Bereavement Damages - is there a greater injustice?

There are many injustices in our system. 

But there is one which has been a consistent presence throughout my life as a lawyer; damages for the bereaved.

There can be little that comes near the suffering of those who lose a loved one in an accident or due to medical negligence. And yet the way the law treats these victims has never been far short of scandalous. Admittedly it was once far worse. I remember a time when there was no entitlement at all to bereavement damages. The right was created by statute in 1982 so that from 1st January 1983 it was possible to recover the nominal sum of £2500.00.

The figure has crept up over the last 30 years or so and is now at £12,980.00. Many would say that this bears no relation to the actual level of suffering. To set this in context you would expect damages at that level if you suffered moderate post traumatic stress disorder which was largely recovered with any lingering effects not grossly disabling. Most people never recover from the effects of a tragic or sudden bereavement. 

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has recently published results of a survey which suggests that a majority would support a huge increase in the amount recoverable – even as high as £100k –

http://files.apil.org.uk/pdf/press_releases/2766.pdf

Surely the time has now come for a root and branch re-assessment of the damages to be paid to victims.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/newlaw-creates-86-jobs-in-cardiff/practice/pi-lawyers-call-for-100000-bereavement-damages/5037834.article

But the injustice does not stop there. What is worse is the very restricted group of people who can be ‘bereaved’. The entitlement to this compensation was created by an Act of Parliament under which only the surviving spouse (or civil partner) or the parent of a child under 18 can recover.

I once advised the parents of a student who had been killed in a car accident just days after his 18^th birthday. How do you tell them that their bereavement does not count? What made their bereavement any less painful? Children who lose a parent get nothing at all.

I anticipate that the insurance industry would be less than enthusiastic about any change. But this has been a running sore for too long.

It is about time that politicians grasped the nettle and brought about a fair and realistuic change – once and for all.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

News of the death of Law Firms - greatly exaggerated

For most law firms, September is not an easy month. This is because of the annual renewal of Professional Indemnity Insurance.

Any firm of Solicitors wanting to practice in the UK has to have insurance against negligence claims. There is a compulsory layer of cover at £2m per case (£3m in the case of Limited Liability Partnerships). This means that obtaining insurance is one of the highest overheads alongside salaries and premises. September is stressful because until this year, all renewals had to be done by 1^st October.Thankfully that has now changed.

So if you saw stressed lawyer in the last few weeks this could be one of a number of reasons!

This year has been a bumpy renewal for many. Two unrated insurers were forced to pull out of the market quite late on; which added to the stampede. In addition insurers were said to be nervous because of the record number of firms who were in ‘financial difficulties’. A few weeks ago it was being predicted that hundreds of firms could end up without insurance by the dreaded cut off date. The effects of that are dire. A firm is allowed a further 30 days to find insurance. If they don’t succeed then they cannot take on further work and have a further 60 days to close the door.

 

As it happens, the apocalypse did not materialise. According to the Law society’s Gazette just 69 firms failed to get insured by the deadline. That is just 0.65% of the 10500 firms around. Hardly a meltdown.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/dozens-seek-extra-month-to-find-insurance-solution/5037980.article

This has been a very challenging year for law firms with drastic cuts in fees, abolition of legal aid for most areas of work and the arrival of competition from new business structures. But it appears that firms are more robust than experts think. 

There have been unfortunate closures and some familiar names have sadly disappeared. But we haven’t seen small to medium practices being wiped out. Firms have had to re-evaluate how they work and embrace new systems and technology. Many have seen the advantage of joining up with others. Some firms who cannot accept change will sadly fall by the way.

But the news of the death of law firms has, to date, been greatly exaggerated.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Law Centre success for Bedroom Tax victims

Congratulations to Govan Law Centre in Glasgow who have successfully argued before a Tribunal in Scotland that the decision to reduce the housing Benefit of a severely disabled woman, breached her Human Rights.

The unnamed woman and her husband had their rent assistance reduced by 14% because they had too many rooms under the new rules that were introduced earlier this year. She needed a separate bedroom because of her disability. She needs a tracking hoist and the use of a hospital bed which makes it effectively impossible to share the room with her husband.

As result of the penalties that were imposed they went into rent arrears for 3 months.

The judge took the logical view that –

"As a result of her severe disability and the aids and adaptations she requires, the appellant cannot share a bedroom with her husband,"

This breached her human rights and also amounted to discrimination.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/01/bedroom-tax-breached-human-rights

Hopefully this argument will now be used to assist other disabled people affected by this tax. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The intention of the bedroom tax is to force tenants to move into smaller accommodation which might be entirely inappropriate.

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

It is also quite clearly discriminatory as the only reason she needs the extra space is that she is disabled.

It remains to be seen whether the DWP will appeal.

A disabled person, and their carers, have enough on their plates without having to worry about losing their home. By any logic this is a tax on disability. It is only First Tier Tribunal Decision so does not create a precedent that others must follow. But it is a step in the right direction.

Of course what we really need is the abolition of this tax with is oppressive and does not acually work -

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/bedroom-tax-greatest-injustice-of-them.html

 

The case also highlights the importance of the work of Law Centres. I have mentioned recently that many are under threat following recent legal aid cuts –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/there-is-still-some-legal-aid-around.html

The work that they do is essential in protecting the rights of ordinary people. They should be thanked and supported by anybody who is concerned about access to justice.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

What's in a name?

I have often talked about the need for law firm’s to modernise and to communicate with the public at a level that they understand and to which they can relate. 

This certainly includes the need to embrace modern technology and especially social media.

But what about names? Does the name of a law firm make any difference to their perception by the public?

Now I remember the days when the name of a firm had to include that of at least one partner. So in Liverpool there were firms with wonderfully memorable names like Shufflebottom Webster and Shields and Ernest B Kendall and Rigby. Nottingham boasted the, never to be forgotten, Rupert Bear and Co. 

American firms stick to the formal names model. The longest name that I am aware of over there is  Ziffren, Brittenham, Branca, Fischer, Gilbert-Lurie, Stiffelman, Cook, Johnson, Lande & Wolf which is a mouthful by anyone’s standards!

But that rule has long since gone so that firms can call themselves what they want, within reason and respectability. Today we read that Merseyside firm CAMPS is rebranding under the name Your Legal Friend. The idea of that name, presumably, is to show the public that they are on their side. I have to say that I am not convinced. Don’t people have legal friends in pubs who give them advice on all sorts of matters? Or aren’t they the ones who get phone calls from a friend of a friend late at night asking for free advice on some obscure legal point. Time will tell.

Others have gone for imaginative titles such as Brilliant Law and Citadel Law, both of which I really like. They seem to communicate something about the quality of the work.

But does it actually matter? Will clients instruct lawyers based on a catchy name or brand? Some of the world’s leading firms have stuck with traditional titles such as Clifford Chance or Freshfields. I cannot imagine Hill Dickinson ever rebranding as ShipsRUs.

Law Firms do have to be aware of modern trends and to be commercially competitive. My LinkedIn Profile tells me that I am technically connected to 12m people which is the population of Gautemala! Should I relocate? But ultimately I suspect that most clients are more interested in the quality of the work and especially the cost. I may be wrong and would love to hear any views to the contrary.

In the meantime we are sticking to EAD Solicitors LLP which is not a catchy as some but says who we are!

There is still some Legal Aid around - ssshh don't tell anyone.

I have talked before about the legal advice waste land following the massive cuts to Legal Aid which were introduced in April this year.

Since then we have seen the closure of Birmingham Law Centre which provided essential legal help for those in greatest need. And they are not alone.

An article in the Guardian this week makes bleak reading.

Other centres are making cuts or having to turn clients away. Others are left with no choice but to introduce charges to clients who are often on subsistence levels of income.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/18/law-centres-clients-legal-aid

It is hard to imagine a more demoralising situation. Most lawyers and advice workers, who go into this sector, do so because they want to fight for the rights of the poor and vulnerable. There can be nothing worse than having to turn people away because of limited resources.

Some clients are still entitled to legal aid, including those at risk of losing their homes. But the Legal Action Group (LAG) reports an alarming drop in the number of applications in these cases. This is blamed on a failure by the government to market the services or even to make the public aware. Many believe that there is no legal aid at all any more and little or nothing is done to address that misconception.

They have published a damning report which talks about Legal aid as a secret service –

http://www.lag.org.uk/media/129682/legal_aid_secret_service.pdf

The report says – ‘The fear is if nothing is done to increase the take-up of civil legal aid, the remaining services will wither away as the lack of use will be used to justify their loss.’

One thing we can all do is make the public aware that there are still streams in the desert!

The Legal profession is doing its bit. There are still may case which are run at no charge. Lawyers in Liverpool are walking around the city this evening to raise funds for the North West Legal Support Trust which assists voluntary agencies.

 http://www.nwlst.org.uk/aboutus/

But it is really a matter for the politicians to see Access to Justice as a right to be enjoyed by all and not just those with the money to pay for it.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Hammered by Brazil - Bedroom Tax gets what it deserves!

Taking a hammering from Brazil is something with which we in the UK, especially England, should be familiar. 

But we would not normally expect this to come in relation to a controversial Government policy.

THE UN Special Rapporter on Housing, Racquel Rolnik has laid into the Government in relation to Housing generally and in particular the Bedroom Tax; something which I have discussed more than once –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/bedroom-tax-greatest-injustice-of-them.html

Following a recent visit she has commented on her surprise at the misery caused by the tax which targets –

"the most vulnerable, the most fragile, the people who are on the fringes of coping with everyday life".

She called for its immediate abolition.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-should-be-axed-says-un-investigator

Many of us have been sating the same for months.

 

Not surprisingly the government have not taken this well. Conservative Party Chairman and former Housing Minister has called her the 'woman from Brazil' and has referred to that country’s housing shortage – as if that has any bearing on the rights or wrongs of the Bedroom Tax. One Tory MP has actually called her a ‘Loopy Brazilian Lefty.’ That’s the second time this week that critics of government policies have been called lefties.

http://www.channel4.com/news/bedroom-tax-un-grant-shapps-brazil-row

But the problem is, she is right. It is nothing less than a scandal that vulnerable tenants, including those who are disabled live in fear of eviction because of a policy that is fundamentally misconceived. It doesn’t matter whether you are left, right or centre; if there isn’t enough smaller housing then the policy is wrong.

So well done Ms Rolnik for speaking out.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Judicial Review - public protection or left wing propaganda?

Judicial Review has been a cornerstone of our legal system for many years. It is the means by which actions and decisions of the executive can be subject to scrutiny by the courts. 

If they are found to be unlawful then they can be set aside or changed.

The procedure has been used in countless cases including decisions of the NHS on healthcare, subjecting tenants to the risk of eviction via the bedroom tax and decisions to refuse legal aid. I once took a case for a victim of medical negligence over NHS proposals for investment of his damages. It is something which has never enjoyed great popularity with ministers.

The government is now proposing to severely restrict access to Judicial Review. In a consultation on ‘reform’ there are plans to increase the cost, restrict the rights to oral hearings and to impose stricter time limits. Minister of Justice, Chris Grayling has said that the aim is speed up the process which can take up large amounts of judicial time.

But according to the Daily Mail he is intent on blocking the actions of what he calls – ‘countless Left-wing campaigners.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413460/Justice-Secretary-Chris-Grayling-Ill-stop-activists-playing-legal-games.html

He refers specifically to an action brought by APIL in relation to plans to drastically cut the amounts of legal costs that victims of accidents can recover from insurers. I blogged on that at the time –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/apils-judicial-review-morning-after.html

APIL represents those lawyers who pursue claims on behalf of victims both of accidents and medical negligence. They are certainly not 'left wing campaigners' by any stretch of the imagination. In fact back in 2004 the Countryside alliance brought a Judicial Review action to stop the ban on fox hunting –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4024421.stm

I’m sure they would love being identified with the left!

The rhetoric used by the Minister suggests that the real agenda is to stop actions that they don't like. If that is the case then this is a dangerous example of the law and procedure being changed to block accountability.

The reality is that citizens have long enjoyed this right to ask the courts to review decisions by public bodies. This is an important check in a modern democracy. I have gone on and on over the last year or so about the erosion of the rights of ordinary people. But this could be one of the most serious of all.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk