Shocking though the pictures published in the media were, Charles Saatchi’s assault upon his Wife in public illustrates that domestic violence is a concern at all levels of society. Mr Saatchi has passed off the incident as a playful tiff, although Nigella’s decision to remove herself and her children from the marital home would suggest otherwise.

Quite correctly the onlookers and the police took some action and stood up and said, this is not acceptable in our society whoever the parties involved are. Some years ago people may have averted their gaze, regarding it as a domestic but now we join together in saying no to this behaviour.

We have supported victims of violence for many years  here at Morecrofts and remain committed to helping people stand up to such perpetrators. We say no as well and look forward to the day when we can all live in peace and not have to worry about being abused, assaulted and intimidated by those who say they love us.

Carole Brennan, Resolution Accredited Expert in Domestic Violence.

The Supreme Court pronounced this week in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited and others. It brought to an end a parties’ ability within divorce proceedings to place assets in limited companies to defeat financial claims in divorce. The Petrodel Group owned a number of companies which the Husband in this case, the court said, wholly owned and controlled. The companies owned some properties which the matrimonial court had wanted to transfer to the Wife. The court had earlier said that it could not order the transfer of those properties to the Wife because the company owned them and not the Husband. The Husband had not helped his own case by the court said, “ persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit”. It is a well established principle of English law that the property of a company is its own and does not belong to anyone else. It matrimonial cases this has helped some parties avoid financial settlements using company funds or properties. In this case the court found that the company held the properties on trust for the husband and therefore the court could make orders in relation to them in favour of the Wife.

“This is a helpful case to Parties in this position but the area is still complicated because it isn’t automatic that all interests in companies will be available for a court to distribute in family proceedings. Expert legal advice will be needed in each case. It is however a victory for common sense and allows fairness in this type of case” says Carole Brennan Head of the matrimonial finance team at Morecrofts LLP.

A week or so ago I was talking about the cuts to Criminal Legal Aid. Yesterday hundreds of Solicitors and Barristers gathered in Liverpool and Manchester outside the courts, on the day the government consultation closed, to make their feelings known. In Liverpool a minute’s silence was held at 9.59am, a simple but effective method of raising awareness. You can read more about this here.

Incidentally the consultation period was far too short for a lot of firms or individuals to gather the information they needed to adequately explain why the the new proposals are unworkable……….

Today in the Law Society Gazette I read the horrifying statistic that four out of five adults would be unable to pay for legal aid if they were accused of a crime, and would have to represent themselves, borrow money, or remortgage their homes. A three day trial costs an average £10,000.

Just think about that for a minute. Could you afford that?

“Oh”, you may say, “that would never apply to me, I’m not a criminal” but innocent until proven guilty, don’t forget. “Accused” of a crime does not mean “committed” a crime. What if you were, out of the blue, accused of assaulting soemone? It’s your word against their’s but the CPS decide to proceed. You know you haven’t done it, but that’s not enough, and if there are no witnesses or CCTV to back you up, you still have to convince a criminal court. Would you be confident of running your own case against an experienced lawyer on the other side? Or would you be able to find a minimum of £10,000 to privately fund representation?

Take a step back, a deep breath, and have a look at what the government is doing to our legal system, and consequentially to your rights as a citizen. I am not usually a political animal – but this is making me, just like it is many of my colleagues, into one.

No matter what the media may say (and where do they get their stories from…?), this is not “fat cat lawyers” trying to protect their income – heaven knows criminal lawyers doing legal aid work don’t earn much anyway – but this is about each of us and our everyday lives. Do you really want to live in a state controlled by the government where you have no power to fight against injustice to you or to others…?

Please sign the e-petition NOW by clicking here

See – I’ve made it easy for you, – all you need to do is click to make a real difference.

When you want to change the use of a property you will normally require planning permission from the local authority unless the change is covered by the General Permitted Development Order.

Until today if you own a property that is used as an office and you wanted to change the use to a dwellinghouse you would need planning permission. This is because office use comes under Class B1(a) of the Town & Country Planning Use Classes Order and dwellinghouses come under Class C3. These uses are not interchangeable.

However under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 which came into force today planning permission for a change from office to dwellinghouse is no longer required provided you make the change before the 30th May 2016.

As with all legislation there are exceptions. If the property is in any of the following 17 areas the new rules do not apply and planning permission will be required for a change of use in the usual way:- the City of London and the London boroughs of Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Westminster, Newham, and Kensington and Chelsea. The other exempt areas in England are within the borough councils of Vale of the White Horse, Stevenage, Ashford (Kent), the district councils of Sevenoaks and East Hampshire, and Manchester City Council

Should you require any further informatiojn please contact our Property Department.

Morecrofts don’t do criminal law, but we stand shoulder to shoulder in support of our colleagues in that field who are lobbying parliament today – 22^nd May.

The latest government proposals to further reduce legal aid would, if implemented, radically reduce the amount of solicitors who could defend people charged with offences.  Everyone has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, but in the future only those who can afford to pay will be able to choose their lawyer to defend them in court.

The amount of solicitors who can do criminal defence work will be radically slashed and the whole system will be based on price competitive tendering – i.e. the firm that bids the lowest rate will get the job.  It follows that those firms will only be able to offer a service by paying low overheads and wages, and the quality of work can only suffer as a result.  As we are already seeing in other areas of law, firms will have to employ non-legally qualified and inexperienced staff, in order  to be able to afford to do this work within the fees they will be paid.  In addition, the solicitor who does the work will be paid the same amount if their client pleads guilty or not guilty – from a few hours work to many months work, all for the same fee.  What would YOU do when faced with that?  Clearly this can lead to a conflict situation between lawyer and client – can no-one else see that?

As Nicky Campbell asked on Radio 5Live this morning – “surely lawyers of integrity will still do the best for their clients?”  Well yes, I would hope they would, and certainly in other fields of work, like Family and Civil matters, I can say from personal experience that we already do a vast amount of work we don’t get paid for, to ensure that we give our clients the best possible service and act in their best interests.  The latter is, of course, our duty as solicitors.  But, there may, indeed probably will, come a time when some firms are no longer able to do that, and the duties required of a solicitor will conflict with the need to keep a business afloat.

What of the new entrants to the profession?  How do the government ensure that they act with the integrity conferred on long standing criminal defence lawyers?  Stobart are not the only ones to say they are going to bid for work, but this picture made me laugh…….  

People who are at the police station charged with an offence will simply be allocated a Solicitor, and not give the option to choose someone that they might know, or who has been recommended to them. So, the state who is prosecuting them is also allocating them the lawyer who will act in their defence.  Can anyone see a flaw in that?

There are a large number of highly experienced and qualified criminal defence lawyers in the Merseyside area alone who have dealt with, and continue to deal with, some extremely complex cases.    This branch of the profession will be decimated by the cuts,  most of those firms are specialists and will simply close their doors, leaving hundreds of lawyers, and secretarial and other support staff, without jobs.  How does that help the economy?  And what of youngsters coming through into the profession?  Where will they go, what will they do, and even if they do get jobs where will they get good experience and who will they learn from?  Standards will be driven down and down and our legal profession will continue to be eroded.

There is a school of thought of course which says that is what the government wants.  For the same reasons that they are trying to reduce the ability of the public to bring judicial reviews of government actions, so that they can not be challenged, it is in their interest to reduce the ability of people to defend themselves against charges brought by the state.  You can make your own mind up on that one….

The public are now finding out the effect on them of the cuts that have already been made to family legal aid, and to the way in which civil cases are funded.  The word needs to be spread now and the public made aware of these proposals about criminal work.  People may feel that this is just lawyers worried about their job, and you might not think this will affect you – but that will all change if you’re accused of an offence you did not commit…….good luck to you then!

Well that was the cry that went round our office when the news broke that William Roache, the actor who has played Ken Barlow in Coronation Street since the very beginning, was the latest celebrity to be arrested under the Operation Yewtree investigation.  His name can be added to the list of many well known entertainers and prominent people, who have all recently been arrested and questioned, in some cases charged with offences.

Of course under the law of this country all these people are innocent until proven guilty, and I must warn you now,  if you’re reading this because you think I might have some inside knowledge  about these cases and the allegations, then you are sadly mistaken!

The details that came out about the late Jimmy Savile were shocking and frightening.  As I type this the news has broken that Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to allegations of indecent assault.  As a Solicitor who acts for victims of abuse, I have heard many stories over the years, and have had no reason to doubt them.  A great deal of the information about Jimmy Savile sadly echoed many other stories I have heard.  Abuse is all about power, and those in the entertainment industry at the time were in a perfect position to wield that. Some of the stories that have been told seem to be difficult to doubt.

Following up on my completely non-scientific little survey, when the news about Roache broke, I took the opportunity to do a little more “earwigging” and I can inform you that the overwhelming response amongst our staff was “that’s ridiculous” and “not another one – who’s next?”.  What I am concerned about is – is the whole thing now  going too far?  And by arresting and publicly naming so many people in the public eye, is the whole concept of abuse being belittled?  If the “accused” are subsequently not prosecuted, what message does that send out to the victims of abuse out there, who have been following the story?  Are they less likely to tell their own tales of past experiences?

The pendulum has certainly swung in favour of the victim.  When I started dealing with compensation claims for abuse victims it was patently obvious that the attitude of the authorities had always been  not to believe the victim, especially if they were a child.  A lot of the damage was done to these people not by the abuse that they suffered but by the frustration and despair caused by their repeated failure to get the message across.  Many victims had complained to the authorities in some form or another, but had not been believed, and in the case of children in care, most had been punished for making those reports.   In the main, my clients were not that bothered about receiving monetary compensation (although sadly that was the limit of what could obtain for them): what they wanted more than anything else was for their stories to finally be believed.  It is good to know that finally the police are taking allegations seriously, and it seems to have taken the Jimmy Savile revelations to turn things around in that way.

Anyone who has been following these news items will know that there are other high profile people who have been arrested, and who have subsequently been informed that no action will be taken.  But what’s done is done and, as they say “mud sticks”.  There must have been allegations against these people, some no doubt were made seriously, others may have been dishonest or malicious, some might be incidents which we might look on as abuse now, but at the time were considered playful flirting, one thing is certain,  we will never know.

What worries me now is the seemingly unending trawl through high profile entertainers of the 60s and 70s, and the publicity that surrounds them.  As someone who acts for abuse survivors I certainly would not want to stand in defence of anyone who has carried out any form of abuse, but what if they haven’t?  What if the allegations are malicious?  All that can result is a permanent dent in that person’s reputation.  Then the victim who might have come forward stops to think – their accuser wasn’t believed – why should I be?  The perception then lives on that people in the public eye have somehow got away with it, again.

I am not sure there’s an ideal solution.  If the arrested people weren’t named then the argument is that this would prevent other victims coming forward – if you hear that someone is being investigated for abuse and they, in fact, abused you, then you are more likely to tell your story, and potentially that could get the police the corroborative evidence they need for the CPS to secure a conviction.  But does it really benefit anyone to see the names of TV legends and others splashed all over the tabloids at such an early stage in the investigations, particularly when nothing comes of it further down the line?

Oh, I don’t know, my brain hurts. What’s for certain is that it doesn’t look like any of this is going away for a while…..

There are many people or companies around who are offering to buy your house in 7 days. Some are totally reputable but as with everything else in life there are also some cowboys and con men.

The not so reputable ones mainly play on those most vulnerable in need of cash and finding it hard to sell their home. They will initially offer the full asking price for the property and then just before contracts are due to be exchanged reduce the offer. By then the seller may have already made alternative accommodation arrangements or promised some of the money to a family member or friend they owe money to. What should they do then? Cancel the sale in which case they may have to pay their own conveyancer for the work already carried out – or go ahead with the sale and lose a substantial amount of money?

The cowboys and conmen will try to persuade you to accept the lower offer giving reasons such as a survey has indicated the property is not worth as much as first thought or that he was not aware of some repairs that need to be carried out. It is likely that neither a survey has been carried out or repairs are required.

The previous scam of buy and rent back was similar when the unscrupulous buyer would buy the property and indicate they would rent it back to the seller for life. If the buyer was obtaining a mortgage this would not be possible as the lender will have a restriction that would prevent the buyer from granting anything other than an Assured Shorthold Tenancy for a period of not more than 12 months. This would mean that rather than having a tenancy for life in the property the seller may have lived in for many years the seller would have security of tenure to live in the property for only 12 months.

This scam was largely ended when it became necessary for anyone entering into a buy and rent back had to be registered with the FSA (Financial Services Authority) which on the 1st April this year became the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority)

Don’t be pressured. Speak to our property experts before you sign any piece of paper which relates to your home. Anything you sign made be considered a contract and may bind you.

I read an article today which really made me think.

In The Times  I saw a report about a couple whose child had not been offered a place at any of their 3 chosen schools, and who have decided to hire a barrister to pursue admissions appeals against each of those schools. There is nothing particularly unusual in parents pursuing appeals, thousands take place every year. However this article stated that the couple had gone directly to a barrister and would be taking advantage of his service which “costs about £700 rather than an average of £2500 using  solicitors”.

What???

Now, we live in a time of change and opportunity. The legal services market is changing rapidly, and there is far more consumer choice than ever before. It is up to members of the public to decide how they wish to be helped and represented, and one of the choices that they could make is whether to go to a Solicitor or directly to a Barrister. Both branches of the profession are entitled to compete for their business. This couple may find that the service they get from the barrister is somewhat different than they would get had they gone to a Solicitor, for example a barrister is unlikely to write letters for them and correspond with any of the schools or their appeal panels, but will probably just concentrate on representation. This couple are more likely to have to do some or all of the preliminary work themselves.  That, however, is a choice they are free to make, and I wish them all the best of luck in their appeals. 

However, what astounds me is the indication that the cost of using a solicitor is an average of £2500.  I would love to know where that figure has come from.  Who on earth have they approached for advice?  My firm has been dealing with admissions appeals for many years and for the past few years we have done so on a fixed fee basis. The maximum that we would charge a family for a straightforward admissions appeal is £1000.  Yes, in this case they are pursuing three appeals, but that doesn’t mean three times the fees, as most of the issues involved will be more or less the same.

If journalists have discovered that solicitors are charging an average of £2500, and firms like us are charging a sensible  fee, then it follows that there must be other firms who are charging completely extortionate fees, to make up that average figure.

An admissions appeal is a very personal and emotional matter, and it does our profession no good to be seen to be overcharging and taking advantage of that.

This case involves a couple in the South West. Maybe it is an issue of the North/South divide; maybe legal fees are generally more expensive in their area of the country. All I can say is that I wish the best of luck to solicitors who are charging those types of rates, because I doubt the general public will be prepared to pay them for much longer, if indeed they are doing so at all.

The amount of assistance or support required with an admissions appeal varies considerably. The substance of the appeal can vary depending upon whether it is a local authority school, a private school or an Academy, and whether it is a primary school or a secondary school. The circumstances and the criteria need to be examined carefully and in most cases more information needs to be obtained. Every case is different and depends on the needs and the personality of the child involved, as well as the legal issues.  When setting our fixed fee we  took into account all of these issues and it is true that in many cases we do more work than anticipated, and probably could charge the client more if we agreed to be paid on the basis of hours undertaken. But that is the way of the world these days, and that is the way that lawyers now have to work. In a lot of cases, hourly rates are now a thing of the past.

This story annoyed me so much that I simply had to vent my fury about it. The way in which the story is written almost leads me to wonder whether maybe it is designed to promote the barristers in question. I’m not going to name them here because I don’t wish to give them more publicity. I don’t believe this story is news, although it has of course incited me to write this piece!  One thing it does say though is that there are still lawyers out there who are not thinking sensibly and pragmatically about what people can afford to pay, and that doesn’t help our profession as a whole.

If you want to discuss this with me please do get in touch, I would love to know what my peers and clients think about this issue.

Of course this is just my opinion……….