If a job is worth doing it is worth paying someone else to do it properly

It is often said, sometimes in jest, that if a job is worth doing it is worth paying someone else to do it properly. Lord Judge, the Chair of the Judges’ Council has recently commented that proposed Government changes to the court system are likely to cause “a huge increase” in the number of ‘DIY litigants’. Are the current proposals to slash legal aid more likely to result in the freeing up of the court system because more people will choose alternatives such as mediation or as some senior judges have suggested will the courts grind to a virtual standstill as hundreds of thousands of people represent themselves in legal cases?

The lawyer who conducts his own case is said to have a fool for a client. Is the position of DIY litigants different? In some areas the court system appears already to be at breaking point. The proposed closure of a number of courts is likely only to worsen that. Is the threatened withdrawal of legal aid the straw that finally breaks the camels back?

Paul Grimwood, Partner, Hart Brown

To mediate or not to mediate: That is the question.

The Government has today unveiled its plans to compel couples who are in dispute about family issues to attend ‘Mediation Information and Assessment Meetings’ before issuing an application at court. The rationale, according to Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly, is that mediation is ostensibly “a quicker, cheaper and more amicable alternative” to court proceedings. The new rules will come in to force in England and Wales on 6th April 2011 and apply to privately funded cases. Mediation sessions are already compulsory for those receiving public funding, although there are exceptions.

Supporters of the proposals see this as a positive move to assist feuding couples and enable them to resolve their disputes, whether it be about the divorce itself, financial issues or children matters, in an amicable forum with an independent mediator. Critics of the proposals may, however, view the move as an excuse to cut the legal aid budget for family cases.

According to the BBC, there are currently 350,000 family cases currently receiving legal aid in England and Wales. By making mediation compulsory in most cases, the Government hopes to reduce this to around 87,500 cases, which represents 25% of the current figure, thereby saving around £173 million.

Mediation will not be compulsory in all cases, for example where there are allegations of domestic abuse or where urgent action needs to be taken by the court. If one party is unwilling to attend or consider mediation they cannot be forced to go, but if there is no valid reason for the refusal a Judge is unlikely to view this stance favourably.

Mediation can be a positive experience whereby couples can air their issues with an impartial third party, but that is not to say it suits everyone. Is compulsory mediation a step in the right direction for amicable resolution of disputes, or is it another hurdle couples will have to face before they can seek assistance from a court.


Gemma Kemp – Legal Executive – Family department

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12548506

Find out about how Hart Brown can help with mediation

NHS failing basic standards of care

The Health Service Ombudsman has recently reported that the NHS is failing to meet even the most basic standards of care for older people. The Ombudsman found that some elderly patients had suffered unnecessary pain, indignity and distress whilst in hospital.

Complaints had been made in relation to patients being left unattended, receiving inadequate medication or pain relief, emergency buzzers being placed out of patients reach and patients being left unwashed, malnourished and dehydrated.

Many of these vulnerable patients might currently be eligible for legal aid to pursue claims for compensation for negligent treatment. However the government is currently considering proposals to withdraw legal aid for clinical negligence cases. Negligence claims often highlight the inadequacies of hospital care by bringing problems to the attention of the NHS management which has in the past resulted in negligent practices being abandoned and replaced with much better ones. If government support is withdrawn for clinical negligence claims many patients may be denied any access to justice. This begs the worrying question of whether if the prospect of these claims is effectively removed standards of care provided to patients by the medical profession will decline still further.


Amey Welch, Legal Assistant, Clinical Negligence

Government can’t see the wood for the trees!

Since highlighting on Tuesday the Government’s plan to sell off large amounts of England’s public forest, it appears that there is to be a complete u-turn.

After heavy criticism from campaigners it seems that the proposals will be dropped, with the consultation swiftly wound up and the policy rethought.

At Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons, Labour leader Ed Miliband asked Mr Cameron: “Can you tell us whether you are happy with your flagship policy on forestry?” Mr Cameron replied: “The short answer to that is no.”

A new panel of experts is now set to look at public access and biodiversity within the publicly owned woodland, and plans to offload public forest to private companies and individuals has also been dropped.

The u-turn will be welcomed by the many users of England’s public forest including the 520,000+ people who signed the online petition against the move.


Sean Logan, Solicitor, Hart Brown

Real news for first time buyers?

Will the provision of large loan to value mortgages really be the way to introduce confidence into the market and set the first time buyer’s pulses racing? This initiative does not solve the problem of severe job insecurity which is a hurdle that a large number of potential first time buyers are finding impossible to negotiate.

Lenders also have astonishingly short memories. The high % loan to value mortgages in the late 80’s saw properties quickly enter negative equity when the market dropped in value in the early 90’s. The same happened in more dramatic terms in early 2008.

Mervyn King has put forward his thoughts as to the problems in the economy and the spectre of 1.25% interest rates by the end of 2011 is now a real possibility, if not probability. Where will people find the extra amount of interest they need to pay should rates go up when there are few pay rises in any sector? The feeling in the property industry is that any significant rise in interest rates, with 1% being considered very significant, will kill the market stone dead whilst distressing huge numbers of house owners who have struggled through the last 24 months.

All in all, is this really the time for young first time buyers to saddle themselves with a 90 or 95% mortgage?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/feb/17/mortgage-lenders-first-time-buyers

David Knapp, Partner
Residential Property

For the next generation of house buyers?

For dinosaurs like me, the concept of receiving mortgage information through my telephone is beyond my brain’s capacity!

My children however would lap it up.

Mortgage lenders are predominantly not interested in dinosaurs as they have a habit of becoming extinct and in any event dinosaurs can use their old fashioned ways to find the “food” source of a money loan that currently exist.

The next generation, well, the next but one (such as my children), will find this a very useful method of sourcing finance, providing they are able to allow themselves 5 minutes from the texts to their friends…..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/feb/16/mortgage-assistant-app-of-week
Do you think this app will be a useful tool for house buyers? Let us know!

David Knapp, Partner
Residential Property

UK Business faces red tape confusion

Are we over regulated? 265 new regulations on top of existing ones must make most businesses, in particular small businesses, gasp.

Good intentions usually sit behind new regulations but, as I know from working in the law, new legislation can often be a knee jerk reaction to resolve a situation and often a unique situation at that.

However, sadly rather than resolve a problem new legislation often forces good businesses who comply with good practice to jump through hoops at considerable expense leaving businesses, which the legislation intended to correct, ignoring it.

Speaking to businesses most say that they are overregulated and that the balance between protecting the business and others (such as employees, suppliers, contractors, the tax man) has swung too far in favour of “others”. Many lawyers would probably agree. It is however a difficult balance.

265 new regulations does seem rather a lot – ignorance won’t be a defence but it will be very understandable!”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12493061

Bettina Brueggemann
Managing Partner

England’s forests: the time to act is now

Over the last five financial years the Forestry Commission has being selling on average almost 900 hectares of land each year. In 2010, ministers announced that a further 40,000 hectares (representing 15.5% of English forests owned by the Forestry Commission) would be sold over the four year period 2011/12 to 2014/15.

England’s premier “heritage” woodlands such as the Forest of Dean will be handed free to a new national charity or to existing charitable trusts. However, communities and environment groups will be invited to buy thousands of hectares of land, in addition to large areas of commercial woodland that will be sold on 150-year leases to private companies.

A consultation, running from 27 January 2011 for 12 weeks, has been launched to invite views on the proposal put forward to deal with the future ownership and management of the public forest estate in England.

Campaigners warn that selling off public forests will lead to woodland being destroyed and not maintained, and the public being barred from access to the land. They fear that some sites in time may be vulnerable to developments such as housing estates and golf courses.

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has responded to concerns saying that disposing of the land would enable the government and the Forestry Commission to focus on their most important roles and allow those who are most involved with England’s woodlands to play a much greater role in their future. She claims the sell-off could raise £150-250m over 10 years and highlight that public access will be maintained and biodiversity protected.

Opinion polls suggest over 80% of the public wants to keep English forests in public hands and online petition Save Our Forests has been signed by more than 520,000 people.

Let us know what you think by leaving a comment below, or why not have your say by contributing to the consultation at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8D3G4M.


Find out more about the author of this article, Sean Logan

Casual is the new smart?

Casual is the new smart. In ever changing times are we just on a merry go round and the current modern trend is casual but it won’t be long before suits make a comeback? Or are there real reasons for a more casual dress approach such as helping clients feel more at ease. At Projectfive the aim is for staff to feel comfortable and for clients to feel less intimidated. IT they believe can be a scary subject. Not as scary as solicitors surely? UBS obviously went too far. It is probably right to say that all businesses should have some sort of dress code – both as a means of reinforcing their image and to ensure that necessary standards are maintained. We have clients who would be shocked to meet their solicitor dressed in anything other than a suit. Others would prefer to see us in relaxed but smart clothing. There isn’t it seems to me a right or wrong answer. Suits won’t disappear. They have their place but so does casual.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12418046

Read more about Bettina Brueggemann

Do estate agents provide good customer care?

In her latest trip down the high street, Mary Portas “Queen of Shops” has been targeting businesses and questioning their customer care. So far we have seen her at the door of fashions outlets, furniture stores and mobile phone shops. This week the Secret Shopper’s target was estate agents.

Public perception of estate agents seems to be that they are deceitful, unscrupulous, manipulative and un-trustworthy. So what did Mary Portas consider they could change in order to provide their clients with better customer care?

She took on a family run firm of estate agents who didn’t initially appear to think that they needed to change their ways. However, as the exercise continued Mary proved to them just how important it is for the public to have clear, concise and truthful information. After all, buying a house is probably one of the biggest financial decisions anyone will make in their lifetime and people don’t like to be misled.

Mary put the agents through their paces in a country house where, after 15 minutes of training, they took the general public on guided tours. This proved to them just how important it is to have knowledge and expertise of the particular property they were showing off.

The agents took this on board and put it to good use, embracing the issue of their property details, radically changing them to reflect both the good and the bad aspects of the properties on their books. This attitude to selling is not only upfront and honest but to potential buyers it is straightforward, accurate, honest selling. No terrible clichés, jargon or estate agents patter.

Mary surveyed the prospective buyers who had viewed properties with the benefit of the new style property details. She was amazed to hear that 100% of those prospective buyers thought they were honest, trustworthy, specialists in their field with expert knowledge of both the properties and the area generally. This was a great result.

Honesty is certainly the alternative way for estate agents to market property and it will be asking them to change the habits of a lifetime but could the industry make the change to embrace these radical ideas? Refreshing thought!

Debbie Beswick

Compensation received before marriage, a matrimonial asset?

It has been reported by the Daily Mail this afternoon that a man who received the sum of £500,000.00 by way of compensation following a car crash five years before he met his wife has been ordered by the court to pay over £285,000.00 of that money to his now ex wife as part of a financial settlement on divorce.

The Judge in this case appears to have classed the husband’s compensation as part of the matrimonial assets.

This is an unusual case, and begs the question can it be fair that the husband now faces financial hardship by losing an asset that not only was provided as compensation for his disability, but one that he received before he met his ex wife?

The husband has now been granted permission to appeal against this ruling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354470/Divorce-judge-orders-crash-amputee-hand-500-000-compensation-ex-wife.html

Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown

Legal rights for unmarried couples – A good idea?

The president of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Nicholas Wall has called for legal rights to be given to unmarried couples should they separate.

It is a common misconception that couples who are unmarried and simply live together have a ‘common law’ marriage and therefore the same rights as married couples, but this is not the case.

If a cohabiting couple separate, they do not have claims for maintenance or claims against the other’s capital or pensions in the same way that a married couple do. If a cohabiting couple own a property together, the law on which they rely to decide how to deal with that property is complex and based on trust law.

The lawyers at Hart Brown are able to assist unmarried couples and would recommend that if considering living with a partner, a cohabitation agreement is entered into to clarify matters.

Do you think that unmarried couples should have the same rights as married couples so that one party is not at a disadvantage? Or do you think that such laws would undermine marriage? Let us have your comments below.

Link to the article:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12352200

Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Hart Brown

Shouting at your partner – A valid reason for an injunction?

Within the last few days, the Supreme Court has ruled that within relationships, the word ‘violence’ can be interpreted to mean not just physical violence, but incidences of shouting and verbal attacks.

The case concerned involved a wife who left the family home, which was a council property. The wife declared to the local council that she had left the property because she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband and therefore needed to be re-housed. It transpired that her husband had never hit her, or threatened to hit her. The local council therefore refused to re-house her.

The Supreme Court took the decision that in determining the meaning of the word ‘violence’, it should be extended to mean verbal behaviour too.

This decision may have an effect on the application for injunctions under the Family Law Act 1996. Such injunctions are usually sought where a person has been subjected to domestic violence by their spouse or partner and requires a court order that the other person does not come near them and/or leaves the property in which they are living. In some cases, it has been possible to obtain a non-molestation order for psychological abuse provided that evidence is produced to the court, but this may now open up more cases of non-physical abuse being used as a reason for an injunction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350761/Women-entitled-council-house-partner-shouts.html


Anne Thomas, Legal Executive, Family Department