Legal Aid - not if your house is worth £200k+

[Hackney]

The proposal is that legal aid is no longer available to those who own a property worth more than £200k.

The London news just now gave it's verdict and, shock horror, Londoners will be hardest hit.
Take Beryl, she bought this house in Hackney in the 80's for £46k, it's now worth £500k.
Beryl has used legal aid in the past but now won't be able to.

Good. Why the hell Beryl needs legal aid is not explained. Nor is it explained whether she used it when she bought the house for tuppence a'penny or more recently now that she's half way to a million quid.

A typically London-centric aren't we burdened with all the troubles pandering to the (London) masses of the world piece of journalism.

Very poor reporting.

[davepoth]

If she's got a £500k house, I'm sure there are many companies who would lend her £20k on it at a very reasonable rate.

Given that you will be refused legal aid with a salary of £17k or more than £5k of savings (I think) it's a substantially higher hurdle than the other tests.

[rlw]

Slightly off topic but a crazy fact If Beryl's mortgage exceeded the value of her house - ie. she had negative equity - she still would not qualify for Legal Aid which may not be very helpful for people with debt issues.

And the point of the article was that this rule will impact upon Londoners and those living in the south east far more than in other areas despite the fact that people in different areas may actually live in far grander properties and have a far better lifestyle and all due to the disparity in property values across the country.

So don't knock it thanks.

Edited by rlw on Friday 20th May 09:24

[elster]

Her house is not worth £500k, it is worth £46k. That is the mortgage on the property I will assume.

As she hasn't sold it then, she doesn't actually have the money.

I wish property speculation wasn't used as a basis to judge someones financial standing on a dy to day basis.

Beryl may only earn £15k a year.

[Hackney]

But if I want to buy Beryl's house I'll need £500k not 46.

I understand your point though. The Sunday Times Rich list or Google or LinkedIn or whatever the person / owner etc does not have £XXm in the bank. They have a company which, if they want to sell, could be worth £XXm

Back to topic.

[hornetrider]

Will create a postcode lottery of whether you'll be able to get legal aid or not. Bonkers plan.

[sinizter]

Mostly, I only see positives in this move.

As mentioned, people being in negative equity and in debt are the only ones who will be caught out badly. Maybe they can apply and be assessed on a case by case basis, provided everyone doesn't apply to be assessed.

[hornetrider]

Pensioners living in a 200k + house with no life savings, living on state pension, also fked.

[Bluebarge]

The bottom line is that we spend more than twice the amount NZ does on legal aid (adjusted for exchange rates and population size) and NZ has a similar legal system. France spends even less than NZ. The gravy train has to stop.

[jonah35]

good.

a young person with debt and 18k of earnings and no house doesn't qualify then neither should someone with a 200k house.

good rule, a bit arbitrary but a good rule. Line has to be drawn somewhere

[Dogwatch]

hornetrider said:

Pensioners living in a 200k + house with no life savings, living on state pension, also fked.

Not always a bad thing though. There is one who regularly appears in the local paper using legal aid to sue the local council over some perceived slight or inconvenience affecting the nice area he lives in. Usually loses as far as I know, but hey, it isn't affecting his wallet.

[SteveScooby]

I think it should be available to everybody, but only for one representation every 10 years.

[sinizter]

hornetrider said:

Pensioners living in a 200k + house with no life savings, living on state pension, also fked.

They have £200k in the house. So they are not as badly off as it may appear. I don't see why they should get legal aid when they effectively have £200k of assets.

Surely, if it was that important, they could downsize.

[Jasandjules]

I think that many supporting this idea don't really understand the worth of legal aid.

If you have a 200k property, that is not a realised asset unless you sell.

Now, I trust this of course won't affect the criminal legal aid budget!?!? So scrotes can get help time and time again no matter how nice a house they live in?

[stitched]

It wouldn't be a bad idea if they subtracted the mortgage from the property price, they should really as the mortgage represents the part of the property you don't own.

[Pupp]

So you're all assuming public funding is always used to initiate and pursue speculative claims?

[mybrainhurts]

The disgrace here is that legal proceedings are obscenely expensive and unavailable to a large majority of the populace.

[mybrainhurts]

Legal aid saved me from bankruptcy and allowed me to pursue the company that cocked up and put me in that position.

When all was complete, my legal aid was repaid from the damages I received.

If this proposal had been in place then, I would have lost my house and still been unable to pay the £2million legal costs.

As it is, Brown and Blair removed legal aid for this kind of case some years ago.

Most of us are denied justice in this sorry country.

[DonkeyApple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've always seen legal aid as a good thing and the law change to allow no win no fee etc one of the worst things to ever happen in this country and directly responsible for a speeding up of moral decline.

I do still think that welfare needs to be made black and White. You are either on it and entitled to a series of perks or you are not. A simple interview and valuation etc to determine which side you are on.

Until we fix it so that welfare is only for the very worst off in society and not a cool freebie for anyone who wants to lie on a form then we are fked.

[DonkeyApple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've always seen legal aid as a good thing and the law change to allow no win no fee etc one of the worst things to ever happen in this country and directly responsible for a speeding up of moral decline.

I do still think that welfare needs to be made black and White. You are either on it and entitled to a series of perks or you are not. A simple interview and valuation etc to determine which side you are on.

Until we fix it so that welfare is only for the very worst off in society and not a cool freebie for anyone who wants to lie on a form then we are fked.