London law centres are cutting back services as a tightening funding environment forces one group to dissolve its employment team and threatens its housing team.
Service cuts follow staff losses and shrinking grants
South West London Law Centres (SWLLC) reported a wave of staff departures that coincided with a drop in traditional funding streams. The organization said legal aid cuts and the loss of support from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and local authorities have left it heavily dependent on grant money.
Chief executive Patrick Marples wrote that the centre now spends a “disproportionate” amount of time fundraising. “The difficulty the law centre has when it comes to raising funds doesn’t only have an impact on the numbers of people we’re able to help. It also has an impact on our ability to retain and recruit sufficiently qualified staff,” he said.
Marples added that while it has a strong record of training staff, qualified employees often move to local government, Government Legal Services or other sectors that can pay significantly more.
As a direct result, SWLLC disbanded its employment team and warned that its housing team is “currently in danger” of being lost.
Consultation on undistributed class-action money
In July, the Department for Business and Trade published a consultation asking whether the Access to Justice Foundation should continue receiving undistributed damages or settlement sums from class actions, or whether some of that cash should be redirected to the Consumers’ Association, known as Which?.
SWLLC responded by urging the government to keep the foundation as the sole recipient. The centre argued that other potential recipients lack the specialised background needed to strengthen access to justice.
The legal executive body CILEX also supported keeping the foundation’s exclusive role. Its chief executive Sara Fowler said, “The Consumer Association is an entirely different type of organisation, one that principally operates a commercial model… It would be a high-risk strategy at this stage to consider changing the current arrangement to an untested, unevidenced alternative.”
A spokesperson for Which? welcomed the idea of receiving undistributed damages. “Which? is fiercely independent and not for profit.” The spokesperson added, “Over seven decades, we have helped tackle consumer harm, improve market outcomes, and advance consumer protection.” Designation would give the group an additional funding stream to scale up its charitable work.
