Legal Aid Agency's information misled complainant

What happened

Mr P applied for criminal legal aid in early summer 2010. He was advised by the Agency that if convicted and found to have assets such as savings, equity in property or shares of £30,000 or more, then he might be liable for a contribution towards some or all of his defence costs. Mr P's criminal proceedings ended in spring 2011 and he was convicted on one count.

Mr P told us that in early summer 2011, he contacted the Agency to ask if he was liable for any of his defence costs in respect of his criminal case. This information was necessary so it could be accounted for in his recent divorce settlement. By Mr P's account and that of his legal team, the Agency said that he owed nothing and that the case was closed.

The Agency's computer system was updated with Mr P's final defence costs in winter 2011 and this information was sent to the Agency's enforcement agency. He was told how much he owed in spring 2013.

Between then and early 2014, Mr P disputed that he was liable for the debt, and the Agency carried out further assessments in relation to his finances. The Agency instructed bailiffs to recover the debt before placing a charging order on Mr P's property.

Mr P complained to the Agency about the fact he was told in summer 2011 that he was not liable for the debt. The Agency maintained that he was liable as he had over £30,000 of assets at the time of his original application for legal aid.

It agreed that it was inappropriate to have instructed bailiffs and it deducted the costs of this action from what it said Mr P owed. Mr P remained dissatisfied and referred his complaint to us. He wanted the Agency to accept that it had made an error, and for the money he paid to settle the debt to be returned to him.

Mr P also wanted procedures at the Agency to be improved, to be refunded the costs he incurred, and the Agency to recognise the distress and inconvenience he had been caused.

What we found

There was no evidence to suggest that the Agency had misadvised Mr P and we were satisfied that he was liable to pay his defence costs. However, we found that there were times when the Agency did not give Mr P the best service, including unnecessarily instructing bailiffs to recover the debt.

Putting it right

The Agency reduced Mr P's outstanding liability by £250 to recognise its poor service.