Our 5 most-read blog posts from 2012

Flo walking stick

It’s always fascinating to find out which topics have most caught your interest. In 2012, our 5 most-read blog posts were:

1. Can small dogs save your life – Bel Mooney’s book about her rescue dog Bonnie has proved a perennial favourite.

2. “Salvador Dali” standing and walking stick set to launch – Good to see such interest in the innovative Flo walking stick which I understand from designer Ilsa Parry is going from strength to strength.

 3. Good care guide launches   - a “TripAdvisor” for care homes – Opinions are divided as to whether a TripAdvisor ratings scheme will work for care homes but with the recommendations of Dilnot still to be implemented , there is no doubt that  the quality of care homes will continue to be a hot topic during 2013.

 4.  To what extent to people with dementia have the right to control over their own lives – This blog post about the experimental  care facility, Hogeweg in the Netherlands has prompted much discussion over the past year about the treatment of people with dementia.

 5. Former Countryfile presenter wins BBC ageism case – This post by legal expert Catriona Watt of Fox lawyers suggest that ageism is still an issue.

Care home fees – are you asking the right question?

As the soaring cost of care continues to dominate the press, legal expert David Edwards tells us what we should be thinking about when planning for care home fees and why trusts might not be the best solution.

Paying care home fees is front page news at the moment, a problem that will affect many of us, with 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men likely to need long-term care. 

The Government has provided some information about proposed changes including a possible limit on the amount any individual has to pay, but for those individuals who are likely to move into a nursing or care home in the near future, those changes will not come soon enough. 

We all know the problem; why should an individual spend their entire life savings on paying for care home fees when, had they not been prudent and saved, the state would have provided for them? 

The first thing to remember is that the present rules are not drafted for any other reason other than to save the Government money.  There is in no suggestion that the rules are fair or indeed framed to encourage Government approved behaviour; the so called ‘nudge’ theory. 

The most talked about way of avoiding paying for care home fees is to put your house in to a trust. We are often asked whether these trust schemes ‘work’.  In other words if you put your house into a trust and then go into a home, does the trust arrangement protect the home from having to be sold to pay the nursing home fees? 

The important question to ask yourself at this point is why would you want to put yourself in a position where you are at the mercy of local authority care home funding? 

While protecting the family home is no doubt an attractive idea for your children or other members of the family, for you, the person who is going into the care home, it may not be an attractive prospect that you have to spend your last years in a care home that is sufficiently mediocre for its fees to be within the local authority care home fee level. 

No all care homes with fee levels under the local authority limits are bad nor are all the more expensive ones good but, as with most things, you usually get what you pay for.

Speaking for myself, I want to be sure that I retain freedom to choose the care home and the quality of the care that I receive, if and when I reach that stage in life. 

To answer the question do ‘trust schemes’ work, then the answer is, it depends: 

If the property is put in to a care home at a time when there is no prospect of care home fees being paid, then the arrangement may well be successful.  

But if the local authority can establish that the gift into the trust was made for the purpose of avoiding contributions to care home fees, then they will make an assessment on the basis that gift has not been made.  That will put the elderly person in the worst possible position; they have given away the property but will still be assessed by the local authority on the basis that they still have it.  There are all sorts of time scales banded around, typically six or seven years, for the ideal gap between putting the property into trust and going into the care home for the scheme to work.  But, as I have indicated above, is that really the right question to ask? 

The better question, if you are in the happy position of being able to afford to choose the care home for you go into and the sort of care home and facilities that you would like, is how will your care home fees be funded?

In brief summary, there are six main ways of paying for care. 

1.         The deferred payment scheme.  In this case the local authority meets the cost of your care but on your death that money is repaid.  The local authority cannot, however, charge any interest during your lifetime on the monies they have spent on fees. 

2.         Rent out your property.  If you have a property, it may be possible to rent it out and put the rental income towards the cost of care. 

3.         Equity release. It may be possible to release capital or income by using the value of your property.  You will usually have to pay interest on any capital or income that you do release.  Normally you have to repay the debt when you move in to a care home, so an equity release can be an attractive approach if you wish to be cared in your home. 

4.         Cash.  You may simply put your capital into a savings account and then put the interest towards the cost of care.  In most cases the interest will not meet the amount you need, so you may end up having to use the capital. 

5.         Invest.  You could look to make your capital work harder in order to produce a greater return than if it were left in cash.  You need to be careful to invest in the right sort of areas as not all investments are suitable for producing a regular income stream. 

6.         Buy yourself an income.  You could use some of your capital to buy yourself a guaranteed lifetime income payable monthly tax free.  This would help to solve the care funding problem as well as to protect your remaining capital.  The amount of capital needed varies according to age and health and poor health can mean a better deal for you, so the first step is to find out the specific cost for you.

It seems that whenever elderly people are involved in money, there is someone ready to take advantage.  So make sure you take advice from someone you trust and who is properly regulated to give advice in this difficult area  and make sure that advice includes a check on whether you are getting all the benefits you are entitled to.

David Edwards

This is a general note to outline the options. As always you need to take advice specific to your individual circumstances before acting or omitting to act. 

 

You should take financial advice from a properly regulated financial advisor. My firm’s associated Chartered Financial Planning Company DKM Wealth Ltd offers independent financial advice and is regulated to advise on care home fee planning. Readers of this blog article are welcome to a FREE initial meeting to assess what options might be right for them. We also have a FREE booklet that explains this article in more detail. Please email me on djedwards@bbc-law.co.uk for more information.

David Edwards is Managing Partner and Head of Private Client at Burt Brill & Cardens, a well-known firm of Brighton solicitors specialising in looking after people and their businesses. For more information about David or Burt Brill & Cardens visit www.bbc-law.co.uk

What today’s Supreme Court decision on age discrimination means for employers

Today the Supreme Court handed down the much awaited decision on the Seldon age discrimination case. Here legal expert, Ronnie Fox from Fox lawyers explains what it means from an employer’s point of view

A couple of years ago the in-house counsel of a major corporate client asked me to advise whether a standard retirement age of 65 would be in breach of the age discrimination legislation. Then he said, “I don’t want you to say that justification depends on whether the policy is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”; that doesn’t help me”. He wanted a definitive answer.

It is tragic that Seldon (and Homer too) have been all the way up to the Supreme Court only for the decisions as to whether the particular circumstances in those two cases can indeed be justified to be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal will have to decide whether on the specific facts a mandatory retirement age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Employers will just have to wait and see what the tribunal decides. How much simpler it was when the law permitted a default retirement age! The need for a further hearing in Seldon will probably come as a tremendous disappointment to the parties. Today’s decision will not make it easy to give clear advice to clients as to what retirement age is acceptable.

On the positive side, the Supreme Court has given some guidance. In future it will be harder for employees and partners who are required to retire at a compulsory retirement age to argue that they have been discriminated against if the reasons behind the compulsory retirement policy have been well thought out, carefully explained and alternative ages considered. The Supreme Court seemed to accept that the reasons given for the policy at Clarkson Wright and Jakes, (namely, (i) giving associates an opportunity of partnership within a reasonable time, and thereby an incentive to remain with the firm; (ii) facilitating workforce planning by knowing when vacancies were to be expected; (iii) limiting the need to expel underperforming partners, thus contributing to a congenial and supportive culture within the firm) were all potentially consistent with the social policy objectives in the Council Directive.

So we shall have to wait to see what happens. What is clear is that abolishing the default retirement age has not been the end of the discussion and has introduced all sorts of uncertianty for businesses.  It will remain to be seen whether this lack of clarity will mean more or less jobs for older workers. 

Worrying about paying care home fees? Get the right advice first

Paying for nursing home or care home fees is a big worry for many people.

Typically, the worries are:

>Spending all one’s savings on fees.

>Having to sell one’s home to pay for the fees.

>Not having enough money.

>Protecting savings and house against claims from the local authority.

There are no easy answers. This really is an occasion when you should get good advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

You need expert advice because of the interplay between the individual’s own and the family’s financial resources and commitments, benefits available from the state, pension provision, care home fee levels, likely changes to those fees in the future and the health outlook for the individual concerned.

For many people, the first person they turn to is a financial advisor.

Although often a good place to start, beware those advisors who are simply looking to sell an expensive financial products or who suggest a simplistic solution like “putting the assets into a trust”, to protect assets from the local authority.

Any individual who gives away assets with a view to avoiding a present or later contribution towards care home fees will be assessed by the local authority on the basis that the disposition of assets had not been made.  In other words, there are strict rules designed specifically to prevent people giving away assets so as to avoid contributing towards their care home fees.

It is important to remember that the rules have not been designed to be fair or morally right.  They are simply designed to protect the state’s financial resources.

Remember to ask your financial advisor if he or she is qualified to give advice on care home fee provision.  Not every financial advisor is authorised to give such advice.

Make sure you talk to your solicitor.  Again not all solicitors are experienced in this work. Ask, and if you are not convinced, go elsewhere. Your solicitor should be to give you proper independent advice and is well placed to ensure all aspects of the situation are looked at properly.

Generally, the earlier you start to make plans the more options there are.  No one particularly likes to contemplate their health deteriorating to the point where they need support but for many individuals, annual care home fees in excess of £35,000 or more, will quickly eat into capital and threaten financial hardship.

Finally, it is important that you only seek advice from individuals who are properly qualified to advise and who you completely trust.  It is a sad fact of life that there are many people who prey on elderly people and take advantage of them, particularly where there is no supportive family.  It is surprising how many elderly people in their final years find themselves alone and are then very vulnerable to individuals who strike up friendships with them and take advantage.

To conclude!  Plan early and get good advice from people you trust.

If you would like more information, then David would be happy to give a consultation for a set fee. To book an appointment, please email Marketing Manager, Maureen Edwards  at medwards@bbc-law.co.uk

David Edwards is Managing Partner and Head of Private Client at Burt Brill & Cardens, a well-known firm of Brighton solicitors specialising in looking after people and their businesses. He is also a member of STEP the worldwide organization for specialist Private Client practitioners and is currently President of Sussex Law Society. For more information about David or Burt Brill & Cardens visit www.bbc-law.co.uk

Buying property with family and friends? Legal expert David Edwards advises how to avoid problems

As the Bank of Mum and Dad is increasingly called upon to help first time buyers get on the property ladder, lawyer David Edwards advises how to avoid running into problems.

With very tight mortgage lending and lenders insisting on large deposits, more and more parents are helping members of the family to get onto the property ladder. And as well as families helping out, there is also an increasing trend for friends to purchase property together. 

How do you protect your “investment” and how do you regulate the arrangements between members of a family or friends who co-own property? 

The answer in both cases is a declaration of trust. 

This is a legal document that sets out: 

- How the sale proceeds are split when the property is sold. 

- Who can decide that the property is sold.

- What happens if one person wants to sell and one does not.

 - Who is responsible for paying the mortgage and other outgoings. 

- What happens if one of the co-owners dies. 

Just starting to think about these matters makes many people realise that co-owning or contributing towards the purchase of a property is a lot more complicated than simply writing out the cheque.

Our experience is that a carefully thought through declaration of trust is the best way of dealing with all of these issues, deciding what will happen at a time when everybody is talking happily with each other! 

The actual declaration of trust need not be complicated.  It simply records what the parties would like to happen in a number of circumstances. Although every declaration of trust will be different, typically they will provide:

-How the proceeds of sale of the property will be divided.  This might be, for instance, that the mortgage is paid off and then some money is returned to the parents and the rest is split.

-What will happen if one owner wants to sell and the other does not. For instance, the owner who wants to remain would be given three months to buy out the owner who wants to sell at an agreed price. 

-The declaration can also cover who should benefit from an increase in value as a result of improvements being carried out. 

Finally, at the same time the declaration is completed, it is important to make sure that the legal title to the property is registered correctly and the Wills of the owners are reviewed to see if any changes are necessary.

Having a declaration of trust can avoid difficult family and friend issues, particularly if relationships are starting to break down. They are invaluable to help protect the interests of parents or other friends if one of the owners becomes involved with, say, a failing business or a relationship or marriage breakdown. 

This article attempts to set out the main benefits a declaration of trust brings to joint ownership or joint funding of property.  As always, it is important that you obtain legal advice specific to your requirements before acting or omit to act. If you would like more information then contact David Edwards by email, djedwards@bbc-law.co.uk 

David Edwards is Managing Partner and Head of Private Client at Burt Brill & Cardens, a well-known firm of Brighton solicitors specialising in looking after people and their businesses. He is also a member of STEP the worldwide organization for specialist Private Client practitioners and is currently President of Sussex Law Society. For more information about David or Burt Brill & Cardens visit www.bbc-law.co.uk

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 3 – how do we re-design work?

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 3 – How do we need to re-design work?

In Parts 1 and 2 we considered why work needed to change to reflect the huge changes in society over the past 60 years and whether flexible working was the way forward. In this final post we ask whether if flexible working is the way forward, what we need to change in order to make flexible working a reality for more people. 

Here are some thoughts.

Whilst there is increasing evidence that some people are prepared to trade salary for time, we will need to accept that there will be an impact on living standards for people choosing to work flexibly. In particular, home ownership might be more difficult to achieve and there will need to be more flexible housing options such as more secure private rental models and greater use of shared equity schemes.

I think we need more democratisation of the workplace. Hierarchical structures often mean more that those further up the pyramid are allowed more freedom to choose they way they want to work  than those at the bottom. In many workplaces this means the senior managers able to leave early to watch the school play without anyone batting an eyelid whilst the secretaries have to negotiate either unpaid leave or working overtime weeks in advance. Everyone should have equal flexibility in this respect.

Denise Stephens of Enabled by Design points out that we also need a more flexible state benefit system, commenting on the current provision for people with disabilities as follows “Wanting to return to work…is simply not enough. First there is the minefield of the benefits system to navigate which up until now has very much been an all or nothing affair; you’re either well enough to work or not and there is little or no provision for people with variable conditions or intermittent periods of ill health – nor tailored support for creative adjustments to support opportunities such as working from home. ”  Entrepreneur Duncan Edwards of Trabasack echoes this, calling for flexibility and simplicity of benefits and “a tax system which does not to penalise short term /irregular work.” Whether any of will be achieved as part of the current overhaul of the benefits system remains to be seen.

From a legal perspective Catriona Watt of Fox lawyers predicts that ”The government may come under pressure to introduce legislation which better protects self-employed consultants by giving them more of the rights employees enjoy. Currently some core legal protections only apply to employees and not consultants or freelancers, most particularly the rights on termination of employment such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right to receive a statutory redundancy payment.”  With more older people and disabled people in the workforce, “Employers will need to be even more focused on anti-discriminatory policies and, in due course, discrimination and flexible working legislation. The government must be proactive with initiatives on training and development for the over 50s, media campaigns to tackle ageism and disability discrimination and possibly facilitating a combination of gainful employment and social security.”

We might also want employers to provide new sorts of benefits such as geriatric care managers to help employees with their elderly care responsibilities and stress counselling. I wonder whether we will be prepared to trade salary for this sort of support.

We should perhaps consider too different sorts of working models  which make the most of the enhanced experience of an older workforce, for example job shares which team up less and more experienced people (with differentiated pay scales).

It is likely that managers will need to be trained about intergenerational differences and how this might impact on their workforces. Any flexible working schemes considered for older workers will need to be implemented consistently to avoid disadvantaging younger employees.

There are big challenges ahead but the benefits of getting flexible working right are huge too.  Marrisse Whittaker of Virtual Granny puts it well: “Having access to flexible working hours can enhance the lives of people over 60 keeping them mentally and physically active for longer, saving the country costs in healthcare going forward. And their unique and varied life experiences can enhance the lives of those they work with, care for, or play with. A win win situation all round.”

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 2 – The case for and against flexible working

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 2 – The case for and against flexible working

In Part 1 we looked out how whilst the last 60 years has seen extraordinary changes in society, the workplace and our families, the way we work has so far failed to keep up. So how should work be adapted to reflect these changes?  Increasingly people are calling for more “flexible working”.

Marrisse Whittaker from Virtual Granny puts it like this: “60 is the new 40. The vast majority of people around the current retirement age are still both physically and intellectually bright and carry a vast weight of experience with them, which can be hugely valuable to any workforce.  However, having slogged it out at work for many years, most people are looking for more of a life balance and flexible working hours would allow over 60’s to contribute to the workforce and also to offer valuable help to families, particularly by helping care for grandchildren.”

But what do we mean by “flexible working”?

Rowena Cowen, City HR Director, explains “The meaning of flexible working has changed considerably over recent years – traditionally we tended to think of it applying especially to women with young children. While legislation has now extended this right, in reality, flexible working covers a whole host of different lifestyle needs. For example, single adult households who need time at home to stay in for deliveries without taking holiday, or even, in our aging population, older workers who just find the daily commute into the City each day onerous and who value being able to work at home one day a week.

Flexible working also has many guises. Working at home, part time work, fixed term contracts, compressed hours, flexi-time, job sharing, sabbaticals, time off for charitable work, are all variations on a theme”.

Disadvantages of flexible working

But of course, as many a working mother has found to her cost over the years, flexible working does not always deliver what it promises.  In the past “flexible” working has often meant less chance of advancement and earnings penalties for people unable to work “full time”. Many flexible jobs are low status and low paid.

Employers are often reluctant to adopt flexible working patterns. Flexible working can be seen as difficult to manage and there are concerns about how to monitor employees at home.

Employers can often also worry about client or customer perception, that flexible can somehow equate to unprofessional.

There is also a danger that a flexible workforce might be less cohesive. There are definite social benefits of a work environment where people are together and some people feel very isolated working at home for long periods.
 

Benefits of flexible working

Notwithstanding the challenges that it can bring, some employers are beginning to appreciate the benefits of a flexible workforce.

Rowena Cowan again: “In my experience, some sectors have embraced the concept of flexible working more readily than others. In certain, more ‘traditional’ professions, there can be a residue of hanging on to the comfort of the 9-5, must come into the office every day routine. But there is evidence that even these bastions of the ‘normal’ office routine are re-examining their policies in the face of not only mounting  pressure from their employees, but also good business acumen.   I think there are a number of reasons why companies can no longer afford to ignore the flexible working revolution. Employees are certainly aware of their rights and are very persistent in pursuing their flexible working requests. The fact is that, despite (or perhaps because of) the current economic uncertainty, people are no longer as afraid of moving jobs as they might have been a generation or so ago.  And while I would not question employees’ loyalty to a reasonable employer, the fear of changing jobs, the demise of final salary pensions, and the fear of the unknown is not as great so if employees cannot get what they reasonably ask for, the chances are high they will find it somewhere else. In addition, despite the high number of unemployed, the battle for the top talent remains as fierce as ever and employers must constantly be aware and responding to the demands of that talent if they are to attract them.

But the necessity to embrace flexible working in all its forms is not just about attracting staff, or the fear of losing them. There is now an increasing body of empirical evidence that those employers who do offer flexible working have more motivated and engaged staff which in turn, leads directly to a healthier bottom line. Flexible working is not the answer to every challenge we face as employers, but it is a good place to start.”

Entrepreneur Duncan Edwards of Trabasack agrees, highlighting a number of other benefits to employers of allowing people to work from home: “Accessibility is improved as people are working in their own suitably adapted environment more, rather than the ‘one size fits all’ workspace. Productivity can be improved as people are working at the best times for them and when they are most efficient and not merely “putting the hours in”. There are time efficiency savings with less travelling as well as time and energy efficiencies with carbon savings, less commuting and reduced office infrastructure costs.”

By removing barriers to work, flexibility can also reduce reliance on benefits and cut care costs by encouraging independence and allowing people time to look after their own family and friends.

So, although potentially very challenging for employers and employees alike, we think the case for flexible working is very persuasive.  In Part 3 we consider what sort of changes need to be made to the way we work to achieve this sort of working model.

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Why we need to re-design work for an older population. Part 1 – Why work needs to change

The UK is getting older.  Disastrous pension provision and a faltering economy, as well as personal choice, mean that many of us will not have a traditional retirement as we continue to work beyond our early 60s.  All of us are more likely than ever to become carers, if not for our parents and grandparents then for our grandchildren.  And whilst medical advances mean that many of us will live longer, most of us can expect to have chronic health conditions of some sort or other. But is the world of work ready to embrace this new cohort of older people with differing ambitions, health conditions and family responsibilities? If not, how can we re-design it to enable us all to continue working?

In this series of blog posts, we look at why work needs to change (Part 1), the case for and against flexible working (Part 2) and finally, how we need to re-design work (Part 3).

Part 1 – Why work needs to change?

Whilst the last 60 years has seen extraordinary changes in society, the workplace and our families, the way we work has so far failed to keep up.

60 years ago

When the people now hitting their sixties were born, the world was a very different place. The primary role of men was to be breadwinners and often women were the homemakers and carers of children and the elderly.

People were educated and trained once and then remained in one occupation or profession for the whole of their working life. At an agreed age people would be required to leave the workforce and live out retirement funded by pensions. Mortgages to buy homes were paid off by the age of retirement (which was shorter as people died earlier) and house equity could be used to further fund retirement activities.

Today

Women have entered the workplace in unprecedented numbers with men and women increasingly sharing childcare and housework. There are more single parent households, with “nuclear families” no longer the norm. It is much more difficult for children to become financially independent particularly with the abolition of free higher education and the rise in house prices. And people are finding that not only are they caring for parents and grandparents but increasingly babysitting grandchildren too.

The idea of retraining or lifelong learning is becoming more important as more people find themselves without a “job for life”.  There is also increasing recognition that people with disabilities do not want to be “looked after” but want equal independence.

People are living longer and wanting and needing to continue working later in life. From 6 April 2011, the Default Retirement Age is being phased out and as Catriona Watt of Fox lawyers explains “Employers will no longer be able to rely on retirement as a fair reason for dismissal. An employer will only be able to dismiss an individual over retirement age by reason of poor health or performance and the performance management system must apply equally to employees of all ages”.

Work is becoming more “task” focused rather than “time” focused removing the need for workers to keep regular hours. The advent of the internet and the extraordinary advances in technology mean that many of us could work remotely.

But notwithstanding these huge changes in the way we live, many of our jobs are designed in the same way as they were 60 years ago. Many jobs still have fixed working hours, with Monday to Friday 9-5 as the norm. There is usually a requirement to work in one particular place with time off limited to certain prescribed activities such as holidays or maternity leave. And very often sickness absence is limited.

So we have a disconnect between the needs and lifestyles of the workforce and the way jobs work.  We consider in Part 2 how we might change the way we work in order to accommodate an increasingly older workforce.

Do you agree with us ? We would love to hear your thoughts and observations.

If you would like a complete copy of the article (with all three Parts), please email us at contact@thefutureperfectcompany.com

Former Countryfile presenter wins BBC ageism case

By Catriona Watt, Fox lawyers

When BBC programme Countryfile moved from its daytime slot to a primetime slot on a Sunday evening, three of its female presenters were replaced by younger candidates. Ms O’Reilly (aged 51) was one of those dropped from the programme and subsequently brought a claim in the employment tribunal arguing that her removal from Countryfile amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of her age and sex. The tribunal rejected Ms O’Reilly’s sex discrimination claim but held that her removal from Countryfile did amount to direct age discrimination. The tribunal noted that it was clear that Ms O’Reilly’s age was a significant factor in the BBC’s decision not to retain her for the primetime show. If she had been 10 to 15 years younger it would have given her proper consideration.

Age discrimination can, in certain circumstances, be objectively justified as “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. In Ms O’Reilly’s case, the tribunal held that the BBC’s age discriminatory treatment of her was not objectively justified. Although the BBC’s wish to appeal to a primetime audience, including younger viewers, was a legitimate aim, it was not proportionate to remove older presenters to pander to the assumed prejudice of such viewers.

It is notable in this case that the tribunal gave such short-shrift to the idea that the BBC could justify replacing older presenters with younger ones to help achieve its legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience. This is a clear indication to employers that where they do implement practices which directly or indirectly discriminate against employees on the grounds of their age to achieve what the employer says is a “legitimate aim” for the business, the employer will have to work much harder to show that the practice is indeed proportionate.

This case is also significant in showing that employees are increasingly aware of, and indeed increasingly willing to pursue, their rights under the age discrimination legislation introduced in 2006 and now enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.

This is a general account of the law as it currently stands. It is always best to seek legal advice for specific queries

Why making a Will is good for you (and everyone around you)

David Edwards is a partner with Burt Brill & Cardens and an expert in Wills, Lasting Powers of Attorneys and protecting family wealth. David is offering customers of The Future Perfect Company a free 10 minute telephone consultation to establish whether you need a Will.  To arrange a consultation, email medwards@bbc-law.co.uk and quote this website

 A staggering two thirds of people in England and Wales do not have a Will according to the latest research from National Centre for Social Research. At the same time, the reasons why people should make Wills are more compelling than ever.  The laws of inheritance, framed in the 1920s do not cater well for modern family structures.

For example, if you die leaving a spouse or civil partner and children, then your spouse or civil partner will only get the first £250,000 of your estate plus personal possessions outright. Half of the rest is shared equally amongst the children and the other half is put into a trust. The spouse/civil partner gets the income or interest from the trust during his/her lifetime and when the spouse or civil partner dies, the capital goes to the deceased’s children equally. If that sounds complicated, then it is!

Just imagine the difficulties that arise if you end up with your children owning part of your home.

This is only one or a whole host of reasons why a Will is good for you.

Given the many compelling reasons to make a Will, why is it that so many people do not bother? There are the old clichés that making a Will shortens your life, people do not want to think about dying or ”I don’t need one because everything will go to my partner”.  None of these, of course, are true and the belief that your partner will inherit is particularly dangerous.

The overwhelming reason why more people do not make Wills is it they are like New Year’s resolutions.  They sound a good idea, but in practice, it will require effort (and expense) now in return for benefit in the future, and as people do not think they are going to die soon, they put it off for a bit longer.

 Assuming you are really determined to think about making a Will, do you need to?

 Almost certainly yes!

If you are single without friends, relatives, children, dependents and you really do not mind where your assets go once you have passed away and you do not mind putting those who remain to additional expense and inconvenience in trying to sort things out, then you can happily carry on without a Will.  Otherwise, a Will really is a good idea.

 The first step

First of all, you need to think how straightforward your Will is likely to be.  You need to spend five minutes thinking about your friends and family and then think about the assets, money, insurance policies, pension entitlements, property, shares, investments and so on and your debts, mortgages, loans, etc. and then imagine that if you were to die how you would like the people in your life to share your assets.

Now that you have a rough idea in your head as to how you would like things arranged, you need to decide how you are going to make your Will.

If you are a soldier about to go into battle it is sufficient to simply tell someone of your wishes.

If not, then there are strict requirements as to how a Will is written down, signed and witnessed. 

For your protection and to make sure the person dealing with the Will knows what they are talking about, my personal preference is to consult a solicitor.  There are, though, alternatives providers of Wills including Will writers but make sure you use a regulated and reputable firm.

You can, of course, buy Will- making stationery or work your way through guidebooks. But be warned. Solicitors love people making home-made Wills because the cost of sorting them out is, in 9 cases out of 10, vastly more expensive than dealing with a straightforward Will.

Whoever you choose to help you with the Will, make sure you have a clear confirmation about the cost. Also make sure you speak to the person who will draft the Will to ensure that you will be happy to talk about personal matters in relation to your family and your assets with the person who is to prepare the Will.

Here is a checklist of just some of the circumstances which normally make it essential that a proper Will is prepared.

If you are living with a partner and you are not married or in a civil partnership

If you have young children

If you are married or in a civil partnership without children and your net assets are more than £450,000

If you are married or have a civil partner and children and your net assets are more than £125,000

If you have children from a previous relationship

If you want to leave something to a person other than your spouse or civil partner or children.

 Do not leave it too late.

 Making a Will on your death bed is not, usually, a happy experience.  I have prepared many Wills in these circumstances and quite apart from adding to the trauma within the family, it often gives rise to additional complications such as questions over mental capacity which adds very considerably to the stress of everyone involved.

 This article has only touched on some of the issues arising out of Wills and why you should have one.  There are many other circumstances in which a Will is a very good idea, if not absolutely essential!

 Don’t forget this is general comment; you should take legal advice relevant for your circumstances before acting – or deciding not to act.