Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BT at the Competition Appeal Tribunal over allegations of historic overcharging of its users, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, who used its landline-only deal between 2015 and 2018.
The claim was lodged by consumer campaign group Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL) on Friday, who stated that BT failed to make up for significantly hiking prices for customers over several years even as the cost of providing the service had continued to fall since 2009. However, the claim can only go as far back as 2015 due to currently standing legal rules that were introduced that year.
In 2017, Ofcom discovered that BT had been overcharging millions of landline customers, prompting BT to reduce its prices by £7 each month, bringing costs down from £18.99 per month to £11.99. However, CALL said that BT had not properly addressed past overcharging.
Its claim seeks payments of between £200 and £500 for each of the 2.3 million BT customers who were affected by overcharging from 2015. The case is being brought by Justin Le Patourel, CALL founder and telecoms consultant who worked with Ofcom for 13 years, and law firm Mischon de Reya.
"Ofcom made it very clear that BT had spent years overcharging landline customers, but did not order it to repay the money it made from this," Patourel said in a statement. "We think millions of BT's most loyal landline customers could be entitled to compensation of up to £500 each, and the filing of this claim starts that process."
In its own statement, BT said: “We strongly disagree with the claim being brought against us and will vigorously defend ourselves.
[ymal]
“We take our responsibilities to older and more vulnerable customers very seriously and will defend ourselves against any claim that suggests otherwise.”
Shares in BT fell almost 3% in early Monday trading after news of the lawsuit broke.
You always want to hire the best personal injury lawyer you can afford for your case. Below, we share some tips on how to find them.
Accidents are actually more common than we would expect in our functioning societies. It is quite likely that someone you know has already been through the legal affair you are about to enter and can make some good recommendations for you. You will be able to get an idea of what kind of representation you can expect from this legal aid. Your acquaintance will tell you of the style, character, seriousness and work acumen of the prospective personal injury lawyer who will aid you in your quest for full compensation.
All of these factors will help you make an educated decision on who the best professional for your case is. In any event it is better to investigate all the recommendations made by trusted sources before you begin searching for a lawyer on your own.
There are a good many lawyers in your local area. The best way to find what you are looking for will be to have a clear idea of what that is exactly that you are looking for. You will want someone who operates in your local area. For example, if you are in the Las Vegas area you will probably want a Las Vegas personal injury lawyer as they will have a special insight into the workings of the local area. A local lawyer will reduce all the expenses and trouble with getting from one place to another as well.
You will want someone who operates in your local area.
It will be equally important to think about whether you are looking for a big firm or a smaller firm that can promise to give your case their undivided attention. While it is typical for a law firm of any size to handle more than a few cases at any moment, a smaller firm will likely be taking on much fewer cases than a large well-established firm. Of course, this is something to consider in line with your case and needs. You may find that there will be times when a top-quality solution is what you need. Once you have found a potential law firm, visit their website to find out more about them.
Communication is another important factor when choosing the legal team. Communication is more important than most people think when it comes to choosing your personal injury lawyer. Before you sign on with the firm of your choice it is a good idea to consider how your communications will work and if this arrangement is suitable to you and your needs. For example, it will be easier to have a direct phone connection to the lawyer handling your case then to have run down to their office with every question and doubt. This way you can send all necessary correspondence through a secure line. The most effective means of communication and correspondence will be the most hassle-free path to the compensation you deserve. In the end this will lead to a more positive overall experience.
There are many personal injury lawyers and each will specialise in a specific aspect of personal injury. It always helps to have a specialist handling the affairs of your case. For example, you may find that one lawyer is more experienced in truck accidents while another is proficient in motorcycle accidents.
As you may imagine, it would be far more advantageous to choose a lawyer with skills and experience in the case you have. Not only will they be more likely to arrive at a favourable settlement, they will have the grit to defend your rights on the court floor if it comes to that. When the lawyer has skill and experience in a case, they are less likely to be impacted by surprises and case twists. This always brings about the best results in the long run.
So, just in case you were expecting your best friend who is a divorce lawyer to be able to help you with your personal injury case, only an expert will be able to provide expert results.
[ymal]
The reputation of your personal injury lawyer will play an important role in the outcome of the case. If the opposition knows that your legal representation is not a push over they will be more inclined to improve their offer and respect your case.
They know that if they were to go toe-to-toe with a reputable lawyer they will likely lose and this will be even more costly than being fair in the negotiations process. So, you will find that the reputation of a lawyer is one of their most important assets and this alone will facilitate the proceedings.
Once you have reduced your selection to a mere handful of names, it will be time to make a decision. You may find that some lawyers are not inclined to take your case or that your connection with other lawyers is sadly lacking. Furthermore, you may have too much on your plate to have to chase your lawyer around for questions and case updates.
To avoid any trouble in the future, it is a good idea to write out a list of important questions and then take note of how the answers you receive make you feel about this legal aid. This will allow you to make the decision you feel comfortable with and choose a lawyer with whom you share a good relationship. You may also want to take a note of their different prognostics for your case and how long it will take to be resolved.
Getting the right legal representative for your case will make all the difference in the long run. For this reason it is well worth your time to take the decision seriously and follow your gut till you find the best legal professional for your case.
British Airways could face claims coming to more than £800 million in a group action over its 2018 data breach, according to law firm PGMBM.
The firm says that more than 16,000 individuals affected in the breach have signed up to the claim against BA. With over 420,000 passengers thought to be affected in total, each able to claim £2,000 in compensation, BA will face potential liability of over £800 million.
Lawyers at PGMBM say that the lawsuit is the largest group-action personal data claim ever seen in the UK.
“British Airways passengers feel let down by what transpired,” said Tom Goodhead, Partner at PGMBM. “They are well within their rights to be compensated for what was previously a trusted airline playing fast and loose with their personal information, leaving it vulnerable for nefarious hackers to take advantage of.”
“We trust companies like British Airways with our personal information and they have a duty to all of their customers and the public at large to take every possible step to keep it safe. In this instance, they presided over a monumental failure.”
In September 2018, BA revealed that its website and mobile app had been affected by a large-scale hack. Hackers were able to access a wide range of personal information including customers’ names and home addresses, and potentially compromising financial information such as credit card numbers, expiry dates and CVV codes. Usernames and passwords of BA employee and administrator accounts were also stolen.
[ymal]
In accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which the UK still operates under, BA passengers who have had their information compromised in the breach are entitled to compensation for non-material damage. These passengers now have 64 days left to sign on to the group action lawsuit.
You may have back pain and other health-related issues. Back pain is a common condition that is likely to affect you when considering your time spent in service and all the activities you frequently engaged in. Getting your disability benefits could be a quick option for you.
When you initially qualify for benefits, your rating will probably start at 10%. Although back pain case ratings might take slightly longer to increase than other conditions, you may be lucky enough to have them increased up to 100%. What does that translate to? It means that the health and monetary benefits you qualify for will also increase, making it easier for you to access the health services you need.
However, your rating may not be at a high level yet. You may be wondering how to improve your rating. Don’t worry because you are in the right place. In this article, you will learn what to do to increase your rating.
Though there may be many back conditions that prompt you to request a higher VA rating, not all conditions are eligible. Below is one condition that may award you either a 40% or 100% rating.
When we talk about back injuries, this refers to the thoracolumbar spine, which encompasses the thoracic and the lumbar parts of the spine. After understanding that, you need to know that ratings are assigned depending on the extent of the damage to the part that has been affected. If a specific part is fully affected, it will command a 100% rating. However, if it’s a partial impact, you may only have about a 40% rating.
It’s important to understand that disability refers to mobility or range of motion. It’s also known as ankylosis, which describes joint fusion. Ankylosis can affect many joints such as your elbows, knees, fingers, and toes. Ankylosing spondylitis specifically refers to fusion of the spine. It is often caused by an injury to the spine. This condition may limit your range of motion or completely restrict your ability to move your back.
[ymal]
What determines your VA rating is the severity of your ankylosis. When talking about spinal cord injuries, you’ll often hear the words complete and incomplete. A complete spinal cord injury means a full loss of feeling and movement control below the site of the injury. An incomplete spinal cord injury means a partial loss of feeling and function below the site of the injury. Both injuries can greatly impact your quality of life but they do not both qualify for a high VA rating.
If you have a complete spinal cord injury, you may get a rating of 100%. Realistically, the most common rating after 100% is 50% for thoracolumbar disability. However, some people get a 40% rating for an incomplete spinal injury even when they have less than 30-degree flexion. This means that your back disability must be extensive for you to qualify for the 40% rating.
Also, for you to get 40%, you must not be able to bend completely. This shows that your condition is serious and deserves a high rating. For these reasons, you may only get a 40% rating instead of 100%.
A high VA rating is essential. Once you get your VA rating approval, your monetary benefits can be determined using this VA disability calculator. Monetary benefits will allow you to access the health services you need without financial hardship. These funds will be vital to you especially if your back injury prevents you from working.
London’s largest independent plumbing company, Pimlico Plumbers, plans to introduce a “no jab, no job” policy that will require all of its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Pimlico founder and chairman Charlie Mullins revealed that the company’s lawyers were drafting new employment contracts for its 400 employees with the vaccine requirement included.
“No vaccine, no job,” Mullins declared during an interview with City A.M. “When we go off to Africa and Caribbean countries, we have to have a jab for malaria – we don’t think about it, we just do it. So why would we accept something within our country that’s going to kill us when we can have a vaccine to stop it?”
The legality of employer-mandated vaccination is not yet proven, and while many businesses have encouraged their employees to vaccinate against COVID-19, most have not attempted to mandate it as necessary for continued employment.
Employment lawyers have suggested that attempts by companies to force vaccinations could lead to claims of discrimination or unfair dismissal under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Other countries’ employment laws may be more lenient, though there is little precedent for widespread enforced vaccination against a pandemic.
Australian lobby group the Council of Small Business Organisations said last summer that it would back mandatory employee vaccinations. “If one of my staff members says: ‘No, I’m against it’, then I’m going to have to say: ‘I’m sorry you are a threat to my business’,” said Peter Strong, chief executive of the council.
[ymal]
“If you don’t sack them, you don’t have a business, especially if you’re in a high-contact area where you’ve got a lot of customers.”
While its “no jab, no job” policy is a new development, Pimlico Plumbers has already implemented company rules to prevent anyone from entering its offices without a negative COVID-19 test, with prospective new hires unable to proceed with their applications until they test negative.
National law firm Seyfarth Shaw has become the latest company to cut ties with the Trump Organisation following the president’s incitement of the deadly 6 January riot at the US Capitol.
“The firm has notified the Trump Organization that we will no longer serve as counsel,” Seyfarth Shaw spokesperson Martin Grego told Bloomberg.
“We are working with the company to secure new counsel for its ongoing commercial matters to ensure a smooth transition in accordance with our ethical obligations.”
Seyfarth Shaw represented a number of Trump-owned businesses in commercial and business litigation. It most recently represented the Trump Organisation in a case brought by the DC attorney general in June 2020, alleging that the Trump family had improperly used the president’s inauguration fund to enrich itself.
The firm’s decision comes as various other businesses have ended their association from the Trump brand after last week’s deadly riot, for which the US House of Representatives impeached Trump on grounds of “incitement of insurrection”.
Deutsche Bank and Signature Bank, two of the president’s favoured lenders, have also announced that they will no longer do business with him, and the PGA of America has stripped Trump National Golf Club of its right to host the 2022 PGA Championship. On the same day as Seyfarth Shaw’s announcement, property services giant Cushman & Wakefield also ended its relationship with Trump companies.
[ymal]
Organisations that still maintain ties with the Trump family have faced widespread public backlash. In November 2020, prominent law firm Jones Day came under fire for representing Republican efforts to challenge the legality of the presidential election results, with fellow big law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur cutting ties after intense criticism.
Seyfarth Shaw ranks among the top 60 law firms in the US, according to data collated by The American Lawyer, employing around 900 lawyers worldwide.
The UK government has unveiled long-awaited plans to overhaul the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and make significant changes to the treatment of mentally ill people in England and Wales.
The MHA white paper is largely based on recommendations made by Sir Simon Wessely’s Independent Review of the Mental Health Act in 2018 and sets out a number of reforms. Chief is the granting of greater choice and autonomy for patients in a mental health crisis and reducing the restrictive usage of the MHA.
In the UK, the MHA is the main piece of legislation that covers the assessment, treatment and rights of people with a mental health disorder. The MHA outlines circumstances in which a person can be detained (or “sectioned”) for their own safety or that of others and treated without their agreement.
Research has found that people from BAME backgrounds are four times more likely to be detained under the MHA relative to population.
Use of the MHA has also increased significantly. In 2015/16, the number of people detained in hospital was 40% up from the same period in 2005/6, and NHS data for England shows that there were at least 50,893 new detentions in 2019/20 – an understatement of the true figure, as not all providers submitted data.
The NHS figures also showed that there were 321 detentions per 100,000 population for black people while there were only 73 detentions per 100,000 for white people.
[ymal]
The proposed reforms will also impose a 28-day time limit to speed up the transfer of prisoners to hospital, which was lauded by justice secretary Robert Buckland.
“Prisons should be places where offenders are punished and rehabilitated, not a holding pen for people whose primary issue is their mental health,” Buckland said. “Keeping people safe must be at the heart of everything this government does, and the reforms announced today will allow us to do this while ensuring offenders still get the treatment their conditions require.”
Unfortunately, achieving best-case results is excruciatingly difficult with drugs or alcohol involved. As the US government’s "war on drugs" ensues with unrelenting force, convicted substance use disorder sufferers are subject to the courts’ scrutiny. From mandatory sentencing to large fines, a client with a documented history of drugs and alcohol use may experience lifelong consequences, which can derail the substance use disorder sufferer’s mental health, financial security, and physical well-being.
As of lately, more and more judges have begun to ditch prevailing drug sentencing in favor of drug rehabilitation centers, fully loaded with several recovery programs. As national campaigns and recovery advocates work tirelessly to destigmatise substance, individuals can heal core wounds, overcome their addictions, and stay out of trouble. Though rehabilitative services can transform your client’s financially and emotionally rocky life and help them avoid jail time, their initial punishment will increase if your client fails to abide by the mandated rehab stipulations.
Law enforcement agencies and judges have reported changes of heart, gradually recognising that life-long jail sentences can’t cure life-long substance dependencies. Instead of healing the core wounds responsible for driving addicts to self-medicate, time in prison or jail results in incredibly high recidivism rates. Due to these high recidivism rates, judges have started to sentence convicted substance use disorder sufferers with court-ordered rehab instead of jail time.
When your client is arrested for committing a non-violent drug crime such as a DUI or simple possession, the judge can enact a sentence that allows your client to dodge jail time by admitting themselves into a rehabilitation center. The judge will set clear guidelines and rules that your client must adhere to, but so long as they stick to them, they can attend a rehab program instead of wasting away behind bars.
If your client doesn’t adhere to the judge’s established rules, then their court-ordered rehabilitation can be revoked, leaving those facing jail time to serve their sentence.
[ymal]
Research has shown that court-ordered rehab is exceptionally beneficial if the patient is willing to make changes and is actively taking action to curb their cravings and seek professional intervention. If your client is willing and able to make the changes necessary to overcome their addiction, then court-ordered rehab will help them regain control of their life. Not to mention, mental health counseling can keep these substance use disorder sufferers out of jail.
Court-ordered rehab is most effective when the individual wants to be there and is willing to change their life for the better. If your client doesn’t want to overcome their addiction and are merely looking to avoid jail time, rehab may not be the best option for them, as failure to follow the judge’s stipulations will result in a harsher punishment.
Court-ordered rehab comes with stipulations such as logging the required hours of therapy and refraining from drugs and alcohol. If your client breaks any of the court-ordered stipulations, they risk increasing the severity of their punishment, handing them a one-way ticket to prison where they’ll have to serve the full time.
For example, if your client is offered 100 hours in rehab instead of jail time and only makes it for 50 hours, the judge can cancel their rehab agreement, increase the original jail time they were facing, and require them to serve the entirety of their sentence.
If you believe that your client is a flight risk or not capable of abiding by the terms of the rehab agreement, it’s best to pursue other avenues to avoid jail time and reduce your client’s sentences. Ultimately, your client depends on you to advocate for their emotional well-being, necessitating a thoughtful approach.
Visa and Plaid said on Tuesday that they would terminate their merger agreement following a lawsuit from the US government aimed at halting the deal on antitrust grounds.
The Visa-Plaid deal was valued at $5.3 billion at the time of its announcement on 13 January 2020, almost a year to the day prior to its cancellation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued to block the deal in November on the grounds that Visa was “a monopolist in online debit transactions” and that its acquisition of Plaid “would eliminate a nascent competitive threat” to its monopoly.
At the time Visa said that the DOJ lawsuit was “flawed”. Visa chairman and CEO Al Kelly reiterated his opinion that the acquisition was lawful in the company’s Tuesday statement. “We are confident we would have prevailed in court as Plaid’s capabilities are complementary to Visa’s, not competitive,” he said.
Kelly said that the deal ultimately had to be pulled because “protracted and complex litigation will likely take substantial time to fully resolve.”
Plaid CEO Zach Perret struck a more optimistic note in his statement. “While Plaid and Visa would have been a great combination, we have decided to instead work with Visa as an investor and partner so we can fully focus on building the infrastructure to support fintech,” he said.
Plaid is a San Francisco-based fintech startup that is used by popular apps such as Robinhood, Venmo and Square Cash to connect users to their bank accounts. By acquiring Plaid, Visa would have been able to access the company’s growing customer base and sell them additional services.
[ymal]
Fintech enjoyed a widespread surge in value in 2020, with Perret reporting “an unprecedented uptick in demand” for Plaid’s services. The fintech firm says that it has grown its customer base to 4,000 companies, an increase of 60% from a year ago.
Simon Hughes, Partner in Taylor Walton's Corporate & Commercial team, examines the OTS report and its implications for business owners.
2020 was a difficult year for anyone responsible for running a business in the UK, regardless of its size, or the sector in which it operated. The restrictions that were in force in December turned out to be merely a precursor to more problems in the new year, with a last-minute Brexit deal set to make a dramatic impact on UK businesses.
As if all that wasn’t stressful enough for business owners, they now have the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) report on Capital Gains Tax to ponder – currently just a set of proposals the government can choose to implement in full, adapt and modify or ignore altogether.
The OTS, an independent body created in 2010, provides its own reports, but this particular report came in response to the Chancellor’s request to "identify opportunities relating to administrative and technical issues as well as areas where the present rules can distort behaviour or do not meet their policy intent." The report was produced on 11 November and timing is everything. The Chancellor must surely view CGT reform as a high priority, having found time to address it during a global pandemic and economic meltdown.
The report, apparently the result of "extensive consultation", was also produced extremely quickly, particularly when the lockdown constraints are borne in mind. All of which means the proposals in the report should be taken seriously as possible representations of longer-term ambition.The ambition is to find additional sources of tax revenue to help replace the many billions spent during the pandemic, in contrast to another round of unpopular austerity measures.
The idea of a Conservative government targeting wealth creators may seem improbable, but in the post-Trump, post-Brexit era, political orthodoxies have been replaced with a seemingly endless series of shocks, so dismissing the proposals as highly unlikely would be a mistake.
The Chancellor must surely view CGT reform as a high priority, having found time to address it during a global pandemic and economic meltdown.
Currently, CGT is charged at 20% on gains on disposals of business assets, calculated on the basis of the difference between the sale price and the base cost. The base cost is the value at acquisition, and if the asset was acquired before 1982 then the March 1982 value is used. The proposal put forward by the OST report included the following:
Further proposals involve abolishing the CGT death uplift, which currently erases any unrealised capital gain on death, and realigning the base cost of any assets held for a longer period of time to 2000 rather than 1982.
In simple terms, anyone selling a business following the alignment of tax rates as set out in the report may be looking at paying CGT charged at 45% rather than 20%. Anyone attempting to sell a business in the current climate could probably attest to the fact that the uncertainty running through the economy makes a sale tough, but the potential for dramatic change to CGT could kick-start the process while the personal gain can still be maximised.
The temptation to allow too many concessions in an effort to complete any sale needs to be resisted. Anyone selling a business should have the ‘heads of terms’ reviewed in detail by an experienced corporate lawyer before the deal is signed off.
[ymal]
With the right advice at an early stage, sellers are more likely to get buyers to commit to key points critical to maximising the value that can be generated. Maximising the cash payable at completion is clearly preferable to an earn-out or deferred payments, which raise the additional spectre of whether there is any realistic security for payment that the buyer can offer.
Equally important is to understand what the agreed price really refers to – does it refer to payment for a cash-free, debt-free business with a normalised level of working capital or something different?
Further, is the buyer able to meet the price with or without third-party funding? If third-party funding is needed, what level of uncertainty does this introduce to the process as a whole?
Racking up excessive advisory fees can also be mitigated by the creation of a strict timetable, setting out the speed at which the sale is expected to move and, if an exclusivity period has been asked for and granted, how long that period lasts.
One simple but often ignored piece of advice is to avoid mentioning an intention to sell a business to anyone at all before taking the chance to discuss your plans and options with qualified legal experts.
The possible reform of CGT represents, at this stage, a known unknown, to coin a phrase, but it should still play a part in the thinking of any business owner who has already been weighing up the possibility of selling their business.
