Messenger December 2017

More documents

Recommendations

Info

24 Outsourcing Outsourced cashiering and your bottom line By Julian Bryan, Managing Director, Quill Success in business The ultimate marker of a successful business is the strength of its bottom line. Profitability is everything if you want to survive and thrive. The route to healthy profits is maximising income and minimising costs. You don’t necessarily need us to tell you about the former of these – maximising income. Revenue generation is your forte, achieved by good marketing to create new business opportunities in the first place, and even better legal service provision and client care thereafter to secure a stream of repeat and referral business. Your legal software provider can assist in this area by offering solutions containing features such as automation to reduce your workload, application availability for greater uptime, intuitive time recording to capture more chargeable activity and advanced analytics to monitor performance, to name a few. But that’s not the main focus here. We’re concentrating on the latter – minimising costs. Where cost cutting’s * concerned, * * we’re * going * * to show you how " outsourcing & & & services, specifically outsourced legal cashiering, can " help you to drastically decrease your overheads. In-house " vs outsourced " costs " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " To begin, consider the standard costs associated with employing an " in-house " " cashiering " staff member. Outgoings encompass " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " recruitment and selection; induction, mentoring, training and " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " development; " " " annual " bonus; " " overtime; " " temporary " " cover " " for " " " " " " " " " " " " " long-term sickness, maternity and paternity; 10 metres of office " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " space " necessitating rent, rates and service charges; IT hardware " equipment " " and " office " furniture; " " " 1 " user " licence " for " legal " accounts " software; " telecommunications; " " " " " " tea, " coffee, " " sugar, " milk, water " and fresh & & fruit provision; & & social events including Christmas parties; " other financial rewards such as referral, length of service " " " " " " " " " " " " " and staff " introduction " " awards; " " and miscellaneous " " " schemes " " including car " parking, " " healthcare " " and " gym " membership. " " " " This extensive " " " list " " can " easily " run " " into " tens " of thousands " " " of " " " " " " " " " " " " " " pounds. " And " it’s " by " no means " " the " biggest " expense which is, of " course, salary. To give you an impression of average cashier " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " earnings, " this " " " table " compares " " " " salaries " " by " region:- " " " " " " " Note: " These averages were calculated from jobs advertised on various recruitment platforms throughout June " " " " " " " " " " " " " <strong>2017</strong>. In comparison, outsourcing’s charged at a set affordable, " monthly, " transaction-based fee all-in which scales up or down according to your own level of busy-ness. Clearly, then, outsourced cashiering is by far the most economical way to manage this highly skilled, time intensive and heavily regulated business process. In real terms, outsourcing means doing the same job (better, we would argue, as your supplier is a specialist in its field), namely all the normal cashier duties, for substantially less cost. Finding the right people, training them on an ongoing basis, paying a regular salary and benefits, providing a physical workspace fitted out with all the requisite technology and telecommunications is an extremely costly affair. Not forgetting workplace pensions which warrant special mention. It’s yet another mandatory overhead, relatively newly introduced, if you employ just one person. To fulfil your Pensions Regulator obligations, you must enrol your staff into a pension scheme and contribute towards it. The minimum employer contribution is currently 1%, rising to 2% in the 2018/19 fiscal year and 3% from April 2019 onwards. More if you’re a generous employer. Staff retention * * * * * * " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " :(/-%.* ;+$,-(&
Case Comment 25 Case Comment Mr Andrew Steele - v - PJM Valeting Limited (1) – and - Hertz (UK) Limited (2) Application on behalf of Hertz (UK) Limited (2) to strike out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) – namely that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim Stockport County Court – before District Judge Dignan Shortly after filing their Defence, and prior to the parties dealing with Directions Questionnaires, D2 filed the abovementioned application. The solicitor’s witness statement in support of the same contained three specific arguments. The first subsequently fell away (prior to the application being heard the Claimant successfully amended their Particulars of Claim). The second was based upon ‘common sense’ with reference to case law (involving distinguishable facts). The third was the most unusual, namely that: · The QOCS provision was originally implemented to ensure that the ‘deserving claimant’ could still gain access to justice and protect their case; · In D2’s solicitor’s experience an unfortunate and unintended consequence of the reforms is the bringing of frivolous claims; and · This claim amounted to wasteful litigation and common sense dictated that the claim should be struck out with D2 then being in a position where they could enforce the resulting costs order. From the Claimant’s perspective, it very much seemed as though the application was motivated by a desire to circumvent the QOCS principle. Importantly, this latter point (the third submission re QOCS and the ‘deserving claimant’) was not pursued by Counsel at the hearing, and therefore the application hung simply on the ‘common sense’ argument and the case law. The Claimant deployed a wealth of arguments in response to the application, and indeed succeeded in their submissions that the application should be dismissed. In reaching his decision the Judge concentrated on the point that the evidence (that would be forthcoming in due course) needed to be considered; he noted that the case relied on by D2 was based upon a decision whereby the evidence did not establish that the object was not reasonably safe. The decision on costs was particularly interesting. The Claimant, pursuant to CPR 45.29H, would usually have been limited to fixed recoverable costs in the sum of £250 plus VAT. The Claimant applied under CPR 45.29J for a finding that there were exceptional circumstances in this matter, requesting that the Judge summarily assess costs utilising a costs schedule that totalled £2905 plus VAT. The Judge focussed on three main points in finding in favour of the Claimant that exceptional circumstances applied (noting that exceptional circumstances means consideration of all of the circumstances) which can be summarised as follows: 1. The hurdle of the claim needing to be ‘bound to fail’ (CPR 3.4.2) was, as found by him in his judgment, never to going to be reached. D2 had exhibited to their application a Court of Appeal decision that was fact-specific. It’s easy to say in hindsight that the application shouldn’t have been made, but it certainly shouldn’t have been when it pinned its colours to an irrelevant case. 2. If this application had succeeded it would have meant the claim was dismissed and QOCS would automatically be disapplied pursuant to CPR 44.15(1)(a). D2 would have been able to enforce an order for costs without permission from the court. That is a “significant, a very significant, potential outcome”. The consequences of the application were therefore critical. 3. D2’s Counsel quite rightly didn’t refer to the third submission as found in the in the solicitor’s witness statement in support of the application (re QOCS and the ‘deserving claimant’). The argument offered a critique of the QOCS provision and made reference to policy decisions and the truthfulness of claimants. It was a misconceived ground and there was no basis for making that argument. The Claimant was ultimately awarded £2,200 plus VAT in costs, a grand total of £2640, nearly 9 times the fixed recoverable sum. Barrister Nyssa Cronie from Express Solicitors (In house) Solicitor with conduct of the case Kimberley Kirkby Express Solicitors
Page 1 and 2: December 2017 October 09 1 Going Gr
Page 3 and 4: Contents 3 News from the President
Page 5 and 6: 5 President’s Column 5 From the P
Page 7 and 8: Regulation 7 Regulatory Affairs Com
Page 9 and 10: Clough & Willis grows team with two
Page 11 and 12: Interview 11 Meet the President of
Page 13 and 14: Interview 13 My Other Life In this
Page 15 and 16: Atttention to detail. In these unpr
Page 17 and 18: PEN OR NTRIES For more information:
Page 19 and 20: Legal Costs Update 19 Legal Costs U
Page 21 and 22: Interview 21 City Profile: Andrew T
Page 23: CILEx Update Local Groups 23 Traini
Page 27: WHAT IS MLS ADVANTAGE? A group of c
Page 30 and 31: 30 Wine One Foot in the Grapes This
Page 32 and 33: How to Get the Body You Want this C
Page 34: WOMEN IN THE LAW AND BUSINESS UK MA

Messenger December 2017

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?