Special/ non-commercial bodies play an important part in the legal services market because they provide services to vulnerable people, many of whom would not be able to afford services at the normal commercial rate. It must, however, equally be remembered that their existence does affect the market in that they are providing services that could be provided by others at a commercial rate.
Where, in practice, it would be impossible for the bulk of clients to pay a commercial rate for those services, it is important that their work should be encouraged and there is justification for a special regime to cover them. Where, however, these providers compete with others in the market for work, then the question becomes less clear cut and it is more difficult to see why there should be significant differences in approach.
In short, we agree that non-Legal Services Act regulatory frameworks do not provide satisfactory protection for consumers who use special/non-commercial bodies, especially in view of the likely vulnerability of their clients. We therefore agree that the transitional period should be removed, and that this should be delayed until April 2014 in view of funding cuts and the burden these bodies are already facing.
While we understand the motivation behind proposals to enable such bodies to charge for their services, we believe that there needs to be very clear ground rules governing this if they are not to have inappropriate advantages against commercial bodies that, inevitably, they will be competing against.