Hart Brown named as one of the first firms in the UK to be accredited under the new Conveyancing Quality Scheme
Just 20 firms have been recognised for meeting the Law Society's comprehensive quality standards for residential conveyancing practices.
Hart Brown, a leading law firm with offices throughout Surrey and in London, today announced that, it is one of the first law firms to be accredited under the new Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS). Launched by the Law Society, the CQS provides a recognised quality standard for residential conveyancing practices, and will therefore enable Hart Brown to enjoy even greater credibility with its key stakeholders, including regulators, lenders, insurers and its clients. Just 20 law firms have achieved this to date.
In addition to assessing the integrity of the Hart Brown's Senior Responsible Officer and other key conveyancing staff, the CQS also examined the firm's adherence to good practice management standards generally, and to prudent and efficient conveyancing procedures. The scheme, which is supported by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, has been open for applications since December 2010.
"The aim of the CQS scheme is not only to improve the quality of conveyancing, but also to encourage the public to work with firms that have proven their ability to meet these stringent standards consistently," says David Knapp, Partner and Head of Residential Property, Hart Brown. "To be in the first batch of those accredited is a testimony to our excellent quality procedures, the staff involved in the conveyancing process, and also to our accounts team, who also needed to be carefully vetted in order for us to demonstrate compliance with CQS standards."
According to the Law Society, the aim of the scheme is not only to reinforce consistency of standards throughout the conveyancing process, but also to reduce the risk of fraud and give consumers peace of mind when it comes to home buying. Practices applying to join the scheme must undergo a robust assessment and will be required to renew their membership of the scheme each year.
In addition to improving the quality of UK conveyancing, the CQS scheme will help to create a trusted community better equipped to deter fraud. As such, although CQS membership will not guarantee acceptance onto lenders' panels, the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) has indicated that membership is likely to become a pre-requisite for firms wishing to join/remain on their panels in the future.
"At Hart Brown we understand that whether you are buying or selling a property, you'll want to have the process explained to you in simple and easy to understand language, be kept informed throughout the process, and have the process proceed as smoothly as possible," David Knapp continues. "Schemes like the CQS help us to highlight our expertise in all of these important areas, and to ensure that one of the most expensive purchases or sales you are likely to make is handled properly, and with clear and consistent communication throughout the entire process."
Find out more about Hart Brown's Residential Property Conveyancing department
David Knapp, Partner, Residential property conveyancing, Hart Brown
Monday 21 March 2011
Court of Appeal decides that a mother cannot keep mum about the birth of her baby
A mother who sought to keep the birth of her baby boy a secret from her husband has been told by judges that the court will not back her “great lie”, according to an article in the Telegraph.
The husband and wife, who originate from Afganistan, are still married and the court observed that a “full family life exists”. The wife gave birth to the baby boy last year without her husband knowing about the birth or her pregnancy, as she was concerned about how he might react to the news that he was a father. Her plan was to have the child adopted before her husband had the chance to find out.
According to the mother, the father is “unpredictable and volatile”. He is apparently extremely traumatised by what he witnessed in war torn Afganistan. In particular, the murder of his sister by the Taliban. The mother told the court that her husband has “psychotic symptoms” and that she was concerned that if he found out he was a father, this would have an adverse effect on his mental health.
When looking at issues involving children, the court considers the welfare of the child to be of utmost importance. Any decision made must be in the child’s best interests. There are also human right issues involved in this case. In previous cases, the court has made it clear that a child has the right to know who its parents are. Likewise, a father has a right to know that he is in fact a father.
In the absence of medical evidence to support her case, the mother’s concerns were “pure supposition” and her appeal was dismissed. The court found that the father should be fully informed of his son’s birth.
Do you think there are any circumstances which may justify a parent not being informed about the existence of their child?
read more here
Gemma Kemp, Legal Executive, Family Law
The husband and wife, who originate from Afganistan, are still married and the court observed that a “full family life exists”. The wife gave birth to the baby boy last year without her husband knowing about the birth or her pregnancy, as she was concerned about how he might react to the news that he was a father. Her plan was to have the child adopted before her husband had the chance to find out.
According to the mother, the father is “unpredictable and volatile”. He is apparently extremely traumatised by what he witnessed in war torn Afganistan. In particular, the murder of his sister by the Taliban. The mother told the court that her husband has “psychotic symptoms” and that she was concerned that if he found out he was a father, this would have an adverse effect on his mental health.
When looking at issues involving children, the court considers the welfare of the child to be of utmost importance. Any decision made must be in the child’s best interests. There are also human right issues involved in this case. In previous cases, the court has made it clear that a child has the right to know who its parents are. Likewise, a father has a right to know that he is in fact a father.
In the absence of medical evidence to support her case, the mother’s concerns were “pure supposition” and her appeal was dismissed. The court found that the father should be fully informed of his son’s birth.
Do you think there are any circumstances which may justify a parent not being informed about the existence of their child?
read more here
Gemma Kemp, Legal Executive, Family Law
Friday 18 March 2011
Inheritance: mine or ours?
According to recent research, a third of parents are concerned about leaving money and assets to their married children in their wills in case they get divorced. The assumption seemingly being that when a couple divorces they each walk away with half of the assets. Whilst this may be the outcome in some cases, it is by no means a preordained or guaranteed outcome.
When a marriage or registered civil partnership breaks down, the lawyers and the courts have to look at the individual circumstances of that particular case. When dealing with financial matters, the court’s objective is to achieve an outcome which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
In order to consider whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, different factors are considered, such as: each person’s income and capital resources both now and in the foreseeable future; their respective ages; the duration of the marriage; their income and capital needs; their standard of living during the marriage; any disability either party may have; and contributions each party has made to the marriage.
An additional factor to be considered is whether an equal division of all the assets (including inheritances) would be fair. This is more likely to be the case in respect of a long marriage, but perhaps not for a short one.
An inheritance can form part of the assets to be taken into account, but this depends on what other assets are available and when the inheritance was received. If it was received at beginning of a long marriage, the ‘contribution’ may be watered down over the passage of time. If it is a recent inheritance, there may be more scope to argue that the person who received it should keep it. That said, an inheritance may not be excluded from the joint ‘matrimonial pot’ if there are very few other assets, to the extent that one or both parties’ needs cannot be met without the inheritance monies being added to the matrimonial pot.
To paint a picture, Mr and Mrs Wills are married with two children. Mrs Wills receives a significant inheritance which is used to purchase the family home. Unfortunately the marriage breaks down and Mrs Wills moves out and purchases a new property. Mr Wills remains living in the first home with the children. If there were no other assets, it would be unfair and unreasonable for Mrs Wills to receive her whole inheritance back as it would potentially render the children and Mr Wills homeless. This is merely an illustrative example, and most cases are not so clear cut. Full legal advice should be taken in respect of such matters.
Therefore, the answer to the question “is my inheritance mine or ours” depends on all the facts of the case.
Gemma Kemp, Legal Executive, Family Law, Woking
When a marriage or registered civil partnership breaks down, the lawyers and the courts have to look at the individual circumstances of that particular case. When dealing with financial matters, the court’s objective is to achieve an outcome which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
In order to consider whether a settlement is fair and reasonable, different factors are considered, such as: each person’s income and capital resources both now and in the foreseeable future; their respective ages; the duration of the marriage; their income and capital needs; their standard of living during the marriage; any disability either party may have; and contributions each party has made to the marriage.
An additional factor to be considered is whether an equal division of all the assets (including inheritances) would be fair. This is more likely to be the case in respect of a long marriage, but perhaps not for a short one.
An inheritance can form part of the assets to be taken into account, but this depends on what other assets are available and when the inheritance was received. If it was received at beginning of a long marriage, the ‘contribution’ may be watered down over the passage of time. If it is a recent inheritance, there may be more scope to argue that the person who received it should keep it. That said, an inheritance may not be excluded from the joint ‘matrimonial pot’ if there are very few other assets, to the extent that one or both parties’ needs cannot be met without the inheritance monies being added to the matrimonial pot.
To paint a picture, Mr and Mrs Wills are married with two children. Mrs Wills receives a significant inheritance which is used to purchase the family home. Unfortunately the marriage breaks down and Mrs Wills moves out and purchases a new property. Mr Wills remains living in the first home with the children. If there were no other assets, it would be unfair and unreasonable for Mrs Wills to receive her whole inheritance back as it would potentially render the children and Mr Wills homeless. This is merely an illustrative example, and most cases are not so clear cut. Full legal advice should be taken in respect of such matters.
Therefore, the answer to the question “is my inheritance mine or ours” depends on all the facts of the case.
Gemma Kemp, Legal Executive, Family Law, Woking
Our surveillance society
Direct Line Insurance lost their case against Mark Noble this week in the High Court. In 2008 the insurers had to pay Mr Noble £3.3 million following a motor cycle accident which had taken place in 2003. After the case was settled a neighbour contacted the Insurance Fraud Bureau to say that Mr Noble was not disabled.
Direct Line then decided to have Mr Noble secretly filmed. In 2009 Direct Line obtained an order freezing Mr Noble’s assets and later the case was re-opened to see if Mr Noble had been guilty of fraud and whether the award of damages should be set aside. Therefore there was much at stake both for Direct Line and for Mr Noble during the hearing which took some 8 days. Judgment was given this week in favour of Mr Noble who will keep his damages.
Widespread criticism of Direct Line has followed the news report on this case.
How far should insurers go to detect fraud?
In Mr Noble’s case it appears that the insurers went after an innocent man. Having acted for both defendants and claimants I know that there are times that claimants do not tell the truth. Insurers are on occasion justified in secretly filming a claimant when fraud is suspected. There have been cases when secret surveillance has provided clear proof of fraud and/or exaggeration. In Mr Noble’s case the insurers appear to have gone after the wrong man and have failed in a somewhat spectacular way. I anticipate that Mr Noble’s relations with his neighbour who contacted the Insurance Fraud Bureau might be a little frosty in the near future too!
Marek Bednarczyk, Partner, Civil Litigation
Direct Line then decided to have Mr Noble secretly filmed. In 2009 Direct Line obtained an order freezing Mr Noble’s assets and later the case was re-opened to see if Mr Noble had been guilty of fraud and whether the award of damages should be set aside. Therefore there was much at stake both for Direct Line and for Mr Noble during the hearing which took some 8 days. Judgment was given this week in favour of Mr Noble who will keep his damages.
Widespread criticism of Direct Line has followed the news report on this case.
How far should insurers go to detect fraud?
In Mr Noble’s case it appears that the insurers went after an innocent man. Having acted for both defendants and claimants I know that there are times that claimants do not tell the truth. Insurers are on occasion justified in secretly filming a claimant when fraud is suspected. There have been cases when secret surveillance has provided clear proof of fraud and/or exaggeration. In Mr Noble’s case the insurers appear to have gone after the wrong man and have failed in a somewhat spectacular way. I anticipate that Mr Noble’s relations with his neighbour who contacted the Insurance Fraud Bureau might be a little frosty in the near future too!
Marek Bednarczyk, Partner, Civil Litigation
Thursday 17 March 2011
Cosmetic Surgery - how safe is it?
The BBC news reported that an inquest into the death of footballer’s wife, Denise Hendry, will be held this year. Mrs Hendry suffered serious complications following a liposuction procedure which was carried out at a private hospital. It is reported that her bowel was punctured in several places. She had to suffer a number of operations to repair the damage and contracted an infection.
There are many excellent and highly trained plastic surgeons within the NHS some of whom also work in the private sector. The sad story, involving Mrs Hendry, shows that the standard of some surgeons and some clinics falls short of what is acceptable.
A lot of cosmetic procedures are not available under the NHS and patients have no alternative but to seek treatment from within the private sector. Patients place their trust in these clinics and the cosmetic surgeons, sometimes to their cost.
The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death carried out a survey which was published in 2010. A significant percentage of cosmetic surgery providers did not respond or refused to take part in the study. The results of this study give rise for concern:
• Few providers carried out routine preoperative psychological assessment.
• Some of the operating theatres were not properly equipped.
• Some providers offered a variety of procedures some of which were only performed infrequently.
• Not all providers monitored patient outcomes.
• Many patients were not given time to reflect on the advice given at the initial consultation before proceeding with the procedure.
• Some hospitals did not have an emergency readmission procedure.
Clearly better regulation and monitoring within the private sector is required.
Dr Caroline Kerr, Solicitor, Clinical Negligence
There are many excellent and highly trained plastic surgeons within the NHS some of whom also work in the private sector. The sad story, involving Mrs Hendry, shows that the standard of some surgeons and some clinics falls short of what is acceptable.
A lot of cosmetic procedures are not available under the NHS and patients have no alternative but to seek treatment from within the private sector. Patients place their trust in these clinics and the cosmetic surgeons, sometimes to their cost.
The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death carried out a survey which was published in 2010. A significant percentage of cosmetic surgery providers did not respond or refused to take part in the study. The results of this study give rise for concern:
• Few providers carried out routine preoperative psychological assessment.
• Some of the operating theatres were not properly equipped.
• Some providers offered a variety of procedures some of which were only performed infrequently.
• Not all providers monitored patient outcomes.
• Many patients were not given time to reflect on the advice given at the initial consultation before proceeding with the procedure.
• Some hospitals did not have an emergency readmission procedure.
Clearly better regulation and monitoring within the private sector is required.
Dr Caroline Kerr, Solicitor, Clinical Negligence
Wednesday 16 March 2011
Royal Wedding bank holiday – to pay or not to pay
Are employees entitled to be paid for the for the extra bank holiday due to the Royal wedding on Friday 29th April 2011? Employers will have to check the wording of their employment contracts and associated policies. The day does not actually increase any entitlement to statutory holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998.
A contract which entitles employees to, for example, 20 days annual leave in addition to all statutory, bank and public holidays, would entitle employees to an extra day’s paid holiday. However if the contract entitles employees to 28 day annual leave including all statutory, bank and public holidays, then employees would not be entitled to the extra day’s paid holiday.
There will also be an additional bank holiday on 5 June 2012 to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee and her 60 years on the throne. The traditional late May bank holiday will also be postponed until 4 June 2012 to give the country a 4 day weekend break.
Ursula Kelland, Solicitor, Employment
A contract which entitles employees to, for example, 20 days annual leave in addition to all statutory, bank and public holidays, would entitle employees to an extra day’s paid holiday. However if the contract entitles employees to 28 day annual leave including all statutory, bank and public holidays, then employees would not be entitled to the extra day’s paid holiday.
There will also be an additional bank holiday on 5 June 2012 to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee and her 60 years on the throne. The traditional late May bank holiday will also be postponed until 4 June 2012 to give the country a 4 day weekend break.
Ursula Kelland, Solicitor, Employment
Tuesday 15 March 2011
Compensation culture - a harmless merry-go-round or something more sinister?
Some mornings it seems that representatives of the insurance industry are queuing up to appear on the radio complaining about the so called ‘compensation culture’. Many people are surprised to learn however that they are actively participating in the increase in the number of claims about which they so bitterly claim.
The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has recently shone some light on the murky world of these referral payments. Essentially insurance companies put people who make a claim on their insurance in touch with panel firms of solicitors who pay the insurance companies referral fees reportedly averaging between £200 and £1,000 per case. The law firms then make claims on behalf of these clients which are often dealt with by other insurers who then complain about the rise in claims but in particular that element of the cost of those claims which represents legal costs. Common sense suggests that the presence of these referral payments in what the Committee referred to as ‘a merry-go-round’ must increase the cost of the overall process somewhere. Surely a simple solution for these insurance companies who complain so bitterly about this would simply be to stop paying these referral fees such that costs would be reduced. Unfortunately the insurance industry makes a lot of money from these referral payments. In one sense of course the insurance companies do not necessarily lose out from a rise in premiums. A relatively harmless merry-go-round or something more sinister – what do you think?
Paul Grimwood, Partner, Civil Litigation
The House of Commons Transport Select Committee has recently shone some light on the murky world of these referral payments. Essentially insurance companies put people who make a claim on their insurance in touch with panel firms of solicitors who pay the insurance companies referral fees reportedly averaging between £200 and £1,000 per case. The law firms then make claims on behalf of these clients which are often dealt with by other insurers who then complain about the rise in claims but in particular that element of the cost of those claims which represents legal costs. Common sense suggests that the presence of these referral payments in what the Committee referred to as ‘a merry-go-round’ must increase the cost of the overall process somewhere. Surely a simple solution for these insurance companies who complain so bitterly about this would simply be to stop paying these referral fees such that costs would be reduced. Unfortunately the insurance industry makes a lot of money from these referral payments. In one sense of course the insurance companies do not necessarily lose out from a rise in premiums. A relatively harmless merry-go-round or something more sinister – what do you think?
Paul Grimwood, Partner, Civil Litigation
Monday 14 March 2011
JJB Sports ask landlords to back recovery plan
In an attempt to avoid administration JJB Sports have put a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) together that offers landlords incentives to back the company’s recovery plan.
JJB is proposing to pay half the rent due on 89 of its stores facing closure, as well as a sum for dilapidations. The CVA is estimated to return a range of between 24.6p and 29.3p in the pound to compromised landlords. Administration will only see 1.1p in the pound returned to creditors.
During this ongoing period of economic instability this is an example of where landlords may be prepared to consider offers put forward by struggling tenants to avoid ending up with empty premises. A landlord that for example, agrees to discount the rent for a fixed period of time may give its tenant the breathing space it needs to restructure its finances and prevent the company from going into administration.
JJB Sports’ creditors will vote on the proposals on 22 March.
Sean Logan, Solicitor, Hart Brown
JJB is proposing to pay half the rent due on 89 of its stores facing closure, as well as a sum for dilapidations. The CVA is estimated to return a range of between 24.6p and 29.3p in the pound to compromised landlords. Administration will only see 1.1p in the pound returned to creditors.
During this ongoing period of economic instability this is an example of where landlords may be prepared to consider offers put forward by struggling tenants to avoid ending up with empty premises. A landlord that for example, agrees to discount the rent for a fixed period of time may give its tenant the breathing space it needs to restructure its finances and prevent the company from going into administration.
JJB Sports’ creditors will vote on the proposals on 22 March.
Sean Logan, Solicitor, Hart Brown
Friday 11 March 2011
Referral fees - does the consumer benefit?
Very interesting to see the Government now pick up the issue of referral fees being paid by lawyers for information about possible personal injury claims or for such claims to be referred. Despite the majority of the legal profession being against the concept of referral fees they are permitted. The kind of issues mentioned today (false claims being made, deliberate accidents being caused and unwanted texts being received encouraging a claim) are symptomatic of referral fees. That is not to say they are the only cause - false claims have always been made and will always continue to be made.
Does the consumer benefit from a third party being paid for their claim to be passed to a solicitor? An argument in favour is that the third party has the ability to advertise people’s rights and make them alive to the fact that they might have a claim. Law firms don’t generally have the financial ability for that level of advertising. Against is that an intermediary is making a profit (which ultimately must increase the cost to the consumer or negligent party) , that matters are not always referred to the right specialist (referral agencies only refer to firms on their panel who have agreed to pay a referral fee) and firms who pay referral fees often engage junior staff to process claims as the only means of making it pay.
Good quality service comes at a price – mostly it is worth paying the extra. Keep an eye out for our articles over the next few months about referral fees paid by some law firms to estate agents for conveyancing referrals. Have you ever been told by an estate agent that you must use a certain law firm? Have you ever wondered why? Is it compulsory? Our first article on the topic will be on our website next month.
Bettina Brueggemann, Managing Partner, Hart Brown
Does the consumer benefit from a third party being paid for their claim to be passed to a solicitor? An argument in favour is that the third party has the ability to advertise people’s rights and make them alive to the fact that they might have a claim. Law firms don’t generally have the financial ability for that level of advertising. Against is that an intermediary is making a profit (which ultimately must increase the cost to the consumer or negligent party) , that matters are not always referred to the right specialist (referral agencies only refer to firms on their panel who have agreed to pay a referral fee) and firms who pay referral fees often engage junior staff to process claims as the only means of making it pay.
Good quality service comes at a price – mostly it is worth paying the extra. Keep an eye out for our articles over the next few months about referral fees paid by some law firms to estate agents for conveyancing referrals. Have you ever been told by an estate agent that you must use a certain law firm? Have you ever wondered why? Is it compulsory? Our first article on the topic will be on our website next month.
Bettina Brueggemann, Managing Partner, Hart Brown
Monday 7 March 2011
Legalised profit increase for insurers!
Insurers must be jumping for joy. Legalised profit increase!
I don’t pretend to know how premiums are calculated (all information welcome) but it was always my understanding that insurers claim they use statistics. In other words a young male is more likely (statistically) to have an accident than a young female of the same age. In other words young males are more reckless drivers so their premium is more. Similarly if you live in a high crime rate statistically you are more likely to have your car stolen than if you live in the country.
When we seek a quote all this information is apparently applied in setting our individual premium. Is there anything wrong with that? Is applying reality and real life discrimination? There is already talk of breach of age discrimination in calculating premiums. Older driver’s premiums tend to be less – because (it is argued) they have more experience and drive more carefully (probably because as you get older you become aware of your own mortality!!). It is important to avoid discrimination of any kind and the law has worked hard to ensure that individuals and organisations act honourably, fairly and treat everyone equally.
However reality should not be ignored. Older people are more likely to die than younger people. Older people do have more experience. It is a fact of life and applying the reality of life is surely not always discrimination – or is it?
Bettina Brueggemann, Managing Partner, Hart Brown
I don’t pretend to know how premiums are calculated (all information welcome) but it was always my understanding that insurers claim they use statistics. In other words a young male is more likely (statistically) to have an accident than a young female of the same age. In other words young males are more reckless drivers so their premium is more. Similarly if you live in a high crime rate statistically you are more likely to have your car stolen than if you live in the country.
When we seek a quote all this information is apparently applied in setting our individual premium. Is there anything wrong with that? Is applying reality and real life discrimination? There is already talk of breach of age discrimination in calculating premiums. Older driver’s premiums tend to be less – because (it is argued) they have more experience and drive more carefully (probably because as you get older you become aware of your own mortality!!). It is important to avoid discrimination of any kind and the law has worked hard to ensure that individuals and organisations act honourably, fairly and treat everyone equally.
However reality should not be ignored. Older people are more likely to die than younger people. Older people do have more experience. It is a fact of life and applying the reality of life is surely not always discrimination – or is it?
Bettina Brueggemann, Managing Partner, Hart Brown
Friday 4 March 2011
West Ham's victory over spurs!
It has been formally announced that West Ham United have been selected as the preferred tenant of the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 games, beating a bid from Premier League rivals Tottenham Hotspur.
The unanimous decision of the Olympic Park Legacy Company to select West Ham was supported by the government and London Major Boris Johnson. West Ham’s bid for the £537m venue was judged to provide the best legacy for the stadium.
West Ham intends to convert the showpiece stadium and will leave the athletics track untouched. Spurs’ plan was widely criticised because it would have involved removing the running track and replacing part of the stadium.
The OPLC will now look to negotiate a mutually acceptable lease with the consortium comprising West Ham United and Newham Council. However, other options will be considered if they are unable to reach a deal.
West Ham plan to move from Upton Park in 2014/15.
Read the orignial article here
Sean Logan, Solicitor, Commercial Property, Hart Brown
The unanimous decision of the Olympic Park Legacy Company to select West Ham was supported by the government and London Major Boris Johnson. West Ham’s bid for the £537m venue was judged to provide the best legacy for the stadium.
West Ham intends to convert the showpiece stadium and will leave the athletics track untouched. Spurs’ plan was widely criticised because it would have involved removing the running track and replacing part of the stadium.
The OPLC will now look to negotiate a mutually acceptable lease with the consortium comprising West Ham United and Newham Council. However, other options will be considered if they are unable to reach a deal.
West Ham plan to move from Upton Park in 2014/15.
Read the orignial article here
Sean Logan, Solicitor, Commercial Property, Hart Brown
Thursday 3 March 2011
Hospital Negligence - another wider scandal brewing
The story of Mr Rasheed highlighted in Channel 4’s Dispatches programme this week is a shocking tale of NHS hospital staff neglect and lack of care.
There is, however, another wider scandal brewing. If the coalition government succeeds in its plans to remove legal aid from clinical negligence cases then ask yourself one question – will there be fewer cases of neglect in NHS hospitals or more?
If the proposed changes are implemented then NHS staff will continue to be backed by the National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) who will defend them against claims by patients. The NHSLA is paid for by taxpayers money, but patients who are negligently injured will get no legal aid and so will get no state support at all to pursue their claims!
Alyson Coulson and Marek Bednarczyk, two of Hart Brown’s partners, spoke to East Surrey MP Sam Gyimah (who represents Mr Rasheed’s Caterham home and has commented on the case) at his constituency office on 4 February this year to warn him about the problems that the government’s proposed cut-backs in legal aid will cause.
No doubt Mr Gyimah – who is quoted as stating that he was shocked by Mr Rasheed’s story – may be thinking again about the efficacy of the government’s planned legal aid cut backs. The government should re-think their plans too.
Hart Brown has formally responded in detail to the government’s proposals and like thousands of others who have responded we support the continuation of legal aid for clinical negligence cases.
Mr Rasheed’s story is a warning to us all
Marek Bednarczyk, Partner, Hart Brown
There is, however, another wider scandal brewing. If the coalition government succeeds in its plans to remove legal aid from clinical negligence cases then ask yourself one question – will there be fewer cases of neglect in NHS hospitals or more?
If the proposed changes are implemented then NHS staff will continue to be backed by the National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA) who will defend them against claims by patients. The NHSLA is paid for by taxpayers money, but patients who are negligently injured will get no legal aid and so will get no state support at all to pursue their claims!
Alyson Coulson and Marek Bednarczyk, two of Hart Brown’s partners, spoke to East Surrey MP Sam Gyimah (who represents Mr Rasheed’s Caterham home and has commented on the case) at his constituency office on 4 February this year to warn him about the problems that the government’s proposed cut-backs in legal aid will cause.
No doubt Mr Gyimah – who is quoted as stating that he was shocked by Mr Rasheed’s story – may be thinking again about the efficacy of the government’s planned legal aid cut backs. The government should re-think their plans too.
Hart Brown has formally responded in detail to the government’s proposals and like thousands of others who have responded we support the continuation of legal aid for clinical negligence cases.
Mr Rasheed’s story is a warning to us all
Marek Bednarczyk, Partner, Hart Brown
It won't happen to me..
Understandably, many people have difficulty in considering their wills because they don’t want to think about the prospect of them dying. However, in reality we know that death is a fate that will come to us all and so reluctantly consider our wills.
Almost as scary is the prospect of losing mental capacity in later life. It is easier to close our minds to the prospect using the old adage “it won’t happen to me”! Making provision for someone to look after your finances and personal welfare in circumstances where you have lost capacity is essential and a godsend to those who are given the task of dealing with the situation.
It is a fact that we are living longer, great. But with this comes the possibility of diminishing physical health and mental capacity. A further complicating factor is that often the diagnosis of dementia is missed. A recent study by the Alzheimer’s Society shows great variations across the country of those having the disease being diagnosed. The suggestion is that half a million people are living with dementia but have not been correctly diagnosed. The concern that the Alzheimer’s Society has is that unless there is a diagnosis, patients will not receive the support that they need.
There are numerous aspects to reports relating to mental incapacity. The projections of how much longer we will live or the number of people living with mental incapacity seem to be on the increase and go to show that we must all make provision for later life. The one question that we should all ask ourselves is: Who will make decisions for you if you are unable to make them yourself?
Putting in place a lasting power of attorney giving an authority to someone to look after your finances and also your personal welfare should be something that we should all do. Like insurance policies, we hope they will not be needed in the future but if they are, they are a godsend.
Shaun Parry-Jones, Partner, Hart Brown
Almost as scary is the prospect of losing mental capacity in later life. It is easier to close our minds to the prospect using the old adage “it won’t happen to me”! Making provision for someone to look after your finances and personal welfare in circumstances where you have lost capacity is essential and a godsend to those who are given the task of dealing with the situation.
It is a fact that we are living longer, great. But with this comes the possibility of diminishing physical health and mental capacity. A further complicating factor is that often the diagnosis of dementia is missed. A recent study by the Alzheimer’s Society shows great variations across the country of those having the disease being diagnosed. The suggestion is that half a million people are living with dementia but have not been correctly diagnosed. The concern that the Alzheimer’s Society has is that unless there is a diagnosis, patients will not receive the support that they need.
There are numerous aspects to reports relating to mental incapacity. The projections of how much longer we will live or the number of people living with mental incapacity seem to be on the increase and go to show that we must all make provision for later life. The one question that we should all ask ourselves is: Who will make decisions for you if you are unable to make them yourself?
Putting in place a lasting power of attorney giving an authority to someone to look after your finances and also your personal welfare should be something that we should all do. Like insurance policies, we hope they will not be needed in the future but if they are, they are a godsend.
Shaun Parry-Jones, Partner, Hart Brown
Wednesday 2 March 2011
Stamp Duty Land Tax - is it avoidable?
Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) replaced stamp duty for property transactions with effect from 1 December 2003 and is charged at 1% for purchases over £125,000, 3% for those over £250,000 and 4% over £500,000. A new 5% band comes into force on 6 April this year for purchases over £1,000,000.
As the legislation was quite complex, it led to a number of schemes (usually for purchases over £500,000) claiming to exploit loopholes and avoid the payment of any SDLT. Although the implementation costs often amount to half the SDLT otherwise payable, the saving to purchasers is still significant. Promoters of these schemes invariably claim that they are watertight, backed by a senior barrister’s opinion and approved by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
This sounds convincing but is it that easy to avoid paying SDLT? At Hart Brown we have always been sceptical. SDLT is a compulsory tax on property transactions. If a person purchases a property for more than £125,000.00 he should expect to pay SDLT at the appropriate rate. This view is supported by HMRC which recently announced that it is challenging these schemes as it does not believe they work or have the effect the promoters claim, adding it “will relentlessly pursue those who deliberately bend or break the rules – including where appropriate seeking penalties”.
Anyone who has participated in such a scheme now faces the prospect of paying the SDLT many months or even years after completion, with interest for late payment and costly penalties, an investigation into his or her financial affairs and, in the worst case scenario, prosecution.
For those still tempted to participate the message is clear – do not be fooled by the promoters’ claims, however persuasive they may appear to be. It is not worth the risk.
Peter Howe, Associate, Hart Brown
As the legislation was quite complex, it led to a number of schemes (usually for purchases over £500,000) claiming to exploit loopholes and avoid the payment of any SDLT. Although the implementation costs often amount to half the SDLT otherwise payable, the saving to purchasers is still significant. Promoters of these schemes invariably claim that they are watertight, backed by a senior barrister’s opinion and approved by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
This sounds convincing but is it that easy to avoid paying SDLT? At Hart Brown we have always been sceptical. SDLT is a compulsory tax on property transactions. If a person purchases a property for more than £125,000.00 he should expect to pay SDLT at the appropriate rate. This view is supported by HMRC which recently announced that it is challenging these schemes as it does not believe they work or have the effect the promoters claim, adding it “will relentlessly pursue those who deliberately bend or break the rules – including where appropriate seeking penalties”.
Anyone who has participated in such a scheme now faces the prospect of paying the SDLT many months or even years after completion, with interest for late payment and costly penalties, an investigation into his or her financial affairs and, in the worst case scenario, prosecution.
For those still tempted to participate the message is clear – do not be fooled by the promoters’ claims, however persuasive they may appear to be. It is not worth the risk.
Peter Howe, Associate, Hart Brown
From wife’s inheritance of £57 million, is a £5 million award to the husband on divorce the right decision?
The Court of Appeal has just heard an interesting case regarding the division of an inheritance in divorce proceedings.
The case concerned a couple who had been married for 20 years. The wife had, prior to the marriage, inherited £57 million. Throughout the marriage, neither party had worked, choosing to be ‘stay at home’ parents and not pursue careers. The court in the first instance awarded the husband £5 million of the overall assets and the husband appealed this, saying that the award was ‘minimalist’.
The husband’s barrister argued that if the roles were reversed, and it was the husband who had inherited wealth of this magnitude, on divorce the wife would have been awarded a sum greater than £5 million. He also commented that it was more difficult to secure a husband a large settlement when the wealth belonged to the wife. The barrister added that this may be because generally speaking, husbands are perceived to be breadwinners, and to support the family financially and therefore, it has to be taken into account that the wife has not worked or built up a career or assets of her own.
Can it be argued that by virtue of not working and being a homemaker, the husband has sacrificed a career and therefore has suffered a disadvantage as a result of the marriage? It appeared to be a joint decision that neither the husband nor the wife would work, and that the wife’s inheritance would be used to support the family. If the husband does not receive a sum equal to what a wife would receive if the roles were reversed, would it be a matter of gender discrimination?
Inheritance on divorce is a grey area. If such inheritance was received prior to the marriage, it may be considered not to form part of the marital assets. However, in the case of a long marriage, pre-martial assets can often ‘merge’ with any assets accrued during the marriage and hence be included in the “matrimonial pot” to be divided on divorce.
In some cases, credit can be given to a spouse who has made a significant effort to increase the value of assets or the level of income during the marriage but in this case, the lawyers for the husband argued that the wife had made no “special contribution” to the assets of the marriage.
Do you think that this award accurately reflects what the husband in such a situation should receive? Or do you think that in a marriage as long as this, the assets should be divided equally and the husband compensated for his lack of career? We would like to know your views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8354580/Divorced-husband-fights-for-more-of-ex-wifes-57-million-fortune.html
Sharon Powell and Anne Thomas, Hart Brown Family Department
The case concerned a couple who had been married for 20 years. The wife had, prior to the marriage, inherited £57 million. Throughout the marriage, neither party had worked, choosing to be ‘stay at home’ parents and not pursue careers. The court in the first instance awarded the husband £5 million of the overall assets and the husband appealed this, saying that the award was ‘minimalist’.
The husband’s barrister argued that if the roles were reversed, and it was the husband who had inherited wealth of this magnitude, on divorce the wife would have been awarded a sum greater than £5 million. He also commented that it was more difficult to secure a husband a large settlement when the wealth belonged to the wife. The barrister added that this may be because generally speaking, husbands are perceived to be breadwinners, and to support the family financially and therefore, it has to be taken into account that the wife has not worked or built up a career or assets of her own.
Can it be argued that by virtue of not working and being a homemaker, the husband has sacrificed a career and therefore has suffered a disadvantage as a result of the marriage? It appeared to be a joint decision that neither the husband nor the wife would work, and that the wife’s inheritance would be used to support the family. If the husband does not receive a sum equal to what a wife would receive if the roles were reversed, would it be a matter of gender discrimination?
Inheritance on divorce is a grey area. If such inheritance was received prior to the marriage, it may be considered not to form part of the marital assets. However, in the case of a long marriage, pre-martial assets can often ‘merge’ with any assets accrued during the marriage and hence be included in the “matrimonial pot” to be divided on divorce.
In some cases, credit can be given to a spouse who has made a significant effort to increase the value of assets or the level of income during the marriage but in this case, the lawyers for the husband argued that the wife had made no “special contribution” to the assets of the marriage.
Do you think that this award accurately reflects what the husband in such a situation should receive? Or do you think that in a marriage as long as this, the assets should be divided equally and the husband compensated for his lack of career? We would like to know your views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8354580/Divorced-husband-fights-for-more-of-ex-wifes-57-million-fortune.html
Sharon Powell and Anne Thomas, Hart Brown Family Department
Tuesday 1 March 2011
A self fulfilling prophecy?
The prediction of a sharp drop in house prices comes as no surprise in a sluggish market lacking buyer confidence. The suggestion by pundits of a price drop becomes a self fulfilling prophesy after a while as the more that people “in the know” talk about the drop, the more that buyers seek a bargain. Interestingly the Nationwide is trying to shed a more positive slant on the market with of course their having a vested interest in seeing the market very active. Ironic therefore that one of the reasons for the lack of sales and reduced confidence is due to mortgagees, including The Nationwide, tying a very firm knot in the lending purse strings.
A temporary aspirin?
Meanwhile, having picked myself up from the floor having digested Northern Rock’s decision to provide 90% mortgages I have to question whether those in charge are really in touch with reality. One imagines that the interest rates for such loans will be high, the arrangement fees reasonably punitive and the borrowers being asked to pay a hefty premium for a mortgage protection policy. The latter should in fact be called a “protect your lender policy” as it is the lender who benefits from the policy which is taken out at the borrower’s expense.
A dip in values by 8% will prevent property owners who have a 90% mortgage at the time they bought from selling as the associated costs in professional fees will amount to 2% so in essence putting more properties into negative equity. Add in possible early redemption penalties to the equation and this band of property owners will be in real difficulty.
The sense behind a 90% lending strategy has to be really questioned. Is this a case of temporary aspirin bringing longer term headaches?
Let us know what you think.
David Knapp, Partner
Residential Property
A temporary aspirin?
Meanwhile, having picked myself up from the floor having digested Northern Rock’s decision to provide 90% mortgages I have to question whether those in charge are really in touch with reality. One imagines that the interest rates for such loans will be high, the arrangement fees reasonably punitive and the borrowers being asked to pay a hefty premium for a mortgage protection policy. The latter should in fact be called a “protect your lender policy” as it is the lender who benefits from the policy which is taken out at the borrower’s expense.
A dip in values by 8% will prevent property owners who have a 90% mortgage at the time they bought from selling as the associated costs in professional fees will amount to 2% so in essence putting more properties into negative equity. Add in possible early redemption penalties to the equation and this band of property owners will be in real difficulty.
The sense behind a 90% lending strategy has to be really questioned. Is this a case of temporary aspirin bringing longer term headaches?
Let us know what you think.
David Knapp, Partner
Residential Property
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)