The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has responded to a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation on Court Fees (i) with a strongly worded critique of the proposals.
The trade body, whose members represent consumers in the civil justice system, believes the proposals are arbitrary, and lack transparency as they fail to offer any guarantees about how the added resources might be used and underline the piecemeal approach taken by ministers to managing costs and charges across civil justice.
Matthew Maxwell Scott, executive director of ACSO, explained that the MoJ is proposing a 10% uplift in court fees. He said that a proportionate increase in court fees is reasonable in the current inflationary environment to ensure the service can continue to function. The income from fees pays for a third of the running costs of HMCTS (HM Courts and Tribunals Service).
However, in responding to the consultation Mr Maxwell Scott said the process by which the 10 per cent uplift was arrived at makes little sense. “Nothing is clear, and like so many other changes to the costs regime, we fail to see a methodical, joined-up, professional process informing the consultation. When it comes to civil justice, policymaking on the back of a fag packet is simply not good enough."
Maxwell Scott cited four particular areas of concern:
1. The 10 per cent figure is not an appropriate number. "The consultation states that the proposed 10 per cent increase is just over half of the rise in the consumer price index (CPI) since the last court fee increase (2021), but the MoJ hasn’t used the services producer price inflation index (SPPI), which is a more accurate reflection of inflation in civil justice, especially as it was recommended and accepted by the MoJ in its recent increases to guideline hourly rates (GHR) and when uplifting fixed recoverable costs under Civil Procedure Rule 45. To use the index in one part of the justice system and not another is unhelpfully inconsistent and unnecessarily confusing. We calculate the SPPI for the period March 2021 to March 2023 to be 9.2 per cent, not a huge difference, but explainable."
2. Timing is meaningless: “We do not understand the timescales used to consider an appropriate inflationary uplift, with March 2021 to March 2023 considered but the consultation not closing until December 2023. Given that any new fees will apply from March 2024, this means they will already be a year out of date. Why does the MoJ not take suitable inflation data from the end of the calendar year and then apply it the following March?”
3. Lack of transparency. "We want a clear indication from MoJ that these funds will be used to prioritise reducing court delays, currently running at record levels. There is no plan to tackle delays, which of course means access to justice for thousands of citizens is denied. It’s unacceptable that average delays are nearly 18 months for fast/multi track cases, and the funds raised should be used to help tackle this rather than just disappearing into general funds or being used to target politically more attractive criminal court failings."
4. Arbitrary costs regime. “This latest proposal follows the general approach to costs across civil justice. ACSO has long campaigned for the MoJ to professionalise its methods in setting costs. At the moment, some costs are reviewed regularly, others not at all and the methodology for setting costs seems to change with the weather. Ministers must set out a consistent pathway for costs and other fees reviews that will bring stability to the sector and allow our members the opportunity to plan for the future with the confidence that comes from knowing what to expect."