Three New Associates Appointed

We are pleased to announce the internal appointment of three new Associates at Rogers & Norton.

Solicitor Elizabeth Gibson, is a key member of the Litigation team, specialising in general civil litigation, including debt recovery, contract disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, insolvency and enforcement of judgments.

Conveyancing Executive Lauren Golder deals with all aspects of residential conveyancing including leasehold and shared ownership. She has strong relationships with a wide cross section of estate agents and mortgage brokers referring her work.

Solicitor Laura Rumsey advises on a wide range of private client work, focussing on Wills, Probate, Administering Estates, Powers of Attorney and Court of Protection work.

All the promotions are richly deserved and reflect the hard work, dedication and expertise they have all contributed towards the company’s success. It is also indicative of our commitment to recognise the talented staff working at Rogers & Norton, by promoting from within.

It is exciting times at Rogers & Norton, who continue to perform strongly across all departments as a result of the huge team effort from all staff members.

Dementia Awareness Week

23rd May 2019

It’s been a calorific week at Rogers & Norton, helping to promote Dementia Awareness Week in Norwich as a proud member of the Norwich City Dementia Action Alliance. Staff at the offices in Norwich & Attleborough have been holding bake sales on a daily basis, to help raise funds for a specialist Admiral Dementia Nurse in Norfolk.

We made a commitment a couple of years ago to become a Dementia Friendly organisation, so we could help raise awareness of the condition and to promote actions that can be taken to improve the life of those living with it.

During that time Laura Rumsey has achieved Dementia Champion status and gives regular workshops to aid the understanding for those affected by friends and family members living with the condition. This week we have contacted companies that we work with, to offer dementia information sessions to their staff.

If you are interested in attending one of our information sessions then please contact us for further information.

We have also taken steps to improve our own environment by redecorating our reception to ensure it is more dementia friendly, together with improved signage and literature.

We have also dedicated the annual Footgolf event that we host at Eaton Park, to help raise funds for a much needed specialist Admiral Dementia Nurse in Norfolk.

Opposing Winding Up Petitions

23rd May 2019

The Litigation team has recently been successful in supporting a client in the prevention of a winding up petition following service of a Statutory Demand. The debt was disputed.

Within 24 hours of instructions, we received an undertaking that a petition would not be presented. We made it clear that we would seek an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding up petition, as there was a bona fide dispute over the relevant debt.

The High Court set out in ReCompany (No.006685 of 1996)[1997] BCC 830 (§832F) that:

“The true rule, which has existed for many years, is the rule of practice that this court will not allow a winding up petition to be used for the purpose of deciding a substantial dispute raised on bona fide grounds. It will not do so, as a matter of practice, because the effect of presenting a winding-up petition and advertising that petition is to put upon the company a pressure to pay (rather than to litigate) which is quite different in nature from the effect of an ordinary writ action.

The pressure arises from the fact that once the existence of the petition is known amongst those having dealings with the company, they are likely to withdraw credit or refuse to continue to trade with the company on the ground that, if the company is wound up on the petition, their dealings with it will be subject to the provisions in s. 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. In those circumstances it may well be commercially necessary for the company to pay a debt which is disputed on substantial grounds rather than to run the risk that the whole of the company’s business will be destroyed.”

Our client was delighted with this outcome and the speed of our actions and quality of advice and knowledge.

We can also deal with urgent injunctions in connection with insolvency matters

If you have concerns or issues you can contact our litigation team ph@rogers-norton.co.uk or on 01603 675639.

Free legal advice surgeries for Norfolk Constabulary

Rogers and Norton Solicitors are pleased to provide both serving and retired officers of the Norfolk Constabulary together with the civilian support staff, with free advice through monthly surgeries on all matrimonial and family issues such as separation, divorce, financial matters, police pension issues and children matters.

The monthly surgeries consist of appointments of up to one hour duration and are completely free. Should you engage our services the fees will be at a discounted rate with some fixed fees available. The surgeries are held at the Police Federation Offices, 43, Thorpe Road, Norwich, NR1 1ES. They consist of one hourly appointment slots starting at 10am with last appointment being scheduled for 3pm.

Please contact the federation office to make an appointment, alternatively we can meet with you at our offices in Attleborough or Norwich for a free hour initial meeting.

Our specialist knowledge of family law means we can advise effectively and concisely. We can help deal with the legal and financial issues involved in your separation or divorce. The team also specialises in advising on cohabitation and pre-nuptial agreements, together with children’s issues.

Click here to view dates of future surgeries

Please contact us if you would to set up similar surgeries for your company/organisation.

Focus on Dementia

After attending the local NNUH Dementia Fayre and listening to the specialist speakers it was important to expand on our knowledge of Dementia. It was good to see that this area is being researched in depth and solutions found to assist those living with Dementia.

A very practical step that was discussed by the Norfolk Constabulary was the “Herbert Protocol”. This is a tool designed to keep information on those that have Dementia. This short form can be completed by family members to have key information on their loved one to assist if that person were to go missing. This means that the police can respond in a targeted way to assist in finding that person quickly and safely.

If you wish to complete this form for your family members please find the link below: –

https://www.norfolk.police.uk/advice/personal-safety/missing-people

Rogers & Norton are always eager to support and promote Dementia awareness at every opportunity. As a Dementia Friendly organisation we are actively engaged with Dementia Action Awareness week and aim to use the focus to raise funds for specialist Admiral Dementia nurses in Norfolk, by holding a series of bake sales for staff and clients.

We are also marking Dementia Action week by reducing the cost of a Lasting Power of Attorney by 20%, for any appointments booked between the 20^th and 25^th May.

Should you wish to make an appointment to discuss this essential document you can contacts us at wills@rogers-norton.co.uk.

Success for the Matrimonial and Family team

Rogers and Norton Family & Matrimonial Team have successfully obtained an Order for Sale in respect of land owned by former co-habitants in Cambridgeshire.

The parties separated several years ago and the land has lain dormant since that time. The co-owner of the land refused to consent to a sale and following a period where they likewise refused to engage in resolving matters amicably Rogers & Norton made an application to Court. Whilst this can be a costly exercise, not only did Rogers & Norton succeed in obtaining an order at the first hearing, they also recovered the sum of £2,000 in costs. The court’s decision demonstrates that ex-partners cannot choose to disengage or refuse to co-operate and that if they do then there is a cost to pay. If we can assist you with any of your marital or property disputes then please do not hesitate to contact us on 01603 666001.

Hidden extras in your conveyancing quote

13th May 2019

It’s been reported that the Government is advising home buyers and sellers to check very carefully for 'hidden extras' when choosing a conveyancer, in a series of 'how to' guides published recently.

The guides follow an announcement by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government last year, as part of its promise to improve the home buying and selling process in England and Wales.

The main advice is for buyers to get multiple quotes from ‘legal professionals’. It’s vital to ensure that the full price is known at the outset and to check that there are no hidden extras in the quote given.

A list of other guidance is offered to help:

• If conveyancers have online reviews, buyers are told to read what customers think of the service they provide
• Do they have the specialist skills to handle leasehold, shared ownership or listed building properties?
• Check if the prospective client would have a named contact
• What communication options are available?
• Has a referral fee been paid to a third party for your custom?
• Do you prefer online or in-person service?
• Do their opening hours suit you?
• Do the company have experience conveying properties in your local area?
• Check if the conveyancer is on the mortgage lender’s panel
• Go to the Legal Choices website to check the conveyancer is regulated by an appropriate body.

The seller’s guidance states that a legal representatives should be chosen shortly before the home is put on the market, or as soon as possible once it is up for sale, so as to reduce delays.

On price, sellers are also told to check for hidden extras and whether the conveyancer will be paid a referral fee.

Buying and selling a home can be a stressful and thought provoking process – so it is vital that you instruct knowledgeable, supportive and efficient legal support. Be very careful regarding the prices quoted because as with many things, the initial price quoted will not necessarily turn out to be what you pay.

We have worked hard to ensure we have complete transparency of costs for our conveyancing work, it is detailed very clearly and visibly on our website, to ensure that any new or existing client is fully appraised at the outset of what they will be paying.

Our experienced Conveyancing team have a broad depth of knowledge in dealing with buying and selling properties; working off plan with new build developers; supporting buy to let investors and dealing with all aspects of equity release and lifetime mortgages.

You can contact the team at sjc@rogers-norton.co.uk or on 01603 675633.

Proposal to reinstate Crown preference

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference was announced as part of the Autumn Budget last year and came as a surprise. HMRC seeks the views of individuals, shareholders, directors, lenders, companies and insolvency practitioners on the proposal to reinstate Crown preference in part.

What is proposed?

Presently, when a company enters into an insolvency process, HMRC’s claim for unpaid taxes is an unsecured claim meaning HMRC stand alongside other unsecured creditors and its claim is dealt with on an equal footing. In simple terms, unsecured creditor claims rank behind fixed charge holders, insolvency practitioner fees and expenses, other preferential creditors and floating charge holders. The order of payment is prescribed by statute.

It is proposed that the statutory order of payments will be altered so that HMRC’s claim will rank ahead of floating charge holders in respect of tax payments due to it for VAT, PAYE, NIC (employee contributions) and CIS being taxes paid by third parties to the insolvent company. In respect of the tax liabilities of the company (income tax, CGT, corporation tax and employer NIC) those unpaid taxes will still rank and be dealt with as unsecured claims.

Therefore, HMRC will become a preferred creditor, although only in part. The preferred element of HMRC’s claim will however include any penalties and interest due and include historic debt “irrespective of how old” that might be.

HMRC’s primary justification for this change is loss of revenue, but the impact on the Exchequer’s pocket was a consideration when Crown preference was abolished. The conclusion reached then was that the benefit to creditors and business rescue outweighed that loss of revenue. So what has changed?

When will the law change?

The change will apply to insolvencies commencing after 6 April 2020 HMRC. The Crown preference was abolished in 2003 following the Enterprise Act because it was considered unfair to other creditors. The change, driven by a desire to encourage enterprise and business rescue, came alongside other changes to the insolvency process including the introduction of an out of court process to appoint administrators and the introduction of the prescribed part with the intention that the package of measures would help support the rescue of viable businesses.

What is the impact of the proposal to reinstate Crown preference?

Lenders and business rescue

At the same time as HMRC’s preferential status was abolished, the prescribed part was introduced to avoid floating charge holders receiving a windfall payment and ring fenced a pot of money for unsecured creditors out of floating charge realisations. If HMRC return to preferential status, creditors will rank behind HMRC as preferred creditor, the balance of floating charge assets will be further reduced by the increase in the prescribed part.

Unsecured creditors

Changes were made with the Insolvency Rules 2016 making it easier for unsecured creditors to engage in the insolvency process and for clearer lines of communication, the addressing of issues with Pre-Pack anf time to declare dividends.

If the Crown’s preference is reintroduced whilst any return to unsecured creditors may currently only be small, reducing recovery in many cases to nil removes any interest that unsecured creditors have in the process – unless they are looking to make personal claims against directors, which is a separate subkect!

HMRC say that this change is necessary because since 2003 losses to the Exchequer have increased and taxes paid to businesses should instead of paying creditors of the insolvent business, be paid to HMRC to fund public services. Monies paid to a business are paid into the company’s bank account and are available to the company for daily use. Monies representing VAT payments or PAYE are used to fund the day to day trading of the company, and most make provision for payment for HMRC. Secured creditors are treated differently because they hold security for monies lent to the company.

HMRC is not a secured creditor and yes, the business may have received a payment from a customer representing tax due to HMRC i.e. VAT, but that payment is not impressed with a trust in favour of HMRC nor does HMRC have any proprietary right to that money.

Whilst we sympathise with HMRC, we are not convinced that a return to the old days is good news for our clients and creditors.

Admiral Walk

9th May 2019

Director Michele Walters and Practice Manager Aidan Tidnam were delighted to be presented with a certificate and rosette by Admiral Walk organiser, Marie Lucas.

The presentation was in recognition of the contribution and support offered by Rogers & Norton to the Admiral Walk & Cycle event at Kimberley Hall at the end of April, that raised over £ 9000 towards funding more specialist Admiral Dementia nurses for Norfolk.

As a Dementia friendly organisation we are eager to help and support raising funds for Admiral Nurses wherever possible – the proceeds from our annual charity foot golf event will be making a contribution towards the target.

Success For The Busy Litigation Team

9th May 2019

Our Litigation team continue to be busy on Insolvency matters, both for creditors and debtors, especially businesses seeking arrangements to repay HMRC or to oppose the petitions (winding up and bankruptcy). We are also acting on dealing with petitions within the construction industry.

Opposing a Winding-Up Petition

A winding up petition may be challenged by a company on the following grounds:

1. The debt alleged in the demand to be owing is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds by the company.
2. The company has a genuine right of set-off against the creditor which exceeds the amount claimed in the demand.
3. In certain other limited circumstances (for example such as Jurisdiction, Company likely to become insolvent, Technical or procedural error or Delay).

The procedure to oppose a winding up petition is to file a witness statement in opposition in court not less than five business days before the date of the hearing of the petition (rule 4.18(1), Insolvency Rules). A copy of the evidence must also be sent to the petitioning creditor as soon as reasonably practicable (rule 4.18(2), Insolvency Rules). We can also seek a validation order and apply for an injunction.

APPLICABLE LAW: RESTRAINING A WINDING-UP PETITION

An injunction restraining the presentation of a winding up petition should be granted when there is a bona fide dispute over the relevant debt. The High Court set out in ReCompany (No.006685 of 1996)[1997] BCC 830 (§832F) that:

“The true rule, which has existed for many years, is the rule of practice that this court will not allow a winding. up petition to be used for the purpose of deciding a substantial dispute raised on bona fide grounds. It will not do so, as a matter of practice, because the effect of presenting a winding-up petition and advertising that petition is to put upon the company a pressure to pay (rather than to litigate) which is quite different in nature from the effect of an ordinary writ action. The pressure arises from the fact that once the existence of the petition is known amongst those having dealings with the company, they are likely to withdraw credit or refuse to continue to trade with the company on the ground that, if the company is wound up on the petition, their dealings with it will be subject to the provisions in s. 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986. In those circumstances it may well be commercially necessary for the company to pay a debt which is disputed on substantial grounds rather than to run the risk that the whole of the company’s business will be destroyed.” (Emphasis added). The Court of Appeal accepted the same in The Arena Corporation Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 371. Materially, it set out that it is not the function of the Companies Court in the exercise of its winding up jurisdiction to adjudicate in respect of a genuinely disputed debt.

The authorities on cross-claim cases generally deal with cases where the primary debt is not in dispute, but it is argued that there is a separate genuine cross-claim between the parties which exceeds the amount of that debt. In such cases, in the absence of special circumstances, the court should exercise its discretion by dismissing or staying the petition Re Bayoil SA [1998] BCC 988.

The standard to be made out in an application to restrain is again that there is a “real prospect” of the cross claim being established and exceeding the debt (Re a Company[2013] EWHC

If you have any issues or queries regarding insolvency or debt related matters, you can contact our experienced and knowledgeable litigation team at ph@rogers-norton.co.uk or 01603 675639.

New London Meeting Facilities

8th May 2019

We are delighted to be able to announce the availability of our new Central London meeting facilities. The workspace is ideally located a short walking distance from Liverpool Street Station and very close to Farringdon station, which offers excellent connections for London Underground and mainline train services.

With many clients based throughout the UK and Europe and our ever increasing growth in specialist sectors, the availability of central London meeting facilities is a natural progression for the practice. In recent years, we have enjoyed considerable expansion in Construction and Building Developments (including Construction Disputes, Arbitration and Adjudication) and in our HMRC and Border Force Practice which deals with VAT and Tax issues, investigations, seizure and restoration of goods. We also find ourselves regularly representing clients in the London Courts, attending interviews with regulatory bodies and attending conferences with ours Clients and Counsel in London chambers. Therefore the ability to have an interview facility and a workspace in central London is an excellent addition to the company..

In addition to the expansion into London to meet clients’ needs, we are very excited at working with the business community at Cowcross and imparting and sharing our knowledge especially from the construction sector with likeminded businesses. We will hold regularly workshops and seminars addressing topical issues that the community face and we are very grateful to the owner, Alan Baxter for welcoming us to his business hub.

We believe the facilities will be a great addition to the quality of service that we can offer to both new and existing clients based in London, the UK and abroad.

Enforcing a Judgment Debt – Part 2

8th May 2019

In Part 1, two methods of enforcing a Judgment debt were considered, detailed below are further enforcement methods.

Order to Obtain Information

If a Judgment debtor does not provide information or details of any assets then an application may be made to the Court for an Order to Obtain Information. The debtor will be given a date by the Court to attend to confirm what assets they have. The attendance at the Court will be under oath and the debtor will be required to disclose information relating to their employment status, details of employer and earnings, details of outgoings and any dependants, details of property owned, additional income and savings. This method is quite good at flushing out the details and often results in the debtor then making a sensible offer to pay in order to make regular payments to settle the Judgment debt.

Third Party Debt Order

This method of enforcement is used where the Judgment debtor themselves are owed money by a third party. It is often used in business transactions where the Judgment debtor is owed money specifically within the building trade. If a Third Party Debt Order is obtained then this will require the third party to pay the debt owed directly in satisfaction of the Judgment debt.

Execution against Goods (Taking Control of Goods)

This is used by the Judgment creditor in seizing goods of the debtor which can then be sold to pay off the debt. In order to use this method of enforcement assistance is required from either a County Court Bailiff or a High Court Enforcement Officer who will attend at the debtor’s premises and seize goods or sufficient goods to the value of the Judgment debt. There are restrictions as to which goods can be seized for example if you are dealing with a debtor who is self-employed then tools of the trade cannot be seized as this would result in the debtor being unable to work. Also exempt are goods which are essential to daily living i.e. beds, fridge, oven, microwave.

The above and Part 1 gives a brief insight as to the possible forms of enforcement against a debtor. For further details and to discuss your requirements then please speak to the Rogers and Norton Debt Recovery team who will be happy to provide further assistance and advice.

Enforcing a Judgment Debt – Part 1

If a debt is owed to you, the actual obtaining of the Judgment is generally speaking the easy part in the process, the difficulty is in enforcing the Judgment against the person who is or appears reluctant to pay and settle the debt.

Once a Judgment is granted by the Court and a request for payment is made on occasions the money owed (or Judgment sum) is paid without fuss and the claim is then concluded. However there are situations where the debtor remains reluctant to settle the Judgment sum and this is where further help and assistance is required in the enforcing of the Judgment. Some of the different types of enforcement are detailed below and more will follow:-

Charging Orders

This method of enforcement of a Judgment is usually used where the value of the debt or Judgment sum is of quite a high value although it can be used for any value of debt. A charging order is the means of securing the Judgment debt against the debtor’s property. Although there is no automatic payment of the debt, this method of enforcement will result in the Judgment debt being secured against the debtor’s property and when they come to sell or re-mortgage the property the charge or debt will be paid from any available equity in the property and consequently the debt will be paid.

Attachment of Earnings Order

This is a very effective method of enforcement when dealing with a Judgment debtor who has no other real assets or property. An application is made to the Court for an order to be made against the debtor’s salary or earnings and the employer of the debtor will be required to make a regular deduction from the earnings and make the payment to the Court. The deduction is generally a percentage of the monthly earnings and is capped so that the monies the debtor receives each month does not fall below a certain level. The pitfall of an Attachment of Earnings Order is that it cannot be used against someone who is self-employed.

This is only two possible methods of enforcement further details of other methods will follow in Part 2!

For all your debt recovery and enforcement needs, speak to the Debt Recovery team at Rogers and Norton.

A Friend in Deed

3rd May 2019

Barbara Pond from our Private Client team, continues to give up her free time to support the Friend in Deed Little Visitors scheme at Corton House in Norwich.

Rogers & Norton have been sponsoring the visits that allow babies and children of all ages to visit the care home with their parents in order to make some new, older friends.

The events are brilliantly supported and bring a great deal of joy and happiness to both the residents and the children.

Little visitor mornings are held on a fortnightly basis with the home also able to participate in pen pal initiatives, special events and school projects.

Barbara has witnessed lots of new friendships develop over last few months and seen the way that Friend in Deed can promote kindness and reduce loneliness.