The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has responded to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation ‘Proposal for reform: increasing selected court fees and Help with Fees income thresholds by inflation’.
Rachel Cairnes, policy and public affairs advisor at ACSO, said an “efficient and effective courts and tribunals system is one of the keystones of a consumer’s right to access justice. As such, users of the courts and tribunals system should expect to continue to support its upkeep, provided their access to justice is not negatively impacted.
“As stated in the consultation document, the current income from court fees currently covers less than half of the running costs of the courts and tribunals system, with the remainder of the cost met by the taxpayer. While the costs of the system have risen in line with inflation, court fees, for the most part, have stayed static since 2016. However, it should be noted that over the last ten years, several court and tribunal fees have undergone substantial increases, such as the fees for compensation claims between £5,000 and £10,000 increasing by 81 per cent in 2014 and permission to proceed to increase by 216 per cent in the same year.
“In general, ACSO agrees with the proposed inflationary increase in courts and tribunals fees. The increase is unlikely to cause a substantial negative consumer impact owing to the proposed changes to the Help with Fees (HwF) system, which provides fee remissions to eligible users. However, in conjunction with the proposed increase in Guidelines Hourly rates, the changes to the courts and tribunals fees may result in a considerable financial burden on some consumers. This is particularly the case of consumers with a low income who are not eligible for HwF.
“The proposed changes will also reduce, although not remove, the cost to the taxpayer. As stated in the consultation document, “like other government departments, the Ministry of Justice has a responsibility to assess its costs and deliver savings to reduce the costs to the taxpayer”. We agree with this sentiment although note that costs savings should wherever possible be achieved without negatively affecting the core functions of any government department and the outcomes its activities intend to achieve, in this case ensuring access to justice”.
Cairnes continued: “Owing to the significant backlog of cases in the courts and tribunals system, a backlog which has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, it is in the best interests of both legal representatives and consumers to consider effective means of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Where appropriate, ADR mechanisms can deliver the timely and effective resolution of claims and are therefore of clear benefit to all parties. Moreover, an increase in the use of ADR mechanisms will alleviate pressure from the courts and tribunals system.
“If a claim has been issued, and a court fee paid, some parties may be dissuaded from engaging with ADR mechanisms. We urge the MoJ to consider whether, if post-issue ADR is successful, it is possible to provide a full or partial refund on any court fees paid (dependant on the stage of the litigation reached, and the work the court or tribunal has had to undertake).
“We understand that a number of administrative difficulties may arise from the refunding of court fees. However, given the ongoing digitalisation of court processes, these challenges should not be insurmountable, if not now then certainly in the longer term.
“In regard to HwF applications, it is essential these are appropriately flagged to litigants in person and made easier for them to utilise. This will ensure that every consumer, regardless of whether they have legal representation, is able to access justice”.