The Government wants to put an end to such thinking. It has just published its ‘Response to the Family Justice Review’. It is determined to make clear that there will be a legal right for the children to have a relationship with both parents after divorce or separation and ensure that more children from separated families enjoy close relationships with both their parents.

In respect of shared parenting the government considers there is a need to clarify and restore public confidence that the courts recognise the joint nature of parenting. It will therefore legislate to emphasise the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents after family separation, where that is safe, and in the child’s best interests.

Meena Kumari Head of Family Law at Ridley and Hall Solicitors commented:

“Parental separation leads to thousands of children losing meaningful contact with a non resident parent who once was an integral part of the family unit involved in all aspects of the child’s welfare and development.

“The rules will make it much clearer that it is vital for children to have ongoing relationships with both parents unless there are concerns about the parent’s behaviour affecting the child’s welfare.

The changes are part of an overhaul of family law where a presumption of shared parenting will give stronger rights for parents to see their children and provide recognition of equal parenting which is currently absent in the law.

The Government intends that this change will provide loving absent parents with a greater and stronger position of contact with their children after separation rather than relying on Court or the other parent to determine their contact and access. Some commentators are concerned that similar legislation introduced in Australia in 2006 had a negative effect in encouraging more litigation between parents”.

The change in law however will not guarantee equal access as sought by many family rights campaigners.

Can legislation solve the often bitter disputes over residence and contact? Only time will tell.”

For further information and advice about family law issues, please contact Meena Kumari at Ridley & Hall Solicitors, Queens House, 35 Market Street, Huddersfield, HD1 2HL, Tel: 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

 Inheriting from parents can be an issue that is tied up with our sense of how much we were loved and valued.  It is especially hard for adult children if they feel that their parent’s death has caused a situation that their parent did not actually foresee – or would not have wanted to happen.

Often disputes arise because a parent has failed to make a Will (this is called intestacy). Sometimes a Will has been made, but perhaps a long time ago, or at a time when the deceased felt under pressure or was unwell.

Generally speaking inheritance disputes involving adult children follow one or more of three possible legal routes:- 

1. Inheritance Act 1975.
2. Contentious probate.
3. Proprietary estoppel.

 The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

The Inheritance Act provides that adult children (as well as other close relatives) can apply for provision from the estate of a parent whether a Will has been made or not. The Court must have regard to what are called the section 3 factors: - 

1. The financial resources and needs of the applicant.
2. The financial resources and needs of any other applicant.
3. The financial resources and needs of the beneficiaries.
4. Any obligations and responsibilities of the deceased towards any applicant and any beneficiary.
5. The size and nature of the estate of the deceased.
6. Any physical or mental disability of any applicant or beneficiary.
7. Any other matter, including conduct, which the court may consider relevant. 

It is not always easy to predict whether a claim will be successful or not as every case depends on the facts of the case.   Cases decided by judges over the years give solicitors an indication of what factors influence them in reaching their decisions. Judges are likely to find in favour of adult children in Inheritance Act cases where: 

• the estate is reasonably large,
• there is no other applicant who has any particular financial needs and
• the applicant is in low paid employment and will have financial needs in the future.   

Applicants may still gain the Court’s sympathy even where there has been an estrangement with the deceased parent and/or when their lifestyle choices have put them in a position of financial need. The case of Ilott v Mitson is a recent striking example.  In this case Heather Ilot, who had 5 children and was living on benefits, successfully challenged her late mother’s Will and was awarded £50,000 (which represented 10% of the value of the estate).  Heather’s mother Melita Jackson made a Will leaving nearly all her estate to a group of charities.  She left a Letter of Wishes with her Will to her executors foreseeing the possibility that it might be challenged by Heather.  In the letter she said “My daughter left me on Sunday 19^th February 1978 when she was only 17 years of age … I have only seen my daughter twice since she left home … because my daughter left me without any explanation and has made no effort to reconcile with me I feel as though I have no moral or financial obligation to provide for her.” 

The deceased’s wishes were therefore extremely clear.   Some commentators vehemently disagree with this judgment and are concerned that the principle that you can leave your estate to whomever you like has been severely undermined by the decision. Others take the view that the law simply provides a mechanism to balance an applicant’s needs against those of any other beneficiaries, and that it is not for the Court to make moral judgments. 

That said, if the applicant has failed to make any effort to achieve reconciliation, this is certainly a factor that the court can take into account and indeed this was a decisive factor in the case of Garland v Morris in 2007 where there was a complete estrangement for the last 15 years of the life of the deceased; the adult daughter failed in her claim under the Act. 

Contentious Probate 

A Will can be challenged if it can be proved that the Will is not valid. Often this situation arises when the person who made the Will (the testator) did not actually know what they were doing i.e. they lacked mental capacity. Another argument is that the testator was forced to make their Will (undue influence).  Very rarely it may be argued that a Will is in fact a forgery.  

Contentious probate cases are relatively unusual because the legal costs involved in pursuing them can be very high, usually in excess of £20,000.00 per party. Also they can be very difficult cases to argue because the court requires, understandably, very strong evidence before overturning a Will because it is the last known expression of the deceased’s wishes. 

The court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (ie more than 50%) that the Will was not valid. It can be very difficult to obtain evidence as often the testator was elderly or isolated. 

Proprietary Estoppel 

This is a legal principle that, in essence, if someone makes a promise to you and you rely on that promise to your detriment, then if the person making the promise does not keep their side of the bargain you may be able to bring a claim against them (or their estate if they have died). 

An interesting case which combined all three of the arguments above is that of Gill v RSPCA. Dr Gill was the only child of the family and had expected to inherit her parents’ combined estates valued at more than £2 million and consisting mainly of 287 acre farm near Northallerton, North Yorkshire. Dr Gill’s father died and then subsequently her mother.  She discovered that her parents’ Wills each contained a clause declaring that no provision had been made for her because she had been “well provided for … over a long period of time”.  

Dr Gill initially brought a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 but by the time the claim came to trial she claimed that her mother’s Will should be set aside either because she did not know or approve of its contents (which left everything to charity) and/or in executing the Will her mother had been the victim of her husband’s undue influence.  Dr Gill also claimed that she should inherit because of proprietary estoppel. At trial the Judge accepted that Mrs Gill was coerced into executing a Will by her husband and as a result of that finding, the Will was set aside which left the whole estate to Dr Gill under the rules of intestacy.  The Judge went on to say that even if he had not found in favour of Dr Gill on that ground she would have been entitled to receive the farm on the basis of her proprietary estoppel claim.  She had argued that she had been led to believe by both her parents that she would inherit the farm on their death. She and her husband had worked unpaid on the farm over many years and she did not pursue promotion in her work as a university lecturer on the basis of that promise.

Summary

 Adult children who are involved in inheritance disputes have a number of options which need to be carefully explored at the outset.  The cases that come to court are a reminder that anyone making a Will needs to get good legal advice if they want to prevent disputes post death.  Jill Waddington and Sue Cash at Ridley & Hall are members of Solicitors for the Elderly and their expertise means that they can give advice that can help to avoid post death disputes.  

If, as an adult child you are seeking to bring or defend an inheritance dispute  Ridley & Hall can offer sensitive, practical advice on the often complex issues that can arise.

In recent years the vital role that grandparents play in families has been recognised and a number of support organisations have been established such as the Grandparents’ Association and Grandparents Plus,  who have been campaigning for increased rights for grandparents.

Unfortunately, hopes have been dashed by a recent report. The Family Justice Review panel was appointed to review the whole of the family justice system in England and Wales, looking at all aspects of the system from court decisions on taking children into care, to disputes over contact with children when parents divorce. It was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education, and the Welsh Government. It published its final report in November 2011, and confirmed that there are no plans to change the current legal position of grandparents.

At the moment absent parents can make an application to court for contact with children  - but grandparents must get the Court’s permission (called ‘leave’) before they can then make an application for contact.  The requirement “prevents hopeless or vexatious applications that are not in the interests of the child”.  The parents of the child are able to oppose even the grandparents’ application for leave, as well as any subsequent application for contact.

So how can grandparents pursue contact with their grandchildren when it is being refused by parents?

The law does recognise the important role that the grandparents play in the child’s life even after parents separate.  If a grandparent can demonstrate that they did have regular contact with the child then their application for leave should not be refused by the Court.  Once a grandparent has been granted permission by the Court to apply for contact then the child’s welfare is the Court’s prime concern – it must be in the child’s best interest to exercise contact with a grandparent.  One vital consideration is whether or not grandparents have unnecessarily taken sides in the separation.  Grandparents must stay neutral in the separation and ensure that their grandchildren are not exposed to inappropriate comments about their parents.

Ridley & Hall’s award winning family law team understands the often heartbreaking situations that grandparents can find themselves in.  We have strong links with support groups including the Grandparents’ Association, Family Rights Group, Grandparents Plus, Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Network and Bridges and we are frequently involved in national groundbreaking cases.

For further advice about grandparents’ rights please contact Meena Kumari, Johanna Allen or Helen Dandridge on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

So called ‘toy boy’,  retired architect Leonard Taylor, 72, lived with Doris Luker, who was 22 years his senior.  A week before she died she gave him a cheque for £61,000.00. Then, in her Will, she also left him the house they shared, her car and £28,000.00 in cash.  The rest of her estate was to be divided between two charities, the British Heart Foundation and the Cancer Research Campaign.  However after Mr Taylor had taken his share there was nothing left for them.  The charities (backed by the Will’s executors) took the case to Court to argue that the £61,000.00 cheque must be presumed to be a loan and repaid to the estate  - unless it could be proved to be an outright gift.

On 4^th November Mr Taylor lost his attempt to overturn a decision that he must repay the money, at the Court of Appeal.  Lord Justice Etherton said “The law presumes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the payment of money implies an obligation to repay it”.  The wheelchair bound pensioner must return the money as well as facing legal costs of up £100,000.00 which means, according to his barrister, that he will lose his home.

The couple had begun their relationship in 1985 when he was 46 and she was 68.  They later lived together for 15 years at her home in Hall Green, Birmingham. Mr Taylor was his partner’s sole carer for 3 years until she died in October 2003.  By all accounts they enjoyed a “long term, loving, supporting relationship”. Had the couple been married, a “presumption of advancement” would have applied – which assumes that cash and property transfers between close family members are outright gifts.  However because they were not married the opposite presumption (that it was a repayable loan) persuaded the judges.  Mr Taylor’s barrister sought to argue that the presumption of advancement argument should not apply in a domestic context involving cohabitees but the Court of Appeal was not prepared to overturn an earlier Court’s finding that there was not enough evidence to explain the transaction away as a gift.

Although the circumstances of this case are unusual, and are unlikely to crop up on a day to day basis, it is a stark warning to cohabitees that the legal system in England and Wales does not recognise cohabitees as having the full range of rights that are enjoyed by married couples.

The myth of the common law spouse continues to cause  huge legal bills, as well as uncertainty, stress and anxiety  – and as this case shows it is by no means just younger people that are affected.

Ridley and Hall partner Sarah Young is an expert in contentious probate and Inheritance Act claims.  She has experience of claims involving older clients and warns that couples need to think about their legal rights carefully; “in a recent case, a very elderly, infirm lady who had been living with her partner for nearly half a century was almost evicted from the home that she had shared with him (but was in his name).  Her late partner’s family served her with possession proceedings immediately after his funeral.  It shows how high emotions can run when someone dies. Families should never assume that their loved ones will be  treated as they would like by their family after death.”
Sarah has a sensitive, practical approach to cases and as a member of Solicitors for the Elderly and the Association of Contentious Trusts and Probate Specialists, has experience in helping bereaved cohabitees and others in disputes following the death of a loved one.

For further information please contact Sarah Young at Ridley & Hall Solicitors on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Kent County Council has convincingly lost a challenge in the Court of Appeal. In a judgement handed down on 10^th November 2011,   the three Appeal Court judges unanimously threw out a challenge by Kent against a decision made in 2010 in the High Court. The decision was that Kent had a duty to support a Grandparent caring for her granddaughter.

FACTS

The grandmother who cannot be named for legal reasons, fought for the right to be paid fairly for looking after the 16 year-old girl since she took over her care at the eleventh hour in 2005 at the request of Kent social services.

The grandmother who has now retired to look after the child was receiving just £63.56 a week for her care – over £80 per week short of the average foster parent who at the time were getting around £146.23 weekly. She is now 65 years of age.

The child in question had been looked after her mother, but social services had contacted her grandmother just before Christmas in 2004. She was faced with the stark choice – “Care for the child or she goes into care”.

The council then took the “very unusual” standpoint that the grandmother’s care of the child was a private arrangement between the mother and grandfather.

Nigel Priestley, of Huddersfield law firm Ridley & Hall, who represented the grandmother,  launched a judicial review to challenge the decision of the authority.

Her case was heard before the High Court in London in May last year. Kent County Council fought the case all the way. The judge confirmed that this was the only action she could have taken to make Kent change its mind

In the original landmark decision, Mrs Justice Black gave judgement  against the County Council. The decision meant that the grandmother would receive the same support as a foster carer. She would also get back payments from the council for their failure to pay the right allowance.

Kent County Council were determined to fight this decision all the way. They indicated their wish to challenge the judge’s reasons – she gave leave to the County Council to appeal her decision. The Appeal was heard in May but the decision of the Court of Appeal was released on 10^th November.

Commenting on the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr Priestley said:

“Local Authorities across the country have been waiting for this decision. They were roaring Kent on from the terraces. It will be a major blow to them that Kent lost 3:0!

“We’re delighted with the outcome. The County Council argued that they had no duty to the child even though their fingerprints were all over the case. Kent holds itself out as a model authority but it has been left with egg on its face. It put forward the radical suggestion that it had no significant financial duty to a child they had placed with a relative. They denied that she should be treated as a “looked after” child. The Judge rejected this argument. The Court of Appeal agreed with her.

“This appeal should not have been necessary. It was a waste of Council Tax payers’ money at a time when services are being cut. Mrs Justice Black is highly respected. She has since been appointed to serve as a judge in the Court of Appeal.

This is a landmark case for Kent. It has implications for many children Kent has placed with relatives. Many carers will be losing out. That’s why Kent wanted to appeal the decision.

Sadly it shows just how little they value the relatives who are making enormous sacrifices for their grandchildren”

Mr Priestley added that his client is doing a fantastic job looking after her granddaughter, but she should not have had to seek sue Kent. He said:

“She needed support from the local authority, but she found it lacking.”

“It is now going to cost Kent a five-figure sum in legal costs and back payments.  This court case will remind local authorities across England and Wales what they should and should not be doing.’’

THE GRANDMOTHER’S COMMENTS

The grandmother said: “I am no different from the thousands of Grandparents and other relatives stepping in to care for children because there is a shortage of foster parents and carers.

“We shouldn’t have to find ourselves battling with the local authority for support. “I was asked by the local authority to step into the breach. I have given up a great deal to care for my grand daughter.

I accept when people say that blood is thicker than water, but the fact is that when you are 58 years old you are not planning to look after a 10 year old child.”

“I put myself out and expected the local authority to do the same but they did not. When I heard that I had won in the High Court, I burst into tears. It meant so much both to me and my grand daughter. Teenagers are very expensive to bring up – every parent knows that.

I’m a pensioner. Kent were paying the same money as  when she first came to live with me. Prices have not stood still in the last 6 years but Kent’s payments did.

I was very sad that when I heard Kent wanted to challenge this decision – it showed they have no understanding of the financial impact of caring for a challenging teenager has on a pensioner like me.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is wonderful news.”

BACKGROUND

The Court of Appeal recognised that “the issue at the heart of the appeal was money”.

According to statistics produced by the Department of Education, in March 2010, 64,400 children were being looked after by Local Authorities in England.  38,200 were subject to interim or full care orders and 21,200 were in voluntary placements under Section 20 of the Children Act. These are the unsung heroes, the Family and Friends carers who have stepped in to care.

The decision of the Court of Appeal offers hope to the many Kinship Carers who, at the present time, are not being properly supported by Local Authorities that have placed the children with them.

Mr Priestley, who specialises in fighting cases for foster carers who look after relatives, said that

“Unfortunately the grandmother’s situation is not unusual in England and Wales.  Because of a shortage of foster carers, “kinship” carers are increasingly being used. However, local authorities are not supporting them appropriately.

“ The Grandparents Association has welcomed the judgement.  Lynn Chesterman, the Chief Executive of the Association, said:

“Too often, as in this case, grandparents are struggling to cope financially – living on a pension and bringing up children. They simply do not have enough money to live on. I hope that Kent has learnt its lesson – and that other Councils start taking their responsibilities seriously.

For further information, please contact Nigel Priestley at Ridley & Hall Solicitors Tel: 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

The Legal 500, published for over twenty years provides the most comprehensive worldwide coverage currently available on legal services providers, in over 100 countries.

It’s used as a yardstick to measure firms by commercial and private clients as well as professional advisers. The Legal 500 is widely regarded as offering the definitive judgement of law firm capabilities. The publication is updated every year and relies on reports not just from solicitors firms themselves but also interviews with clients.

Ridley and Hall has been particularly recommended for it’s expertise in family law and trusts and probate. The family team headed up by partner Meena Kumari deals with divorce and financial issues as well as domestic violence and parents seeking contact with children. The firm also has a specialist child care team which includes award winning partners Nigel Priestley and Michael George.

Susan Cash who heads up the wills, trusts and probate team said “We’ve recently launched a service for those nearing or at retirement age called ‘elderflower’ (www.elderfloweradvice.co.uk) because we feel strongly that older clients need specialist advice.  Membership of the Legal 500 provides further assurance of our expertise to offer this service.”

Business Development Partner Adam Fletcher commented “ I’d like to thank our clients who were willing to recommend us; it’s their recognition that really means a lot. For a small firm in West Yorkshire this is quite an achievement!”

For more information about the services offered by Ridley & Hall Solicitors please visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk or call 01484 538421. For details of the recently launched ‘elderflower’ service for people approaching or at retirement age please visit www.elderfloweradvice.co.uk

Commenting, Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner of Ridley & Hall, Solicitors, Huddersfield who specialises in supporting kinship carers said:-

“What happened was disgraceful.  Camden had been involved in the child’s family for many years.  Social Workers found the child in a terrible situation in her mother’s care.  She had witnessed repeated domestic violence and needed to be cared for in a safe place.  But the Aunt needed financial support. She wasn’t expecting to have to suddenly care for a 6-year old child – she didn’t have the money to do so”.

He went on: “Camden brought the child – and then just walked away.  The Council had a legal responsibility to treat her and pay her as a foster carer.  Instead, Camden tried to pass the buck to Kent County Council”.

The Aunt, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said: “For over two years, Kent and Camden played pass the parcel as to which Local Authority should be supporting my niece and me.  I love my niece but I simply couldn’t get the support I needed.  Kent said Camden should pay.  Camden knew I was in financial difficulties but did nothing.  They said it was some sort of “private arrangement”.  I was saving Camden thousands of pounds – and it was never a private arrangement.  They contacted me.

It was only after fighting for two years and getting nowhere that I heard of Nigel Priestley and the team at Ridley & Hall”.

Mr Priestley explained “Camden were threatened that if they did not accept their financial responsibility to the child, they would be taken to court.  Faced with that threat, they backed down”.

The aunt concluded “I’m delighted to be paid as a foster carer and to get over £10,000 back pay.  I feel like my prayers have been answered. My niece had a very difficult start in life.  It’s not easy suddenly to take responsibility for a child whose behaviour can sometimes be quite challenging. It has been a life changing experience and we still have to take one day at a time. But It would have been increasingly difficult without financial support.

I don’t know what would have happened if I hadn’t had the support of Mr Priestley.  In the end, it has taken almost three years to sort out. I now get paid £180 per week – but for two years, Camden expected my niece and me to live on fresh air”.

Ridley & Hall are one of Yorkshire’s leading firms of disability and community care lawyers.  The firm has Franchises in Community Care, Welfare Benefits and Debt Advice.  They have commenced a number of Judicial Reviews involving local Councils across the country and are at the forefront of the battle to ensure that friend and relatives are paid the sums that are due to them.

For further information, please contact Ridley & Hall Solicitors on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

The popularity of “staycations” – staying in the UK rather than travelling overseas for a holiday – has seen more second homes being used by “staycationers.”

Statistics from the English Housing Survey: Household Report 2009-10 shows that there are 279,000 second homes in England, but Ridley & Hall which holds the Law Society’s excellence in home buying accolade – the Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS), is warning that owners are not always aware of the potential problems of owning a second home.

Alison Mason Head of Residential Property at Ridley & Hall says: “Second homes are often unoccupied for long periods of time. However, they could become targets for squatters, or there could be legal considerations to take into account when renting them out for short periods to holiday makers, and there are often insurance issues to take into account, not to mention the types of issues that come with buying any home, such as any legal anomalies or liabilities attached to the property.

“There are also tax implications for second home owners that need to be considered.”

“It is essential that anyone buying a second home contacts a CQS accredited solicitor such as Ridley & Hall to look at the potential risks and benefits of buying.”

“Equally, anyone who already owns a second home for their own holiday purposes, but plans to let it be used by family members or others for extended periods could be changing its status as a holiday home without realising.”

“During off seasons second home owners might look to rent out the property for long periods of time and suddenly you have a landlord and tenant relationship which carries with it a host of additional obligations and liabilities.”

Ridley & Hall underwent a rigorous application and assessment by the national Law Society to become part of CQS initiative, which recognises high quality in residential conveyancing. CQS has the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, Legal Ombudsman and the Association of British Insurers.

For further information please call Ridley & Hall Solicitors on 01484 538421 or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Last month the UK’s Legal Ombudsman highlighted dangers of using Will writing companies to make Wills. This week The One Show also called for Will writing to be regulated to protect the public. A recent survey showed that 67% of consumers wrongly believe that all Will writers are solicitors and 82% of the 1,000 people polled thoughts that training and qualifications are required before someone can become a Will writer. In fact anyone can write a Will for payment.

David Sinclair, a Director of Solicitors for the Elderly said, “Will writers need no training and they aren’t regulated so if you choose a Will writing company to do your Will you are taking a huge risk. I have heard horror stories of clients who have used Will writers and then paid the price.” “It can be very costly to sort out after you have gone, leaving your family to pick up the pieces as problems generally only come to light when you have died.

Many people make Wills when they enter their senior years and are targeted by Will-writing companies who often apply high-pressure selling techniques, offering wills for a low or discounted fee, then recommend themselves to be appointed as executors, selling other services without full advice, such as transferring the home into a trust in an attempt to avoid care fees. Terms and conditions can be poorly worded and difficult to understand.

Will writers often claim they are significantly cheaper than solicitors but recent research carried out by Which? Magazine found on average the price of a Will from a Solicitor is £130 and from a Will writer is £107. Professionals, such as solicitors and legal executives are regulated, have relevant qualifications, undergo continual training, must be insured and provide redress if things were to go wrong. Given the protection you get by making a Will with a regulated professional the small difference in price is well worth it.

David went on to say, “We need new regulations to help protect the consumer, particularly older and vulnerable people. I recommend using a local member of Solicitors for the Elderly.

Ridley & Hall Solicitors are members of Solicitors for the Elderly. Sue Cash, head of the private client team at leading local law firm Ridley & Hall, commented: “At Ridley & Hall, we have two solicitors who are full members of Solicitors for the Elderly. We offer home visits for elderly clients and fixed prices agreed with you in advance, so you can be sure of peace of mind.”

For more information contact Sue Cash on: 01484 538421or visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Senior partner, Nigel Priestley said, “I am delighted to welcome Adam on board.  He will be heading up our Business Development activities, following his successful project management of our new venture, elderflower. This brings together a network of legal and financial specialists to advise older clients on issues that affect them”.

Mr Priestley continued, “At Ridley and Hall we’ve recently acquired 3 new partners; Michael George, Kevin Ludgate and Adam Fletcher. I’m confident that by growing, we are in a stronger position to meet the changing needs of our clients both regionally and nationally.”

With over 10 years’ experience in residential property,  in addition to his business development role, Adam will continue to undertake property work for his large client following, who appreciate his proactive approach and excellent client service. He has been instrumental in gaining the firm the newly launched Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme, which is a mark of excellence in the home buying process.

Adam commented,  “ I’ve joined at an exciting time for the firm, with the launch of elderflower which I think meets a real need for those approaching retirement especially.  There are difficult times ahead for high street law firms, with huge legal aid cutbacks and the introduction of ‘Tesco Law’ – but I’m looking forward to the challenge and I think that Huddersfield has a vibrant business environment.”

For further information please call Ridley and Hall on 01484 538421 or visit the Ridley and Hall solicitors website or the Elderflower website