- the right to medical care
- the right to education
- the right and the duty to perform socially useful work
- the right to good working conditions
- the right to such public help as may be necessary to make it possible for a person to support his or her family
- the right to social security
- the right to good food and housing and to live in surroundings that are pleasant and healthy
- the right to rest and leisure
Author: officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ
When your customer forgets to collect a repaired laptop
Like everybody else, I occasionally take items to repair shops to have them repaired. I have done that with shoes, with stereo equipment and with computers, including a laptop.
I always collect my stuff timely. Sometimes, the shop owner will text me when the item is ready for collection. If not, then the shop owner will have already given me a date from which I can collect the item. I usually give the shop an extra day to make sure that the product is indeed ready. If I am too busy to stop by sooner, then I collect my goods at the first available occasion.
But what are you as repair shop owner to do when a customer forgets to collect an item? It may sound incredible, but there are customers who still show up ten months later and ask for their stuff. Continue reading
The case of the stolen painting
This claim came before the Court of Appeal in 2003, from the Central London County Court via the High Court. Professor Norman Palmer represented the claimant.
This may be what the Jan Steen painting at the centre of this claim looked like.
If I travel to your town, pick your lock, take a lovely locket from your home and make sure to leave no trace of my presence, go to the post office and post the locket to my home or to someone else’s address, can you sue Royal Mail for having shipped the stolen locket if you somehow find out and can even prove that Royal Mail transported your locket? “Of course not.” I can hear you say it.
Royal Mail was just doing its job for which it had been paid (postage). It had no way of knowing that the box or envelope it shipped contained stolen goods. Royal Mail has no obligation to check whether the contents of a shipment might be stolen. If you tried to take it to court, you likely wouldn’t get far but the whole thing could cost you quite a bit of money. Continue reading
The case of the demolished Robot Wars arena
Another interesting case came before the High Court in January 2010. It took up four days. It bears similarities to the case of the destroyed art, but there are also marked differences.
There were two claimants and two defendants.
Historic images regarding Robot Wars TV series
Stress and the litigation process: how can lawyers make matters better?
From the original post:
“For us lawyers litigation is a technical process. For the litigants the effect of the litigation can have a major impact on their lives.”From a comment:
“It still amazes me that to date, as lawyers, we fail to appreciate the importance of actively listening and showing empathy when engaging with clients.”
There is a very useful article in the Solicitors Journal on stress and litigation (to avoid hyperbole I will not use the word “brilliant” but it deserves it.) Hugh Koch analyse the sources of stress for litigants. This made me think how little attention is paid to the “litigant’s view” of the litigation process. For us lawyers litigation is a technical process. For the litigants the effect of the litigation can have a major impact on their lives. There is little in our training (as barristers or solicitors) that helps us put ourselves in the litigant’s place and examine ways in which we can ease the stress to our clients.
THE ARTICLE
The article examines the 24 main reasons for stress. Some of which lawyers can deal with, some not.
THE TOP REASONS FOR STRESS
Interestingly the number one reason for stress is “Being asked about the event again and…
View original post 373 more words
The case of the destroyed art
A few years ago, in 2009, an interesting case came before the High Court. It was interesting because like so many claims involving interference with goods, it was a story about people, about mistakes they make, misunderstandings between them. and things that can happen to them. It was also relatively complex because it was a claim against three defendants, with a fourth defendant in a Part 20 claim brought by two of the original defendants, with the first two defendants and the third also pointing fingers at each other.
The claimant was sculptor Terry New.
Nidus Sculpture at The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Yelp trolls
Last year, a New York steakhouse took legal steps to force Yelp to identify who wrote a certain post on Yelp. The writer claimed to be a waiter habitually spitting into the food served at the steak house. The writer used the name of a real person who said he had nothing to do with it and apparently filed a police report about the matter. The steak house took Yelp to court in an attempt to track down the real poster. (Read more here, here and here.)
Earlier, another company had taken a similar matter to the courts in Virginia, claiming defamation. These cases force the US courts to carry out a delicate legal balancing act. The Virginia Appeals Court initially ruled that Yelp had to reveal the identities of seven posters, but Yelp appealed against that decision (read more here, here and here). The Virginia Supreme Court heard the matter in October 2014.
I haven’t been able to find recent information on the internet about these cases so it’s not clear to me how either of them ended. As there is a great deal of debate about the validity of Yelp reviews and the company’s ability to manipulate reviews, the point may be moot.
Family court without a lawyer
I just stumbled upon a series of excellent videos about going to court on your own in family law matters. They are good to watch for litigants in person tackling other areas of law too.
I recommend going to the court at least once before the day of your hearing. That way, you will know where to go on the day of the hearing and you’ll know how long it takes you to get there.
Take into account that a hearing can suddenly be scheduled in a different building for logistic reasons if there are several courts on the same location. Always check with court staff in which room (and which building) your hearing will take place (and listen to any announcements on the public address system, if there is one).
How the present-day human rights came about
When theft is chased as a chattel tort
When I say “chattel torts”, the mind of most people goes blank.
If you’ve ever been caught shoplifting without having been arrested, however, you may have received letters from firms quoting the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
Ah, I saw your flash of recognition.
The practice is called civil recovery in England and Wales (and dunning in the US, so I understand).
You basically received a bill for costs incurred by the store, and you were told to pay or else you’ve be taken to court.
When they hear or read the word court, many people feel intimidated. Courts are places where people are sentenced, where children get taken away from families and places that evict people from their homes or point fingers at people and say they have to pay something.
It freaks them out! They can’t afford a lawyer, by definition, and lawyers scare them too. So they pay.
They pay the business that wrote them the letter. The business that does this to make money.
The bill they sent you did not represent actual costs of the store where you were shoplifting. It also has absolutely nothing to do with a criminal record.
Well, a few years, two such cases did go to court.
For a bill of £137.50.
The law has changed and business who send you similar exaggerated invoices are now committing a criminal offence when they do.
Are you aware of that?
“Solicitors should not use email at all”
In an article in Computing News last year about the warning ICO issued to the legal profession after a series of data breaches, Richard Anstey, CTO EMEA for collaboration tools provider Intralinks, was asked for his input on ICO’s top tips for barristers and solicitors. 
He said the following:
“instead of ensuring email is encrypted or password-protected, solicitors should not use email at all”
You can read what he recommends using instead in the article in Computing News.
7 out of 10 UK law firms affected by cyber crime in 2014?
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has reported that in 2014, nearly 70% of UK law firms reported a cyber security incident.
Read more: here.
The first half of the article focuses on bogus law firms. The second paragraph under the ad is about how cyber crime affects law firms.
Uber Technologies – not a law firm – has billions at its disposal; that allowed it to do some investigating that enabled it to file a John Doe lawsuit after its recently reported hacking incident. Which it discovered about half a year after the fact and then kept silent about for another six months. Give or take a few days.
Data security in the legal profession
ICO, the Information Commissioner’s office, issued a warning last year after several data breaches at law firms.
According to the ICO, there were fifteen reported incidents of data breaches in the legal profession within a period of three months.
You can read more about it in this article in the online magazine Computing News and on
this article on the ICO website as well as in this pdf file by ICO.
- How many legal professionals have ever built a computer from scratch? I have. It worked fine right away, too. (To my own amazement.)
- How many legal professionals were taught a little bit of computer programming at university? I was.
Which hurdles do litigants in person face?
What are the hurdles litigants in person run into? I have talked about this a few times before.
A review of all the complaints litigants in person made between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2012 to the Professional Conduct Department of the Bar Standards Board against barristers provides further insights. The number of complaints made by litigants in person takes up 25% of all such complaints.
Most of the litigants in person who made these complaints were involved in civil matters. Almost half of their complaints had to do with County Court proceedings. 11% concerned the High Court and 18% tribunals.
47% of these litigants were claimants and 41% were defendants. (The role of the remaining litigants (12%) was not clear, apparently.) In 25% of these cases, the litigant had obtained some legal advice, while 75% of the complaining litigants had relied on their own research during the litigation.
30% of the complainants indicated that they might have a disability; this number reflects the percentage of litigants in person with disabilities, regardless of whether they file a complaint or not.
Most of the cases concerned property, construction and planning, followed by family law with employment taking third place (excluding work injuries).
57% of the complainants did not appear to understand all aspects of legal proceedings. In general, these complainants did not appear to understand that the barrister for the other side is there to represent the other side’s views and to do their best for that other party.
As a litigant in person, it is your responsibility to present your own viewpoint within the context of the law. You cannot rely on the other party’s barrister to do that for you; it would be naïve to expect otherwise.
32% of all complainants seemed to expect the Bar Standards Board to overrule the courts, or be an alternative to the courts, and make a (new) decision. That is not what the Bar Standards Board does. Only a higher court can look at what a lower court did, and possibly reverse a decision made by a lower court.
In my view, paying close attention to the actions of the barrister working for the other side can actually enhance your own understanding as a litigant in person. They’re the professionals who can teach you a thing or two.
“Designing out homelessness in the UK”
I like Paddy Beirne’s approach to tackling homelessness in the UK. His attitude seems different, much more “can-do” than what you normally see. Check it out.
He is right, you know. Homelessness is largely a practical problem. As practical as running out of tea and having to go to the shop to get some more tea.
Supreme Court rules against Akerman-Livingstone
Another mark against Uber
There are many misgivings regarding the app-based taxi company Uber. One of those is a belief that Uber’s databases will get hacked.
Apparently, they already did. Get hacked.
Uber found out four months after the fact and kept quiet about it for months afterward. Last Friday, it finally came clean. In the New York Post, you can read more about Uber getting hacked.
Uber has meanwhile started a lawsuit against the hacker, identifying him or her as John Doe. This is also how you can sometimes take action against anonymous internet trolls as the FindLaw blog explains.
Litigants in person in family law cases
Yesterday, James Munby – President of the Family Division – announced that the Ministry of Justice is planning a study surrounding the cross examination of vulnerable witnesses by LIPs.
You can read more about it:
- here (write-up on http://researchingreform.net/);
and
- here (the announcement by James Munby).
Views on litigants in person (pro se)
D. Rosen at London-based Darlington Solicitors just published a post titled Perceptions and Expectations of Litigants in Person (‘LIPS’): A commercial Litigator’s perspective on the firm’s blog.
Stressed litigant in person making a phone call
“During my career I have met many wonderful and varied LIPS.”, he or she writes.
“I am frustrated at seeing too many good people waste their lives pursuing their perception of truth and justice, because a Court has not agreed with them.”
I agree.
You have to know when to pursue a matter and when to let it go. A good way to decide can be to ask yourself whether other people – society – might benefit from it if you continue to pursue the matter.
Go read this post – here – because this solicitor makes very good points.
Revenge porn now a crime in the UK
‘Revenge porn’ criminalised: What is it and what are the consequences? was one of yesterday’s headlines in the news.
Revenge porn is commonly used by internet trolls. California was among the first states that made it a crime. Many other forms of trolling are not a crime, or not a crime yet.
If you are a target of internet trolls and they are doing damage to your life, there are all sorts of things that you can do, in spite of how difficult it may seem. I will explain more about that in due course.
Revenge evictions coming to an end?
This morning, I had an e-mail from Citizens Advice of which the first line said that the House of Lords voted to put a stop to retaliatory evictions yesterday.
I was very busy with something else yesterday and this morning’s media had nothing on the topic so I did a web search. On Letting Agent Today, I found that indeed, apparently, the House of Lords essentially wants to make it impossible for landlords to evict a tenant for no reason within six months after a tenant’s improvement or hazard awareness notice.
It concerns amendments to the Deregulation Bill.
On the civil legal aid reforms
Last year, the National Audit Office published a report titled ‘Implementing Reforms to Civil Legal Aid’, a report by the Comptroller and Auditor of the General Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency.
Last week, the Bar Council responded to it. Chairman of the Bar Alistair MacDonald QC said:
‘Overall, the report reflects the Bar Council’s concerns that the scale of the cuts made to legal aid, and the way they were introduced, abandoned the most vulnerable, created disorder in our courts, and damaged our legal advice services.’
You can read the rest of the response: here.
Keeping a PC offline keeps it safe, right?
Wrong.
Cyber crime is much sneakier than most people think. It is not limited to someone accessing your hotmail or Facebook account. it can take over your life. And gobble up your business.
There are various ways to access a computer that is offline. A term sometimes used for an offline computer is ‘air-gapped’, but for starters, a true air-gapped computer should never ever have been connected to the internet to minimise the chance that there is any software (code) on it that shouldn’t be on it. It should be brand-new, out of the box.
Unless you put it in a Faraday cage, some of the information on an offline computer can still be accessed although this is usually merely passive. It concerns information displayed on a screen or entered on a keyboard, for example. This can be accessed but not altered.
Here are a few technical articles for those who want some background:
- http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240210388/Proof-of-concept-malware-jumps-air-gap-with-sound-card (article in Computer Weekly about how researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute showed that a computer’s sound card and built-in speakers can be used to transmit data);
- http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0237v1 (link is to Cornell University);
- http://cyber.bgu.ac.il/content/how-leak-sensitive-data-isolated-computer-air-gap-near-mobile-phone-airhopper (link is to Cyber Security Lab at Ben Gurion University of the Negev).
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24582-can-a-computer-virus-communicate-via-your-speakers.html (article in NewScientist).
Here is a really nice old video about it:
And this one, in German and much more recent, is quite clear too:
Here is another one:
In addition to the above, I see at least four more or less regular ways to access a computer and tamper with it:
– via cable or telephone line, directly;
– via cable or telephone line, using unused capacity on the line;
– wireless/wifi network;
– powerline networking.
In the case of powerline networking, there may be a need for that computer to have been hacked before it was taken offline. That also seems to be the case for at least one of the air-gap hopping methods.
It may also be possible to access printer memory via powerline networking and acquire information that way.
A computer does not have to be accessed through its operating system such as Windows, as is often thought. Computers can be accessed at a much more basic level as well, but it depends on the hardware and its settings.
Hackers can also purchase or build scanning equipment that can detect your mobile equipment. Phone hacking and spying software is available from regular retailers and its use has ‘reached epidemic proportions‘ (article in the Independent).
Here are four more articles, in The Independent and the Huffington Post:
- The rise of car hacking: In-car technology has led to thieves remotely taking over our vehicles
- Researcher shows how to hack (and crash) a passenger aircraft with an Android phone…
- Sim cards hacked: A single text that unlocks millions of mobiles
- NSA Hacked Offline Computers With Tiny USB Radios, Claims New York Times
If you are really intrigued now, read this article in NewScientist about new bugging devices.
Where you can find me this Friday
This Friday, on the 23rd of January, I plan to be at Barclays in Commercial Road in Portsmouth. You can find me there at a table, around lunchtime. I will be there on Saturday the 24th as well.
Court of Appeal: LIPs must pay attention to Civil Procedure Rules
Last month, the Court of Appeal dealt with the case between Nata Lee Ltd and Abid & Another. Nata Lee appealed against an Order made in the Central London County Court in 2013.
Nata Lee had appeared in the County Court without legal representation and had failed to apply for permission to include an expert witness in a timely manner (three days late). The County Court judge subsequently refused to admit this witness.
Although other factors played a greater role in this case, in its judgement ([2014] EWCA Civ 1652), the Court of Appeal made clear that, in its view, the fact that a party is acting without legal representation is no reason to allow disregard for rules, orders and directions.
Litigants in person should not be surprised by the consequences of failing to comply with the CPR or by having applications for relief from sanctions turned down when these sanctions were the result of failure to comply with the CPR on the part of the litigant in person.
Lord Justice Briggs continued:
“There may be cases in which the fact that a party is a litigant in person has some consequence in the determination of applications for relief from sanctions, but this is likely to operate at the margins.”
Self-respect and honesty
You certainly find that among Britain’s (street-) homeless.
Homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability
Today is the third of three days at the Supreme Court that focus on homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability (or rather, priority).
The three cases are:
– Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
– Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull MBC (Respondent)
– Kanu (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
(Interveners in all three cases:
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Shelter, Crisis and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.)
What is it all about? Predominantly 189(1)(c) in the Housing Act 1996:
189 Priority need for accommodation.
(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation—
(a) a pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(b) a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(d )a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) specify further descriptions of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and
(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (1).
(3) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.
(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Hotak is a pretty straightforward case, at first sight; the two other cases are less clear. Hotak concerns two brothers, one of which (Sifatullah) would certainly be considered vulnerable if the other one (Ezatullah) had not said that he would look after his brother. The brothers were living in a friend’s flat in Southwark, but told to leave because of overcrowding. Ezatullah’s immigration status at the time, however, made him ineligible for housing assistance.
Southwark did give the brothers temporary housing while it made its mind up. It decided that Sifatullah was unintentionally homeless, and eligible for assistance, yet did not consider him vulnerable in terms of in priority need of housing because his brother was looking after him. This is where the case went off the rails.
If Sifatullah were a pregnant woman, unintentionally homeless (as it is called), and eligible for assistance, whether the person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside supports her or not makes no difference, as one of the lawyers highlighted on Monday.
Another one pointed out that the law does not contain an element of comparison. A person’s own condition makes him or her relatively vulnerable when on the street, and the law had the intention of preventing and eliminating all homelessness. This would mean that a) there is no such thing as “an ordinary street-homeless person” (used by Southwark to compare Sifatullah against) and b) one could say that being homeless in itself already points toward a person being less able to fend for himself or herself, as homelessness is not the norm in this country.
It looks like the practice of the application of this legislation – carried out by the decision-making housing officer – has been moving toward comparing a blind applicant with street-homeless blind applicants, deaf applicants with street-homeless deaf applicants, mentally ill applicants with street-homeless mentally ill applicants, applicants with substance abuse with homeless people with substance abuse.
More specifically, practice seems to be more and more relying on the premise that all homeless persons are, almost by definition, street-homeless mentally ill and/or substance abusers and/or physically ill, deserving no special protection (in Johnson, for instance). The law was not intended that way. The law does not even say anything like this.
The pregnant woman, however, is never compared with other pregnant women to determine her vulnerability. The same applies to any persons who have lost their home in a flood.
“Ideas about vulnerability are perhaps most often applied by those in more powerful positions to define those in less powerful ones.” (Kate Brown)
Revenge evictions – update
UPDATE 10 December from Lime Legal (edited by Jan Luba QC):
“After the talking-out of the Tenancies Reform Bill, there is to be an attempt to introduce the same provisions controlling retaliatory eviction as part of the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through the House of Lords”
Housing matters at the Supreme Court – 5
Today in Court 2:
Aster Communities Limited (formerly Flourish Homes Limited) (Respondent) v Akerman-Livingstone (AP) (Appellant)
Not broadcast live.
A clear case of a causal relationship between someone’s disability and the reason for issuing proceedings, in my view. Someone unable to comply with what is expected from him. (One could see it as maladministration, perhaps.)
Will the Supreme Court see a violation of the Equality Act and let this weigh heavier or will other interests overrule?
Not an easy case.
Update: still went live later.
PS
See also my earlier post about this case.
Revenge evictions – part 2
A little while ago, I posted about the upcoming vote on the Tenancies (Reform) Bill. Its intention is to put a stop to revenge evictions.
First, I received an update from Crisis (the national charity for single homeless people), informing me that “despite hundreds of Crisis campaigners like you emailing their MP, the Bill to tackle revenge evictions has failed.”
A few days later, I received a letter from the MP for Portsmouth South, Mike Hancock. He explained in detail that two Conservative MPs “intentionally used up the rest of the allotted time to prevent the Bill from being voted on“.
At around the same time, I also received Lime Legal’s newsletter (edited by housing champion Jan Luba QC), which included an item on the same topic:
“On 28 November 2014 a private members bill designed to address retaliatory evictions … was talked-out in Parliament and, despite having had UK Government support, is unlikely to make further progress.”
Also interesting is what the Residential Landlord’s Association had to say about what actually happened. Among other things, it wrote:
“The Bill ran out of time, after only 60 MPs voted on a procedural motion to put the Bill to a vote. 100 MPs are required for such a motion to succeed. It now drops to the bottom of the order for Private Members’ Bills and has no chance of proceeding.”
If you clicked on that last link, you’ll have seen that someone called the Bill “badly drafted“.
Together, these four views give a better picture than either one of them individually, particularly when combined with the official account of what went on that day.
More information:
- Official account of what was said in Parliament that day (interesting read);
- Text of the Tenancies (Reform) Bill;
- Explanatory notes for the Tenancy (Reform) Bill.
The second reading debate is expected to continue on 23 January 2015. Initially, that appears to have been scheduled for 5 December 2014 (tomorrow), a day on which there would likely have been no time to discuss the Bill in Parliament as there would be 8 bills ahead of it, so I understood from Mr Hancock’s explanation. It is even less likely to be read on 23 January, as 11 bills will be ahead of it on that day, and everyone agrees that is it dead in the water.
If you want to follow what happens to the bill, click on this link to its page on the Parliament’s web site.
UPDATE 10 December from Lime Legal:
“After the talking-out of the Tenancies Reform Bill, there is to be an attempt to introduce the same provisions controlling retaliatory eviction as part of the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through the House of Lords”
