Author: Clare MacKay

With the shops full of new uniforms and back to school offers, September for many parents means the start of the application process for places at primary and secondary schools.   With many of the most popular and best performing schools heavily over-subscribed, the temptation may exist to try and play the system to ensure a place is obtained at a parent’s preferred school.   Councils charged with the allocation of school places therefore need to be on their guard to avoid abuses of the application process and to ensure that places are fairly allocated to children in accordance with set criteria.   But how far can a Council go when it suspects that a parent has, for example, used an address near the favoured school which is not in fact where the family reside?

Well, the Council certainly can’t now act all cloak and dagger and use its surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”).   That legislation was introduced to allow Councils to carry out covert surveillance on individuals if it suspected that serious crimes were being committed.   However, planning to commit an act of terrorism is a long way from manipulating your application for a place for your child at an oversubscribed school.

Such was the situation that Jenny Paton and Tim Joyce found themselves in.   Ms Paton, Mr Joyce and their three young daughters were the subject of covert surveillance by Poole Council following two phone calls alleging that they did not actually live at the address they had given on their primary school application.   The family were watched as they went on with their daily family life at their home and a detailed record was kept of their movements.   Even their car was described as the “target vehicle”.   Ms Paton and Mr Joyce only became aware of the surveillance when it was inadvertently revealed to them at a meeting to discuss their application.

The tribunal found in acting in this way, the Council had gone too far.   The surveillance was neither proportionate nor could it reasonably have been believed to be proportionate.  The surveillance of the family was therefore unlawful and the family’s right to privacy enshrined in the Human Rights Act had also been breached.   As an aside, it seems that the family had not, in any event, actually manipulated the application process but had simply but their house up for sale and had continued to live in it until the end of the requisite period to ensure that they obtained a place at their preferred school for their daughter.

There are of course times when it is appropriate for a Council to carry out covert surveillance – but to do so, such use must be proportionate and the use of such tactics in school admission cases is extremely unlikely to be lawful in future.   With budget cuts to public spending, surely Council funds are also better spent elsewhere.   The Coalition Government plans to change the law to require the sanction of a magistrate before a Council can use its powers under RIPA, with such permission only to be granted to prevent serious crime.

Councils suspecting foul play in the school application process will now have to find alternative ways to deal with tip offs about abuses by parents anxious to secure a place at the best schools for their children.   Such suspicions may be best dealt with by talking openly and frankly to the parents in question and asking for documentary evidence to be produced of their residence at the address in issue.  Very few people are adept at lying in the face of direct questioning and this is likely to be a fairer, more proportionate, cheaper and ultiamtely more effective way of weeding out fraudulent applicants than hanging around in unmarked cars watching the every move of a family going about its day to day business.

Author: Nikki Petken

You may recall SA Law’s blog on 25 September 2009, in which we confirmed that the High Court had ruled it was legal for employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. The government has now made a dramatic u-turn and proposed that the current default retirement age of 65 is scrapped in the UK from October 2011.

The implications are that employers would no longer be able to dismiss staff because they had reached the age of 65.

The current position is that an employer can meet with an employee 6 to 12 months before their 65th birthday and notify them of their intention to retire them at that date. An employee is entitled to put forward their case not to be retired but the only obligation on an employer is to consider this. It is the employer’s discretion as to whether or not to terminate employment.

Groups that have long campaigned for the default retirement age to be scrapped have welcomed the decision. Marion Birch, Chief Executive of Age UK Hertfordshire has told SA Law, “Older people are one group of society that are not protected from discrimination by legislation so we are delighted that people over the age of 65 will have full employment rights for the first time. Age UK Hertfordshire is pleased that the Government is finally sweeping away this discrimination against older people and will be allowing individuals the dignity of choosing when to retire.  Enabling people to work and contribute their skills for longer not only keeps them active, it also makes economic sense as our population ages.”

Given the length of notice required to notify an employee of their intended retirement, it is likely that these measures will come into force from 6 April 2011.
The main concern appears to be the length of time in which employers will need to come up to speed with the new law. Really they have only just got to grips with the retirement process and employers will need to deal with their new workforce at that time in particular;

•    reviewing policies and practices such as benefits to ensure these are not discriminatory to employees over the age of 65 years;
•    consider alternatives to forcing retirement such as adjustments to role, variation of terms or flexible working.

If you have any questions about the new retirement plans, do not hesitate to call Nikki Petken on 01727 798023

Author: Victoria Wells

The sudden death last month of former “Diff’rent Strokes” star Gary Coleman has highlighted the importance of having a valid Will, and keeping it up to date.

Despite his showbiz background, Gary’s personal circumstances were in some ways not that different to many of us, with both an ex-wife and a former girlfriend on the scene, and the lack of clarity around his wishes has led - perhaps inevitably - to dispute between the two.

There is also uncertainty about what to do with his ashes, surely a situation which none of us would want our loved ones to be left in.

In his 1999 Will, Gary gave instructions about his funeral, that he wanted it conducted by people who had no financial ties to him and who “can look each other in the eyes and say they really cared personally for Gary Coleman”.

He also in the Will appointed a close friend as his executor.

In 2005 it appears that Gary made a new Will, in favour of his then girlfriend, Anna Gray. The Will specified that he did not want any sort of funeral service.

Following his marriage to Shannon Price in 2007, he made a “homemade” Will, in which he named his wife as his sole beneficiary. Apparently this was signed, but not witnessed, so lacks full testamentary validity. They divorced in 2008.

Perhaps inevitably, Ms Price and Ms Gray are now in dispute about who should administer Gary’s estate, and who is entitled to that estate. Ms Gray argues that they were together for eight years, and that the 2005 Will is the valid “last Will and Testament”. Ms Gray contends that, as they were still living together at Gary’s death, despite their divorce, she is entitled to be treated as his “wife”.

A lawyer has now been appointed by the courts to sort out the mess, and in the meantime both Gary’s ashes and his estate remain in limbo.

The heartache and expense of all of this could all have been avoided if Gary, following each major change of circumstance in his life, had taken professional advice to ensure that his latest Will matched his current situation and that his belongings and his funeral would be dealt with as he wished, by the people he wanted.

Author: Guy Thomas 

In the run up to today’s creditor’s meeting at Pompey’s Fratton Park, Guy Thomas has been commenting in www.sportingintelligence.com on the background to today’s meeting and the options available to the creditors of Portsmouth City Football Club (In Administration) when they vote. Click here to read more.