Wrigley Claydon Solicitors

Author:

  • Compensation for Injured Feelings?

    Compensation for Injured Feelings?

    When it comes to an injury compensation claim, it’s not always about physical injuries. In many cases the mental trauma following an incident is cause for a claim in itself.

    In ordinary circumstances, a disabled person who had suffered emotional injury following discrimination would likely have a viable Injury Compensation Claim to make, however this is not always the case.

    In 2011 a high court ruling rejected two Injury Compensation Claims that were launched following mistreatment while flying.

    In each case the claimant was disabled and felt they had been treated unfairly by their respective airlines. Both had made arrangements with the airlines, prior to flying, for suitable provisions to be made in recognition of personal needs of care.

    Both claimants had been assured they would be seated with their travelling partners, including family members and personal carers, but in both cases such measures were not taken and the claimants were told that nothing could be done.

    In each case the courts ruled that the claimants had been subject to discrimination. Ordinarily this would be considered a substantial basis for a compensation claim, in line with UK and EU law. However, cases involving air travel are covered by another, contradictory law, the Montreal Convention; a piece of international legislation specifically covering air travel, that stipulates that compensation may only be awarded for physical injury or damage to or loss of baggage – thus rendering discrimination rulings redundant.

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which supported the claimants, contested the rulings, saying,#

    “Our submission is that the Montreal Convention has to be construed to conform with Union law obligations and not the other way around and thus cannot be used to trump or read down either the provisions of the EC Air Regulation or the UK Regulations.”

    With over 30 years in handling people’s claims for personal injury compensation, Wrigley Claydon is a name you can trust. To see what you can claim for, click here.
    If you are thinking about making an Injury Compensation Claim, call us on 0161 785 3534.

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta

  • Work Accident Compensation Claims, Concerns about Claiming Against Your Employer?

    Work Accident Compensation Claims, Concerns about Claiming Against Your Employer?

    If you have an accident at work, you may naturally have some concerns about making a claim. When it comes to working we tend to avoid ‘rocking the boat’.  Making a claim against your employer might, on the face of it, seem like a big blunder.

    So When Are Work Accident Compensation Claims OK?

    Unlike with most personal injury claims, this is against someone you actually know and that you see on a daily basis; but this shouldn’t put you off. In actual fact it’s one of the main reasons to make a claim.

    Firstly, it’s important to remember that your employer will have insurance in place to deal with cases like this and that any compensation you receive will not be coming straight out of your employer’s pocket.

    Accidents do happen, despite our best efforts to avoid them, and in the aftermath it’s extremely important to look closely at where errors are made. The main point of a personal injury claim is to carefully review the cause of a problem and to determine the true cost of its consequences.

    Through the process of a claim we can establish exactly what went wrong and how – this is directly in the interest of any employer. While it’s tempting to brush mistakes under the carpet it’s certainly not practical; in doing so we fail to fully address the nature of the problem and, in turn, full responsibility can’t be taken for it.

    By seeking the appropriate cost for damages, including loss of earnings, the employer can then fully establish the seriousness of potential hazards in the work place and can then make a better informed decision about the correct health and safety procedures to implement.

    While you might feel singled out, it’s important to remember that everyone is at risk. By taking the right steps, following an accident, you can help to protect your colleagues and prevent further injuries as well as further damages to your employer.

    If you would like to talk to us about work accident compensation claims, please call 0161 785 3534.
  • Beware of Strangers Bearing Promotional Gifts. Don’t be lured by these Personal Injury Solicitors

    Beware of Strangers Bearing Promotional Gifts. Don’t be lured by these Personal Injury Solicitors

    When it comes to personal injury claims, some personal injury solicitors  offer gifts or cash incentives to people who have been injured in order that they will instruct that particular firm to handle their claim.

    Before you make a decision, it’s worth asking yourself why exactly anyone would need to use promotional gifts to try and lure you in.

    While, on the face of it, it may seem an attractive proposition, it’s worth considering the wisdom of such a decision.

    We understand that you might be tempted by promotional gifts, as anyone would, but when choosing a personal injury solicitor it’s important and advisable not to be distracted from what matters. Effective legal work does not rest on the back of introductory offers, but on that of hard-working, high-caliber professionals, able to recognise the true value in a claim and ensure that you receive the right amount of compensation.

    A highly regarded, prestigious personal injury solicitor will never have a shortage of potential clients and as such should have no need to reach out for them. Marketing gimmicks are no substitute for genuine expertise and a proven track record of success. As a customer, the reputation of a solicitor is the best barometer you have in determining the right person to handle your claim.

    When it comes to your claim and your compensation, it’s best to turn to a solicitor you know you can trust to represent your interest. You will not go far wrong if you choose a local solicitors office, with a solid reputation for injury work, who can treat your claim on a personal basis.

    Confidence in the competence of your claims handler is incentive in itself. Besides, who even needs a free fountain pen?
    With over 30 years in handling people’s claims for personal compensation, Wrigley Claydon is a name you can trust.
    If you are thinking about making a claim, call us on 0161 785 3534.
  • Employment Law: Redundancy – the days of ‘last in, first out’ are gone

    Employment Law: Redundancy – the days of ‘last in, first out’ are gone

    ‘Last in, first out’ (LIFO) used to be one of the most common ways of objectively determining who was going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation.

    Put simply, LIFO means that when choosing people for redundancy, the longer you have been with a company the safer you are.

    Is this fair though?

    It may be objective, but when it comes to employment law redundancy LIFO isn’t necessarily fair when used as the sole selection criteria. Since the enactment of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO taken on its own is no longer considered as legally safe as it once was and is generally avoided by employers.

    For example, younger workers are more likely to lose out under a LIFO system, as they tend to be the people who have worked for the shortest time at an organisation. As they are at a disadvantage based on their age, they may have grounds to make a claim for indirect age discrimination. Instead employers should be looking at skills based selection, that doesn’t assume that just because you’ve been there a long time you’re better at the job.

    Employment Law Redundancy

    Redundancy is never easy for an employer. If you face the possibility of making them, take advice at the earliest opportunity to avoid the pitfalls.

    If you’re an employee, check at an early stage so that mistakes your employer might be making, can be rectified before the damage is done.

    For more information or to speak to our team about our Employment Law Redundancy services  please call us on  0161 624 6811

    Team: John Porter, Soibi Iketubosin

  • Top Tips to Commercial Debt Recovery

    Top Tips to Commercial Debt Recovery

    Top Tips to Commercial Debt Recovery
    1. Identify and know your customer
    2. Provide clear terms and conditions for payment
    3. Set an appropriate credit limit
    4. Ensure invoices are accurate and delivered promptly
    5. Provide simple and efficient payment methods
    6. Have a set procedure for chasing late payment
    7. Pick up the phone and be proactive
    8. Resolve genuine problems
    9. Keep a paper trail
    10. Consider Wrigley Claydon’s specialist debt recovery department
    What Our Clients Say About Our Commercial Debt Recovery Services

    “Shalish Mehta is always successful at claiming money back on the Company’s behalf. Once I have passed my notes onto Shalish he completely takes charge of the facts. His experience gives me great confidence. He has had different issues to deal with on behalf of our Company, all very different, and has approached them very enthusiastically and professionally.

    I would highly recommend Shalish Mehta and Wrigley Claydon to any individual or Company requiring services to collect outstanding payments. His expertise in the field of debt recuperation is exceptional. His service is an asset to support any company.”

    Lesley Pollit – Director of Cosy Toes Nursery Limited – Client

    For more information or to speak to our team about our commercial debt recovery services  please call us on  0161 624 6811

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta

  • As accident specialists, we launch personal injury campaign to help claimants receive larger payouts

    As accident specialists, we launch personal injury campaign to help claimants receive larger payouts

    We have launched a campaign to encourage people to instruct a solicitor when making a personal injury claim. This is prevent the growing number of people who are settling their claims for much less than they are worth.

    If an injured person uses a solicitor and wins their case, the insurance company will have to pay the compensation to the injured person and the costs of their solicitor. Many insurance companies have been trying to prevent the injured person instructing a solicitor who is an accident specialist, so that the insurance company saves money by paying less compensation and not having to pay the solicitor.

    Litigation and Personal Injury solicitor and accident specialist Vijay Srivastava explains,

    “When a road accident occurs, people always exchange insurance particulars. This means that the insurance company gets your contact details before there is time to instruct a solicitor. When the insurance company recognises that their customer is at fault, they then contact the injured person directly to offer for example to repair their car, arrange for a hire car and pay them immediate compensation (without getting any medical evidence to confirm the extent or the long-lasting effects of the injury), typically in the sum of £1000.”

    Settling straight away can be tempting to the injured person because it is a quick fix, without much hassle and inconvenience, but in many cases the injured person is doing themselves a huge disservice. The reality is that most of these injured people are settling their claims for less than they are worth. Firstly the injured person doesn’t know how much their claim is truly worth (because they are not experts) and secondly the way the courts value compensation based on what your injury is and the longer you have been suffering the larger your claim. Settling your claim on day one generally means you have settled at an undervalue. By not getting any medical evidence you simply don’t know what your injuries are, how long you are going to be suffering for, whether there are going to be any long-term effects and consequently you don’t know how much your claim is worth.

    Always speak to an ‘Accident Specialist’

    Vijay comments,

    “We are currently running a case where an insurance company offered £1000 to our client. Our client refused to accept this amount and instructed us. We value the claim in excess of £20,000. We have another case where the insurance company offered our client £1000. He did not accept that amount but instead instructed us. We value the case in excess of £50,000 and consequently the insurance company has now increased their offer to £10,000. We are also dealing with a case where our client was offered £1000. He did not accept it and instructed us. Our investigation of his medical condition and the obtaining of the appropriate medical reports (including a report from a neurologist) showed that the accident had caused damage to blood vessels leading to his head which now cause him dizziness. He has a manual job which involves a lot of bending, consequently he is unable to perform his job any more. His claim will be worth significantly more than £1000.”

    For more information or to speak to one of our accident specialists about a possible claim please call us on  0161 785 3534.

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta

  • 700% increase in Will Disputes

    700% increase in Will Disputes

    The number of people choosing to challenge a Will has reached an all time high. Recent High Court figures show that there has been a 700 per cent increase in High Court actions challenging wills over the past five years, while the number of wills declared invalid has almost doubled.

    High profile Will Dispute, Bernard Matthews case

    A high profile example of Will Dispute is the case of Bernard Matthews, famed for his turkey empire. He left his £12 million Saint Tropez villa solely to his French mistress and a £30 million share, of his £40 million estate to his biological heir. His three adoptive children successfully challenged this in the High Court.

    Do you have grounds for a Will Dispute?

    Shalish Mehta, our litigation specialist stresses that if you think you have grounds for complaint then it is important to move quickly, preferably before Probate is granted. “The longer you take to lodge an action the weaker your case may be when it comes to court. Normally an application under the Inheritance Act 1975 will need to be made within 6 months of the Grant of Probate being made. There may be some circumstances when the Court may be prepared to extend the time limit.”

    Shalish highlights what to consider when making a Will Dispute:

    IS THE WILL VALID?
    A Will won’t be valid if: –
    • It is not signed and witnessed properly
    • The person making the Will did not have mental capacity to make a Will.
    • It was made under undue pressure

    THE WILL MUST BE SIGNED AND WITNESSED
    A Will can usually be made only by someone aged 18 years or over. Wills usually have to be in writing and signed by the person making the Will in the presence of two witnesses who are not going benefit from the Will. The witnesses should also not be married to anyone who will benefit from the Will. Whilst the Will might still be valid in these circumstances but the gift might fail.

    THE PERSON MAKING THE WILL WAS MENTALLY CAPABLE
    They must be capable of understanding that they were making a Will and disposing of their assets on death. They must also be capable of understanding the extent of the estate. Capacity may be lacking because of mental illness; commonly Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia.

    UNDUE PRESSURE
    The person making the Will should not be under pressure or duress from any other person to write their Will in a particular way.

    FRAUDULENT OR FORGED WILLS
    Fraud can take a number of forms. For example, you could have been left out of a Will because another person made misrepresentations about you to the deceased. Another example of fraud is where the person who drafted the Will for the deceased left a large portion of the estate to himself without the deceased knowing. Where you suspect there may be fraud the Will can be contested.

    INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR YOU IN THE WILL
    Certain people can still challenge a valid Will if it fails to make reasonable provision for them. The Court has the power, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 to ensure that they are provided for.

    WHO CAN CHALLENGE UNDER THE 1975 ACT?
    There are seven categories of people who can challenge a Will: –

    • A spouse of the deceased
    • A civil partner of the deceased.
    • A former spouse of the deceased who hasn’t remarried
    • Children of the deceased
    • Stepchildren of the deceased
    • A partner who lived with the deceased for at least two years prior to the death
    • Any other person who immediately before the death was being maintained, either wholly or partly by the deceased
    For more information or to speak to our team about a Will Dispute please call us on  0161 785 3534.

    Team: Shalish Mehta

  • Neighbour Disputes Reach Boiling Point

    Neighbour Disputes Reach Boiling Point

    As a nation we are complaining more and becoming less willing to compromise. Wrigley Claydon Solicitors say this is evident with the increasing number of neighbour disputes which they are helping to resolve.

    You don’t have to be going through a bitter divorce or family rift to be involved in regular disputes these days. All you need is a disagreement over who owns a four-inch strip of land and you can be at loggerheads for years with your neighbours. As well as causing you heartache, such fights can cost you dearly and even make your house unsaleable.

    Our litigation specialist solicitor, Shalish Mehta comments,

    “The main causes of disputes are entrenched attitudes, a higher expectation of quiet, incompatible lifestyles with neighbours, lack of modern sound insulation and more powerful sound equipment.Boundary disputes over tiny bits of land can flare up when triggered by another cause such as leaves from one’s tree falling into a neighbour’s garden or a disagreement over parking.”

    HOW TO AVOID NEIGHBOUR DISPUTES

    If you want to prevent boundary disputes you should get an exact map of your land and borders drawn up by a surveyor when you buy a property.

    Be very much on your guard if the person you buy your house from says there is an ongoing dispute with the neighbours. There is a standard declaration for vendors to alert you to this, and if they conceal a problem they are guilty of misrepresentation and may have to subsequently reimburse buyers for any costs incurred as a result.

    Also look at the terms of your lease if you have one. You will see that in many cases floors have to be carpeted and you will be breaking the terms of the lease if you strip them down to the wood.If you have any plans to sell up in the near future think twice about starting a row with your neighbour.

    MAKING A COMPLAINT

    If you do make a complaint and then disclose it, we would usually advise potential buyers to not complete the purchase until the issue is resolved. However, if you live next to a fanatic the issue may never be resolved.

    Even complaining to your local environmental health officer could leave you in a similar position. Of such complaints, about one in six eventually leads to an officer issuing an abatement order, and getting to that stage can take months as you have to prove the problem is a continuing one and not just a one-off.

    Should you find yourself embroiled in a dispute with a neighbour, Shalish outlines how to proceed:

    • MEDIATION

    One solution would be to mediate. The process starts when one party approaches the Mediation Service. A mediator will then pay you a visit, talk the issues over with you and approach the other party, usually by letter. Parties can then choose to have either “face-to-face” or “shuttle” mediation, where the mediator acts as a go between.

    Once an agreement – either verbal or written – is reached, the mediator backs off. They check back in a month to make sure the agreement is holding up.

    Mediation services can be free if funded by councils or charities, but it depends where you live. If they are not free the cost will be around £1000.00 without the use of lawyers. Both parties must reach agreement about splitting the cost early on, but either way it is, as far cheaper than going to court.

    • COURT

    Taking someone to the County Court is expensive and time consuming.

    If you are determined to proceed to court then consult an experienced solicitor such as Wrigley Claydon. We will discuss with you various ways to fund your claim including purchasing legal expenses insurance whereby an insurer may agree to fund part of your claim subject to your claim having a reasonable prospect of success.

    For more information or to speak to our team about neighbour disputes please call us on 0161 785 3534.

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta

  • Traffic Accident Compensation

    Traffic Accident CompensationPrime Minister, David Cameron says that he wants to reduce car insurance premiums by putting an end to the traffic accident compensation culture.

    Consultation was launched last year after figures revealed a 60 per cent increase in the number of personal injury claims related to road accidents since 2006. Whiplash claims in 2010 are estimated to have cost £2 billion, or £90 per car insurance policy.

    Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said,

    “The UK’s growing traffic accident compensation culture has been pushing up the cost of insurance, making it more costly to drive a car or organise events. It’s time the whole system was rebalanced.”

    Wrigley Claydon Partner, Vijay Srivastava heads up the Litigation team where he has worked for over 20 years, amassing a wealth of experience. Many years ago, Vijay was appointed to the Law Society Personal Injury Solicitor Panel as a specialist in injury claims.

    His Comment on Traffic Accident Compensation:-

    As a car driver himself, Vijay accepts that car insurance premiums have risen considerably and he welcomes anything that can be done by the insurance companies to reduce those premiums.  However if you were involved in a car accident and for example fractured your leg, just consider whether you would be able to walk, bathe, drive, work, shop, dress, cook, look after your family, play sport or sleep comfortably.  The reality is that you would struggle to do all of these things.  In those circumstances isn’t it right that the innocent party is compensated for the pain and suffering that has been caused by the negligence of another party and in those circumstances is it not right that an Insurance Company that has collected premiums from the negligent party should pay out an appropriate amount of money to reflect the pain and suffering you have undergone?

    For more information about traffic accident claims or to speak to our team about a possible claim please call us on 0161 785 3534.

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta

  • Personal Injury Claims, Occupiers Liability

    Occupiers Liability requires that the person (an individual, an organisation) in possession of premises owes a duty of care to those who come on the premises and must take reasonable care to protect them from harm that might come through their programs, on their premises or at the hands of a third party on the premises.

    If for example you slip in a Restaurant you can bring a claim because the owner of the Restaurant (the occupier) has a duty to make sure you are reasonably safe whilst visiting their premises.

    These claims cover accidents where you have been allowed to enter a building or land which is owned by someone else. Whilst in the building or on the land you are then injured due to something they have done (for example – left an obstacle in the way that you tripped over) or something they have not done (for example failing to put a handrail on the staircase).

    Occupiers Liability  Case Study 1

    Our Client fell down the unsafe stairs in her flat and through a glass panel. She suffered a pelvic injury, cracked ribs, cuts and bruises to her face and depression.

    We successfully recovered £18,250 compensation for her pain and suffering and a further £3,250 for her out of pocket expenses.

    Notes:

    Some buildings are just unsafe, and a landlord can be liable for any injury caused.

    It cost our Client nothing to pursue the case. Nor was she at risk. We bought insurance to cover her potential liability to the defendants if she lost, and the risk born by us of losing was covered by a sum added to the costs paid by the defendant.

    (The value of the compensation claim was correct at the time of settlement. The value would be higher if settled today).

    Occupiers Liability  Case Study 2

    The Claimant was having lunch at a local supermarket cafeteria when she was struck by a shard of material from a piece of crockery which had fallen from an overloaded tray being carried by an employee of the supermarket. The shard struck the Claimant to the rear of her right heal causing a wound and significant bleeding.

    She was taken to Casualty where her wound was cleaned and five stitches where inserted. X-rays confirmed that there were no further foreign bodies left in the wound.

    The stitches were removed seven days later but after that the wound split open and was infected. Paper stitches were applied and antibiotics prescribed.

    As a result of the accident her sleep was disturbed and she experienced a significant lack of mobility.

    The medical report confirmed that due to the lack of mobility she was experiencing stiffness in both legs and having to use a stick to get about. Accordingly a short course of physiotherapy was arranged. The Claimant’s symptoms resolved fully within twelve months.

    The Claim was settled for £3,000.00 compensation for the accident claim.

    (The value of the compensation claim was correct at the time of settlement. The value would be higher if settled today).

    For more information or to speak to our team about a possible claim please call us on 0161 785 3534.

    Team: Vijay Srivastava and Shalish Mehta