The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SUPPORTING COURT USERS:
The In-Court Advice and Mediation Projects in Edinburgh Sheriff Court

RESEARCH PHASE 2

CHAPTER THREE THE IN-COURT ADVICE PROJECT: DOCUMENTING THE BUSINESS

This chapter presents research findings relating to the business of the In-court Advice Project during Phase 2 and compares them with Phase 1. It inspects In-court Advice Project business over the two research phases for the number of consultations conducted with the In-court Adviser, as well as the procedural remit and substance of matters brought to the Project (3.2); the number and procedural status of In-court Advice Project clients, the kinds of disputes and claims that they brought to the Project and the types of opponents that they faced (3.3); how clients and cases were referred to the In-court Advice Project (3.4) and the procedural stages at which they were referred (3.5); monthly changes in the volume of business, and changes in the types and timing of consultations over Phase 1 and 2 (3.6). The chapter concludes with a summary of findings (3.7).

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1. This chapter monitors the business of the In-court Advice Project between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999, from 21 to 30 months following its establishment in Edinburgh Sheriff Court. It closely follows the monitoring schema employed in Phase 1 of the research project which examined the first nine months of the In-court Advice Project, from 1 April 1997 to 31 December 1997. In this chapter, the volume of business conducted by the In-court Advice Project and the type of business which clients brought to it are inspected. The mechanisms by which clients accessed the In-court Advice Project, the demand for the Project's services and the procedural stages at which that demand was exercised are also identified. The volume, scope and delivery of Project services over the nine months covered by Phase 2 of the research are compared and contrasted with the first nine months of the Project, with a view to monitoring the direction which the pilot project was taking as it approached the middle of its third year in Edinburgh Sheriff Court .

3.2 Volume of business: Consultations

Consultations and clients

3.2.1 1648 consultations were undertaken with 1017 clients between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999, compared with 893 consultations with 674 clients over the first nine months of the project. Within 20 months, then, the In-court Advice Project appeared to have almost doubled the number of consultations that were conducted and increased the number of clients passing through it by 50%.

3.2.2 Of 1648 consultations conducted between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999, 59% (968) were initial consultations (clients bringing new cases to the In-court Advice Project) while 41% (680) were 'return' consultations with clients seeking further advice on the same case. This appears to represent a considerable increase in return consultations during the period covered by Phase 2 compared with Phase 1, when only 23% of consultations were with clients who returned to consult with the In-court Adviser after their initial consultation.

Table 3.1 Initial and return consultations

3.2.3 Closer inspection of Phase 1 data, however, reveals a steady increase in return consultations as the Project established itself, reaching a plateau of between 25-27% of all consultations, except for Month 8 when return consultations constituted 36% of all consultations. By the end of the first nine month period, therefore, the proportion of return consultations were not as dissimilar from Phase 2 as would first appear.

3.2.4 Much of the additional increase in return consultations between the two research phases can be explained away by changes to the monitoring and recording system employed by the In-court Advice Project (see previous chapter). In Phase 2 of the research, just under one quarter (156) of all return consultations were conducted on the same day as the initial consultation but after the client had appeared in court. These were identified as separate and additional consultations by the In-court Adviser in post during the period covered by Phase 2 of the research but not by the In-court Adviser in post during the first nine months of the Project. If we were to follow the first In-court Adviser's recording system for the period covered by Phase 2 of the research, then 1492 (and not 1648) consultations were conducted between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999 and 524 (and not 680) return consultations were conducted. Thus identified, return consultations comprise only 35% of all consultations in Phase 2 - not substantially higher than the last months of Phase 1, when return consultations fluctuated between 25% and 36% of all consultations.

3.2.5 Though it caused difficulties of comparability, a decision was taken to retain this change to the recording and monitoring system of consultations. The second In-court Adviser's recording of two visits by the same client on the same day as two consultations was retained because it was thought to reflect more accurately the volume and intensity of business conducted by the Project during the working day. Thus, unlike the period covered by Phase 1 of the research, all consultations with clients, whether they fell on the same day or not, were counted as separate consultations. However, only consultations conducted by the In-court Adviser directly with clients were counted as client consultations. Calls made on behalf of clients were not counted as consultations (see chapter 2).

Repeat consultations

3.2.6 1017 clients passed through the In-court Advice Project between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999. In the majority of cases (64% or 645 clients), only one consultation was conducted. Two consultations were conducted with 202 (20%) clients, three consultations with 80 (8%) clients and four or more consultations with a further 83 (8%) clients. 13 of these 83 cases involved 10 or more consultations. (Information was missing on 7 cases).

3.2.7 Compared with the first nine months of the In-court Advice Project, this represents a considerable increase in the proportion of clients with whom two or more consultations were conducted (18% of all cases involved more than one consultation during Phase 1 compared with 36% during Phase 2). Much of this difference, however, could be explained away by differences in monitoring procedures (see 3.2.1-3.2.5 above).

Consultations and case procedure

3.2.8 Of 1648 client consultations conducted with the In-court Adviser between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999, 436 (26%) related to small claims procedure, 147 (9%) related to summary cause (non-heritage), 857 (53%) related to summary cause heritage procedure, 129 (8%) related to The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, 48 (3%) related to Ordinary Cause procedure outwith the remit of the In-court Advice Project and 31 (2%) were miscellaneous inquiries relating, for example, to wills, witnesses and victim support. While there was an overall increase in the number of consultations between Phase 1 and 2 of the research, this varied according to procedure.

Table 3.2 Consultations by procedural remit of case

* less than 1

3.2.9 Compared with the first nine months of the In-Court Advice Project, the greatest change was in the number of consultations relating to summary cause (heritage) procedure which increased from 452 to 857 consultations, (an increase of 90%). This also changed the balance of summary cause (heritage) consultations from 51% to 53% of all consultations.

3.2.10 The number of consultations relating to The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 rose from four to 129, (from less than 1% to 8% of all consultations). Though cases relating to The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 were within the remit of both In-court Advisers, the first In-court Adviser could not prioritise development work in this area. Development work in most other areas had progressed considerably by the time the second In-court Adviser came into post, however, and this provided her with the opportunity to prioritise development of this aspect of her remit. It was also made possible by a change in the timing of the Ordinary (Miscellaneous) Court from Tuesday (the day of the small claims court) to Wednesday, and which occurred during the period covered by Phase 1 of the research. In addition, the Ordinary Cause section of the Sheriff Clerk's Office began the practice of inserting information into summonses pertaining to The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.

3.2.11 Another marked change was an increase in the number of consultations relating to summary cause procedure, rising from 70 to 147 (from 8% to 9% of all consultations). The number of consultations relating to small claims procedure rose from 326 to 436, though as a proportion of all consultations, the proportion of small claims consultations actually fell from 37% to 27%.

3.2.12 Over half (848 or 53%) of all consultations in Phase 2 related to housing arrears while over one third (613 or 38%) related to other monetary claims, including claims relating to rental deposits (35 or 2% of all consultations). 18

Number of consultations per client and procedural remit of case

3.2.13 The number of consultations which the In-court Adviser conducted with clients varied according to the procedure to which their dispute was related.

Table 3.3 Number of consultations per client

No. of consultations

1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999

3.2.14 Clients seeking advice on heritage cases were most likely to consult only once, followed by clients seeking advice on cases which related to ordinary cause procedure and outwith the remit of the Project. Amongst 615 heritage cases, clients sought advice more than once in only 170 cases, representing 27% of all heritage clients. Compared with the first nine months of the Project, however, this represents a substantial increase in the number and proportion of heritage clients consulting more than once, from 45 (12%) heritage clients in Phase 1 of the research to 170 (27%) heritage clients in Phase 2. This may partly be an artefact of changes in the monitoring and recording system between the two phases (see 3.2.1). Indeed, 58 out of 174 return consultations relating to heritage procedure were on the same day as initial consultations. There may also have been a real increase in the capacity of the In-court Advice Project to see clients both before and after their court hearing during Phase 2 of the Project, as more staff came on board (see Chapter 5).

3.2.15 Clients seeking advice on matters related to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 were far more likely than any other clients to consult more than once with the In-court Advice Project. Out of 63 clients, 41 (74%) consulted with the In-court Adviser two or more times. Clients seeking advice on matters related to summary (non-heritage) and small claims procedure were also more likely than heritage clients to seek advice more than once (47% and 51% respectively). Compared with the first nine months of the project, when only 28% of summary cause clients and 29% of small claims clients consulted with the In-court Adviser more than once, there is a marked increase in return consultations in Phase 2 of the research. Like heritage clients, however, this may partly be attributed to changes in the monitoring system.

Consultations, procedural status and case procedure

3.2.16 Of 1648 consultations conducted in the nine months covered by Phase 2 of the research, only 317 (19%) involved pursuers while 1310 (80%) involved defenders. Four in five consultations, therefore, were with respect to claims which had not been set in motion by clients of the In-court Advice Project but by others. There were considerable variations according to the procedural remit of the case, ranging from 100% in cases dealt with by summary cause (heritage) procedure and Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 to just under half (45%) in small claims cases.

Table 3.4 Consultations by procedural status of client and procedural remit of case

1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999

3.2.17 While consultations with defenders during Phase 1 constituted 73% of all consultations, this increased to 80% between 1 December 1998 and 31 August 1999. This may be explained by the increased number and proportion of Project clients with heritable cases and cases related to the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 at Phase 2. This made a significant impact upon what advice and assistance was sought by clients, in terms of both substance and the timing of consultations. The only other noticeable change was a decrease in the proportion (though not actual number) of consultations with defenders in summary cause (non-heritage) cases (from 67% to 58% of all summary cause consultations).

Number of consultations, procedural status and case procedure

3.2.18 The number of times clients consulted with the In-court Adviser depended upon their procedural status. In the nine month period commencing 1 December 1998, 66% of defenders consulted with the In-court Adviser only once, compared with 53% of pursuers. Defenders were therefore more likely to consult with the In-court Advice Project just once, and this was no different in the first nine months of the Project. However, between Phases 1 and 2 of the Project, the proportion of defenders consulting only once decreased from 85% to 66%, and the proportion of pursuers consulting only once decreased from 72% to 53%. This may partly be attributed to a change in recording procedures (see 2.3 and 3.2.1-3.2.5) There was also an increase in the number of consultations conducted with any one client. Thus, in the first nine months of the Project, no more than 9 consultations were conducted with any one client while during Phase 2, five pursuers had consulted with the In-court Adviser more than 13 times. This may partly be attributed to the Phase 1 research cut-off date and the carry-over of consultations per client from previous months in Phase 2, as well as changes in recording procedures (see 2.3 and 3.2.1-3.2.5).

3.2.19 As we have already seen, (3.2.13-3.2.15) the number of times clients consulted with the In-court Advice Project also depended upon procedure. 51% of clients consulted with the In-court Adviser more than once in small claims cases, compared with 47% in summary cause (non-heritage) cases, 27% in heritable cases and 64% in cases relating to The Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. Compared with Phase 1, more clients consulted more than once in Phase 2 than Phase 1, whatever the procedure. The magnitude of this increase, however, depended on the procedural remit of the case.

Table 3.5 Clients consulting the In-court Advice Project more than once, by procedure

* less than 1%

3.2.20 The proportion of clients who consulted with the In-court Adviser more than once doubled in cases relating to heritage, summary and ordinary cause procedure, and increased by 50% from an already high baseline in cases relating to small claims procedure.

« Previous | Contents | Next »