Only by attempting to build a legal aid network of family mediators across the south of England, working remotely from home, have I come to realise how process driven and unsupportive the legal aid agency can be, at times.

Some of the keys to the success of my business include; Creating an efficient and effective working case management platform to support home/office working mediators, finding skilled and motivated mediators, support them and all that this means, maintaining high standards AND being able to offer these mediators a suitable office in their area from which they can carry out legal aid work.

Most recently, I found a first class mediator. His skills, experience and personality were ideal for our business and he shared our philosophy and approach. He was able and willing to offer legal aid family mediation in his own town where two other agencies also offered legal aid.

Having overlooked a request for an outreach office in his area in the last tender round, I applied for a legal aid outreach office for him, only to be told a few weeks later that there was no need for an additional legal aid office.

I did not expect much resistance in view of his pedigree and our compelling proposal. Also, it was apparent that during the tender process the LAA were accepting every providers requests for new outreach offices without opposition.

As part of their process, the LAA  asked the existing 2 providers in the area we wanted our office, whether they were able to meet the current demand, only to be reassured that they were. Is their answer any wonder when faced with the possibility of  competition from the ‘new kid on the block’? Therein lies my ‘beef’ with the LAA’s decision to refuse my company an office because NFM and another org already have a presence in that area.

It is interesting to note that the geographical area in question has a population of 140,000+ compared with somewhere like Exeter with a population of about 120,000 where there are more than 6 legal aid providers! So, I am still left wondering how the LAA determine when an area is sufficiently provided for by family mediation services?

My reply to the LAA letter went something like this;

“Thank you for your letter. I have to be honest, I am very disappointed and incredibly frustrated by the LAA’s decision and decision making process in refusing my request for an additional legal aid office in X town.

The LAA’s approach and letter seems far more focused on the tender ‘process’ and the fact that our request falls outside this process than the LAA can do to support the success of my business and family mediation generally, in the community.

I was also very sad and disappointing to note in your letter the complete absence of any attempt to answer the point in my application about the need to maintain high standards of practice by ensuring a healthy competition in every area of the country and the LAA’s strategy to achieve this.

I also pointed out that our mediator has many good  family professional referrers in the area because he does a lot of work with families as a psychotherapist. Your answer was that they can use one of the other local mediation providers. Why would they want to especially if they do not rate them? 

Also, is this not by definition a stifling of competition, ensuring and encouraging, as it will, existing providers in the area to ‘rest on their laurels’. Where is their incentive to compete for business when the competition is being prevented from setting up business in the area? What happened to the free market and the encouragement to strive for excellence. Why bother if there is no competition?

My own approach to expanding my business is to offer opportunities to good, motivated individuals and then support them in every way i can. I had hoped that the LAA would adopt the same approach.

As a matter of interest, does the LAA , take into account the extent to which the existing providers in an area are ‘creating demand’ for family mediation by effective marketing activity? ie playing an active part in promoting awareness and understanding of mediation in the community bearing in mind the Govt’s emphasis on keeping disputes out of court? My experience is that mediators are generally very bad at this which is possibly why so many went out of business last year.

The other point of note in your letter is that your decision now effectively denies a highly qualified mediator the opportunity to work with a mediation organisation of his choosing. Surely, this is another example of ‘restraint of trade and competition’.

When I argued that this mediator could offer a superior service to his clients in this area your reply was simply to refer me to the minimum requirements which need to be met by mediators. In other words, as long as the other mediators in the area meet the minimum standards, that is good enough for the legal aid agency. 

I just wonder why your letter did not address these points? As a national family mediation trainer, it seems to me that, if family mediation is to win the support of family lawyers and increase its credibility with the public, it still has a long way to go.

I just wonder how the LAA approach to expanding the provision of family mediation supports this? Are you able to refer me to any document which guides the LAA’s strategy to ensuring the success of family mediation in this country?

Yours sincerely,

I guess it fell on death ears. Has anyone else had a similar experience or is it just me, pulling my grey hair out!

I WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT TENDER PROCESS IN 2016 BEFORE I CAN EXPAND MY BUSINESS MODEL FURTHER!