There is good news for magistrates in a letter that has been released over the signatures of the Senior Presiding Judge, the Chairmen of the MA and the Bench Chairmen's Forum, and Shaun McNally of HMCTS. The review of magistrates' out of pocket expenses has concluded and rates are to be left as they are. Although there are some particular problems that Bench Chairmen will have to sort out, the average claimed by JPs is only about £13 per week, which seems reasonable to me.
Considering that Local Councillors get a basic allowance of £4,950 plus 'reasonable' mileage of £0.65/mile (1200cc plus) it seems to me that JPs get a raw deal.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense this is a failure since if mileage rates are to be held, (we get the somewhat less generous 58p per mile) many colleagues especially those with longer journeys to make, will be severely out of pocket as fuel prices rise inexorably. So yes, a victory in that the original proposals were for a cut, but Pyhrric in reality.
ReplyDeleteI've not yet seen the letter so please let me know if mileage rates ARE in fact increasing in which case I will of course withdraw my comment!! :-)
Well done to Bystander for getting this scoop.
ReplyDeleteDoes this also mean that they've dropped the ludicrous concept of a mileage cap?
Come, come, the necessary first step, to keep the basic structure in place, has been achieved with remarkable success, considering the way the bureaucratic mind, once set on having a review, will tend to regard a conclusion that no change is required as something of a failure and possibly a criticism of the decision to hold a review in the first place. The next step must be to get the rates updated, and John Fassenfelt writes that the MA will be pushing for an early review.
ReplyDeleteI can't agree that the mileage rate is too low. Most Government departments and a charity that I work for pay 40-45p. I drive a 1.6 hatchback that costs about 23p per mile in petrol, so there is plenty left for depreciation insurance and the rest. Of course some colleagues (on a good day our car park looks like the Frankfurt Motor Show) will lose out but it's their choice to buy such heavy metal.
ReplyDeleteSome of us chose diesel in the mistaken belief that it's more economical!! And diesel is hitting £1.48 a litre in my neck of the woods!!
DeleteNot sure it's entirely fair to criticise the cars that colleagues may drive BS. Older ones may in fact cost a lot more to run than a shiny new fuel efficient German model!! The one thing they all have in common (bar the odd electric jobbie) is the need for fuel. And that I'm sorry to say is a major cost factor. :-)
On the other hand, I do think that councillors are ludicrously over-remunerated. Many of them make a living out of it.
ReplyDeleteWe are going to see a number of magistrates leave the bench, having read the letter. And then, hopefully, they will turn their attention to LOA where there is significant abuse.
ReplyDeleteThis review was needless and caused a great deal of upset to many magistrates who serve their communities without thought of remuneration. (I know that some claim loss of earnings but many do not). At the end of the day, the expenses amount to little more than a few sandwiches and a cup of coffee and yet some people in the administration clearly thought that magistrates were not even worth that. Deplorable.
ReplyDeleteBystander: Have you noticed the erroneous time stamps for each post? This sent just before 13:00 BST.
ReplyDeleteYes. The Blogger dashboard is correctly set to London time, but there appears to be a bug.
DeleteHere's one - I'm an employee. On my 'court days', my company gives me unpaid leave. So, although I can claim the maximum 'Financial Loss Allowance', I actually lose around £30 for every day I sit. I never claim mileage or subsistence (I live relatively close to my court). So having expenses etc. held whilst the cost of buying my kids' shoes is rising, is no real 'victory' as far as I can see...
ReplyDeleteThe final phrase in ObiterJ above is too true. While Senior Judges and politicians occasionally say how important we are to the Judicial System, their actions say otherwise. I do not want thanks or honours for serving my community but it is deeply depressing that while magistrates' competences improve over the years, (and they have, markedly)their role is diminished.
ReplyDeleteYes - there is a paradox here. Years ago there were very few "Stipes" and JPs did some heavy work - including, at the time, contested committal hearings. Training was quite minimal and appraisal unheard of.
DeleteToday, training for new JPs and Chairman is generally good. Other training exists though, I fear, hit by recent cutbacks. Also, there is an appraisal system. Yet, DJs appear more and more.
Whether or not one agrees with the 58p a mile the fact remains that it was set when petrol was far cheaper than it is today.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But it's still generous for an average car.
DeleteDo you get mileage allowance where there is a public transport option? Apart from the cost, I'm more and more finding my car the LEAST convenient (and often slowest) way of getting around. London is particularly well served with pulic transport of course.
DeleteNo, you must have actually used your vehicle to claim mileage. But you can claim for public transport cost if that is the way you travelled to court. Quite how it works for those who may use season tickets which just happen to also cover their journey to court or Oyster cards I'm not entirely sure!!
DeleteFor such season ticket and oyster card holders the position is the same as that for Freedom Pass holders who get to court without incurring any travel costs. Fares may only be claimed where expenditure has actually been incurred that was necessary to enable the JP’s duty to be carried out
DeleteI have now read the letter and am frankly disappointed. HMCTS have established these expanded LJAs by closing local courts and forcing JPs to travel further yet now blame us for 'excessive mileage claims'. Once again, the MA has let a letter be issued which reads as if it is all the fault of greedy JPs and the MoJ is doing us a favour by retaining current rates. It isnt!
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more about the tone of the letter. I suspect the number of JPs identified as causing a problem is a very small number and if guidance had been properly followed would have been even fewer. More than likely many more don't claim anything at all.
DeleteThis was an ill thought out face saving letter and the Magistrate's Association should not have put their name to it.
Cannot wait until Bench Chairs start setting the mileage levels to be claimed by their bench! That should be fun to watch.
ReplyDeleteYes, great fun – but it won’t happen, of course, because Bench Chairs have no power to implement this. Not the least discreditable aspect of the letter is its legal illiteracy. JPs’ entitlements to claim travelling allowances are prescribed in law. If a JP performs a sitting, whatever may be claimed by statute must be paid. If MoJ isn’t happy with the situation, it will have to change the law.
DeleteBest estimates of available figures suggest that as many as half of all magistrates make no claims. Many of those have will season tickets for the journey they make to work or court ('though this becomes more difficult with the closure of many courthouses etc.), whilst others have bus passes etc. Still others can't be bothered, because the amounts are insignificant to them. But others struggle to cope with the delay between incurring, say, child care costs and their eventual reimbursement, and such delays act in many instances as a disincentive to applications from those who would increase the diversity of the bench, an oft-proclaimed but little acted upon aspiration. I was glad to see that the commitment to half days was retained, for precisely this reason, but dispirited to see how mealy-mouthed this was.
ReplyDeleteBS, any chance you can supply a lik to said letter?
ReplyDeleteGood news. Neighbourhood justice teams are being rolled out nationally! No need for magistrates there and fewer expense claims to worry about.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we may be required for a little time yet, when one has regard to the fact that this comes from a report in the Daily Mail and is apparently supported by Steve Hilton (hasn't he left to go to California?). It may not be entirely doomed, however, as I noticed no endorsement from Louise Casey.
Delete>"...and such delays act in many instances as a disincentive to applications from those who would increase the diversity of the bench, an oft-proclaimed but little acted upon aspiration."
ReplyDeleteProbably a good thing two. Diversity is a good thing to proclaim, a tricky one to implement. It doesn't always coincide with quality.
No AlsoJP, not the DM but the subject of a radio interview today with the chairman of the Mag Ass'n.
ReplyDelete