Research by the Fellowship of Professional Willwriters and Probate Practitioners shows that many people are still confused about the qualifications needed to set up in practice as a will writer.

More than 1,000 people were interviewed. The survey revealed that more than six out of ten consumers mistakenly believe that a person has to have qualifications before they can start writing wills. More than 600 had assumed that all will writers are solicitors.

This is not the case and badly drafted wills by unqualified practitioners cause enormous problems for many families every year.

The Law Society recently highlighted cases where wills turn out to be invalid because they are not properly drawn up. This means the deceased person’s estate is treated as if he died intestate – that is, without having made a will at all.

The estate is then divided in a way laid down by the law, which could mean it goes to people the deceased person had not chosen. It is also the case that many unregulated will writers are not insured so families have no means of redress when problems arise.

The main attraction of unqualified will writers is usually that they are cheap. However, that often turns out to be a false economy as rectifying the damage caused can often be extremely expensive.

A Law Society spokesman said: "Solicitors know of so many cases of people who have turned to them for help after being left with what can only be described as nightmare wills by will writers.

“We advise people in this situation to consult a solicitor to check the accuracy of their will before it is too late."

A grandmother has won the right to be paid the same rate as a foster carer for looking after her granddaughter.

The woman, who is aged 64, has looked after the girl since 2005 when the council told her the only other alternative was to take the girl into care as her parents were unable to cope. The council then decided to treat the case as if it were a private, family arrangement and refused to pay her the full carer’s rate.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, took legal action and the High Court ruled in her favour. The judge said the payment should rise from £63 weekly to £146 in line with the average rate for foster parents with no family connections.

The judge granted the authority permission to appeal because the case has implications for other local authorities and potentially thousands of grandparents all over the country.  

It means there could yet be further developments, but the High Court decision shows that the law can come down on the side of grandparents who find themselves looking after children at a time in their lives when they thought they had put child-rearing duties behind them.

It highlights the increasing value being placed on the role of grandparents as family life becomes ever more complicated.

A man who had to give up his job due to the stress of working a 65-hour week has received £110,000 in compensation.

The man worked for a university as a manager organising courses for overseas students. Due to short staffing, his team of four had to carry out work normally dealt with by six people.

The manager found himself working 65 hours a week on a regular basis. He had worked for the university for 10 years and had suffered from anxiety and depression in the past.

His increased workload put him under a great deal of pressure. He complained to his employers but they failed to deal with the problem.

He then took time off work suffering from stress. He was able to return briefly but was forced to take time off again.

He then decided to take legal action and claimed compensation on the basis that his employers had not done enough to support him and ensure that he wasn’t overworked.

The employer denied liability but agreed an out-of-court settlement of £110,000.

The new Government has moved quickly to scrap Home Information Packs (HIPs) but has decided to keep Energy Performance Certificates (EPC).

The use of HIPs was suspended on 21^st May and new legislation will be introduced to abolish them permanently.

Making the announcement, new communities secretary, Eric Pickles, declared that “HIPs are history” and said: "The expensive and unnecessary Home Information Pack has increased the cost and hassle of selling homes.

"That is why I am taking emergency action to suspend the HIP, bringing down the cost of selling a home and removing unnecessary regulation from the home buying process.

"This action will encourage sellers back into the market, and help the market as a whole and the economy recover."

Effectively, it means that HIPs are no longer needed when selling a home. However, the coalition Government says it wants to promote policies to protect the environment and so EPCs will be retained.

EPCs rate a property’s energy efficiency from A to G.  Sellers will still have to commission an EPC before marketing their property and it must be available within 28 days of the property being put up for sale.

Abolishing HIPs means the burden of paying for searches will now fall back on the buyer and so will add to their costs.

A mother-of-three has received £55,000 compensation after being injured in a road accident.

The 36-year-old woman was a passenger in a car which collided with a vehicle pulling out of a driveway. She suffered two broken wrists, bruising and went on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder.

She underwent surgery but continued to suffer from pain in both hands. This could be brought on by typing and driving but it could also occur spontaneously without warning. She was still able to do housework but it took her longer than before and she found everyday tasks like ironing and cleaning to be exhausting.

It was expected that she would need help with household tasks while her three young children remained at home.

At the time of the accident the woman was working as a part-time teaching assistant but she was also a qualified midwife and had planned to return to midwifery once her children had grown up. That would no longer be possible for her due to the nature of the work and so her earning capacity would be reduced.

The woman took action against the driver of the other vehicle claiming that she had been negligent in failing to give way as she left the drive. Liability was admitted.

Compensation of £55,000 was agreed in an out-of-court settlement.

Seven members of a family have each received compensation after suffering carbon monoxide poisoning while staying at a hotel.

Their ages ranged from three weeks to 74 years at the time when the incident happened in 2006. They became ill and suffered from headaches and vomiting while staying together at a hotel between Christmas and New Year.

Hospital tests showed that they had elevated levels of carboxyhaemoglobin in their blood. This is caused by breathing in carbon monoxide.

Some of the family members were kept in hospital overnight but none required prolonged treatment. One had to undergo counselling after being diagnosed as suffering from anxiety disorder.

Tests carried out at the hotel showed that pipes near to the rooms where they had been staying were unsafe.

The hotel owners disputed liability. Total damages of between £1,500 and £6,750 were agreed in an out-of-court settlement.

To make a valid will a person has to have testamentary capacity – that is, they must be of sound mind and have a full understanding of what they are doing.

Otherwise, their will could later be declared invalid by a court.

That is what happened in the case of a man who drew up a will at a time when he was devastated by the recent death of his wife.

Before his wife’s death and while he was in good health, the man had drawn up a will leaving most of his estate to his sons and some to his daughters. Then, just nine days after the death of his wife, he made a second will changing the balance so the bulk of his assets went to the daughters and the share going to the sons was reduced.

The sons sought a court declaration that this will was invalid because their father lacked testamentary capacity when he made it so soon after his wife’s death. Both the sons and the daughters agreed that their father had possibly been suffering from the early stages of dementia shortly before his wife died.

His subsequent bereavement triggered an affective disorder which occurred during the period when the second will was made.

The court held that the new will was very different to the original and represented a major change in his approach to the division of his estate. It was made a time when he was old and mentally infirm.

He had clearly been devastated by the death of his wife and this by itself may have been enough to deprive him of sufficient decision making powers to draw up a will that was a true reflection of his wishes.

In these circumstances, it was up to the daughters to show that he had testamentary capacity when he made the new will. They had not been able to do this.

The second will was declared invalid and the first will was reinstated.

A woman has succeeded in keeping her home because her husband did not tell her he was having an affair when he persuaded her that they should remortgage the property.

The issue arose after the husband got into debt. He persuaded his wife to agree to remortgage the home so he could pay his creditors.

However, the wife then discovered that he had been having an affair and this led to them divorcing. The husband then lost his job and was later made bankrupt.

The wife acquired the home for £1 from his trustee in bankruptcy. However, she then found she could not pay the instalments due to the company which had financed the remortgage.

The company then began legal proceedings and the court decided that it was entitled to repossess the house.

However, that decision has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal. It held that when the wife was asked by her husband to remortgage the home she was entitled to be given all the relevant information that might influence her decision.

In agreeing to her husband’s request, she was working on the assumption that he was as committed to their marriage as she was. Had she known of her husband’s affair she would probably have reached a different conclusion.

The affair should therefore have been disclosed. The husband’s failure to make that disclosure amounted to undue influence on his wife which was sufficient to invalidate the mortgage transaction between them.

Her appeal was therefore allowed.

A group of hospital workers have won their claim that they were the victims of indirect sex discrimination when their employer cut their bonus payments.

The women all worked as hospital domestics for Newcastle NHS Hospitals Trust. They brought their claim after the Trust cut their bonus payments but continued giving bonuses to male porters who carried out work of similar value.

The Trust said it had to remove the women’s bonuses in order to compete with outside bidders in a tendering exercise for domestic services. That bid did not affect portering services and it had not been possible later to remove the differential that had been created.

It put forward a “genuine material factor” which tried to show that the difference in bonus payments was due to genuine, practical factors which were unrelated to the sex of the employees.

However, that defence has been rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It held that the withdrawal of the bonuses was designed to bring the women’s pay into line with the market rate for domestics.

However, that in itself was discriminatory because, as would be obvious to the Trust, that sector was made up almost entirely of women who received less than men who did jobs of equal value.

A woman is to receive £215,000 from her former husband even though they have been divorced for 25 years.

The couple, who had no children together, had been married for 13 years when they separated in 1985. He then remarried and now has two children with his second wife.

He retired last year and applied to have his payments to his former wife dropped because his income had reduced. However, his ex-wife submitted that if the payments were to stop, he should pay her a lump sum instead so they could achieve a clean break.

When reaching his decision, the judge halved the value of some of the man’s assets to reflect the interests of his second wife. This included his pension which would be the main source of his income.

The judge also took into account that the first wife had received an inheritance which she could use to support her needs. He then granted the order allowing the man to stop the payments. The wife’s claim for a lump sum payment was rejected.

The wife appealed on the grounds that she would suffer undue hardship and that the judge had overestimated the interests and claims of the second wife.

The Court of Appeal has now ruled in her favour. It held that the judge had been wrong to give priority to the claims of the second wife and that the man was in principle obliged to continue making the payments.

The judge had also been wrong to conclude that the first wife could adjust to the sudden loss of payments without undue hardship.

The court ruled that the man should pay his first wife £14,000 a year until he had paid a total sum of £215,000.

A security guard whose hand was crushed in a cash machine has been awarded £289,000 compensation.

The accident happened when the guard placed his hand in a rotating dispenser to remove some cash. The operator then rotated the drum crushing the guard’s hand.

The guard suffered chronic pain and depression for at least two years after the accident. He was unable to take on jobs that required repeated physical use of his injured hand and although he was capable of working, he would need an employer who was understanding and prepared to accept his limitations. It meant he faced an uncertain future in the jobs market.

He took action against the company that employed the cash machine operator on the basis that it was responsible for its employee’s negligence.

The company responded by saying the guard was malingering and lying about the severity of his symptoms.

The judge ruled that the guard was not malingering although he did find that he was 20% responsible for the accident through his own contributory negligence. His compensation was therefore reduced accordingly to a total of £289,377.

Grandparents are sometimes the forgotten victims of family breakdowns.

They have no automatic right to have contact with their grandchildren which means they may face an uphill struggle if they are denied access during family disputes.

Proposed new legislation put forward in the Green Paper ‘Support for All – the Families and Relationships Green Paper’ could help to eliminate some of the difficulties.

The Government wants to make it easier for grandparents – described as “unsung heroes” by Children’s minister Ed Balls - to seek contact with their grandchildren. As the law stands now, they have to get permission from a court before they can even start to make an application for contact.

The proposed new measures would remove that hurdle making the process easier.

Court action ought to be a last resort, of course. The first step should be to approach the parent who’s being obstructive and try to reach an agreement. This can difficult if they are feeling bitter after the break-up of a relationship but in time, most people will realise the value of their child having contact with the grandparents.

If that doesn’t work then mediation with the guidance of an independent mediator might help. However, both sides have to agree so it may not always be suitable.

Legal action may then become necessary, although there’s a good chance the problem could still be resolved before you get to court. Once the application is made, family advisory officers from the court agency CAFCASS may be appointed to examine welfare issues and prepare a report.

These reports are often strong enough to persuade the obstructive parent that contact would be good for their child. If not, the matter is likely to be decided by the court.

If the court decides in favour of contact with the grandparents then the parents will have to comply.

Legislation based on the Green Paper may still be a long way off but it should at least give grandparents confidence that the tide is turning in their favour and that their role in their grandchildren’s lives is highly valued. In the meantime, they can still ask for court permission to make an application for contact.

The National Audit Office has warned that not enough is being done to tackle the rising problem of dementia.

Ironically, perhaps, the problem is partly due to medical advancements which mean that life expectancy has increased considerably over the last 50 years.

While many people will enjoy extra years of active life, others unfortunately may begin to suffer from age related dementia which affects their mental capacity and prevents them from making decisions about their financial affairs and personal welfare.

Uncertainty about the future prompts thousands of people each year to consider the use of Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPA).

These enable you to nominate someone such as a family member or trusted associate to make decisions on your behalf if you ever lose the ability to do so yourself in the future through illnesses such as dementia.

The property and finance LPA allows you to appoint someone to look after your financial affairs and the personal welfare LPA lets you grant an attorney authority over such matters as health care and the kind of treatment you receive.

LPAs should be drawn up with the help of a solicitor to ensure that they accurately express your wishes and protect your interests.

The growing problem of dementia makes it important for everyone to look to their future now while they are still in good health.

In 2007, the Department of Health recognised the scale of the problem and stated that dementia would be treated as a national priority. However, the National Audit Office has now published a report saying that the rhetoric has so far not been matched by urgent action.

The head of the National Audit Office, Amyas Morse, said: “At the moment this strategy lacks the mechanisms needed to bring about large scale improvements and without these mechanisms it is unlikely that the intended and much needed transformation of services will be delivered within the strategy’s five year timeframe.”

No one can be sure what the future will bring us in terms of our health but LPAs can at least ensure that our interests are protected should the worst happen.

A group of local authority care workers have won an equal pay claim after discovering that men in comparable jobs were receiving bonuses.

The women were all employed by Sheffield City Council which introduced a productivity scheme for a section of workers who were predominantly male. It argued that this did not contravene the Equal Pay Act 1970 because the bonuses could not be applied to the care staff due to the nature of their work.

Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the women’s claims on the basis that the bonus scheme was a genuine initiative to increase productivity among a group of local authority workers who just happened to be male. It was not therefore tainted by any issues relating to sex.

The women refused to accept the decision, however, and took the case to the Court of Appeal. It has now ruled in their favour.

It held that the tribunal decisions were perverse because the productivity bonus created a disparity of pay between the men and the women – even though that had not been the intention when it was introduced. The authority had failed to show that the scheme was objectively justified.

The Chancellor Alistair Darling has doubled the stamp duty threshold for people buying their first home in an attempt to boost the housing market.

The new level at which stamp duty becomes payable for first-time buyers rises from £125,000 to £250,000. The Government estimates that nine out of ten first-time buyers will benefit from the increase as they will pay no stamp duty at all on houses under £250,000.

The new limit was announced by Mr Darling during his budget statement and will remain in place until March 2012. It will be partly financed by increasing stamp duty to 5% for residential property costing more than £1m. That will come into effect from April next year.

The increased threshold for first-time buyers relates to completion dates so people already in the process of buying their first home will benefit as long as they complete before 25^th March 2012.

Only people buying their main home will be able to take advantage of the new limit. It does not relate to holiday homes or buy to let properties.

The new regulations relating to trusts come into effect on 6^th April this year.

The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 is based on recommendations put forward by the Law Commission to modernise rules which it believed had become outdated.

The Act abolishes the 21-year limit during which private trusts can accumulate interest without having to distribute it to beneficiaries. The Commission had argued that there was no good reason for restricting a settler’s ability to direct or allow for the accumulation of income.

In fact, such restrictions could create problems by obliging trustees to distribute income once the 21-year limit had been reached. This meant money could be given to beneficiaries who were too young to receive it or incapable of dealing with it properly because of health or other issues. 

It’s thought the changes will make it more attractive to set up trusts because people can have more confidence that money will not be settled on beneficiaries when they are too young or if they are incapable of dealing with it for any other reason.

Charitable trusts will be still be subject to the 21-year limit, however, to ensure that income is spent for the public benefit rather than be allowed to accumulate indefinitely.

The Act also simplifies the rules relating to perpetuities by introducing a single 125-year period for all new trusts.

The Law Society is urging parents to be wary when helping their children on to the property ladder.

It fears that serious family divisions could erupt if things go wrong.

The Society says the strict mortgage regime brought about by the economic downturn means that many young people are relying on their parents to help them get on to the housing ladder.

This can quickly lead to problems, however, if there is no clear understanding of how a loan should be paid back.

The President of the Law Society, Robert Heslett, said: “If parents are helping their children, they should see a solicitor beforehand in order to draw up a loan agreement.

“It is very important that all parties involved are comfortable with the arrangement and that everyone knows where they stand with regards to paying back the money. While it’s unlikely your children will run off with your savings, handing over a large amount with no legal structure in place is a minefield. It could tear families apart if things went wrong.”

The Society stresses that parents should seek legal advice to protect their interests before handing over their life savings. 

“A solicitor will also talk through all the options available, and provide alternatives, such as parents acting as loan guarantors or entering into a joint ownership agreement.

“Solicitors are trained experts and are highly experienced in navigating the maze of paper work and dealing with house purchases. Not only will a solicitor offer the best advice and service, they will help to avoid some unforeseen hazards that may occur down the line.”

A court has reinstated a man’s original will after hearing that he had been suffering from delusions when he disinherited some of his relatives and a long term friend. 

The man had made a will while he was fit and healthy. He left most of his estate to a close relative and her daughter. He also left some of his assets to a long term friend who was chosen to be the executor.

While he was in good health, he sometimes complained to friends that he did not like his adopted children and was not leaving them anything in his will.

He later developed a terminal illness and was placed in a nursing home. As his health deteriorated, he started to believe that his friend just wanted his property. He then contacted his solicitor saying his friend and relatives were terrible people and he wanted them removed from his will. The amendments were made and he died shortly afterwards.

This meant most of the estate would now pass to the man’s adopted children.

The disinherited family members applied for a declaration that the revocation of the will was invalid. They produced medical evidence that the man had lacked testamentary capacity in the two months before he died.

The adopted children accepted that the man’s sudden beliefs about his former beneficiaries were brought on by “insane delusions” but said that those delusions did not influence his decision to revoke the will.

However, the court held that the delusions had been influential. In the space of a few months, he had changed his views about those who had been closest to him for many years and he did so for reasons that were non-existent or based on delusions.

He clearly lacked testamentary capacity and the revocation of the will was of no legal effect. Probate was granted to the friend as the executor of the will.

The High Court has ruled that a woman who cohabited with her fiancé cannot claim a share of their home following the breakdown of their relationship.

While they were together, the couple had started a business running an equine centre. He bought a property and some land and she helped by providing him with a loan.

The woman then decided to leave her job to concentrate on the equine centre. It remained her partner’s business, however, and its losses were covered by his account.

When the relationship broke down, the woman claimed that she had been promised a half share in the equity of the property. She submitted that she had played a major role in renovating and developing it and that entitled her to a beneficial interest. She said she would never have given up her career if she had not been promised that half the property would be hers.

The court held that the woman had helped to develop the property but her role was not as significant as she had suggested. More importantly, there was no evidence to show that she had been offered half of the property. Her former partner had not said anything that could reasonably be taken as promising her a beneficial interest. Her claim therefore had to fail.

A man who suffered spinal injuries when his friend jumped on his back has been awarded £1.8m compensation.

The incident happened after the two men had been to a pub together. They left after drinking two pints of beer each. As they walked along, the man was knocked to the ground with considerable force when his friend suddenly jumped on his back without warning.

He suffered several fractures to his spine. He underwent surgery followed by physiotherapy but was left with reduced mobility and manual dexterity and was unable to live an independent life.

His injuries meant he was unable to continue his career in audio design and production or take up any other form of employment.

The man, who was 41 at the time of the incident, took legal action saying that his friend’s foolhardy act of horseplay was unnecessary and created a foreseeable risk of injury. The friend admitted liability.

Compensation totalling £1.8m was agreed in an out of court settlement.

The Government has announced plans to clamp down on motorists with no insurance. New measures will make it an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance as opposed to the present system where no offence is committed until the vehicle is actually driven on public roads.

Ministers believe this will make it easier to catch uninsured drivers and prevent them posing a threat to other road users. The latest figures show that uninsured and untraced drivers are responsible for 160 deaths and 23,000 injuries every year. Uninsured drivers also cost law abiding motorists £400m a year in extra premiums.

The measures are a welcome step forward as uninsured drivers bring tragedy and heartache to thousands of families each year. Many victims don’t even receive any compensation because they don’t realise they can make a claim even though the driver who injured them has no insurance or can’t be traced. In many cases, however, they can take action under a scheme run by the Motor Insurers Bureau.

The criteria for making a successful claim are quite strict so victims should take action as quickly as possible.  For example, victims have to notify the police of the accident within a specified time. They can be left without compensation if they don’t. They should keep a note of the name of the officer who takes their details.

They should also seek expert help from a specialist solicitor who has access to the Motor Insurance Database which can sometimes be used to trace the guilty driver.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge was wrong when he dismissed legal proceedings in which a father was trying to establish his right to have contact with his two children.

The father suffered from bi-polar disorder and needed medication to stabilise his condition. In the past he had sometimes failed to take his medication and this had led to violent episodes involving both the children and their mother.

The couple eventually separated and the children continued living with the mother. He applied for a contact order so he could see his children and during the ensuing proceedings he admitted that he had been violent to the mother and the children.

He was then due to attend a fact-finding hearing but applied for an adjournment because his psychologist had advised him that he was not fit to give evidence.

The judge noted that this was a particularly important hearing because the father was due to be cross-examined about his past violent episodes. He refused to grant the adjournment because he decided that the father’s case had no chance of succeeding as the children did not want to have contact with him and it would not be in their interests to delay the proceedings any further.

However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned that decision. It held that the judge should have focussed only on the issues in front of him and not on matters that would be examined later. By totally dismissing the case he had denied the father’s right to a fair trial.

It was also true that the father’s case was not entirely hopeless because the eldest child had said that he might be prepared to see him under strict supervision and would probably want to bring his younger brother along as well.

The individual inheritance tax threshold is to remain unchanged at £325,000.

The Government had originally intended to increase the allowance to £350,000 from next year but that plan has now been scrapped because of the recession.

Making the announcement in his pre-budget statement, the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, said: "I do not believe that raising this allowance can be a priority, given the impact of the downturn on the country's finances. So I have decided to freeze the individual allowance at £325,000 for the next year."

The announcement will be a disappointment to many people and highlights the need to plan ahead in order to ensure that as much of your estate as possible is passed on in a tax efficient way to your beneficiaries.

Government announcements on inheritance matters often prompt people to review their wills, trusts and overall financial arrangements. A little careful planning now can prevent thousands of pounds being wasted in the future.

The number of claims for unfair dismissal has risen by 29%, according to the latest figures released by the Tribunals Service.

There were also steep rises in the number of employees taking action over levels of redundancy pay and the failure by employers to consult properly when making redundancies.

The increases are largely down to the recession which has put enormous pressure on firms. The sudden nature of the downturn has meant some have rushed to lay people off without following the correct procedures. This lays them open to claims from staff who feel they haven’t been treated properly or given the appropriate redundancy package.

The latest figures from the Tribunals Service cover the 12-month period up to last March. In that time the number of claims for unfair dismissal rose from just under 41,000 to just under 53,000. Claims over failure to inform and consult on redundancies more than doubled from 4,480 to 11,371. The number of claims over redundancy pay rose from 7,313 to 10,839.

The figures show the increasing willingness of employees to take action to protect their interests. Economic pressure is also a factor. In the past, many employees who lost their jobs would find new work quite quickly and so would not feel the need to pursue a tribunal claim. The recession has made it much harder to find work so people have fewer options. They may choose to take legal action to make up for their lack of income.

Badly drafted wills by unqualified and unregulated providers are putting families at risk of severe hardship, according to a report by the Law Society.

Research by the Society highlights cases where wills turn out to be invalid because they are not properly drawn up. This means the deceased person’s estate is treated as if he died intestate – that is, without having made a will at all.

The estate is then divided in a way laid down by the law, which could mean it goes to people the deceased person had not chosen.

The President of the Law Society, Robert Heslett, said: "Solicitors know of so many cases of people who have turned to them for help after being left with what can only be described as nightmare wills by will writers.

“In many cases, the victims are not aware their will writer is not regulated nor insured, so there is no means of redress if things go wrong.”

Sometimes, people are persuaded to use these unregulated will companies because they offer a cut-price service. In reality, however, that can turn out to be a false economy.