[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]With Spring now upon us and Summer to look forward to, when the weather is fine we all enjoy the great outdoors whether that be playing sports, walking or one of the many other physical activities summer tends to inspire. When the great British weather turns wet and windy we often head indoors with family and friends to the cinema, swimming and leisure centres, or perhaps increasingly to trampoline parks.
No-one wants to suffer an accident when enjoying any of these activities, but accidents do unfortunately happen from time-to-time.
Accidents at Trampoline Parks
The BBC 5 Live report highlighted this issue and stated that ambulances were called to trampoline parks in the UK more than 300 times in a year, with Flip Out Stoke having the highest rate of call outs amongst the 13 ambulance trusts that responded – 17 times in 109 days, or once every 6 days since it opened in December 2015.
No-one would wish to prevent people from enjoying sporting and fun activities, and a lot of the types of activities that we all enjoy will carry an element of risk that we all accept when participating in them. However, all venues have a duty to ensure that we are kept reasonably safe when we are there and are not exposed to an unnecessary risk of injury.
Injury Claims – Get Expert Advice
There will be different requirements and obligations placed on venues depending upon the type of activity that is undertaken, but if you do suffer an injury whilst participating in a sporting or physical activity then get in touch with our experts at Tinsdills, all of whom are experienced at dealing with these types of personal injury claims.
We will be able to discuss your accident with you, and if there has been fault on the part of the venue we will be able to guide you through the claims process every step of the way to ensure that you receive the treatment you require to get back on your feet, and to secure you the compensation you deserve.
Call us on 01782 652363 for further advice today.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Since the introduction of the Legal Services Act and the liberalisation of the rules around ownership of law firms, we have seen a considerable change in the way that law firms operate in the UK, and the recent relaxation of the rules regarding separate businesses introduced by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) will no doubt change things further.
Over the last 9 years we have seen significant mergers of existing larger law firms in their attempt to retain their market share in the face of increased opposition. We have also experienced existing law firms selling out to venture capitalists, established legal brands from other countries setting up in the UK with a view to dominate the market and, of course, the setting up of new firms, and the setting up of alternative business structures (ABS) attempting to introduce novel and inventive ways of delivering legal services as a way to gain a foothold in the market.
Any new business or change in the way in which an existing business operates carries its own risks, whether it be a significant culture clash following a merger, or a business model that looks attractive on paper but in practice proves to be exactly the opposite. Where venture capitalists’ money is involved, their voracious appetite for a return on their investment often results in firms having to significantly expand quickly (and probably invest all profits made in the interim to do so) only for the business to be sold on for a profit (with a healthier balance sheet) in the fairly short term. Whether or not such quick expansion or growth in a mature legal market is sustainable in the medium or long term remains open to question.
On the basis that some of these new and “exciting” legal ventures are established purely for short term gain, rather than providing high quality legal services to clients who they intend to look after and nurture for the future, it is no surprise that there is a significant attrition rate amongst these firms and with any such failures there will be losers. However, to go back to my initial question – does anybody really care if that is the case?
The public’s perception of lawyers has never been good, and this can only be harmed further by the publicity given to the demise of law firms which not only are likely to attract significant media coverage (Halliwells and Parabis being good examples of this) but are also likely to increase public concerns as to whether or not lawyers are actually putting their clients interests ahead of their own.
In March 2016 the SRA’s Chief Executive Paul Phillip was reported as saying that if a large firm collapsed, he would expect the market to pick up the pieces rather than leave it to the regulator to sort out – in effect what mostly happens in these types of cases through a pre-pack administration. Apart from the entity who acquire the assets of a firm under such an arrangement (which sometimes is those quite closely connected with the firm that has collapsed), everyone else loses out. The staff still lose their jobs, unsecured creditors lose their money (just look at the recent example of Triton Global where it was reported unsecured creditors would face a shortfall of almost £4.9 million) and clients have to find new lawyers to deal with their ongoing or new legal matters.
As a lawyer myself, although I run a business I also feel that I am a member of the “legal profession” and part of my duties as a lawyer, and manager of a legal firm, is to protect clients’ interests – and the SRA Code of Conduct confirms that. The best way to do this, in my view, and to try to maintain clients’ confidence in the legal profession, is to be able to answer three client questions in the affirmative:
1. Yes – we are still here
2. Yes – we still hold your original documents which have not been packed up and stored somewhere in an administrator/liquidator’s warehouse or sold
3. Yes – we can provide you with the further legal services that you require.
You may call my view conservative, with a small “c”, but it has always been our plan to build up our firm on a regional basis, not only providing excellent legal services (which clients take as a given) but also helping to support clients, either corporate or individual, on an ongoing basis. Clients want the security of continuity whether it is a client wanting to make a new Will or buy a house, or corporate clients who want to change their Shareholder Agreements. Do not think for a minute, however, that our firm hasn’t significantly changed its internal structures, the legal services that we offer and the way in which we deliver them. If you stand still, particularly in this ever changing legal environment, you will go under. A balance has to be struck and in our view that’s served best by evolution not revolution.
I am sure that in addition to those firms who have, themselves, reported to the SRA that they may be in financial difficulties or have other reasons to suspect that their businesses may be failing, the SRA operates its own internal “watchlist”. In my view the SRA themselves should care if legal service providers fail. They should do all that they can to assist firms to prevent that happening rather than leaving it to others to sort out.
It may only be a matter of time before what is perceived by the public as a large legal firm collapses – more likely to be a perception based on media branding than actual size– and to expect that not to have significant consequences in so far as the public’s confidence in legal firms is not, in my view, realistic.
Liberalisation comes, not only with opportunities, but also threats. Let’s hope that going forward more care is taken to ensure that business models of new style firms are sustainable in the long term rather than predicated to short term gain.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Whilst Japanese Knotweed is not yet set on world domination, it is causing some considerable problems in the Housing Market. Failure to treat knotweed can lead to an Antisocial Behaviour Order (“ASBO”).
Fallopia japonica, commonly known as Japanese Knotweed, is a large, herbaceous perennial plant native to East Asia in Japan, China and Korea. In North America and Europe the plant has been classified as an invasive species in several countries and in Australia it is illegal to have any of this species growing on your property.
Described by the Royal Horticultural Society as a “real thug”, the plant grows at up to 10 centimetres a day, up to 3 metres high and has a root system of up to 7 metres, which can grow under concrete, tarmac and can damage drains, underground cables and house foundations. Its spores can lie dormant for many years. It’s estimated that it causes £166,000,000 of damage a year.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”10941″ img_size=”full” label=””][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]It can and does cause housing transactions not to proceed, usually being spotted by a building society valuer during the lenders survey. The standard property information also asks the sellers to declare if the property is affected by the plant. Treatment is expensive, with a relatively small area costing in excess of £1,500 to treat by the increasing number of specialist firm offering this service. Larger affected areas can be subject to a long term management plan, especially where it affects apartment blocks and common areas.
If you are considering marketing your property, or you are concerned that a property that you are buying is affected, it is essential to have an early professional survey. Some lenders will not lend if a property is affected, whereas others will only lend once professional treatment schemes are implemented. Dealing with this issue early in a transaction is essential if delays and unforeseen costs are to be avoided. Some insurance companies are beginning to offer policies against the cost of treatment.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_wp_text]The subject of zero-hours contracts has been in the news fairly recently, brought about due to a legal challenge against Sports Direct over its use of these contracts.
The legal challenge is apparently raising the question that the use of zero-hours contracts discriminates against part time workers. This follows reports that 90% of SportsDirect’s employees are engaged under these contracts.
Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has suggested that zero-hours contracts may be subject to legislation but ruled out a complete ban. He will decide whether to hold a formal consultation on specific issues in September.
So what does a zero-hours contract mean?
A zero-hours contract does not oblige the employer to provide work for the employee nor does it oblige the employee to accept work offered. Although the employee agrees to be available for work as and when required. It can be uncertain whether a person working under a zero-hours contract is an employee or a worker. The distinction is that an employee generally has more legal rights than a worker. When deciding whether a zero-hours contract means the individual has the status of an employee it will not just be the wording of the contract that is relevant, but what happens in reality will be considered. If the reality is the individual is offered and accepts work on a regular basis then any tribunal is likely to deem the contract to be an employment contract.
In many cases zero-hours contracts can be beneficial to both employer and employee, particularly where the employer’s business is uncertain due for example to weather conditions or fluctuating business demands. It also benefits the individual who may wish to earn occasionally but does not wish to work set hours each week and has the ability to be flexible. Many students like to work in this way but an older workforce may also wish to earn on a more flexible basis.
Many well known businesses such as The National Trust, Boots, Burger King, McDonalds, J D Wetherspoon, Subway, Cineworld and even Buckingham Palace use these contracts.
It isn’t the nature of zero-hours contracts themselves that cause Vince Cable concern, it is more that some employers “exploit” the use of these contracts. However, it is clear that zero-hours contracts are on the increase and this shows that they will not be disappearing altogether any time soon but are likely to be subjected to more stringent regulations in the future.[/vc_wp_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
