of their application.

The LAA refused the application, saying that it had not been possible for them to make a decision without the supporting documents. In response, Mr and Mrs T's solicitor gave the LAA the relevant paperwork. At the same time Mr and Mrs T formally challenged the LAA's refusal, partly because they felt the LAA should have already had the documents it needed to see from their earlier application for legal aid.

The LAA considered the documents the solicitor gave them but decided that, despite this paperwork, Mr and Mrs T did not qualify for legal aid. This was because, in the LAA's view, Mr and Mrs T did not have a reasonable chance of having their judicial review application accepted by a court. However, instead of telling Mr and Mrs T this, the LAA simply arranged for the matter to go to an independent adjudicator who would look at the fairness of the LAA's decision.

Mr and Mrs T said they were confused by this. They told the LAA that, as far as they were concerned, the only issue had been about whether or not they had provided the relevant supporting documents. They could not see why it would need an independent adjudicator to make a decision on this. Mr and Mrs T asked for clarification but the LAA did not provide clear responses. The couple also asked for copies of the file the LAA intended to present to the adjudicator so they could see what it was that the adjudicator would be looking at. However, the LAA refused this request.

The adjudicator considered the case and agreed with the LAA about the merits of Mr and Mrs T's application for legal aid and upheld the LAA's refusal.

Mr and Mrs T complained about what had happened. They said that, as far as they were concerned, the adjudicator had been looking only at whether the LAA had been right to refuse the application due to lack of paperwork. They said that if they had known the adjudicator was looking at the merits of the application itself, they would have argued their case in a different way.

What we found

We upheld Mr and Mrs T's complaint. If the LAA had been clearer with the couple about what the adjudicator was looking at, Mr and Mrs T would have acted differently. We could not say they would have been successful in their application for legal aid but they had lost their opportunity to argue their case in the way they would have wished.

Putting it right

The LAA gave Mr and Mrs T an opportunity to argue their case for legal aid. It also apologised for its errors and paid Mr and Mrs T £500 in recognition of the frustration and inconvenience they had suffered.