Posts Tagged ‘Ridley and Hall Solicitors’

Adult children and inheritance disputes

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

When a parent dies it can be a devastating experience for an adult child.  If they then find themselves disinherited or having to deal with a claim being brought against the estate by another family member, feelings of loss can be compounded by anger, confusion and distress.

 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 19th 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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Huddersfield Solicitor wins Court of Appeal decision for Kent Grandmother

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield A Grandmother who has battled for 6 years with Kent County Council to be paid the same rate as a foster carer for looking after her granddaughter, has won her case in the Court of Appeal in London.

Kent County Council has convincingly lost a challenge in the Court of Appeal. In a judgement handed down on 10th 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 10th 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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

“Staycation” second homes can be legal minefields, warns Ridley and Hall Solicitors

Monday, August 8th, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldRidley and Hall in Huddersfield says the popularity of second homes in the UK, which are often used as holiday homes, could expose owners to a “minefield” of risks.

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Solicitors for the Elderly Call For Urgent Regulation of Will Writing

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldSolicitors for the Elderly fears thousands of people are putting themselves at risk of being cheated by unscrupulous salesmen who offer to write their wills but who are not adequately qualified, trained or insured.

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.

USe Cash Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Huddersfield solicitor wins landmark ruling for Children’s Guardians

Monday, July 4th, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldLandmark judgement re-asserts the independence of Children’s Guardians as a vital element in protecting children.

In a landmark judgment today in the High Court Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division, today emphatically underlined the independent status of the Children’s Guardian.

In ringing and powerful words Sir Nicholas stated:  “I yield to no-one in my view that the guardian’s independence needs to be cherished.”

In a ruling that supported the arguments put forward by Nagalro, the professional association for children’s guardians, he told Cafcass that it cannot remove Guardians from cases before the court.   Neither must it substitute its own organisational view for the court-appointed guardian’s view of what will be in the best interest of the child.

The  Background

Nigel Priestley Senior Partner at Ridley and Hall Solicitors Huddersfield who represented Nagalro explained the background.

“A Children’s Guardian had successfully opposed the local authority plan in court for an 18 month old child.

She had supported the placement of a child back with his parents whilst their capacity to care for him was assessed. The Local Authority had wanted the child separated from his parents and put in foster care.

The court acted on the recommendation of the Children’s Guardian.  In a bizarre turn of events a Senior CAFCASS manager received an anonymous email calling on him to look into the guardian’s recommendation.

The issue that arose in the case was the fact that the local authority and Cafcass managers communicated between themselves to covertly engineer the removal of the Children’s Guardian”

He went on: “Nagalro successfully applied to intervene in the case. It argued that Cafcass guidance to its staff was unlawful as it allowed managers to change a guardian’s recommendations where there was disagreement between them.

Children’s Guardians, many of whom are Nagalro members have been put in positions of professional conflict. They risk being in breach of either their organisational duty to Cafcass as their employer or their statutory duty to the court as set out in s41 Children Act 1989.

Sir Nicholas set out what would happen in the event of a disagreement between the manager and the guardian. The President did not support Cafcass’s assertion that the managers view would prevail. The proper and transparent course is for the Cafcass manager to go to court and explain why they have taken a contrary view. It will then be for the court to decide on the basis of all the evidence before it.

He re-iterated how important it is for children that guardians can exercise independent judgment when working with solicitors in the ‘tandem model’ and that this “remains the child’s best protection against poor social work practice”.

Comments on the decision

Commenting on the President’s decision Nigel Priestley said:

“After Baby P there are still large numbers of Care Proceedings being started. Some say there should be even more. It is vital that a Guardian can stand back and question the Local Authority’s plans. There is nothing worse for parents to feel that the Local Authority and the Guardian are hand in glove. This is a landmark decision.

Children’s Guardians should be able to make a tough decision without having to look over their shoulders to see what management might think of their decision. Guardians are under enormous pressure at present. This is decision means that there is one less pressure on them now.

Sir Nicholas called it “shocking” that the parents were kept in ignorance of the discussions. He was particularly critical of the lack of transparency and fairness in the case. He was right to be so critical. Too often parents feel that the case is cut and dried and that they are powerless. This is a clear reminder that there must be openness in all dealings between social services and both the Guardian and Cafcass.”

Mr Priestley paid tribute to counsel, Martha Cover and Deirdre Fottrell who at very short notice assembled the powerful arguments that were so influential in the case.

Ann Haigh, Chair of Nagalro, said today:

“We welcome this judgment and its clear statement of the boundaries between organisational and professional accountability. It is much needed and we are delighted that it fully supports our view that personal responsibility and the professional judgment of skilled and independent practitioners offers the best protection for children.”

“We expect Cafcass to review its organisational policies to take account of this judgement and to ensure that all managers and practitioners fully understand the importance of the professional independence of the Children’s Guardian role and their proper relationship with the court.”

Sir Nicholas’s judgment makes it clear that although Cafcass as an organisation has a role in quality assuring the work that guardians undertake, this must be balanced against the guardian’s independence.

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

Notes:

  1. NAGALRO is the Professional Association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent social work practitioners.  The association aims to promote and enhance the quality of practice of those concerned with the independent representation of children’s interests before the courts, throughout England and Wales.
  2. Children’s guardians are appointed in public law proceedings in the family courts i.e. where Local Authority Children’s Services take court action to protect children whom they believe are suffering significant harm within their families, – physical, sexual or emotional abuse. The role developed to give children a voice after the tragedy of Maria Colwell, a seven year old girl whose voice was not heard when the court returned her to mother and step father who murdered her. They are also appointed in adoption proceedings, emergency protection order, and secure accommodation applications.  Family Court Advisers also act in private law cases, reporting to the court on children’s welfare in relation to contact and residence issues. A Guardian can also be appointed for a child in private law proceedings under Rule 9.5 where their welfare requires independent representation.
  3. The NAGALRO website can be found at: www.nagalro.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So what’s wrong with Yorkshire culture?

Monday, July 4th, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldA Kirklees Aunt has won a 9 month battle to have her niece and nephew placed with her.  In August 2010, Hampshire Social Services decided not to place the children with her.  The reason given was that the Social Worker didn’t think they could cope with “a different culture”. Where was this different culture?  Yorkshire!

The relative, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was stunned when told the reason that her nephew and niece could not come and live with her.

She commented:- “The children had been in foster care for several months.  Their parents were fighting for their return.  They needed to be with their family at such a difficult time for them.

I put myself forward as a carer.  I work.  I have a loving family close by.  I thought that, together, we could show them what real family life was like.  They had had a tough time at home.

The Court ordered an expert Independent Social Worker  to prepare an assessment of my ability to parent the children and she had no hesitation in supporting my application. To add insult to injury Hampshire ignored this assessment even though their own Social Worker decided that I could ‘provide a good level of care’.

Despite this, the Social Worker decided that the children “had grown up within the southern region and couldn’t adapt to the change in area and culture”.  Speaking with a Southern accent would cause “difficulties and isolation””.

Nigel Priestley, Senior Partner with Ridley & Hall , Solicitors in Huddersfield, a firm that specialises in supporting family and friends carers said:-

“Choosing to put children into foster care because of the “Yorkshire culture” is one of the most bizarre Social Services’ decisions I have come across.

This case is an extreme example of the challenges that many kinship carers face.  All sorts of obstacles can be put in their way by Social Services.  Thankfully, my client had a very sensible Judge and the support of an excellent legal team.

The wasted months in foster care, however, made the settling in period much harder”.

He went on “The decision has come at a short term cost. Hampshire has immediately stopped paying the Fostering Allowances for the children before any arrangements have been made with Kirklees to start their payments. This week as agreed at court a payment was due from Hampshire – but the County Council have already wiped the children from their books.”

Commenting the aunt said “I cannot believe their callousness. What do they think I am to live on until new arrangements are made? I was shocked that Hampshire are suggesting that because they have paid the allowance for the children’s holidays they consider I’ve been overpaid. They can think again.”

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Motorcycling lawyer motors into growing firm

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Ridley & Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldLocal Solicitor Kevin Ludgate, a former British motorcycling champion, has joined Ridley & Hall.

Commenting Mr Ludgate said “I have always practiced as a solicitor in Huddersfield, working for other firms before forming Ludgates in 2000. This later became Ludgate Morrell and has been a firm favourite of local residents for their house moves for over a decade.

For more than 20 years I have specialised in providing plain speaking face to face legal advice in conveyancing and wills & probate.

I am delighted to be joining Ridley & Hall as a partner. They have a long established reputation in conveyancing and they really understand the needs of local people. Buying a house is one of the biggest decisions a family can make and I want to make sure that whether the family is buying or selling they are getting the best advice.

I am very pleased that I will continue to be assisted by Liz Wallis, a Licensed Conveyancer.  Together we have acted in an impressive 5,000 plus house moves during the last decade alone.  “

As to his past life in motorcycling, he said “Now that I am married with two children and approaching half a century, my passion for motorcycles is restricted to fair weather days when the temperature is above 20 degrees!”

Solicitor Kevin Ludgate former British Motorcycling Champion joins Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Sarah Young, Managing Partner said “I am delighted to welcome Kevin as a partner.  He has an excellent reputation in Huddersfield, gaining all of his work by recommendation.  I believe that by strengthening our property team we can offer an even better all round service to our clients.  Although we act for clients all around the country our heart will always be in Huddersfield.

We may be the firm in Huddersfield and West Yorkshire for bikers -Kevin is joining another motorcycling solicitor at Ridley & Hall. Michael George, whose firm merged with Ridley & Hall last year, has his own “big bike” and is a real enthusiast!”

At the same time, Ridley and Hall have promoted solicitor Julie Devenport who specialises in commercial property law, to Associate Solicitor in recognition of her experience and ability. She said “It’s been tough for business owners in recent years – I aim to offer practical, personal advice to my clients to help them weather the problems they face.”

Ridley & Hall has become a local firm with a national presence having succeeded in winning a number of ground breaking cases nationally in recent years in community care, judicial review and kinship care law.  The firm has won Yorkshire Lawyer specialist law firm of the year awards in 2006 and 2008 as well as many other awards and commendations.

For further information, please visit www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

It’s official – Huddersfield people are the most generous!

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Sue Cash Ridley and Hall Solicitors HuddersfieldHuddersfield based Ridley and Hall solicitors have been named as Yorkshire’s top performing firm in 2009 by Will Aid – and they achieved this through their own hard work and the generosity of the people of Huddersfield.

Sue Cash, head of Ridley and Hall’s private client team, commented: “This is a remarkable achievement. It was hard work to see so many clients and prepare their Wills, but I’m delighted that we managed to raise so much money for good causes. 

How does Will Aid work? During Will Aid Month, people can have a basic Will professionally drawn up by a solicitor who will not charge their usual fee. Instead the solicitor asks for a donation to Will Aid. Solicitors offer their services for free during Will Aid Month to raise as much money as possible for the Will Aid charities.

Will Aid works hard to raise money for a number of charities, local and national:- ActionAid, British Red Cross, Christian Aid, Help the Aged, NSPCC, Save the Children UK, Sightsavers International, SCIAF and Trocaire.

Ridley and Hall’s clients out-performed much larger firms. We were the top firm in Yorkshire Lancashire and Cheshire. Indeed only one other Northern firm appeared in the top twenty – and they are based in Sunderland!

So this shows conclusively that the people of Huddersfield are the most generous in leaving legacies to charities!

Ridley and Hall came 20th out of all firms taking part in the scheme nationally, raising £4,800.

She concluded “Everyone should make a Will. Many of our Will Aid clients realised that seeing a solicitor need not be frightening! To make sure you get peace of mind you should always use a solicitor who is properly qualified to advise you.”

Chair of Will Aid Iain McAndrew of Save the Children Fund said: “We are delighted that the participating solicitors raised so much money for the Will Aid charities. This money will be put to work helping vulnerable people around the world and will make a real and lasting difference to their lives.

In 2009 over £1.25 million in donations was raised. “

For further information on how to make a Will, please contact Sue Cash on 01484 538421 or look at our website: www.ridleyandhall.co.uk

Ridley & Hall Solicitors LLP winners of Specialist Firm of the Year 2006 and 2008 at the Yorkshire Lawyer Awards.

Sarah Young, awarded “Best Woman Solicitor Managing a Small Practice” 2009 by Association of Women Solicitors and shortlisted for AWS Legal Businesswoman of the Year at the Law Society Excellence awards.

Nigel Priestley, highly commended for Solicitor of the Year at the Law Society Excellence Awards 2008.

Ridley & Hall Solicitors Huddersfield

Tel:01484 538421

Tags: , , , , , ,