Archive for July, 2010

The Inherent Dangers of Joint Bank Accounts

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

All too often an elderly parent is persuaded by a kind hearted son or daughter to avoid the “unnecessary” cost of a Lasting Power of Attorney (which enables the future handling of the parent’s financial affairs) and instead is convinced to opt for the cheap and convenient placement of their monies into a Joint bank account with the child.

Major problems can arise on the death of the parent in determining the extent of the deceased’s interest in the account (or the child’s intended “lack of interest”) and the uncertainty as to the correct inheritance tax (IHT) treatment of the whole situation.

In Re Northall (deceased) [2010], the deceased, Mrs Northall had purchased her council house with the aid of one of her six sons. The property was later sold. However, the deceased did not have a bank account and so, one of her other sons, Christopher, opened a Joint account with his mother and deposited the sale proceeds of £54,836.00. In the following 3 weeks before her death, Christopher withdrew £28,625 and the day after his mother’s death, transferred the remaining balance into a joint account held with his wife.

Christopher claimed the account had been put into Joint names so he could make withdrawals on behalf of his frail mother. But he further alleged that his mother had instructed him to withdraw money for his own benefit and that any residue within the account upon her death would belong solely to him.

A number of legal principles apply:

  1. Joint accounts are ordinarily subject to the standard rule of survivorship – that is to say, upon the death of the first, the entire account passes to the co-owner absolutely. This is common for married couples and of great convenience to all. It is not so beneficial to parent and child, particularly if the remaining children see the only asset of their parent pass by default to the one child whose name appears upon the account.
  2. Joint accounts that are deemed to pass by survivorship “pass” outside of a will. It would therefore be irrelevant if the deceased did have a will gifting everything between all the children equally (A major reason why a professionally drafted will by GAD LLP Solicitors will address and review the actual reality of how you legally own and hold assets in order to ensure that you can gift them within a will in accordance with your wishes)
  3. When one person alone puts money into joint names, there is a presumption of Resulting Trust in favour of the provider of the funds. This presumption can be rebutted if Christopher could show the circumstances give rise to another technical issue of Advancement (not applicable in this case and to be discusswed in a separate Blog) or he establishes evidence that his mother intended to transfer the beneficial interest in the fund – The burden of proof would rest with Christopher in this latter position.

 Held:

Upon the evidence, there was nothing to support Christopher’s allegation that his mother intended the payments withdrawn to be a gift. Indeed, she had intended the monies to remain hers to spend as she so wished. Similarly, there was no evidence to support the son’s allegation that the remaining balance of the account was to pass to him upon death. The son was ordered to return the balance of the account, together with all withdrawals (save those where evidence was available to show the withdrawal was with his mother’s express instruction). It is unclear who bore the costs of this litigation.

 Conclusion:

Incidents such as these are all too common. Often however, the family disruption of one sibling suing another, or the existence of more modest balances within the account (i.e. not £55,000) often, for practical reasons, results in families not pursuing legitimate legal avenues of redress.

The sensible approach is to ensure your financial affairs are protected by a Lasting Power of Attorney, rather than placing a child’s name upon your account. If however you do choose to add their name, you should document the terms upon which they hold the funds and your intention as to its eventual “direction” upon death. Such formality appears to be taking the proverbial sledgehammer to the nut, but regretfully experience of many Private Client Lawyers dealing with probate is that individuals are rarely robbed by balaclava dressed strangers, but rather, close family members bearing gifts of flowers and “promises” to sort your financial affairs out for you.

Joint Accounts may not therefore necessarily prove to be the answer to all of your problems – they may just be the start!

Social Welfare: Client Update – Budget 2010

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010
In light of the recent budget, many people will be affected by the welfare changes, particularly the disabled.
The fact that Disability Living Allowance claimants will face medical tests in future will place further stress on disabled people, particularly those with mental health conditions.
To be assessed for Disability Living Allowance, the claimant has to have medical evidence to back up their claim.
The loss of a Disability Living Allowance award can have a severe effect on many other benefits, including premiums for Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Housing and Council Tax Benefit, Social Fund payments and Carer’s Allowance.  Many people rely on the Motability car, available via Disability Living Allowance, to get about.
Another point of note from the budget is that the government have stated that, from October 2010, 10,000 Incapacity Benefit claimants per week will be moved onto Employment & Support Allowance.  If these claimants fail the Employment & Support Allowance test, they will find themselves claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance instead.
We consider that society has a duty to protect the disabled.
Any cuts in Housing Benefit will obviously have an effect on people.  For example, a single, unemployed claimant without children will have to make up the shortfall out of their £65.45 per week unemployment payment.
Finally, the freezing on Child Benefit for 3 years will have an effect on many people, particularly combined with the announced rise in VAT.
In light of the recent Coalition Budget, many people will be affected by the welfare changes, particularly the disabled.
The fact that Disability Living Allowance claimants will face medical tests in future will place further stress on disabled people, particularly those with mental health conditions.
To be assessed for Disability Living Allowance, the claimant must have medical evidence to back up their claim.
The loss of a Disability Living Allowance award can have a severe effect on many other benefits, including premiums for Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Housing and Council Tax Benefit, Social Fund payments and Carer’s Allowance.  Many people rely on the Motability car, available via Disability Living Allowance, to get about.
Another point of note from the Budget is that the Government have stated that, from October 2010, 10,000 Incapacity Benefit claimants per week will be moved onto Employment & Support Allowance.  If these claimants fail the Employment & Support Allowance test, they will find themselves claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance instead.
Society has a duty to protect the disabled.
Any cuts in Housing Benefit will obviously have an effect on people.  For example, a single, unemployed claimant without children will have to make up the shortfall out of their £65.45 per week unemployment payment.
Finally, the freezing on Child Benefit for 3 years will have an effect on many people, particularly combined with the announced rise in VAT.
Contact John Grady, Senior Welfare and Benefits Advisor at Gregory Abrams Davidson LLP on 0151 236 5000 for guidance on UK Welfare and Benefits issues including: Disability Living Allowance, Income SupportJobseeker’s AllowanceIncapacity BenefitHousing & Council Tax BenefitSocial FundCarer’s AllowanceMotabilityEmployment & Support AllowanceHousing Benefit.

Deadline set for claims against Dr George Rowlands

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Claims against hospitals in respect of treatment provided by Dr George Rowlands, uro-gynaecologist must, under a recently agreed protocol, be lodged by 4pm on 10 September 2010.

Around 200 patients who were treated at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital for incontinence have already come forward to sue the hospital. The complaints against Mr Rowlands include misdiagnosis, unnecessary and/or incorrect treatment and a failure to provide adequate aftercare.

If you were a treated by Dr George Rowland and have suffered problems, please call our dedicated Clinical Negligence team on 0151 733 3353.

Gregory Abrams Davidson LLP specialise in obtaining compensation for clients who have sustained injury as a result of Clinical Negligence. We have many years of experience dealing with claims against hospitals (both NHS and Private), dentists and general practitioners. Examples include claims arising as a result of negligently performed operations, misdiagnosis of cancer, injuries arising as a result of negligently performed cosmetic surgery and injuries sustained at birth.

We have offices in Liverpool City Centre, Garston Village and Allerton. If you would like to enquire about a potential Clinical Negligence claim, contact a member of our Team on 0151 733 3353. Calls can be taken 24 hours a day or e-mail us at rmalloy@gadllp.co.uk

MIB Refund – Good News

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

If you were involved in a road traffic accident between 11 June 2007 and 7 November 2008 inclusive, and your claim was dealt with by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) because the motorist at fault was uninsured, you may have had your damages reduced by £300.00 by the MIB to account for a “property damage excess”.

The MIB have now agreed with the Secretary of State to refund the £300.00 deduction by the MIB to applicants, where applicable.

If you have been affected you can contact the MIB and claim your refund.

The MIB can be contacted on 01908 830001 or by email: enquiries@mib.org.uk.

If you have been injured in a road traffic accident in the last 3 years and another motorist was at fault, even if that motorist could not be found, or was not insured, you could make a claim for compensation.

Contact Gregory Abrams Davidson LLP now for advice on 0151 236 5000.

FAILURE TO DETECT DVT NEGLIGENT

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

A patient had to be admitted to Intensive Care after a GP failed to spot that she had deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

 

She had visited her GP complaining of leg pains and mentioned the possibility of DVT but was simply sent home with a bandage and painkillers.

 

Deep vein thrombosis or DVT is a condition in which a blood clot forms in one of your deep veins, usually your leg. 

 

Many blood clots that cause DVT are small and don’t produce any symptoms. Your body will usually be able to gradually break them down with no long term affects.

 

Larger clots can partly or completely block the blood flow in your vein and cause symptoms such as swelling of the affected leg, pain and tenderness in the affected leg, a change in the colour of your skin or your skin feels warm to the touch.

 

If the DVT goes undiagnosed the most serious complication could be a pulmonary embolism which happens when a piece of the blood clot from the DVT breaks off and travels through your bloodstream to yours lungs, where it blocks one of the blood vessels in your lungs.  This is serious and in severe cases, can be fatal.

 

If detected, there are many forms of treatment for DVT including blood thinning medicines which stop clots from forming so easily. 

 

In the reported case, the GP admitted liability for the accident and paid an undisclosed five figure sum in compensation.  Walsall NHS Trust has since said that it has reviewed its procedures and the GP “has also undertaken personal study into the diagnosis of DVT in order to prevent such an incident happening again”.

 

Gregory Abrams Davidson LLP specialise in obtaining compensation for client’s who have sustained injury as a result of Clinical Negligence. We have many years of experience dealing with claims against hospitals (both NHS and Private), dentists and general practitioners. Examples include claims arising as a result of negligently performed operations, misdiagnosis of cancer, injuries arising as a result of negligently performed cosmetic surgery and injuries sustained at birth.

 

We have offices in Liverpool City Centre, Garston Village and Allerton.  If you would like to enquire about a potential Clinical Negligence claim, contact a member of our Team on 0151 733 3353. Calls can be taken 24 hours a day or e-mail us at rmalloy@gadllp.co.uk