Hylton-Potts – Free Legal Advice, Divorce Lawyer, Beneft Fraud & Motoring Offences

The Department for Work and Pensions cannot recover welfare benefit payments through the courts where the claimant is not at fault, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Between March 2006 and February 2007 the DWP wrote to over 65,000 claimants telling them it could sue them, if they did not return overpayments made as a result of administrative errors.

The benefits involved included income support, incapacity benefit, disability living allowance, jobseekers’ allowance and child benefit.

In The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKSC 54, the judges said it was common ground that the secretary of state was entitled to recover overpayments resulting from misrepresentation or non-disclosure (what you and I would call benefit fraud).

But what about through no fault of the citizen benefit was overpaid because of the mistake at DWP? From now the citizen can keep the money.

The Judge said it was “entirely rational” for Parliament to decide that only those whose behaviour brought about the overpayments should be liable to reimburse them.

If you want expert confidential advice consult the experts. For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

The arrest of expat WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for alleged sex offences has highlighted aspects of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) agreement which enable all EU member states to extradite defendants without producing any evidence in support of the charge.

Born in Queensland, Australia, Mr Assange is very much an expat. Having moved 37 times by the time he was 14, and many more times subsequently, he is almost a global citizen – a condition occasionally favoured by wealthy expats who seek to avoid paying tax in any particular jurisdiction.

Tax-dodging expats often discover, however, the arm of the taxman is longer and more flexible than they have anticipated. So too the arm of the law, which has been given added articulation and extension, at least as far as European expats are concerned, by the EAW.

Julian Assange, as he was was living in London on a six month visa at the time of his arrest on Tuesday, was therefore subject to the EAW for his alleged crime in Sweden regardless of his country of birth or official country of domicile.

What this meant in practice was that district judge Howard Riddle, who presided over Tuesday’s hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court had no choice but to err on the side of caution and remand Mr Assange in custody pending his extradition, regardless of the fact that he was not presented wth sufficient evidence to assess the strength of the case against Mr Assange.

Had Mr Assange been arrested on the same charges prior to the EAW’s enactment in 2003, a UK magistrates court would have had the right to consider if the prima facie evidence against Mr Assange justified his extradition on the accusation of sexual offences.

According to lawyer Rodney Hylton-Potts of Hylton-Potts Legal Consultants Ltd, Mr Assange’s arrest under the EAW has been an accident waiting to happen. He said: “There is no control now, no demand for evidence. People are being extradited to face trial in foreign countries where there is often no legal aid and where they can’t speak the language. And on what basis?

“I have no doubt Mr Assange will be extradited to Sweden,” he continued. “He will appeal but I suspect it will be turned down.

“The only defence against the extradition is that the charge is politically motivated. But how do you prove that?”
One of the charges against Mr Assange is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom. Another is that he had unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep.

Rumours that the charges are politically motivated in a bid to put a stop to Mr Assange and his website’s unprecedented release of classified US diplomatic files gathered pace on Tuesday evening when Mike Mukasey, attorney general under President George Bush, told the BBC’s Newsnight programme: “When one is accused of a very serious crime it’s common to hold him in respect of a lesser crime … while you assemble evidence of a second crime.”

Supporters of Mr Assange in Australia have written an open letter to the Australian prime minister urging her to “provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.”

Mr Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens has compared his client’s case to that of Gary McKinnon, the Scottish systems administrator accused of hacking into 97 United States military and NASA computers and currently awaiting extradition to the U.S:

“This is a Gary McKinnon mark two,” he told Telegraph Expat, “and as we have seen with him, these things can drag on for a long time.”

full article on Telegraph

A European Parliament move to revise EU law in order to improve legal certainty in cross-border family disputes concerning children has been welcomed by a leading expert in international family law, Rodney Hylton-Potts of Hylton-Potts Legal Consultants. Robert Matthews reports

Analysis

Rodney Hylton-Potts considers cross-border family disputes involving children to be a legal area that needs tackling. MEPs have recently agreed that such disputes and the protection of children’s rights, especially of those with separated parents, are matters that the EU needs to address.

As he points out: “At present, we have directly conflicting national laws on outcomes, jurisdictions, stays, divorce, child support, financial outcome and the best arrangements for the children. We have laws which favour the first party to break up the marriage, and laws which favour the wealthier.

“Practice on allowing a child to be taken abroad permanently differs dramatically. Some countries are very slow and reluctant to return an abducted child. Others operate the Hague Convention, and have a sophisticated and rapid way of handling it with access to emergency legal aid.

“The time has clearly come for a more joined-up international law for our international children.

“Currently, the main problem experienced by practitioners and clients relates to the lack of recognition of another country’s orders, and the separate culture and legal system of each country. For example, some countries’ judiciaries exercise far more control over social services than others. The clients’ problems can include being trapped in a country not of their choice in order that they can see their children, while non-nationals can face bias and language problems.”

One idea supported by MEPs is the compulsory recognition of national courts’ decisions on child custody and contact.

Hylton-Potts believes that such a proposal is encouraging, but not without difficulty: “Supposing the absent spouse does not accept the fairness of the order?”

However, he is sure that the problems can be overcome with political goodwill and the proposal could be “implemented effectively and at minimal extra cost. This is already done in civil areas such as the enforcement of foreign judgements.”

On the question of whether the different legal traditions in jurisdictions across the EU can be reconciled to make this possible, Hylton-Potts thinks that Brussels and The Hague are capable of providing the means.

“They are the two leading international players in international children disputes. Brussels has an obligation to harmonise as much family law as possible across the EU by the year 2011. Whilst regulations have had to be unanimous, Brussels does have the power to compel states to respond to the proposed law reform. It has significantly strengthened the Hague Convention by Brussels II.

“The Hague is the permanent bureau of international law attempting worldwide to bring countries together in conventions. It has no specific timetable and works consensually with diverse countries, culture and traditions. The continued work of the Hague Convention in harmonising the various jurisdictions could provide another way of increasing legal certainty for international couples in dispute over their children.”

Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000
Hague Convention 1996

The Last Chance Tax Saloon

HMRC has offered taxpayers one last chance to declare overseas assets – take advantage while you still can. The world is becoming a smaller place. Swiss banks ‘voluntarily’ disclosing information; bank data ‘going missing’ – tax authorities whether in the UK or elsewhere are having a field day!

The major nations have declared war on tax havens. You must face up to dealing with undeclared assets overseas for peace of mind, and ensure you do not leave your heirs with a mess.

December 2009 saw the door close on the widely publicised voluntary disclosure amnesty made available by HMRC, but all is not lost and there are even opportunities to discuss cases anonymously – and potentially deal with them on favourable terms – with HMRC. We, at Hylton-Potts, can handle these anonymous discussions for you.

While the days of keeping funds abroad out of the clutches of the UK taxman are long gone, not everyone has recognized that ‘the party is over’. It appears that a significant number of UK taxpayers did not take advantage of the HMRC amnesty and are now either too apprehensive to address the issue, or simply believe they are minnows and will slip through the net – but this is not true. HMRC is currently analysing data of over 500,000 account holders provided by some 3,500 institutions from whom they demanded, and received, information.

However, there is still time for those who wish to become UK tax compliant and seek protection against future prosecution for them and their successors. This includes those who have money in Liechtenstein.

We at Hylton-Potts can help you may navigate your way around the traps and utilise the opportunities as they arise.

The fees involved are not significant but the savings in potential penalties are considerable. Moreover, there is no need to repatriate funds, which can be used freely in the UK by current and successive generations subject to present tax obligations.

You can also legitimately use overseas trust structures to protect the funds in the future.

If you want expert confidential advice consult the experts. For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

A Shepherd’s Bush hairdresser who made fraudulent housing benefit claims over 19 years has been jailed for a year and will have to pay back £360,000.

Matilda Kwapong claimed she had been evicted from the home she bought in Ealing in 1988, and in 1990 was given a two-bedroom council flat which she then rented out to help repay her mortgage.

She also claimed housing benefit and council tax discounts, despite running a successful hairdressing salon in the railway arches at Shepherd’s Bush Market.

Kwapong was only discovered when one of her tenants also tried to claim housing benefit last year, and was jailed after admitting deception and false accounting in July.

A financial investigation was then launched by police and council officers in Ealing to calculate how much she prospered from the scam, and what assets must be confiscated. They found she had made £231,000 through the fraudulent use and sub-letting of the council flat and another £122,000 through the increased market value of her home.

Kwapong was sentenced to 12 months in prison at Isleworth Crown Court on Friday (15), and was ordered to pay £76,697 compensation to Ealing Council, a compensation order of £290,451 and council legal costs of £6,132. If she fails to pay within one year she will be jailed for another three years and will still owe the debt.

PS Geoff Donoghue, of the financial investigation unit at Ealing Police, said: “We will work in partnership with the council and do our best to protect public funds by stripping the assets of anyone convicted of housing and benefit fraud to ensure that their crime does not pay.”

For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

Equality Act 2010

Brings in new rights for employees, namely disability discrimination rights, and rights for people who are discriminated against indirectly, such as carers who look after elderly parents or who are affected by bullying at work.

Allowing offensive jokes about disability, sex and gender reassignment at work or criticising dyslexics will leave employers facing substantial claims.

The old discrimination legislation protected employees who are discriminated against on the ground of a protected characteristic, including sex, disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age, the level of protection available varied.

The new law introduces much wider protection for many employees, and enables employees to bring discrimination and harassment claims based on a third party’s protected characteristic.

If a colleague tells a joke at work about disability, which an employee finds offensive, regardless of whether he or she is disabled, an employee can under the Equality Act bring a harassment claim against the employer.

If a person has caring responsibilities outside work for a disabled or elderly relative and is overlooked for promotion on an assumption that he or she will not be as focused on the role, the employee can now bring a disability or age-discrimination claim based on the association with that individual, even though not disabled or elderly himself.

The new law also makes it harder to dismiss people suffering from depression of sufficient severity to qualify as a disability. Also it is unlawful (except in certain prescribed circumstances) for employers to ask about a candidate’s health before offering him or her work;

Secrecy clauses in contracts are unenforceable where they relate to an employee sharing information about pay.

The new law introduces direct disability discrimination, so that employers must objectively justify rules or requirements that disadvantage disabled people.

The new law makes employers liable for persistent harassment of employees by third parties.

If you have been discriminated against in the workplace on grounds of gender, race, disability and sexual orientation, consult the employment experts – Call us on 020 7381 8111  or email law@rhplaw.co.uk

A traveller who financed his children’s private education using £31,000 obtained in a benefits fraud was jailed for 18 months yesterday.

Matthew Newland, 41, from Lyne, near Chertsey, Surrey, drove a BMW car and paid £10,000 a year for his daughter to attend a prep school and £7,000 a year to educate his two sons, a jury at Guildford Crown Court was told. Newland claimed incapacity benefit, disability allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support, despite earning nearly £90,000 a year as a roofer while living in a static caravan owned by his mother-in-law.

Newland admitted five charges of fraud and was jailed for 12 months for each one, to be served concurrently, and six months for failing to surrender to bail, to be served consecutively. His estranged wife, Wendy, 40, had been earlier jailed for eight months for benefit fraud totalling £50,000.

For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or email law@rhplaw.co.uk.

Asked by Channel 4 News to comment, leading motoring expert lawyer Rodney Hylton-Potts said:

“At issue is whether a celebrity status should be relevant to sentencing. The story starts back in 1967 when Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones, were jailed for 3 months for minor drug offences.

A famous Times leader referring to ‘Breaking a butterfly on a wheel’ was believed to be very influential in persuading the Court of Appeal to overturn the sentences, and release them.

Judges, a magistrate, however are human, as they should be, and their deliberations are in private. There can be no doubt that in practice a pop star like George Michael, or a football star, can expect harsher treatment because he or she is an icon, and has let down young people, who look up to them.

This may well have been in the Judge’s mind in George Michael’s case.”

See Rodney’s TV interview on Channel 4 on below:

HM Revenue and Customs have made mistakes in codes resulting in unwelcome tax demands, and interest is being claimed.

What sounds unfair usually is.

At Hylton-Potts for a fixed fee of £195.00 including VAT, we can challenge these extra payments for you, only to have them written off.

Contact the experts - For more information or a free legal opinion telephone 020-7381-8111 (24 hour service) or emaillaw@rhplaw.co.uk.

New EU procedure will give choice to international couples over which country’s law will govern their divorce. Selena Masson speaks to Rodney Hylton-Potts, a leading expert on international divorce, practice and procedure of Hylton-Potts Legal Consultants, about the use of this procedure.

EU member states are using a new enhanced co-operation procedure to introduce new rules allowing international divorcing couples to select which country’s law will apply to their divorce.

Rodney Hylton-Potts says: “For the first time in EU history, member states are using the enhanced co-operation procedure, to push forward with rules allowing international divorcing couples to choose which nation’s laws to apply to their divorce case. Under the EU Treaties, enhanced cooperation allows nine or more countries to move forward on a measure that is important, but is blocked by a small minority of Member States. Other EU countries keep the right to join later when they want.”

In this case it will allow 14 EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain) to move forward with a regulation to help couples of different nationalities, those living apart in different countries or those living together in a country other than their home country.

Hylton-Potts adds this is a big step forward. “People fall in love across borders, whatever their nationality. As a result, many international couples need to be certain of the rules that apply in their situation. There were more than 1 million divorces in the 27 Member States in 2007, of which 140,000 (13 per cent) had an ‘international’ element.”

According to Hylton-Potts, some commentators have expressed fears that the use of enhanced cooperation, could spell the end of European integration. “I doubt this will be the case–all the signs are that this precedent will deepen European integration. Hundreds of thousands of international couples will benefit from the new rules. Given that the previous proposal had been stuck in an institutional traffic jam for half a decade, it is safe to say the EU now has the means to put important legislation into the fast lane.”

Hylton-Potts explains the proposal aims to protect weaker partners during divorce disputes. “International couples will be able to agree which law would apply to their divorce or legal separation. In cases where the couple cannot agree, judges would have a common formula for deciding which country’s law applies. Couples would have more legal certainty, predictability and flexibility. This would help protect spouses and their children from complicated, lengthy and painful procedures.”

He adds this will have considerable impact on divorce lawyers. “Where there is an ‘international’ element, it will undoubtedly mean far less divorce work for lawyers in England and Wales. Some husbands may welcome this because London has become the divorce capital of the world and certainly Europe, when it comes to awarding financial settlements to wives, especially in the larger money cases.”

However, Hylton-Potts says there will be some drawbacks. “Although judges will have a common formula for deciding which country’s law applies, that is not necessarily the same as jurisdiction. What has to be avoided is where one country’s law applies but proceedings take place in another country. That involves bringing in expert lawyers as to the law of the other jurisdiction, which considerably adds to the costs and delay.”