By Guest Blogger Scott Mulligan

As of 24th March 2012 first time buyers will no longer receive an exemption from Stamp Duty Land Tax, as the government feel this relief is not effective in boosting the UK’s property market.

The exemption enabled first time buyers to be able to purchase a property up to the value of £250,000 without the standard 1% land tax.

Our Conveyancers foresee a large influx of first time buyer completions prior to this date, to avoid paying the Stamp Duty Land Tax.

We understand the Council of Mortgage Lenders have called for the Government to extend the Stamp Duty holiday. The association is worried that the planned end of the holiday will result in a reduced number of sales.

For a purchaser to qualify as a ‘first time buyer’ they must not have acquired an interest in a residential freehold/leasehold property in the UK or an equivalent interest anywhere in the world. This applies to all purchasers and includes inheriting property under a will.

The property you are purchasing must be used as your only or main residence.

We are disappointed in the Government for not postponing the Stamp Duty holiday and hope the CML are able to persuade the Government to extend this relief.

 Consumers are being squeezed in a way many have never experienced, others had forgotten. Prices are escalating, salaries frozen or lost, and forecasts are as drab as the autumn weather. Any prospect of saving money is being sought after, the “bargain hunt” is on, money is undoubtedly tight.

The Public, when seeing a headline indicating Tesco is embarking on Legal Services might well imagine this is another great opportunity to save a few quid and indeed earn loyalty points, what could be better?.

“BE CAREFUL!” dear consumer.

I have run legal offices in Leeds and Harrogate for over 30years. I’m managing seven now. I started a Free Legal Advice Clinic well over 20 years ago and have dedicated well in excess of £1m worth of free advice time to the public. With all modesty, I know what I’m talking about.

Hear is my challenge. I cannot see how the public are going to benefit   by a voracious International supermarket chain offering this service. Why? because law is specialised. Gone are the days when one man bands “did all”. A firm of solicitors needs specialists to cover the work they offer, as will any enterprise offering legal services.

The press reported recently the mayhem left behind when unqualified cheap will making firms offered apparent value. Cheap until the work was examined, then terribly costly. I have to assume therefore your local Tesco Branch or the bigger stores will have to employ a team of lawyers covering any aspect of work. Even if Tesco stores were limited to say offer property / conveyancing, wills and probate services, it cannot be economically viable for the specialists to be in situ. Salaries for qualified and support staff are not cheap. Professional indemnity insurance and such hidden major overheads are massive. If the work ends up being funnelled to regional bases their consumers can be assured of the “offer” of Tesco finance and Tesco insurance. A nice little earner for Tesco.

My advice would be not to rely on convenience, but continue comparing the price and value of all legal services you buy, whether bundled or not. As they say, “Compare the Market”

Might the work be farmed out to selected firms ?

It could, but BE CAREFUL CONSUMER. Such block referrals happened in the boom years when agents selected their partners, shared fees and churned the work through lawyers computer programmes. The public rarely, if ever saw “their” lawyers and paid MORE for the “new service”, as two bodies shared one large fee.

Contrary to popular belief, the high street practises, treated with scorn, classed as “dinosaurs” offer a darn sight more than a transaction.  The service you receive will without doubt be more personal - you will know who you’re dealing with. This is critical because the decisions you make could relate to your biggest life time purchase, your estate on your death. The personal link is necessary. My clients tell me they want it.

You might also be surprised to find that the fees are invariably cheaper with the dinosaurs – so my advice would be always to compare the fees against those who conveniently gift wrap their services: estate agents and soon to be supermarkets. Then tell me where the bargain lies.

The high street is not encompassing Tesco’s profit – as rest assured Tesco will not be providing this service through altruism. I wonder if they will run a Free advice centre every week, come rain come shine?

Oops sorry…I agree on one point, the HIGH STREET LAWYER cannot offer loyalty points, but can only offer loyalty, a face you know, a face you trust, and value.

You choose, dear consumer.

By guest blogger, Andrew Walker

A recent survey of family lawyers has revealed what we all know to be true, that individuals involved in a divorce are increasingly likely to conceal assets from their soon to be divorced husband or wife. The rationale being that what they don’t know about won’t harm them and “why should he or she have a share of my hard earned cash!”  The rise of internet banking and the global economy makes the opportunity to move assets around far easier and so more difficult to trace in a divorce.

The recent case of Tchenguiz v Imerman; Imerman v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 has made the situation much more difficult to address. This case involved a husband who shared a work office and computer system with his wife’s brothers. As the wife commenced divorce and ancillary relief proceedings against her husband, one of her brothers (possibly with others) accessed and copied information and documents of the husband’s from a server in the office, and passed them to their (the brothers’) solicitor. The solicitor had a barrister check the 11 files of documents produced by this exercise for possibly privileged material, leaving seven files of documents which were then passed to the wife’s matrimonial solicitors. They in turn disclosed the seven files to the husband’s solicitors in the ancillary relief proceedings. The court has decided that the Wife may not use any information they might have gained from reading the seven files.

The court must be able to form a view after having all relevant information available to it
Both parties have a duty to give full financial disclosure to each other and to the court. If they do not do so there can be civil and criminal consequences. A divorcing spouse should not however be deprived of a fair hearing at the expense of the other parties privacy and confidentiality. Time will tell if the decision in this case remains unchallenged in the future. However in the meantime divorcing couples must be very careful as to how they collate financial information.

Andrew Walker has been a partner and head of the family law department at Grahame Stowe Bateson for over twenty years. He is a member of the family law advanced panel and the children panel. Andrew leads a strong team of family, divorce and childcare law solicitors, offering expert advice on all aspects of matrimonial and childcare law. From their five branches throughout Yorkshire, GSB offer a range of services to their clients including free legal advice at all offices each week or initial consultations at a fixed price.

By guest blogger, Rosanne Brady

In recent years dissatisfied mutterings about the secret nature of children hearings have become common place.  Whilst judgments made in such proceedings are sometimes published, the identities of all involved including children, parents and professionals have remained secret.

Some Members of Parliament have raised concerns about the secrecy surrounding the family courts in parliament, including John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP.

Mr. Hemming used his parliamentary privilege to name Victoria Haigh as a mother in care proceedings involving Doncaster Council, complaining that Ms Haigh had been unfairly threatened with imprisonment by the council for discussing family law matters at a meeting in Westmister.

Mr Hemming’s comments led to a sympathetic out pouring for Ms Haigh and her situation.  That however changed on 22nd August, when the country’s most senior family law judge Sir Nicholas Wall took the very unusual step of publishing his judgment in the case and the judgments of two previous presiding judges, naming the parents and the council involved (although not the child who would be referred to as X).

The facts of the case were that the mother had accused the father Mr. Tune of sexually abusing their 7 year old daughter.  The court found that the mother knew this to be false but had coached the daughter into making the same allegations.  Two judges had examined the case and found that the father was not a paedophile and had not abused his daughter.  Despite this the mother could not or would not accept the findings of the court and continued to allege that the father had sexually abused the child.  The Local Authority recommended supervised contact between the child and Ms. Haigh, but Ms. Haigh refused and the Local Authority successfully obtained an order allowing it to refuse contact between the child and Ms Haigh.

With the assistance of a private investigator, Ms Haigh then put into the public domain “unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others”.  This included the mother e mailing parents at the child’s school and the father’s work colleagues and repeating the allegations she had made against him.

In order to redress the balance Sir Nicholas Wall held that there was a need to make public the fact that the father had not abused his daughter and the court had decided that it was in his daughter’s best interest to live with him. The Judge ordered that Ms. Haigh should be named and shamed in order for her former partner, Mr. Tune, to be freed from the false smear that he was a child abuser.

Further, Ms. Haigh was prevented from making any further applications in relation to her daughter for the next 2 years and the private investigator received a custodial sentence for contempt of court.

As Sir Nicholas Wall comments in his judgment “It is ironic, of course that the mother has complained about the privacy of the Family Court process and has historically argued for greater openness. Realising that the professionals in the case would be bound by their respect for X’s privacy, the mother has utilised this to promote her own distorted view of the case which she has been able to advance thus far, unopposed by the true facts.”

So the mother had her wish; the case was made public, although we suspect not with the outcome the mother had hoped for.   As Sir Nicholas Wall concluded “Be you never so great, the law is still above you”.

And so goes the age old adage…..be careful what you wish for!

Rosanne Brady is a family law solicitor at Grahame Stowe Bateson solicitors in Leeds, specialising in children matters. Rosanne is a member of resolution and is committed to resolving family and childcare problems in a civil and non-confrontational manner.

The advantage, or disadvantage, depending on your viewpoint, of practising Law for nearly four decades is the striking contrast in the effect on the offender and the victims.  The changes, to a large extent mirror the changes in society, and societies attitude.

In my formative years I was disciplined by my parents. I knew the boundaries and the consequences and wouldn’t dare cross them. There was no physical chastisement, there was no need. My father always said a child was like a sapling. Plant it straight, nurture it and it will grow into an upright tree. Neglect it and it will grow crooked. School endorsed the difference between right and wrong with my rear meeting the cane and the slipper not infrequently as a young boys ebullience burst through ! Any gaps in my understanding of right and wrong were perfected by attending religious classes regularly.

At the same time the Police and Courts had a no nonsense policy: “break the law, pay the price”. I could be naive, I could be blinkered, but genuinely feel the publics attitude to the courts and criminal justice system was looked upon with a sense of confidence and respect not currently enjoyed.

Financial restraints are currently gnawing away at police forces across the country, remnants of a Legal aid system are denying many the right to legal help and advice, and the bulging capacity of the prisons has taken a costly toll, resulting in a quick turnover policy wherever possible.

As a solicitor in Leeds I see every day the changes. The police will readily refuse to investigate crimes, adopting such attitudes of “sort it out yourself”, “no further action” or “non prospect of detection”, which invariably ends a complaint in it’s tracks.

If a case is elevated to an open file status rest assured the bulk will result in “no further action”, a “caution” or a “reprimand”. If a criminal law case is serious enough to prevent the above the offenders may well get charged. The skill of applying for bail is a skill used again infrequently, as bail is offered where it would never have been previously. If an offence is serious enough to result in prison, the sentencing threshold has moved significantly, with the term being served ever diminishing. An offender sentenced to up to four years would have typically served half that period. Today it’s even less, as sentences are being cut to reduce the period of incarceration.

So why link discipline at home with the criminal justice machinery ?

The link seems all too clear. When families and schools exercised discipline, schools and children went to the equivalent of Sunday school, which now sounds wholly anachronistic, Youth and adult were clear on the rules:  offend and a price will be paid. The Police & the Criminal justice system were respected and feared.

The result was that the public walked the streets with less fear, the frequent reports of knife crimes by youths was unheard of. Similarly the idea of rioting to grab a freebee was as remote as seeing racially harassing mobsters invade The Albert Hall during a performance by The Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra and escape criminal prosecution.

Restoration of discipline within the home and schools with provision of a police force not diminished to an extent to render investigation a burden, and punishment when appropriate, may just return a decaying fabric of society to how it was, in what one has to concede were, if not ” the good old” but al least better days
 

The current unrest dominating every news broadcast is horrifying.
 
Youths in the majority are using the police shooting last week as a way of legitimising utterly appalling conduct. Destroying shops, homes, livelihoods and lives, is in their distorted view  “compensation” for frustration, boredom and alleged social deprivation.
 
As the news unfolds it is patently clear the rioting, looting and arson attacks are nothing more than acts of vile mindless thugs who put their own voracious appetites above those of the hard working members of their own and other communities.
 
The sad fact is many will gain from their actions.
 
Whilst arrests topple 400, the perpetrators will exceed this more than ten fold. They care not that Riot can result in 10 years prison. Others facing attempted murder charges can face “Life.” Do they care?  “No!”
 
Their bold actions, now portrayed as thugs bold enough to be seen without mask or hood is such, as financial limitations have whittled down the size of the Police Force, resulted in few specially trained riot teams, resulting in emergency services being away from an area of conflagration for seemingly, up to an hour and a half. This provides adequate time for smash and grabs, damage & wilful destruction.
 
How many will ever be “Punished?”
 
As a Leeds Solicitor with 35 years experience of criminal law and advocacy I am shocked at the present policy of starving the criminal justice system. It is quite clear the policy emanating from “on high” is less arrests = less police = less interviews & solicitors = less court appearances = less legal aid = less judicial & admin costs = less prisons= money saved.
 
I was the Custody Duty Solicitor yesterday for Leeds City. Any person arrested since mid-day Saturday with no Leeds solicitor, appearing in Court would have asked for my help. For decades, in Leeds, that meant on a Monday morning lists of names of people demanding bail or disposal. It was invariably a full day’s job. Yesterday, as I entered the Leeds Magistrates Court, if it hadn’t have been for TV Licence prosecutions, the place would have been serviced by one court. I had at 9.30am one detainee for Breach of the Peace-so routine, he handled it himself. I’m told every court is the same, Bradford once heaving daily is down to 3 court rooms. A duty solicitor I spoke to today has not been called out in Bradford for several months———has crime disappeared in Cities, Towns and the Country? Of course not— the policy is just ignore it, it is theoretically cheaper.
 
One must now assess the cost of the mayhem occurring in England. The cost to businesses, homes, & futures is incalculable. This is a haemorrhage with no apparent end.
 
Perhaps a review of economies regarding the Police and the Criminal Justice System may restore law and order, arrest the disorderly and redeem the confidence and status of London in the eyes of the community and the world.

Andrew Walker argues that the abolition of civil legal aid will not serve the interests of justice and may even delays in the court system.

We now have it official. The Justice Secretary Mr. Clarke has announced the virtual abolition of civil legal aid as we know it. With a few limited exceptions all that will remain for family cases is care proceedings and domestic violence injunctions. As a solicitor in Leeds I am, quite frankly, mystified, especially at the timing.

This summer offensive by the government undoubtedly represents the most terrific attack on the legal aid system since it was formed with the intention of providing access to justice for those most vulnerable in society.

It comes at a time in their lives when they are facing the crisis of a family breakdown with serious issues concerning their children and finances. Many will be left to represent themselves in proceedings that are totally alien to them and will often find it impossible to present their case in a coherent manner.

This will not serve the interests of justice for such families and create huge delays in the court system that will inevitably increase costs. The Law Society has presented credible ways of saving costs within the existing system yet they have so far being ignored.

The government claims to promote the family and children in particular. Yet this attack achieves the opposite. Prime Minister Cameron attacks absent Fathers for avoiding their financial responsibilities yet, at the same time, makes the child support system bureaucratic and asks the parent with care to pay money up front to start the process when they are the ones suffering a financial crisis in the first place.

Graham Stowe Bateson’s family law solicitors in Leeds have for over thirty years served our clients with first class legal advice and representation, often to the most disadvantaged people in society, and where we can we have regularly given free legal help. We cannot sit back and let this destruction of our legal aid system continue.

In the words of a famous Field Marshal: “There is no other course open to us but to fight it out.  Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement.  With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end.  The safety of our homes and the Freedom of mankind alike depend upon the conduct of each one of us at this critical moment.”

Andrew Walker is the head of Grahame Stowe Bateson’s Family Law Department at its city centre office in Leeds.

Grahame Stowe explains why covert government money saving is reducing the British criminal justice system to tatters.

As the head of a large criminal defence practice I have seen breath taking changes in society. And not just in Leeds.

I began practising law in the 1970s, nigh on four decades ago. In those days life seemed so very different.

There were values, standards and levels of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. If you fell below those levels, you paid the price.

Today’s values and today’s levels of acceptability are different. They are ever changing and ever decreasing, just as long as it saves money.

As a senior partner and the head of the criminal department at the Leeds solicitors  firm that I founded, I know fully well our brief is to “defend”.

We have dedicated decades to fighting for our clients. Our reputation has led to our growth. Our growth has led to our professional standing, and a name that we are immensely proud of.

As Leeds solicitors we will go to endless lengths to fight for our clients and are gratified by the “thank you” letter or recommendation, which means so much.

We are not immune from the government’s cuts however. As solicitors we are looked upon as rich bloodsuckers drowning in money and glory. How wrong the public perception is.

As solicitors specialising in criminal work in Leeds and across Yorkshire we are the “poor end of the market” and the public funding we receive is systematically chiselled away to exclude all but the impoverished.

Taking “cash” from a criminal client is patently unacceptable, as it is for any client. And, as a result, specialising in crime requires true dedication. So we have proudly offered a Free Legal Clinic, [pro bono “Big style] for decades giving well in excess of £1m of free help to the public.

Ok, so you’re dedicated, “good for you”. Now get on with it. No sorry you can’t.

The public are gloriously unaware that there is undoubtedly a directive from “On high” that the police or crown prosecution service must not charge or summons people to court unless it is vital.

Why do I say this? Because it is glaringly obvious.

The courts up and down the land from Leeds to Land’s End are handling a feeble fraction of the work they normally do. Courts are shut, staff laid off and lawyers bemused.

And did you know that the Legal Services Commission is paying £7m in redundancy payments as part of its “restructuring” programme to save costs?

In Leeds, Harrogate and Bradford and across Yorkshire, the reason why the courts are handling a fraction of their usual workload is clear.

Either the police are dishing out cautions like there was no tomorrow, or the Crown Prosecution Service directs “No further action” on the basis of unlikely success in the Courts. It’s a scandal.

As a result, some of the most serious cases are escaping prosecution including many across our region.

I was recently asked to comment on ‘Calendar’, the local ITN news station here in Leeds, after a burglar broke into a private dwelling at night, disturbing and frightening a husband and wife in bed.

This carries a sentence of four years imprisonment, which revised guidelines recommend six years. He was given a caution.

I am also aware of a case of fraud in Leeds exceeding £30k where a caution was given. These are two just examples of decisions that are taken daily.

For those who do not know, a caution can only be given if there is a clear unequivocal admission of guilt. With such unambiguous admission, for offences of this nature, a prosecution in court would inevitably follow.

But that was before financial interest overran public interest.

You might be asking, if I’m here to defend those charged with criminal conduct why do I care? I care because this overriding objective of saving money is reducing our Criminal justice System to tatters.

No charge = no solicitors = no proceedings = no courts = no prison population.

Yes, it saves money. But what harm does it inflict on society? The harm is that the rogues get away with. The public are oblivious to it. And the exchequer is quids in.

This is all very well and good until YOU are the victim, you seek help and you watch as the police or the crown tell you “No further Action” and that your annoyance, distress and frustration is secondary to the knowledge that justice only comes at a price, which currently is too dear, and allowing the demons of society to prosper, is infinitely preferable.

Times have changed in 40 years. Unfortunately, they have not changed for the better.

Grahame C Stowe is head of the criminal department and a senior partner at the Leeds solicitors  Grahame Stowe Bateson.

Fears for poor as family justice ‘faces meltdown’

By Olwen Dudgeon Legal Correspondent

A LEADING Yorkshire solicitor has warned the region’s family justice system is “facing meltdown” because of legal aid cuts.

Grahame Stowe, senior partner at Grahame Stowe Bateson, said of the 31 firms taking on legal aid family cases in Leeds, 23 have been told by the Legal Services Commission their contracts will end in October.

Family lawyers often represent victims of domestic violence or abused children. They also represent parents accused of abuse who face losing their children.

Mr Stowe says the decision to leave a city the size of Leeds with just eight firms offering family law legal aid will hit the poorest.

His firm’s five Leeds offices are among those affected, although his one office in Harrogate will have its contract renewed.

“These cuts to legal aid services defy all reason and are nothing less than savage. Our family courts are already overloaded, with child care cases taking on average, more than 44 weeks to be decided.

“Our fear is that areas of Yorkshire will no longer be served by legal aid family lawyers, which will limit access to justice, delay sensitive cases yet further and the leave the region’s family justice system facing meltdown.”

The firm’s Leeds offices have been awarded a new legal aid child care contract, but the Legal Services Commission has said it must now choose between family law work in Harrogate or public law child care work in Leeds - a decision Mr Stowe describes as “nonsensical.”

Lawyer fears for city’s vulnerable as legal aid in Leeds is cut

* Grahame Stowe claims region’s family justice system is “facing meltdown”
* But Legal Services Commission says family tender process has been focussed on continued high-quality advice based on areas of client need

Cuts to Leeds’ legal aid services have led one of the city’s best-known lawyers to warn that the region’s family justice system is “facing meltdown”.

Grahame Stowe is the senior partner at Grahame Stowe Bateson, which has five offices in Leeds and is one of Yorkshire and the Humber’s biggest providers of legally aided family law. He claimed that of the 31 firms currently taking on legal aid family cases in Leeds, 23 have been informed by the Legal Services Commission that their contracts will be withdrawn in October.

Stowe said legal aid family lawyers represent some of the region’s most vulnerable people, from victims of domestic violence to abused children. They also represent parents who have been accused of abuse and who stand to lose their children forever.

The Legal Services Commission’s decision leaves just eight firms offering family law legal aid to a city with a total population of nearly three-quarters of a million. Continue reading»