Northampton Solicitors

1. Review your financial controls at appropriate intervals and do so critically, keeping them up to date. Just because you have not been a victim of fraud, do not assume that it will never happen;
2. Segregate duties – do not allow one or two people to be in charge of all aspects of your charity’s financial controls without any checks being made;
3. Make sure all of the separate parts of the financial records agree with each other. Always ask for and keep receipts. Reconciling bank statements with invoices, receipts, purchase and payment authorisations will often help to identify fraud at an early stage, and may discourage potential fraudsters;
4. Never weaken your financial security for the sake of short cutting or time saving. For example, do not pre-sign blank cheques, even if a second signature is required. Doing so reduces your cheque security by 50 per cent –or, to put it another way, doubles the risk;
5. Keep lists or registers of valuable fixed assets and key charity property, and periodically inspect them;
6. Ensure that electronic or online banking arrangements are secure and are protected with dual-level authorisation;
7. When recruiting staff – especially those who handle the charity’s finances – make appropriate background checks and take up references;
8. If your charity makes grants to beneficiaries or other organisations, carry out appropriate due diligence checks on applicants. Guidance on this can be found at  ‘know your beneficiaries’;
9. Ensure that as trustees you receive and consider regular reporting information about the charity’s finances. If you are a trustee or manager, make sure that you understand the financial summaries and reports that are presented to you, and if you do not, ASK for an explanation that you CAN understand; and
10. If you suspect or become aware of fraud, make sure that you know what to do and who to inform. Make sure it is part of the culture of your charity. Prompt and appropriate action will help to protect your charity and limit any financial damage.

A recent decision of the European Court of Justice will come as good news for hard-pressed hoteliers and has led to HM Revenue and Customs issuing new guidance on deposits.

When a family is being housed, the provision of separate, self-contained flats with no common living areas does not mean that accommodation had been made available such that the members of the applicant’s family could ‘reside together’ in the ordinary meaning of the phrase. 

Keeping company records up to date is not always a top priority for the directors of smaller companies. However, failing to keep the shareholders’ register up to date can have a downside if a share transfer has occurred but the new owner’s name is not entered into the register of members.

The number of businesses in the UK which are suffering from ‘significant’ or ‘critical’ financial problems on the first quarter of 2011 has risen to 186,000, according to a report by insolvency specialists Begbies Traynor. This is an increase of 26 per cent over the figure for the third quarter of 2010 and is 15 per cent more than the same quarter in 2010.

For advice on managing your trade risk, contact us.

Not many prosecutions are brought under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which are designed to protect consumers form the activities of unscrupulous traders.

Today is World Intellectual Property Day and the global members of the World Intellectual Property Office have joined forces to help raise awareness of how patents, copyright, trade marks and designs affect everyday lives. This year’s theme is ‘Designing the Future’.

Are the conditions of entitlement to state pension credit under the 2002 State Pension Credit Regulations compatible with EU law? That is the question raised by a recent Supreme Court case in which a Latvian national attempted to claim the same pension credit rights afforded to British and Irish citizens.

Are the conditions of entitlement to state pension credit under the 2002 State Pension Credit Regulations compatible with EU law? That is the question raised by a recent Supreme Court case in which a Latvian national attempted to claim the same pension credit rights afforded to British and Irish citizens.

Under the general provisions of European law, citizens of any EU member state are subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any member state as the nationals of that state.

However, the basis of entitlement under the 2002 State Pension Credit Act is whether the claimant is ‘in Great Britain’. Regulations under the Act set out the circumstances in which a person is treated as being in, or not being in, Great Britain. The test is whether or not the person is ‘habitually resident’ in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the ‘Common Travel Area’ of Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. But the rules as to when a person is or is not to be treated as ‘habitually resident’ do introduce tests that raise issues about nationality.
‘Habitually resident’ means that the person must be resident for the purposes of work or other prescribed purposes. Everyone, including United Kingdom nationals, must meet this requirement. But while all United Kingdom nationals have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, not all of them would be able to meet the test of habitual residence.

When retired factory worker Galina Patmalniece, a Latvian national of Russian origin, moved to the UK in 2000, she hoped to win refugee status. Although she failed in her applications, she became entitled to remain in Britain as a consequence of Latvia’s accession to the EU in 2004. Ms Patmalniece was not able to acquire a right to ‘habitual residence’ however, because she is no longer a worker, is not self-employed, is not self-sufficient or a member of a family of such a person.

Counsel for Ms Patmalniece submitted that the requirement to have a right to reside here discriminated directly between citizens of the United Kingdom and citizens of other Member States. It was argued for the Department of Work and Pensions, however, that a person would only be eligible to receive state pension credit if they could show economic integration in the United Kingdom or a sufficient degree of social integration here. What the regulations sought to do was to prevent exploitation of welfare benefits by people who came to this country simply to live off benefits, without working or having worked here.

The conclusion of the Supreme Court was that, although the 2002 Regulations discriminated against nationals of other EU member states, the conditions laid down are objectively justifiable on grounds independent of a claimant’s nationality.

The appeal by Ms Patmalniece was duly dismissed.

This area is complex, and is complicated further by the obscure language of the relevant legislation. British nationals who spend considerable time out of the UK, as much as nationals of other member states, could be in danger of falling foul of the ‘habitual residence’ requirement and should seek expert advice if concerned.

As expected, insurer the Prudential is to appeal to the Supreme Court following the Court of Appeal’s decision that communications with its tax advisers (a leading firm of accountants) relating to its tax planning were not professionally privileged.