My shop was bombed in a racial attack - can I claim compensation?

From The Times

The College of Law on compensation for racist attacks, joint bank accounts and the dangers of crossing the road

Last April my news agency, like others in my area, was criminally damaged by a petrol bomb thrown into the shop. The attack was clearly racially aggravated. How can I claim compensation for this damage?

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme unfortunately covers only personal injury caused by crimes. If you were in Northern Ireland there is a special scheme for malicious damage to property caused by terrorism or unlawful assemblies of three or more persons, (Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977). The 1998 Omagh bombing, for example, caused £8 million damage, of which more than half has now been compensated. However, there is no equivalent for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Clearly you must consult your own insurance policy. However, malicious damage would usually be considered a special peril so may well not be covered by standard policies. Otherwise a compensation order can be made against the perpetrator when convicted. As you rightly point out racially aggravated attacks carry stiffer penalties under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the police are under a correspondingly higher duty to combat them.

Thinking about wills, I understand that joint house ownership involves a document that declares a Severance of Tenancy. But what about joint bank accounts and share ownership?

Clearly you can close the account in joint names and open separate accounts. Equally, you can submit a request to your bank for a new mandate to hold the account as tenants-in-common. However, do think about this because joint accounts help the survivor to access funds after the others death. Equally, you can, by using the requisite forms, split the shareholding and reregister separate shareholdings in the company. Otherwise you can still do a declaration of trust that the shares are held as tenants-in-common, without any need to register this.

A pedestrian, when crossing a road, which was otherwise clear of traffic, had an accident with a cyclist. It was evening and the cyclist, who had no lights or bright clothing, came so fast he did not see him. When braking he fell off. They both made statements to a policeman but one week later my friend received a solicitor’s letter claiming compensation on behalf of the cyclist and asking for insurance details. Is my friend the pedestrian liable?

A pedestrian or cyclist certainly has a duty of care to other road users so your friend may be liable for negligence in crossing the road without due care. There may, however, be contributory negligence by the cyclist in riding too fast and not wearing brighter clothing. A court may apportion this at 50 per cent and give the injured party only half his compensation and in negotiations between insurance companies this may well be the likely conclusion. Unfortunately, however, whereas motorists must have insurance cover, this is unusual for other users. Certainly some cyclists do have insurance cover for claims against them (for example, through the British Cycling Federation). However, anyone with household insurance (including other members of the household) should have public liability cover including claims against them when walking or cycling. Your friend should check this and tell the solicitor. If there is no cover it may not be worth his client suing him in any event.

The battle to bring costs under control

From The Times

Legal fees in thousands of road traffic accident claims are about to be cut massively under a new scheme. Are lawyers really agreeing to cap their own charges? It's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

It was described as all-out warfare. Lawyer pitched against lawyer, battling it out over the most sensitive subject of all, legal costs. In just 18 months the legal bills in most accident claims had soared by 50 per cent. And these were cases that did not even reach court. A “costs industry” had been born, with satellite litigation spawned on costs alone; and more time and money spent on wrangling over fees than the claims themselves were worth.

But legal fees in hundreds of thousands of road traffic accident claims a year are about to be cut hugely. Under a radical regime of “fixed costs” expected to come into force at Easter, lawyers have agreed to cap their own charges.

It sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas, but if it works the framework could be the first of a series of deals on a range of legal disputes. Costs, and delay, have been the bugbears of the civil justice system, could at last be under control.

The deal has had little publicity. But privately those involved are patting themselves on the back. Over 14 months, the two sides of the claims industry — personal injury lawyers and the insurers — have hammered out the regime.

Sceptics said it was impossible. Michael Zander, the emeritus law professor and legal commentator, expressed doubts over whether a deal could ever be cut. The system had all but ground to a halt: the wrangling over costs had led to a series of technical challenges in the courts with 200,000 cases awaiting the outcome. “It was absolute war,” one lawyer says. “The insurance people didn’t like the way costs were rising and weren’t prepared to pay them.”

Michael Napier, the senior partner of Irwin Mitchell and a key player in mediating the deal, says: “In the old days we would sit down with the other side and debate the law, the merits and the liability of the case. But the first thing became costs. A disproportionate amount of time was being spent on it.” In some cases the costs exceeded the sum in dispute.

A mix of factors prompted the costs troubles. One was Lord Woolf’s reforms to civil justice that came into force nearly three years ago. Aimed at cutting costs and delay, they had failed to do the first. The reforms did succeed in encouraging more disputes to settle, but bigger costs were incurred earlier on. Then there were the Government’s “no win, no fee” reforms enabling lawyers to charge top-up or “success” fees on cases they won. The “no win” deals were underpinned by insurance — so people were protected if they lost. But either way, the insurers were hit.

John Peysner, the Professor of Civil Justice at Nottingham Law School, says: “The Access to Justice Act proved to be a shock. Costs went up and insurers who had not ‘reserved’ against this resisted the consequences, and everything followed from that.”

The knock-on meant huge delays for victims as lawyers waited for test cases to be settled. Things might have remained at an impasse but Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Master of the Rolls and head of civil justice, decided — as Napier puts it — to “roll up his sleeves”. He set up a forum of 70 people, drawing the main players from all sides: personal injury lawyers, motor accident solicitors, the Law Society and liability insurers. A series of meetings followed. Napier and Peysner — “we were Ant and Dec” — chaired the mediations that were led by Frances McCarthy and Tim Wallace, former presidents of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers.

Peysner recalls: “There was deep suspicion and hostility at first. I’d get angry letters. Yet slowly but surely the animosity that had developed between the insurers and the claimant lawyers was to a large extent dissipated. If you spend time with people it’s impossible to maintain a high level of hostility.”

Everyone, he says, accepted a solution was needed. But at practical level there was a proficient well-oiled machine — first in the shape of Bob Musgrove, the secretary of the Civil Justice Council (CJC); and then in the mediation itself. The techniques had been tried and tested at Nottingham Law School, and Peysner and Napier (who had worked together on the advanced litigation degree course at Nottingham) worked well as chairmen. “There was far more commonality than any of us would have believed,” Musgrove says.

A year-long mediation requires nerve, Peysner says. But it was crucial that all the time Lord Phillips was behind the drive to reach a deal. “His support made a big difference.”

The upshot is a scale of fees which sees claimant solicitors receiving basic costs of £800 plus 20 per cent of the damages up to £5,000 and 15 per cent where they are £5,000 to £10,000. In a case settling for £10,000, the solicitor gets £1,000; in one settling for £6,000 the fee is £1,950. The average base fee will fall from £2,000 to £1,400.

The deal, Peysner believes, is “win win”, good also for the consumer. Claims will be settled more quickly and there will be certainty as to costs. On a bigger scale, insurance premiums will not be inflated to pay for rising costs.

It is not on the CJC’s immediate agenda but there is a drive by some to use the deal as a blueprint for other kinds of work. The deal means fixed costs in road traffic claims to £10,000 that settle without proceedings being issued. As there are already fixed costs for fast-track court actions up to £15,000. Peysner asks: “What about the meat in the sandwich — claims where proceedings are issued but which settle before trial? There are also other technical costs problems that could be tackled by the same method; as well as other kinds of accident, such as ‘tripping and slipping’.”

On a wider front, he and Napier say the whole process is a new way of policy-making. “It has turned consultation on its head. At present ministers issue proposals, getting back 400 responses that are all treated as of equal worth and boiling them down to proposals that may be resisted on all sides. In this way, we hammer out differences and put forward a solution that already has everyone’s backing. The homework has been done. It’s a far more effective way of solving problems.”

Drivers benefit after lawyers agree to cut fees

From The Times

DRIVERS will benefit from a deal that cuts the fees for lawyers acting for victims of road traffic accidents.

Lawyers have agreed to cap charges under a new “fixed fees” scale for the thousands of road accident claims of up to £10,000 that are made each year. The deal will end the war between personal injury lawyers and the insurance industry after fees rose by half over 18 months.

In cases that are settled before legal proceedings begin, there will be a basic charge of £1,400, compared with the present average of £3,000.

Solicitors will be paid on a sliding scale, so that they would receive £1,000 for a case settling for £1,000; £1,200 for a case settling for £2,000; and £1,950 for a case that is settled for £6,000.

They have traded higher fees in exchange for certainty over costs and speed of settlement, which will improve cash flow and end time-consuming court battles over what they should be paid.

Accident victims will receive damages more quickly: up to 200,000 claims have been delayed in the system during the past two years by technical legal challenges in the courts over costs.

The deal could save millions of pounds a year for the insurance industry. Had the deal not been agreed, motorists’ insurance premiums would have had to rise exponentially to fund the “costs war” between claimants’ solicitors and the insurers.

The new deal has been brokered by the Civil Justice Council under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who is Head of Civil Justice. On several occasions Lord Phillips has condemned the costs inflation. He said last year: “Litigation about costs is not by and large devoted to the interests of the client.” It was “unproductive and a terrible waste of money” and a “very considerable blot on our civil justice system”. The costs war began after the Access to Justice Act 2000 came into force, clearing the way for “no-win, no-fee” work.

Solicitors are able to charge an “uplift” or “success fee” on top of their normal fees in “no-win, no-fee” cases. But the insurance industry resented paying the extra fees.

Probability lessons may teach children how to weigh life’s odds and be winners

From The Times

Professor wants ‘risk literacy’ on the curriculum

Pupils in every secondary school should be taught the statistical skills they need to make sensible life decisions, one of Britain’s leading mathematicians says.

A basic grasp of statistics and probability — “risk literacy” – is critical to making choices about health, money and even education, yet it is largely ignored by the national curriculum, according to the UK’s only Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk.

David Spiegelhalter, of the University of Cambridge, told The Times that as the internet transformed access to information, it was becoming more important than ever to teach people how best to interpret data.

Familiarity with statistical thinking and the principles of risk could help people to make sense of claims about health hazards and the merits of new drugs, to invest money more wisely, and to choose their children’s schools.

Related Links

• Failure to master maths adds up

• Poor pupils are falling farther behind

Professor Spiegelhalter has developed programmes for teaching risk literacy, based on familiar subjects such as the National Lottery and football league tables, which his team is introducing to schools through a “Risk Roadshow”. He believes that something similar should be offered as a matter of course.

“I regard myself as part of a movement we call risk literacy,” Professor Spiegelhalter told The Times. “It should be a basic component of discussion about issues in media, politics and in schools.

“We should essentially be teaching the ability to deconstruct the latest media story about a cancer risk or a wonder drug, so people can work out what it means. Really, that should be part of everyone’s language.”

As an aspect of science, risk was “as important as learning about DNA, maybe even more important,” he said. “The only problem is putting it on the curriculum: that can be the kiss of death. At the moment we can do it as part of maths outreach, maths inspiration, which is a real privilege because we can make it fun. It’s not teaching to an exam. But I actually think it should be in there, partly to make the curriculum more interesting.”

Risk literacy could be taught as part of maths, science, or civics and personal and social education, Professor Spiegelhalter said.

His tools include an animation of National Lottery results. While every number has an equal probability of being drawn every week, some have come up much more often than others, through chance alone.

“Number 38 has come out 50 per cent more often than 13, and 38’s been in the lead since about 2000. But that’s so uninteresting: there had to be a number at the top and one at the bottom, and they just happen to be 38 and 13. It’s a great tool for teaching people about chance.”

Such simple examples can be used to explain more complex statistical principles, such as recognising that apparently improbable occurrences are often in fact predictable in a population as large as Britain’s.

“You can tick off story after story that’s probably interesting to the people it happened to, but not statistically unusual at all. There was a recent story about a family in Gloucestershire with three children all born on January 29. We were contacted by a journalist and asked what are the chances of this happening.

“The chances are about one in 135,000, or seven in a million. But there are a million families with three children in the UK. So it’s almost certain that this family is not unique and when the story went online, someone wrote in and said, ‘I was born on the same day as my two brothers’.”

A big problem with the public’s understanding of risk and statistics was that the human mind seemed to be evolved to see individual stories as more significant than they really were.

“We seem to grossly overinterpret immediate stories that happen to individuals around you, and from an evolutionary point of view that might be enormously valuable,” Professor Spiegelhalter said. “It’s better to run away from a predator, even if you’re mistaken. It’s very difficult to think calmly about uncertainty. That’s why it needs to be taught.”

The unfounded scare over the MMR vaccine, and outlandish claims of success for alternative medicines, were prime examples.“One must think all the time of what is not being reported – the dog that didn’t bark. When we see a hole-in-one video on YouTube we are sensible enough to know that this has been selected out of millions of shots that missed. We need to think the same way every time we hear of someone claiming that some new treatment has cured them.”

People needed tools to assess the morass of information about health and other matters that was now available, and statistics could help, he said. “The ability to find information on the internet is increasing, the availability of information is increasing all the time. At the same time, what’s also increasing are the number of people trying to manipulate opinion using ‘sciency’ arguments. It’s very important people understand how evidence is used, variability and uncertainty and so on.”

It was also important to know what sort of statistics to seek out for your purpose, Professor Spiegelhalter said, citing school league tables as an example. These had two different objectives, to help parents to choose schools and to hold schools to account, and the data that best suited each purpose were different.

“If you want to hold a school to account, it’s quite reasonable to allow for the neighbourhood in which it operates,” he said. “So if it’s in a very deprived neighbourhood, you should be comparing them with other deprived schools and adjusting for deprivation. A school might be doing a very good job if it’s getting 40 per cent GCSEs. That’s accountability.

“But if you’re choosing a school for your child, you don’t have to take account of deprivation. In fact that’s completely irrelevant. You choose a school that will be best for your child.”

Reality check

Professor Spiegelhalter’s four rules of risk, which he says everyone should know

Stuff happens We cannot predict exactly how every precise event will turn out, but we can often predict the overall pattern of events surprisingly well

Compare like with like If you want to show that speed cameras reduce road traffic accident rates, don’t just put them in places that have just had a run of accidents

What am I not being told? This person may well have got better after she took this wonder treatment, but how many other people’s stories are not being featured?

Twice not-very-much is still not very much Increasing a tiny risk may not be so important: almost everything interesting might help and it might also harm. The trick is working out the balance for you

Road Traffic Accident Advice

Original Source: articlesbase

A road traffic accident describes any accident that happens on a road or footpath. Road traffic accidents are the cause of an estimated 1.2 million deaths worldwide every year and are said to injury about forty times this number.

Every person who uses the road, whether in a car, motorcycle, van, lorry or as a cyclist or pedestrian has a duty of care to ensure the safety of not only themselves but also the safety of other road users. Due to this you should always ensure that you comply with the Highway Code.

With all personal injury accidents you need to prove that another person was at fault for your injury; you need to prove negligence, which demonstrates that the other road user failed to take responsibility for other road users. If you are a driver who is involved in a road traffic accident there are certain things that you must do; a driver involved in a traffic accident should stop whether or not the accident was their fault if the following apply:

• Anyone, other than themselves, is injured
• Another vehicle, or someone else's property, is damaged
• An animal in another vehicle or running across the road is injured
• A bollard, street lamp or other item of street furniture is damaged

It is also advised that you take down the names, addresses and telephone numbers of any witnesses to the accident. This is especially important if you are hoping to put in a claim for compensation. You should also always try and photograph the accident scene if possible as this demonstrates exactly how the accident took place. It is important that you gather as much evidence and information that you can at the time of the accident as the more you collect the more chance you have of a successful compensation claim.

In many cases it is obvious that someone caused a road traffic accident and there will be no dispute about liability, however there are often many cases where the liability and cause of the accident is unclear or where the extent of liability is difficult to work out. One thing that is however sure is if a driver runs into the back of another vehicle they will be held responsible for the accident, even if the car in front has braked sharply or unexpectedly, because drivers are required to drive a safe distance behind other vehicles. However, there may be circumstances when this does not apply, and if liability is disputed, legal advice will be necessary unless the insurance company is dealing with it.

Road traffic accidents are one of the most common causes of people putting in claims for compensation. They are sadly the most common type of personal injury accident and if you are unfortunate enough to be caught up in a road traffic accident then it is important that you speak to a lawyer/solicitor immediately if you are hoping to make a claim for compensation but remember you are only eligible for compensation if the accident was caused through no fault of your own.

For more information regarding road traffic accidents claims visit http://www.balforlegal.co.uk/road-traffic-accident/car-accident.html

Road Traffic Accident Compensation

Original Source: articlesbase

Typically, legal proceedings due to poor road design will be against a local council. This can be on the basis that they to have failed to install proper signs maintained proper design or maintain a road, high street or motorway. A road traffic accident compensation claim may also include a product liability claim lodged toward the manufacturer of a car or car part, claiming design or manufacturing defect which lead to the accident. Also, if a car mechanic or garage left a car in an unsafe condition, liability may fall within their responsibility.

Unique Situations: Unique situations can often arise in a road traffic accident compensation claim which makes the legal proceedings more difficult. All parties involved may be liable for potential injuries and this will be considered during the course of any legal proceeding. Various issues that can arise from the accident itself include:

Leaving the scene of an accident: Is not it so uncommon in the UK, where the driver who causes an accident fails to stop at the place of the accident? This will make it difficult for the injured party involved make a positive ID and therefore bring the driver to court.

Pedestrians and Road Accidents: In such situations, a member of the public can suffer serious injuries as a result of a collision with a vehicle. Often time the conduct of the pedestrian is called into question making it difficult to make a claim against the driver.

Motorbike & Car Accidents: Motorcyclists are very much at risk in regards to personal injury when involved in a road traffic accident; even in collisions which would be relatively minor had they occurred between cars. Due to the nature of some motorcyclists, it may be prove difficult to obtain a far hearing from a jury as they're commonly deemed 'wreckless' road users even if the other party is clearly at fault.

Bicyclists & Car Accidents: Bicyclists are among the most vulnerable road users. They are more likely to sustain serious injury when hit by cars or other vehicles. Various hazards such as doors opening in front of them are obvious causes of collisions as well as many others. Cyclists are often caught in the drivers blind spot and they often report that they did not see the bicyclist until it was too late.

Buses & Car Accidents: Bus accidents can also be quite serious. Due to the sheer size, passengers carried, a collision with a bus will not only see other road users worst off, but unmanaged passengers can also add to the already heated mix of a road accident. Any road traffic accident compensation claim will also be taken up with the operator of the bus not just the driver.

Unsafe road conditions: Where things like road debris and poor, uneven road surfaces abound, accidents can be common place. Whether this is in the form of parts which have fallen off of vehicles, or debris that is kicked up from the roadway, it can all be used as evidence in a road traffic accident compensation claim if the driver believes this was the cause of the accident.

For more information regarding road traffic accidents compensation visit http://www.balforlegal.co.uk/road-traffic-accident/car-accident.html

Road Traffic Accident Claims

Original Source: articlesbase

The conglomeration of vehicles on the road has led to an increase in the number of accidents. Speeding vehicles and unsafe roads lead to road accidents. Road traffic accident claims (or RTAs) generally cover any accidents in which a motor vehicle was involved. Victims of road accidents can get compensated for the losses suffered. Road traffic accident claims can also offer respite to such victims. By approaching a road accident claims solicitor, one can get compensation quickly.

Making a claim for road traffic accident is not that difficult. With appropriate guidance, one can get compensation quickly. Road accidents can happen unexpectedly. You may be driving at your speed and suddenly some vehicle coming from the other end rams into your car. Unfortunately, not most of the victims of road accidents consider making a claim. They are not even aware of the fact that they can make a claim. Road accidents can also occur due to the collision or rash driving either due the fault of the driver or the other driver. If you are driving a car and suffer an injury while driving, you can opt for car accident claim. Road accident claim solicitor can also help a victim of an accident get suitable compensation. The claims cover all the injuries suffered due to the negligent driving on part of the driver or the other driver. A claimant can get adequate coverage for any injuries suffered.

These solicitors have vast experience in dealing with all types of road accident claims. They act on the behalf of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists who have been involved in an accident because of another person’s negligence. They have helped many victims of road accidents get compensation quickly. By contacting them right after the accident, one can get seek fasten up the process of making a claim. As long as the injury has been caused due to the fault of someone, one can get suitable compensation for it. The solicitors can help the driver get compensation even if the other driver was not insured. Anyone who has been involved in a hit and run case can also make a claim.

It is a known fact that two wheeler riders are susceptible to various kinds of accidents. As they have little protection compared to four wheelers, they are more likely to meet with accidents. Due to poor safety measures and dangers lurking on the road, motorcyclists end up meetingwith accidents often. Two wheeler accident injury claims are not difficult to get. They are prone to injuries more than anyone else due to defective road surface such as road damage, mud, oil, or other spillages on the road. For any kind of injury suffered, there is an option of seeking compensation. As long as the injury has resulted due to the negligence of someone, one can always make a claim. Two wheeler accident claims are not difficult to make.

For more information regarding road traffic accidents claims visit http://www.balforlegal.co.uk/road-traffic-accident/car-accident.html