Legal Aid Agency's miscalculations caused financial worry and distress

What happened

Miss T applied to the LAA for emergency legal aid for a non‑molestation order against her ex-partner. The LAA granted her legal aid but she was also asked to make contributions towards it. The LAA requested that Miss T make two types of contributions. First, a one-off capital contribution based on her amount of savings. Secondly, an ongoing monthly amount based on her disposable monthly income.

Due to her uncertain financial circumstances, Miss T had secured a private rental property by agreeing to pay six months' rent in advance, followed by a further six-month instalment to cover the rest of the 12-month tenancy. The LAA refused to accept Miss T's rent as an outgoing because she did not pay it on a monthly basis. She had also already paid the first six months' rent before the calculation was done.

Despite several complaints, the LAA insisted that Miss T's rent was not allowed as a deduction from its income calculations because she did not pay it monthly. The matter remained unresolved and her legal aid certificate was cancelled. She then became liable to repay the legal costs in full. The debt remained outstanding and Miss T brought her complaint to us.

What we found

We partly upheld Miss T's complaint. The LAA had treated Miss T unfairly. Although she was not paying her rent during the six-month period, the LAA failed to recognise that she needed to save during this time to be able to meet the next six months' rent instalment. As such, we found that the LAA could and should have included this in its income calculations. Had it included the rent, Miss T would have been asked to pay a significantly lower monthly contribution. However, Miss T was not affected financially because she did not actually make any monthly payments.

We found that the rent exemption would not have affected her capital contribution, which had been calculated correctly.

Ultimately, the final legal aid bill was covered by the capital contribution so the monthly calculations had no effect on the final amount owed. Miss T was still required to pay the full legal bill.

By miscalculating her income the LAA had asked for high monthly contributions, which would have been very stressful for Miss T. We also found that the LAA's complaint handling could have been better. It consistently failed to accept that it should have included her rent in its calculations and that it had treated her unfairly.

Putting it right

The LAA apologised to Miss T, paid her £150 and made improvements to make sure staff were clear about when advance rent instalments could be an allowable deduction from monthly income.