Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A cerebral palsy lawsuit can lead to a larger award than you would obtain for your child through a settlement. However, it’s vital that you make the appropriate preparations to give your family the best case going forward.
A cerebral palsy diagnosis can lead to much anguish felt by parents. Not only is their child born with a debilitating lifelong condition due to the neglect of a medical provider - but now they must also fight that provider and a host of other potential parties in court, potentially for years.
This can lead to parents weighing whether or not they really want to take that additional time and expense to fight people they would rather not see for years of a formative part of their child’s life. However, there’s no other opportunity for you to obtain the maximum compensation for your child, making it vital to get the maximum settlement possible for them now.
It’s important to first establish that you have the grounds to file a cerebral palsy suit for your child. For one, your child will need to be diagnosed with it, though there aren’t any specific tests they can take that will do this. Rather, the condition is determined through a process of elimination to rule out other conditions that may cause similar problems. Common symptoms of cerebral palsy that may occur in other illnesses include the following:
Identifying your child’s condition as cerebral palsy is vital to opening a case for them. Once this has been done, then your lawsuit can begin.
[ymal]
Your child could face numerous medical expenses related to cerebral palsy, including the following:
You and your child can face lifelong medical expenses running well into the millions due to cerebral palsy. This makes it important to work with a medical malpractice attorney who can successfully pursue your lawsuit to help you obtain the maximum compensation possible.
A cerebral palsy lawsuit can often take several years to complete, making it important for parents to be aware of the emotional and financial toll it can take. In many cases, an attorney will want to wait for two years to determine the full extent of a child’s problems. This allows them to pursue the maximum compensation for all of the expenses the child is likely to face across their life. However, this can take an enormous toll on the parents, and eventually the child, but can lead to lasting financial benefits that are vital to helping your child experience a high quality of life.
A cerebral palsy lawsuit can provide your child with the compensation they’ll need to enjoy a high quality of life. It’s vital to helping cover their medical expenses and to offset the lost wages they may face. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer can serve as your guide and will work on your behalf to obtain the maximum compensation for your family. This is your one chance to help your child recover what they’ve lost - make it count.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Jack Latham, employment solicitor at Myerson, on whether or not an employer holds the right to withhold staff pay in certain circumstances.
With businesses facing an extended period of economic downturn and continuous uncertainty, many employers have forced reduced working weeks or reduced pay on their employees. Employers also may have withdrawn or deferred bonuses and other incentives.
Employers generally don't have a unilateral right to make staff redundant, reduce hours, or reduce their pay just because there is less work. Suppose an employee is ready, willing, and able to perform their full duties. In that case, the employer should pay the employee the full contractual salary unless there is a mutual agreement otherwise.
It is a common misunderstanding that the Government's ongoing furlough scheme afforded employers a right to reduce pay; this is only the case if the employee has agreed on the arrangements.
In current times, there have been numerous cases of employers reserving bonus schemes or other employee incentives or postponing payments and awards due to economic downturn and financial unpredictability.
A bonus or incentive is sometimes guaranteed by contractual terms, usually subject to the achievement of certain performance criteria, such as a person's targets. A bonus scheme is commonly expressed as discretionary and will typically provide that there is no enforceable right to a bonus and that payments may be made (or not be made) at the employer's discretion.
Employers generally don't have a unilateral right to make staff redundant, reduce hours, or reduce their pay just because there is less work.
There is a misunderstanding that employers can reserve discretionary bonus payments without a legitimate reason for the withdrawal. The Courts have held that an employer's discretion is not fully uninhibited. Where there is a dispute in payment of a bonus, the Courts will look at all relevant information, such as:
Employers are bound by duties not to breach implied terms of trust and confidence, act honestly and in good faith and not exercise discretion in an 'arbitrary, capricious or irrational' way.
In a well-known case that involved a financial services business, Mr Clark earned over £6.5 million of profits for his employer while working as an equities trader nine months before his dismissal. Apart from Mr Clark, all traders received bonuses, even those who earned less profit or no profit at all. The Courts found that no rational employer would have decided to not give Mr Clark a bonus and, therefore, its discretion had been exercised in an 'irrational' or perverse way. Mr Clark was awarded his bonus.
A bonus is sometimes not set out in a contract of employment, or a documented scheme may have been historically paid to an employee. In these instances, it may be argued that the entitlement to a bonus payment has become an implied term of the contract of employment through custom and practice and that the entitlement is enforceable.
[ymal]
A salary deficit or unpaid bonus may be recoverable by way of a claim to an Employment Tribunal or other civil court. Claims can include claims for unlawful deductions from wages (i.e. unpaid wages or bonus) or the breach of contract. In serious cases, employees may also look to consider resigning from their position to claim constructive unfair or wrongful dismissal.
There are numerous legal processes and time limits to observe and varying compensation levels available depending on the losses suffered, type of claim made and whether the claims are made through the Employment Tribunal, County Court or High Court.
If you need guidance concerning unpaid remuneration, you should look to contact an employment lawyer who is experienced in advising on rights to remuneration and recovering unpaid amounts.
Energy giant E.On will pay £650,000 in compensation after taking direct debit payments of 1.6 million customers earlier than agreed.
UK energy regulator Ofgem found that the company took money from the customers’ bank accounts on 24 December rather than at the beginning of January, which resulted in those affected experiencing “out of pocket expenses; unexpected overdraft bank charges; difficulty making payments in the run up to Christmas; and other unforeseen circumstances.”
The mistake was caused by a technical fault following changes the company had made to credit hours for their pre-payment customers between Christmas and New Year. E.On reported the error to Ofgem itself.
Ofgem criticised the company for failing to conduct appropriate checks ahead of the planned changes to ensure that they would not lead to any unintended consequences for pre-payment customers.
E.On has made goodwill repayments worth over £55,000 to customers who have "suffered additional bank charges, out of pocket expenses or other detriment, as a result of the direct debits being taken early.” Customers affected by the early direct debit payment who have not yet spoken to E.On are being urged to do so if they wish to make a claim.
[ymal]
Ofgem reported last month that more than a million UK energy customers that switched providers could have been overcharged due to errors made by their suppliers, including E.On. The regulator said that 18 suppliers had made errors leading to excess bills totalling £7.2 million.
Sarosh Zaiwalla, Senior Partner at Zaiwalla & Co, discusses Zaghari-Ratcliffe's imprisonment and shares his thoughts on how the UK government ought to respond based on past dealings with Iran.
It is now more than five years since Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was put in jail for "working against the Iranian state". Ever since her secret trial, the 42-year-old British-Iranian mother has been arbitrarily detained as a prisoner of the Iranian regime. Regrettably, she has also become something of a pawn between Britain and Iran in relation to a diplomatic row relating to a longstanding dispute over arms payments.
The British prime minister, Boris Johnson, had a phone call last month with his Iranian counterpart, President Rouhani, and demanded her immediate release. The Times reported that Johnson called “her continued confinement completely unacceptable”, according to Downing Street.
An Iranian-British dual citizen, Zaghari-Ratcliffe was initially convicted after being found guilty of "plotting to topple the Iranian government". Her employer, Thomson Reuters Foundation, later released a statement making it clear that when arrested, she was not working in Iran as a journalist, but was on holiday in the country so that her daughter, Gabriella, could meet her grandparents.
In 2017, Zaghari-Ratcliffe faced fresh charges and this year faces another new charge of propaganda against the regime in the Iranian courts. Regrettably, it appears that the Iranian government may continue to use her as a bargaining chip in order to recover a long overdue debt of £400 million from the UK concerning the non-delivery of Chieftain tanks.
[ymal]
In 2008, an international arbitration court ruled that the UK did owe this money, and last year the British government acknowledged the debt. Nevertheless, there has been an extended dispute over the exact amount that will be paid and what interest is due. In light of current sanctions that are applied against Iran, achieving repayment may still prove difficult.
Notably, the defence secretary Ben Wallace told Times Radio in a recent interview that Britain should clear the debt and that it was “absolutely right” that “we should honour that debt”. He added: “What we’ve said very clearly is that we comply with law and the rule of law . . . we should honour that debt and we should find ways to return it to Iran.”
Despite the obvious diplomatic problems, there have been circumstances, historically, where significant debts between the two countries have been honoured.
In 2013, one of Iran’s largest private banks, Bank Mellat, was held entitled to claim damages for a breach of human rights law by the UK government. More recently, the assessment of those damages came before the English courts. This action was stayed by a Tomlin Order, which attached a confidential settlement agreement. I am aware of its contents in a professional capacity.
The Times reported that the quantum of the settlement involved very material payment obligations by the UK government. Having been personally involved in the payment issues, I am aware that the UK government fully and properly honoured those obligations. This clearly demonstrates that payment to Iranian interests can be made when it proves convenient to do so.
Despite the obvious diplomatic problems, there have been circumstances, historically, where significant debts between the two countries have been honoured.
Accordingly, it would be disgraceful if the UK government were now to rely on a purported inability to make payment which further imperilled Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, prolonging her suffering and that of her family, who have campaigned so hard for her release. Ultimately, this has nothing to do with paying a ‘ransom’, which no government can ever begin to contemplate, but has everything to do with the simple discharge of a commercial debt that has potential humanitarian consequences.
The world today has become an extremely fast-paced environment in both personal and professional spaces. The stakes are higher in professional environments due to the competition between industry players and the need to stay relevant. The advent of technology and its accompanying tools have made the level of competition even fiercer and amplified the need for more innovations in technology.
The legal profession is a broadly diverse profession with different parts working simultaneously for the common goal of client satisfaction. In achieving this goal, lawyers and law firms need to integrate technology into every part of their work, including substantive law practice and law office management. This will enable lawyers to remain competitive and maintain client satisfaction. Many reliable websites contain information on useful tools for lawyers in performing their duties. However, this article carefully highlights the top software for lawyers in the current age of legal practice:
As basic as they may seem, Microsoft Office tools have been hugely essential to the success of most law firms around the world. Being the office software with the largest market share in the world, Microsoft Office pioneered the corporate revolution that continues to evolve to the present day. Office functions like the creation of documents, sorting and collating numbers and financial data, sharing of messages between colleagues, and the storage of information have been made seamless through Microsoft Office and its accompanying products (Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Outlook and PowerPoint).
As basic as they may seem, Microsoft Office tools have been hugely essential to the success of most law firms around the world.
Legal materials and documents are extremely sensitive, and the corruption of a single document may invalidate the rest of the pile. The existence of cloud storage tools like Google Drive and iCloud eliminates this problem. Files can be saved immediately after completion to online storage platforms where they can remain safe and unfettered until they are next needed. Physically storing hard copy files and the cumbersome, energy-draining process involved is thereby avoided. In addition, storage on computer local files poses different risks, including hacking, virus corruption and the possibility of accidental deletion. Every one of these risks is hugely mitigated with the use of cloud storage.
Meetings with colleagues and clients do not always have to be physical, except when absolutely necessary, or provided by the law. Video sharing and real-time communication tools like Cisco, Skype, Microsoft Teams and Zoom are more than capable of providing reasonable alternatives in form of online video meetings, where lawyers can see and communicate with one another in real-time, as well as with clients. This function comes in particularly handy during emergencies, and when the parties find it impossible to leave their locations.
One thing lawyers do an awful lot is scribble ideas down, wherever they find themselves. It could be ideas that just hit them on how to strategise their arguments on an ongoing litigation case, or new agenda points for an upcoming meeting. Either way, they take notes in order to recall them when necessary and to share them with their colleagues. Platforms like Google Keep and Microsoft One Note allows for collaborative use, where content written by an individual can be viewed on another device. If utilised properly, these applications can be used by teams simultaneously, making work done faster and more efficient.
[ymal]
Finally, editing and automation software are probably the second most important set of tools to lawyers, after Microsoft Office tools. This is because it is not enough for lawyers to create relevant documents for their clients. They also have to make them devoid of errors and mistakes that could be costly to the case or transaction at hand. Grammarly is a prime example of such platforms, where document authenticity, grammar, and sentence structure, among others, are checked and accordingly corrected.
Anne Longfield, the former children’s commissioner for England, has launched legal action against TikTok on behalf of 3.5 million children under 13 over the platform’s collection and usage of their data.
Longfield alleges that the social media app has illegally gathered the personal data of millions of children since 25 May 2018, when General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect. She states that TikTOk has taken this data without sufficient warning, transparency or consent that GDPR requires.
The legal claim aims to compel the app to stop processing this information, delete all such existing data and pay compensation to those affected. If successful, each of the affected children could be owed thousands of pounds in compensation.
A TikTok spokesperson said: "Privacy and safety are top priorities for TikTok and we have robust policies, processes and technologies in place to help protect all users, and our teenage users in particular.”
“We believe the claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."
Tom Southwell, partner at Scott + Scott and acting for Longfield, said: “TikTok and ByteDance’s advertising revenue is built on the personal information of its users, including children. Profiting from this information without fulfilling its legal obligations, and its moral duty to protect children online, is unacceptable.”
[ymal]
According to Ofcom, 44% of eight to 12-year-olds in the UK use TikTok despite the platform’s UK policies not allowing children under the age of 13 to use the app. Users who download it are asked to input their age when signing up.
In February 2019, TikTok parent company ByteDance was fined a record £5.7 million in the US for the illegal collection of personal information from children under 13.
Follow on: Texas AG sues TikTok for violating children's privacy
In recent years, ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft are becoming the preferred mode of transportation for commuters, as it is a cost-effective and convenient way of reaching your destination. Many users believe that these rideshare services are relatively safe compared to using their vehicle or hailing a taxi. However, the reality is that you can still get into a car accident with these car services. Here are some steps you need to take if you get involved in a ridesharing accident.
Whether or not the accident was caused by your driver or due to the other party's negligence, you need to call law enforcement immediately. After calling the police, make sure to contact the ridesharing company to report the incident. Never consent to any agreement with the company representative and discuss any details as objectively as you can. Also, remember not to sign any documents without your legal counsel present.
Assess your physical condition and check the severity of your injuries. Even if it was only a minor fender bender, make sure that you seek medical assistance since you need the medical report later on when filing a case. You also need to be aware of the different post-traumatic reactions, as you may exhibit some of these symptoms in the following days.
Gather any evidence that you can get and, if possible, write down notes of the accident details. Get your Uber or Lyft driver's contact information, including their license plate number, insurance company details, vehicle description, and take note of their behaviour and attitude. Obtain the other driver's details as well and make sure that they do not leave the scene.
[ymal]
Take as many pictures or videos as you can, as your memory might be distorted in the days to come. It is better that you have visual evidence instead of relying solely on your memory. Look for nearby establishments such as gas stations and convenience stores as some of them may have surveillance cameras. Talk to potential witnesses and make sure to get their contact details. If they willingly consent, consider recording a video of them discussing the accident to make sure that you can use it as evidence if they claim that they have no recollection of the incident.
Ridesharing services operate differently from other car services such as car rentals or taxicabs. Private individuals use their vehicles to offer transportation to riders utilising these ride-hailing services. Most of the time, they do not possess the commercial driver licenses required for professional drivers. Additionally, these companies do not often categorise their drivers as employees, as they only become Uber or Lyft drivers once they turn on their applications.
Most of these services provide commercial insurance coverage, which is significantly higher than regular car insurance. The amount of coverage may vary depending on the details of the accident, so it is vital that you get the professional guidance of a car accident lawyer as soon as possible. Do not attempt to settle these disputes on your own, as most of the accidents are complicated cases that can drain you physically, emotionally, and financially.
Even if you are taking every safety measure while driving, car accidents are inevitable events that can happen to anyone. It is crucial that you know the appropriate steps following a car accident to make you legally protected.
A jury has found former police officer Derek Chauvin guilty of murdering George Floyd in a Minneapolis street last year.
The 45-year-old was filmed kneeling on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes in footage that was widely circulated and sparked international protests against systemic racism and the use of excessive force by police.
On Tuesday, the jury unanimously convicted Chauvin of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter following more than 10 hours of deliberations over two days. In Minnesota, these convictions carry maximum sentences of 40 years, 25 years and 10 years in prison respectively.
Chauvin is expected to appeal against the verdict. Three other officers who were at the scene are due to face trial later this year on charges of aiding and abetting Floyd’s murder.
Police officers are rarely convicted for deaths that occur in custody. Chauvin’s trial has gained international attention as a possible indication of how the US legal system will handle similar cases in future.
The Floyd family’s lawyer, Ben Crump, said that the guilty verdict marked “a turning point in history and sends a clear message on the need for accountability of law enforcement."
[ymal]
In a televised speech, President Joe Biden said that Floyd’s death was "a murder in full light of day, and it ripped the blinders off for the whole world", adding that the US “can and we must do more to reduce the likelihood that tragedies like this will ever happen again."
"It's not enough,” he said. “We can't stop here. We're going to deliver real change and reform.”
Today, a legal claim has been launched by Anne Longfield OBE, the former Children’s Commissioner for England, against the popular video-sharing app TikTok and parent company ByteDance for deliberately violating UK and EU children’s data protection law.
Anne Longfield OBE has brought the legal claim on behalf of millions of children in the UK and Europe. Every child that has used TikTok since 25 May 2018, regardless of whether they have a TikTok account or what their privacy settings are, may have had their private personal information illegally collected by Byte Dance through TikTok for the benefit of unknown third parties.
The wealth of children’s private information processed, allegedly illegally, by TikTok has prompted concerns over what the app is doing with this information. The personal information allegedly collected by TikTok and ByteDance includes children’s telephone numbers, videos, pictures, and their exact location, along with biometric (or facial recognition) data.
The legal claim argues that TikTok willfully takes children’s personal information without sufficient warning, transparency or the necessary consent required by law, and without parents and children knowing what is being done with their private information.
TikTok is deliberately opaque about who has access to children’s private information, which is incredibly valuable to the company. Its parent company, Cayman Islands-based ByteDance, is expected to make nearly $30 billion in 2020, with over two thirds of this being advertising revenue involving the transfer of personal information.
TikTok is a hugely popular social media platform that has helped children keep in touch with their friends during an incredibly difficult year. However, behind the fun songs, dance challenges and lip-sync trends lies something far more sinister.
Anne Longfield OBE, along with experienced law firm Scott + Scott, is fighting on behalf of children and parents to stop TikTok illegally processing millions of children’s information, and demanding that the company deletes all their children’s personal information. The claim also aims to win compensation for the millions of affected children, which could be thousands of pounds per child. The damages owed by TikTok if the claim is successful may be in the billions of pounds.
Anne Longfield OBE, the claimant’s litigation friend against TikTok said: “TikTok is a hugely popular social media platform that has helped children keep in touch with their friends during an incredibly difficult year. However, behind the fun songs, dance challenges and lip-sync trends lies something far more sinister.
"TikTok is a data collection service that is thinly-veiled as a social network. It has deliberately and successfully deceived parents, whose best intentions are to protect their children and children themselves.
"Parents and children have a right to know that private information, including phone numbers, physical location, and videos of their children are being illegally collected. TikTok appears set on making it as difficult as possible for millions of mothers and fathers to know who is benefiting from this information.
"We want to put a stop to TikTok’s shadowy data collection practices, and demand that they delete all private information that has been illegally processed when children use the app.”
Tom Southwell, Partner at the law firm Scott + Scott, commented: “The information collected by TikTok represents a severe breach of UK and EU data protection law. Children do not understand how exposed they are when they use the app, and parents have been deliberately left in the dark by TikTok.
"TikTok and ByteDance’s advertising revenue is built on the personal information of its users, including children. Profiting from this information without fulfilling its legal obligations, and its moral duty to protect children online, is unacceptable.
"We hope that TikTok gives serious consideration to the gravity of the concerns of millions of parents and takes considerable steps to improve their practices in light of the issues raised by the case”.
The legal claim
TikTok is a popular short-video app owned by its Cayman Islands-based parent company, ByteDance, with 800 million users worldwide.
The legal claim has been brought on behalf of millions of children using TikTok in the UK and European Economic Area who have been impacted by the app’s actions. Research conducted in support of the legal claim estimates that over 3.5 million children are affected in the UK alone.
The claim alleges that TikTok and ByteDance have violated the UK Data Protection Act and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), namely articles 5, 12, 14, 17, 25, 35 and 44 of the GDPR.
The legal claim alleges that TikTok violated data protection law by processing excessive amounts of users’ data without: (a) having adequate measures in place to prevent children from downloading and/or using the App; (b) having in place adequate messaging to explain which data was collected and how this was being further processed to facilitate informed decision-making by users; (c) providing the user with adequate transparency about the nature and extent of the processing of their data; (d) acquiring the relevant and necessary consent of the children’s parents or guardians, or any effective consent; and further or alternatively/or (e) any effective contractual basis or legitimate interest.
TikTok and ByteDance have displayed a troubling pattern of breaking child data protection laws. In 2019, TikTok was issued a record fine for a case involving child data in the United States. This was followed by similar penalties in South Korea in 2020.
TikTok has subsequently implemented measures for its users in the United States to verify their age when they open the App. Despite this, TikTok has refrained from introducing a similar age verification policy in the UK or other European countries.
Concerns have also been raised among by UK MPs about alleged information sharing between TikTok users in the UK and ByteDance, which could be subject to China’s National Intelligence Law.
Further information on the claim can be found at http://tiktokdataclaim.uk/.
(Source, TikTok Data Claim UK)
A CVA consists of negotiating with creditors to propose revised payments with the view to keep the business afloat.
A CVA must be proposed by a licensed insolvency practitioner and over 75% of creditors by value must vote in favour of the proposal. If creditors disagree with the proposition, the insolvency practitioner can renegotiate.
The driving force behind a CVA is to agree to slice expenditure in the hope to keep the business above the ground. The intention behind a CVA is to seek long term viability, rather than a short-term fix which the business could quickly transition out of. CVA’s typically last between 3 to 5 years, requiring long term commitment from both the business and creditors.
What does a CVA mean for creditors?
A CVA provides a working solution to businesses in distress by implementing reduced repayments. Creditors are often inclined to comply, as failure to do so could result in the eventual liquidation of the business which could lead to an even smaller repayment. During the insolvency process, there is a prescribed order of repayment which must be followed as set out by the Insolvency Act 1986 which reflects creditor entitlement. Any remaining funds held by the High Street business will be distributed by the appointed insolvency practitioner to each class of creditors, subject to the availability of funds.
For a CVA to be enforced, creditors must accept the proposition of reduced payments. This is likely to be in the best interest of creditors to reduce the likelihood of payment defaults and incurring bad debt.
Common debts weighing down on High Street businesses can range from expensive rent, outstanding tax liabilities, rising business rates, debt repayments, employee wages and stock replenishment. As Covid-19 leads to the temporary suspension of footfall for retail and hospitality High Street businesses, expenditure continues to incur as income dries up.
Approving a CVA can have varied repercussions for the creditor. For example, a landlord for a High Street unit could honour lower rental payments as part of a CVA which could disgruntle other tenants committed to the standard rate. Straddling between the risk of non-payment and the possibility of tenant upset, securing a reasonable payment is likely to be the priority for creditors.
How can CVA’s rescue the British High Street?
As the coronavirus pandemic obliterates reserved profits and consistent patterns of trade following the closure of shopfronts, High Street stores consistent in scoring healthy profits pre-pandemic may need to patch the income gap to prevent falling into arrears. Covid-19 has functioned as the tipping point for High Street businesses showing no evidence of pre-existing financial difficulties before the global health emergency began.
An extensive string of High Street shops have been forced to close their doors indefinitely, a decision partly fuelled by turbulent trading conditions due to the coronavirus pandemic. The Business Distress Index, released by Real Business Rescue, found that 2.8 million jobs held by SMEs in significant distress were at risk during Q4 2020. This shows the magnitude of collateral damage that could occur if businesses were refused lifelines, such as a CVA or Fast Track CVA.
High Street businesses often grapple with extortionate rent, leading to growing calls to introduce turnover based rent. A CVA is an effective tool used to assist viable businesses to buckle down on mounting payments which cannot realistically be fulfilled in the current form.
If the business in question is unable to maintain repayments, a CVA may not be the ideal solution. As seen with the collapse of Debenhams, the former retail giant secured a CVA to attain rent cuts, closing a quarter of stores nationwide. Eventually tipped into administration having failed to secure a rescue deal, the balance sheet of the retailer presented growing losses due to underperforming stores and rising expenditure
If healthy businesses are likely to be buckled down by creditor payments, a CVA can help preserve the financial health of the business and often achieve the best outcome for creditors.
Written by Julian Pitts of Fast Track CVA - https://www.fasttrackcva.co.uk/
