About HighStreetLawyer.com

HighStreetLawyer.com is your trusted legal network. Each of our solicitors adheres to the highest quality of customer service and client care. Our solicitors have been carefully selected for their expertise and knowledge. Preparing a will, buying a property or setting up a new business can all be stressful events. We strive to provide you with confidence that your legal team will make any legal process easier for you.

HighStreetLawyer.com can make you an appointment with an appropriate experienced solicitor to deal with any legal issue that you have - usually at an agreed fixed price.

Take a look at our Frequently Asked Questions for the answer to any common legal questions you may have. If you can't find your answer, contact us with your question and we will do our best to answer your queries.

High Street Lawyer News

visit our blog for more news
Monday, 23rd April 2012

How Healthy Is Your Will?


One in five wills contains a serious error, says Legal Services Board.
All those offering will-writing and estate administration services should be regulated, the Legal Services Board has recommended. The LSB was set up to regulate lawyers in England and Wales. Its goal is to modernise the provision of legal services by putting consumers at the heart of the legal system, and it has released a proposal calling for regulation in the area of wills and estate administration. The LSB has recently switched its focus from looking at entry requirements to becomea solicitor, to looking into the actual risks of lawyers’ activities and improving their regulation.

In 2011, the Legal Ombudsman called on the Government to act in protecting consumers against unregulated firms working in will writing. He stated that 13 per cent of all complaints brought to him involved problems in this area.

Many people would rather not think about what happens when they are no longer around. Often it is assumed that the estate will be split between next of kin, but legal rules which dictate what happens to someone’s property after death are complex, and the affairs of the deceased may not be as simple as first anticipated. Considering the importance of decisions made in a will, and the emotionally sensitive nature of administration of an estate, it is surprising that this area of law remains unregulated. Without sufficient checks, there is no way in which to prevent dishonest action when given full control to dealing with a deceased person’s estate. Without regulation, there is no guaranteed scheme for compensating those who are subject to fraud or costly mistakes due to poorly written wills.

The most staggering part of the research published by the LSB is that one in five wills drafted by a “professional” contained mistakes. The LSB also found systemic problems of sloppiness, simple errors and poor communication in solicitors and will-writing companies. Wills that would have failed to deliver what the testator wanted, or containing unclear clauses that would lead to difficulties administering the estate were widespread.  A small number of these wills were so poorly crafted that they were found not to be legally valid, meaning that the rules of intestacy would be applied as if no will had been written. Although correcting the mistakes by way of variations is possible it could be costly.

The LSB has proposed regulation in order to address problems such as the quality and safekeeping of wills, unethical sales practices and fraud, and the safekeeping of consumer’s money. It also plans to include a redress procedure to ensure that consumers are protected, regardless of who delivered the service, should things go wrong, making it impossible for unscrupulous providers to avoid regulation. Regulation will not stop mistakes from occurring; many of the errors were made by already regulated professionals; but they will provide a system of protection, comfort and redress for anyone who doesn’t want to draft their own will.

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

 

Monday, 26th March 2012

Clare's Law - A Change for the Better for Victims of Domestic Violence?

In October 2008, Clare Wood ended her relationship with George Appleton. Her rejection sparked a campaign of abuse, resulting in her horrific murder four months later. Appleton had a history of violence against women, including harassment, threats and kidnapping a former girlfriend at knifepoint.

Despite a number of complaints to the police, resulting in a panic button being fitted in her home, this was not enough to save Clare. Her murder made clear that the treatment of domestic crime requires improvement. This led to a government proposal, named ‘Clare’s Law’, enabling the police to disclose information to partners of those with histories of domestic violence.

The pilot scheme, announced on 5th March 2012, will begin this summer. It follows a government consultation published in October 2011 which investigated whether a national disclosure scheme could improve the safety of people in relationships with previous offenders. The initial consultation raised important issues, such as how much information should be released and in which circumstances, and how malicious requests will be avoided. The government seeks to address these matters during the scheme’s trial.

The pilot is testing two processes for disclosing information about a partner’s violent history; the first is triggered by a query from a member of the public (‘The Right To Ask’); the second is where police disclose information in order to protect a potential victim (‘The Right To Know’). Taking into account the amount of government and police time, and taxpayers’ money spent on this issue, it is important to consider the implications of this scheme. 

Two people are killed by their partner each week in England and Wales; domestic violence is the cause of nearly 40 per cent of all female[1] UK homicides[2]. Evidently, government attention in this area is required, but is Clare’s Law the answer to reducing these figures? Refuge, one of the UK’s longest running domestic violence charities does not think so. The charity has criticised the proposed disclosure laws as ‘reactive rather than proactive’.

The theory behind the Government’s scheme is that if someone told that their partner has a history of domestic violence, they can then make an informed decision whether to continue with the relationship. This, however, raises many problems; if, like Clare Wood, a woman had no previous indication of her partner’s violent behaviour, then she would be unlikely to make an enquiry. Also, it is extremely doubtful that the scheme anticipates all those embarking on a new romance to carry out a police background check – it is simply unrealistic and doesn’t reflect reality.

Further, it is often on ending the relationship that people turn violent, as was the case with Wood and Appleton. Considering this, what is a woman to do when burdened with the information of her partner’s history? Many in such relationships stay with their partners out of fear for what would happen should they leave. Others might not leave because of love and belief that their partner can change. Would a woman be blamed for not leaving her partner when informed of his violent past?

The proposed ‘Right To Know’ process means police will inform potential victims of domestic violence. Statistics show that 44 per cent of victims are involved in more than one incident[3], so certainly many victims are already aware of what their partners are capable of, without being informed by the police. Knowing that their partners terrorised others before them would provide little solace.

Additionally, how would the police determine who they should inform? Appleton trawled social networking sites looking for his women. Are the police to follow these men from relationship to relationship, or message all their Facebook friends issuing warnings; for surely any one of them could be his potential victim. If a woman was able to escape an abusive relationship as a result of police disclosure, the perpetrator would simply be able to move onto his next victim. The problem is thereby displaced rather than prevented.

The police can only inform on the basis of information they have available: the details of those previously convicted. Considering that less than 40 per cent of domestic violence cases are reported to the police, a minor proportion of offenders will have police records, making it extremely unlikely for those making enquiries under ‘The Right To Know’ to obtain accurate information.

Having considered the implications of the proposed scheme, I think the most important thing is the way in which the police handle the disclosures. Potentially life-changing and life-threatening information is dangerous if unaccompanied by police support and intervention. Because the majority of cases go unreported, police time would be better spent conducting thorough investigations into allegations of abuse and monitoring those with troublesome histories. In a less than ideal world where prevention is impossible, protection should be key.


By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com


[1] Although it is recognised that men also suffer from domestic violence, it is primarily an issue affecting women, (a third of domestic violence victims are men according to the National Centre for Domestic Violence). It is currently unclear whether Clare’s Law would apply to male and female victims, as so this article has been written from a female-centric perspective.
[2]  (Povey, (ed.), 2005; Home Office, 1999; Department of Health, 2005.)  
[3] Dodd et al



 

Thursday, 2nd February 2012

Freedom of Choice? Freedom of Solicitors


As soon as Janice walks through the door she knows it’s the one. The spectacular view of the garden from the master bedroom, the sparkling marble kitchen worktops she has dreamt of, and the playroom which is perfect for the kids. All she needs to do is speak to her solicitor and he’ll sort everything out. The one in the office round the corner. The one who helped her buy her first flat, wrote her will, and sorted out her cousin’s divorce. But wait, she needs a mortgage from HSBC, and her local solicitor isn’t on their list.

What list? Well, HSBC have recently revealed their plans to reduce the number of solicitors on their residential mortgage conveyancing panel. Usually, when moving house, a conveyancing solicitor will manage both the mortgage documents and those concerning the transfer of the property. HSBC’s decision means that the mortgage part of the transaction can now only be handled by one of the 43 members of their conveyancing panel. Many high street solicitors are up in arms about the decision, lobbying the Law Society to protect them from this action which they believe may put them out of business.

The Chief Executive of the Law Society, Des Hudson has encouraged solicitors to write to their MPs to complain about the HSBC’s ‘heavy handed and arrogant decision’, but HighStreetLawyer believes this is missing the point. Whilst such restrictions may adversely affect the legal industry, the biggest loser in the equation is the consumer. 

Buyers wishing to take out a mortgage with HSBC must use a solicitor from their panel for the mortgage conveyance, but are given the option to use their own solicitor for the conveyance of the property. Using a panel solicitor for the entire transaction will be highly incentivised by the bank, and many may be unaware that using another solicitor is even a possibility. Furthermore, customers choosing their own conveyancing lawyer will have to pay twice for this time-consuming ‘choice’, since the work is ordinarily done by one lawyer, and many checks will have to be repeated. Taking into account the cost of buying a house in the current market, and the proportion of people struggling to get onto the property ladder, this option is unlikely to appeal.

Limiting the approved conveyancers to 43 flies in the face of everything the Legal Services Act sought to achieve; competition; access to justice and better service for consumers. HSBC’s decision means that property transfers will be done by a select few legal companies, impeding consumer choice. A home is the most important and costly purchase most people will ever make, so they want to use a solicitor they know and trust. For conveyancing, locality and reliability is key. A little research into Countrywide, the administrators of HSBC’s panel gives the impression of a faceless property machine; impersonal and remote.

As if restricting borrowers to a narrow list of solicitors wasn’t enough, other worrying issues arise. HSBC have chosen Countrywide as the agents of their conveyancing panel; responsible for choosing the remaining firms and distributing work. Unsurprisingly, Countrywide’s own licenced conveyancing firm has made it onto the panel, creating an obvious conflict of interest which has been strongly criticised by the Law Society. Although Countrywide has not disclosed its selection criteria for the panel, it seems that small, local firms will not be chosen. With such a limited number of solicitors, it is anticipated that only larger firms able to churn out conveyances in bulk will be included. Is this what a buyer wants?

The Legal Services Act intended to champion consumer rights and access to legal advice. Banks requiring conveyancing solicitors to be accredited in some way is an understandable precaution, but anything more than that creates a bias which restricts consumer choice. Buying a house is an important and life-changing decision, and the consumer should be put first. What we should be asking is not ‘How will this affect solicitors?’ but ‘How will this affect Janice and other consumers?’ 

By Judy Benmayer of HighStreetLawyer.com

Watch the videos below for insights into how we work

More Videos