Matching Children For Adoption

'Adopter-led matching' they call it and it involves would be adopters themselves identifying children who they might like to adopt. And it's coming in next week on 2 November 2017.

Successfully matching children up for adoption with prospective adopters and doing so more speedily should result from the new Adoption and Children Act Register (Search and Inspection) Regulations 2017 SI 2017/97. The database of  children up for adoption and prospective adopters who have been approved  will be accessible to those prospective adopters as to certain prescribed information – nothing sufficient to identify -  for ‘adopter-led matching’ which will often lead to consideration of children who would not have been reckoned through traditional matching techniques.  It will not be open to the prospective adopters to approach any child or their birth family and they will continue to need to work closely with the staff who run the database , their own social worker and subsequently the child' social worker, to follow up any links generated by their database search.

MasterCard Claim Update

For the story so far, see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/MasterCard%20claim

Lawyers for Walter Merricks have taken two steps to challenge the decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. They have sought permission from the Court of Appeal to make the challenge to it and also sought permission from the Administrative Court of the High Court to apply for judicial review. The second step has been taken as a precautionary measure, lest it transpires that the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to accept the challenge as there is some legal doubt about this. 

Mr Merricks remains bullish about his prospects of success. To address the Tribunal's reasons for throwing out the claim, a detailed supplemental report has been prepared by leading economists and forensic accountants. It is claimed to conclusively address how much of MasterCard's illegal card fees were passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and demonstrate that Mr Merrick's proposal for distribution of the damages sought from MasterCard would result in a payment which would broadly reflect the actual loss suffered by each individual consumer on who behalf he is claiming - which could be you or me?!

Service Charge Victory: Insurance Premiums Slashed

How we love service charges in residential leases: almost as much as poisoned tea and six strokes of the cane at school for doing nothing wrong. It's because of this love that I have visited the topic before - see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/service%20charges - with news of successful court and tribunal challenges by tenants. Here's another one, just like the other ones.

In Cos Services Ltd v Nicholson and Willans [2017] UKUT 382 (LC) before the upper tribunal of the lands chamber, the service charge in issue took the form of buildings insurance premiums for three years in respect of Chiltern Court in Harpenden which is a purpose-built block of 16 flats with separate garages. The tribunal upheld the decision of a first-tier tribunal that the premiums sought (which had to be shared between each flat) for each year in question should be reduced respectively, ignoring the pence, from £12,598 to £2,803, from £12,670 to £2,819 and from £11,150 to £3.017. Wow!

The crucial point to be decided was whether the premiums asked for had been reasonably incurred. That meant, said the judge, that consideration had to be given to both the rationality of the landlord's decision making and the reasonableness of the charge. It was not necessary for the landlord to show that the premium charged was the lowest that could be obtained in the market but it still had to be reasonable. A landlord would be required to explain the process by which the policy and premium had been selected, with reference to the steps taken to assess the current market. Tenants might, as happened in this case, place before the tribunal the quotations that they have been able to obtain from elsewhere  although they would have to ensure that the policies were comparable. 

As also happened in this case, it was open to a landlord with a number or properties to negotiate a block policy covering the entirety. However, the landlord would then need to prove that the block policy had not resulted in a substantially higher premium which had been passed on to tenants of  a particular building without any significant compensating advantages to them.

Taxpayers Win On Penalties

Two more taxpayers have defeated HM Revenue & Customers over penalties imposed for late tax returns having persuaded the tax tribunal in each case that they had a reasonable excuse. See http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/tax%20penalties for what is required to prove you had a reasonable excuse and for previous cases on the topic.

In Robert Morris v Commissioners for HMR&C [2017] UKFTT 0749 (TC)  Mr Morris who had been caned for penalties totalling £2,900 in respect of two separate tax years, had completed those returns for each year and before the deadline. When he had done the same in a previous year, the website had generated a receipt and a long reference number. But for these two later years, no receipt and no reference number appeared. Instead, said Mr Morris, he had each time received an on screen message on a very basic web page saying either "Thank you for your submission" or 'Submission complete'" He treated that as good enough and thought he had done all that was required of him. 

The Revenue's representative at the tribunal could not say that what Mr Morris had claimed was incapable of happening and it put forward no evidence that it was technically impossible or something that was unlikely. The tribunal accepted that Mr Morris was telling the truth and so decided that he had  are reasonable excuse for no returns for those years having apparently been received by the Revenue when he said he had sent them.

And in Roderick Northam v Commissioners for HMR&C [2017] UKFTT 706 (TC) Mr Northam had not been informed by his accountants that, although he had signed his return before the deadline, they were not proposing to submit it in time because they required further information. He had taken reasonable care to ensure that his return was in on time.  

Fiddled By A Black Cab Driver

You fool, Gold. I didn't look at the meter properly before getting out of the taxi. My excuse is that I was in a hurry and also busy helping to usher out two other passengers from the back of the taxi including a four year old child. But that's no excuse, Gold and there will be serious trouble if this happens again.

So thinking that the meter indicated something less than £8 - the return journey was £5.50 but faster - I stupidly said to the driver 'How much?' '£10,' he replied but there was something about that look on his face that made me think he was taking me for a mug. I gave him a £10 note but no tip because I didn't trust him.

The taxi was ordered through the mytaxi app. The fare receipt was emailed to me promptly after the driver had left. It was for £8.

I complained to mytaxi which dealt with the matter promptly and efficiently.

OCT 13, 2017  |  09:33AM UTC  Rene replied: Hi Stephen, Thanks for getting in touch with mytaxi. I am sorry to hear that you have been overcharged. This is not the usual mytaxi standard and the driver in question has been cautioned. I have now processed a refund and the money should be available in your account in the next 5-7 working days depending on your bank. I hope that this bad experience did not put you off using mytaxi. Enjoy the rest of your day, Kind regards,  Rene

In fact, I have been given £5 credit and hope the same guy doesn't turn up next time. Or may be I'll take a bus.

Disappointing.

You can read about how to deal with claims arising out of dodgy taxi routes in my book Breaking Law.

Employment Tribunal Fee Refunds

You'll remember the Supreme Court ruling that the fees taken by employment tribunals for making a claim were unlawful.....won't you?! For a memory nudge, please take a look at and enjoy http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/employment%20law

The government committed to refund the fees wrongly collected. At long last, the Ministry of Justice has announced today its plans for doing just that. The fee plus interest at the rate of 0.5% (don't spend it all at once) will be paid back. Up to around 1,000 people will be contacted individually in the coming four weeks or so and given the chance to complete applications for  a refund. Then the refund procedure will be extended to more and more with further details to follow. Sounds more complicated than my tax return.

M & S Changes English Language

Last Friday I reported on the fruit displays I had seen at Marks & Spencer. Three  items labelled BEST BEFORE 6 OCTOBER 2017 being offered for sale on 6 OCTOBER 2017 (please see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/nonsense). I promised to report back after I had taken this up with M & S. Here is my report!

M & S say that they intend BEST BEFORE 6 OCTOBER to mean that the item is best consumed by the end of 6 OCTOBER so they refute the suggestion that it is still not at its best on that day. 

'But the end of 6 October is not before 6 October''

'Well that's what it means. That's how it's done by us and the industry.'
'Your customers might not buy on 6 October because they think it's too late.'
'We haven't had any complaints before.'
'Might you consider a rewording of the labels?'
'No.'

I just happened to be in the branch in question this afternoon. A fruit product with a best before date of today was on display but it had been discounted! And the staff seemed to be examining the fruit labels with extended eye balls.

Oh and the Waitrose car park clock at Richmond-upon-Thames was still five minutes slow with the exit barrier up which most customers were discovering having paid any charge.