A European Court Decision (ESCHIG September 2009) say you can challenge your legal expenses insurers if they tell you that you do not have a choice and try to refer you to a panel solicitor.

A 2007 report prepared for the UK Ministry of justice confirmed that the market for Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance is increasing year on year. The origins of this insurance date back to the Le Mans series of car races when many claims arose against drivers and their liability insurers. This led to the development of “ contre assurance” or insurance against insurance companies. The first legal expenses insurance company was established in 1917 in Le Mans and still trades today. A financial intelligence Mintel Report for 2006 indicated that

“given that the adult population is estimated to be around 47.4 million in 2006, it appears that LEI is held by about 23.7 million people with a higher proportion being held through motor insurance policies. Mintel estimated that 18.5 million consumers held LEI as part of their car insurance, 14.2 million people purchased LEI as an add-on to their household insurance and 4.7 million purchased LEI with their travel insurance, although this will almost certainly be a short-term purchase unless purchased as part of an annual travel insurance policy. This does not take into account the LEI/BTE policies held through membership of affinity groups, such as trade unions.”

In recent years legal expenses insurers have developed panels of solicitors to assess claims and then represent policyholders against the third party who caused the accident or condition. With amendment to Law Society rules on referral fees, solicitors pay to join a panel and then typically pay a fee to receive a case from the legal Expenses insurer. It is not unknown for these fees to be of the order of £750 per case. So if you have an accident your legal expenses insurer will benefit twice, firstly from the premium it charged you for the policy and then by selling your claim. Policyholders who seek to appoint their own solicitors are often told by their legal expenses insurer that they do not have a choice in the matter and that cover will only apply if they agree to the panel referral. Others are told that they can only choose a solicitor if proceedings are issued in court and unless and until proceedings are issued then a panel solicitor referral must be made. What clients often do not realise is that their claim is a source of income for the legal expenses insurers and that retaining the claim in order to generate a referral fee is often a more pressing consideration that the client’s desire to recover damages from the  third party  .

So, if you have the benefit of this type of insurance can you successfully challenge your legal expenses insurer when they try to insist on choosing a solicitor for you? The answer to this question is yes.

So what do you need to do?

1. In any situation where you may want to make a claim on your legal expenses insurance policy speak to a qualified solicitor first if you can, before you contact your insurers.
2. Look for a solicitor who is a member of the Law Society’s Personal Injury Panel.
3. Don’t accept a panel solicitor appointment without speaking to another solicitor first.
4. Note if you do accept a panel solicitor appointment you could end up with a solicitor based miles away from where you live with a limited opportunity to meet face to face to discuss your claim. That solicitor has probably paid to be on the panel and to receive your claim from your legal expenses insurer who in turn has trousered a referral fee. Is this in your best interests?
5. If your legal expenses insurer insists on a panel solicitor appointment (and won’t budge on this point) then consider contacting us anyhow… We can help you to draft a letter of complaint to the FSA.   The decision of the European Court in Eschig is clear. You have the right to choose your own solicitor in all types of claim except in very limited circumstances connected with a road traffic accident claim. 

 If you’re interested in reading more about the case behind this, read on…

Legal Position EC Directive 87/344 and decision in the case of ESCHIG 2009

The right of a client to choose his own solicitor where he has the benefit of legal expenses insurance dates back to 1987.It is set out in EC Directive 87/344.This provides in Article 4 that

“1. Any contract of legal expenses insurance shall expressly recognize that:

(a) where recourse is had to a lawyer or other person appropriately qualified according to national law in order to defend, represent or serve the interests of the insured person in any inquiry or proceedings, that insured person shall be free to choose such lawyer or other person;

(b) the insured person shall be free to choose a lawyer or, if he so prefers and to the extent that national law so permits, any other appropriately qualified person, to serve his interests whenever a conflict of interests arises”

The directive allows very limited exception in road traffic cases only where there is a policy of breakdown insurance that has the benefit of legal expenses insurance.

The right to choose has been confirmed again in the European court in the case of ESCHIG v UNIQA EC-199/08 Judgment September 2009. This case confirmed the right of insured persons to choose their own lawyer and that there could be no contractual limitation on this right.

Mr Eschig, an Austrian national challenged the legality of a term in his policy, with UNIQA restricting his ability to appoint his own lawyer to act for him in circumstances where he was one of a number of multiple insured persons suffering loss as a result of the same event. He  had, with several thousand other investors, invested monies in a financial services company and an investment company that had become insolvent. He had taken out Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance with UNIQA, as had thousands of others. He wanted to appoint his own lawyer in various proceedings against the companies and the Austrian regularly authorities. UNIQA refused his request. This decision was upheld in the Austrian Appeal Court which then made a referral to the European court on the interpretation of EC Directive 87/344. The European Court  found in favour of Mr Eschig.

Implications for UK Policyholders

EC Directive 87/344 was implemented in the UK in 1990 by the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990. Clause 6 states expressly:

Freedom to choose lawyer
    6.—(1)  Where under a legal expenses insurance contract recourse is had to a lawyer (or other person having such qualifications as may be necessary) to defend, represent or serve the interests of the insured in any inquiry or proceedings, the insured shall be free to choose that lawyer (or other person). (2)  The insured shall also be free to choose a lawyer (or other person having such qualifications as may be necessary) to serve his interests whenever a conflict of interests arises. (3)  The above rights shall be expressly recognised in the policy.

These Regulations recognize the very limited exception on right to choose in the road traffic breakdown insurance category. No other exceptions apply but UK Legal Expenses insurers flout this regulation frequently by insisting on restricting choice in all types of claim and making a referral to a panel solicitor.

Position of the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”)following the European Court decision in Eschig

UK legal expenses insurers are regulated by the FSA which has now ordered all of them to comply with European law that gives policyholders the right to choose their own solicitor. The FSA insurance Sector Director has warned insurers that in the light of the decision in Eschig any policy terms that “ detract from, or qualify in any way, the freedom to choose a lawyer” might be illegal. All Insurers have until 30 September 2010 to comply.

Specialist disputes solicitor, Alex Lyttle, will be bringing his expertise to Weston from September 2010.  Alex will be dividing his time between the Wards’ Weston office (on The Boulevard) and our Bristol City office.

Alex acts for a wide range of businesses and private individuals.  Areas of expertise include disputes ranging from breach of contract and shareholder disputes through to debt recovery claims, property disputes and a wide range of employer and employee employment matters.

Originally from Northern Ireland, Alex trained with Morrison and Masters Solicitors in Swindon, before working at Treasures Solicitors in Gloucester.  He joined at Wards last year, from Saunders Roberts Solicitors based in Worcestershire. 

He comments: “The Wards Weston office has always been important to the firm and I’m delighted to be joining the team there.  I think that it’s important for local people to get expert advice in a location that’s convenient to them.  Why should they have to travel to Bristol? I’m very much looking forward to getting to know the town and working with local businesses and individuals”.

With the recession, it is perhaps not surprising that we are receiving reports of increasing numbers of cohabiting couples seeking relationship breakdown advice.

Cohabiting couples  frequently misunderstand how the law applies to them… and the most common misunderstanding is that one can gain rights by virtue of the length of the relationship.  This is not, in fact, the case and there is no such thing as a ‘common law’ husband or wife, in English law.

Looking at property ownership specifically, when two or more people buy property together it is very important that they understand the types  of joint ownership available to them and decide on the method best suited to them.  In doing so, however, the need to understand fully the actual and potential implications.

When the property is sold, all mortgages and charges have to be repaid in full, as will the estate agents and conveyancing fees on the sale.  Only the balance will be available for division between  the owners. It is this balance that the joint owners must consider.

Unless the joint owners contribute equally to funding the purchase, the person paying or contributing the larger share of the money may wish to ensure that, when the property is sold, they are entitled to receive a larger share of the balance than the other joint owner or owners.

With the credit crunch, couples now, often, have to find substantial deposits.  As a result it is increasingly common for this to be provided by one of the buyers only or with the help of  one of their families.

Before  joint owners commit to buying property they  should consider:

1.    Do they want the property to be jointly owned so that  each has an equal interest in the property and so that, if one dies, the survivor would automatically own the whole property?

OR

2.    Do they want the property to be jointly owned so that each owns a precise and specified share of the property and are each able to leave this share by Will to whoever they choose.  If so, then do they wish:

(a)    To own the property in equal shares; or

(b)     To own the property in unequal shares, (i.e, to protect any owner who is putting more  money into the purchase than the other?)

Option 1 is known as   ‘Joint Tenants’ and Option 2 as ‘Tenants in Common’.  It is important that this is recorded at the time of purchase as it is usually only possible to arrange for this to happen later if all the joint owners agree (which is rarely the case when there is a dispute). Otherwise, in the majority of cases, it is only if  the couple are married or in a registered Civil Partnership that a Court has power to change property rights.  Owners who buy as tenants in common will be advised to enter into  a Declaration of Trust, a deed to set out their respective interests in the proceeds of sale and matters relating to this.

It is very important that joint owners make Wills or update these at the time of a new purchase. It is particularly important for cohabiting couple to make Wills whatever their choice  of joint ownership.   These can address very practical issues which cause considerable distress otherwise  i.e who is the executor with the right to make funeral arrangements; who do the contents belong to; is there any provision to pay off the mortgage; who will benefit from life insurance; can the surviving owner afford to pay a mortgage on their own; and can they stay in the home?

As part of our Conveyancing service our conveyancers will advise joint purchasers of joint ownership issues and prepare any  Declaration of Trust.

Advice with regard to Wills and/or  Inheritance Tax, or Lasting Powers of Attorney/Living Wills,  can be provided by  our local specialist, or contact Jenny Pierce on 0117 9292811 or  at jenny.pierce@wards.uk.com

Cohabiting couples  may wish to have an agreement which goes beyond property ownership, namely a ‘Cohabitation Agreement’ of ‘Living Together Agreement’.  Further advice in this respect can be provided by our local family law specialist, or contact  Mandy McCabe on 01275 850460 or at mandy.mccabe@wards.uk.com. Alternatively if the relationship breakdown advice is needed then Mandy and our team can assist with this.

For more information as to joint ownership of property please speak to your usual Wards contact, or contact  Susan Ellis on  susan.ellis@wards.uk.com.

This case is a welcome decision in favour of commonsense and shows that Judges are less likely to decide that a defendant Council is liable for any accident which occurs on its land.

The claimant was drunk.  He had been out for the evening with friends and immediately before the accident had been running away from a taxi, in order to avoid paying the fare.  He had left a friend in the taxi, to pay.

He ran over a grassed area and onto a piece of land owned by the Council.  He then ran through a gap in some bushes and over a small chain link fence, which had broken.  He then fell down a 5 meter drop, landing on concrete.

Not surprisingly after such a fall, Mr Harvey suffered considerable injuries, the most serious being brain damage.  If successful, the claim would have been large, comprising compensation for the physical injuries and brain damage, and there is likely to have been a considerable claim for loss of wages.  Mr Harvey sued the Council, alleging a breach of their legal duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, which obliges them to make their property  safe for  visitors.

There is a later Occupiers Liability Act, the 1984 Act, which was also discussed, but this Act mainly applies to accidents involving trespassers.  The claim under that Act was eventually abandoned because it was agreed that the claimant was not a trespasser – he had not broken onto, or into, the property, but had simply run onto the grassed area and through the gap in the bushes.

The Court agreed that the claimant was a lawful visitor for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and therefore had to decide whether the Council had complied with its legal duty to ensure that the premises were safe.

Whilst it was argued  that they should have repaired the gap in the bushes, more argument was made on the failure to repair and maintain the small chain link fence which had fallen into disrepair and was at a low level at the point at which the claimant tripped over it.

The claimant, was successful in the first  trial, but the Council appealed to the Court of Appeal, who rejected the claim for compensation.

The Court of Appeal Judges decided that although the council had permitted people to use the grassed area and, possibly, go through the gap in the bushes, and therefore they had a legal duty to ensure that the land was safe for that purpose, they had not consented to someone running across the grass, at night, when drunk,  such that they were not able to see the broken chain link fence and/or the large drop between the grassed area and the concrete below.  In other words, the Judges held that the Council had impliedly allowed people to come onto the land in order to carry out normal activities but not to act in a reckless manner.

This does, of course, leave the claimant, who has no doubt suffered extremely serious injuries and a dramatic change to his life, without compensation.  In view of the serious nature of the injuries the case may be appealed to the House of Lords.

In the meantime, however, the case demonstrates that the Courts are less willing to decide that defendants should automatically pay out whenever an accident occurs on their land.

There appears to be little let-up in the flow of press coverage relating to examples of legal costs in boundary disputes between neighbours reaching astonomical figures.  These disputes are usually fought with disproportionate ferocity, considering the value of the land, and regularly go all the way to trial, when most other disputes would have settled out of court.

Of all the possible arguments, disputes over boundary land seem to invoke the strongest primal instincts, often leading to an almost irrational “tunnel vision” mentality, where neither side will concede.  But this is hardly surprising when you consider that almost every war fought between neighbouring countries over the centuries has had a disputed boundary as the core issue.

There have been recent calls for legal professionals to try to force these disputes away from trial, towards being settled at mediation, but this may ultimately be a futile exercise.  Some disputes are just not appropriate for mediation. Where two parties have polar opposite views and winning is a matter of principle, in many cases, heavy discouragement as to costs risks seem to leave people unfazed in their determination to win outright.

During the management of a dispute a judge will always ask whether a mediation has been attempted.  Often, however, this is little more than a box-ticking procedure – merely a hurdle to leap before the trial can be listed.  For very good reasons the judge cannot know what occurred at the mediation and it might have been the case that both parties refused to move towards a negotiated settlement and sat there all day with their arms crossed!

The nature of these disputes undoubtedly accounts for a large number of them reaching trial.  Lack of clarity in this area of law is most likely another valid reason.  Recent cases have been decided using a variety of methodology and it is pure chance which way a judge will go.

The fact the loser pays the winner’s costs at the end of litigation can be an unfortunate prolonging factor in these cases. Parties feel forced to progress to an appeal as they simply cannot afford to lose.  In essence they are forced to gamble and go ‘double or quits’. Judges have full discretion to award a proportion of costs against the victorious party, if they feel that they have dragged their heals when they should have settled. That said, in the main they would need good reason to depart from the loser pays principle. Furthermore, boundary disputes are not usually cases where offers of financial sums are exchanged, so it is much harder for the judge to decide which party should have settled and when.

It is a basic principle of law that conduct after the creation of a contract cannot be an aid to interpreting the terms of that contract. In plain English, only information existing at the time the contract was created can show what the true intentions of the parties were.  This has meant that over the years, the exact placement of a boundary has been determined by reference to the plan and/or the description of the land noted in the transfer document.  Over the years, verbal descriptions have been phased out with sole reliance now being placed on the accuracy of the plan.  Leaving aside the issue of whether the plan has been drawn accurately in the first place, there is the problem that having been scaled down so much, a line of ink may represent a relatively large amount of land on the ground and as is so often the case with these disputes, the areas fought over are small.

The recent cases of Ali v Lane [2006] EWCA Civ 1532 and Haycocks v Neville [2007] EWCA Civ 78 were both decided in a very practical, common sense way which moved away from the strict approach of boundary interpretation.  The judges in these cases looked at features on the ground such as tree placement, historic fence posts and topography to decide the most likely intended boundary line.  This method of interpretation can only be used when the boundary plan or description in the transfer is ambiguous as to the precise location of the boundary.

But then in the case of Charalambous v Welding [2009] EWCA Civ 1578 when presented with facts very similar to those in Haycocks the judge avoided considering the shrubs on the ground as evidence of the boundary, finding them to be irrelevant. Although other factors came into it, the decision as to the exact boundary line was made purely by reference to a possibly inaccurate plan.

Two even more recent Court of Appeal cases of Bowler v Wallis [2010] Unreported and Huntley v Armes [2010] EWCA Civ 396 followed the same reasoning as Charalambous.  Both these decisions in the Court of Appeal overturned first instance decisions that located the boundary looking at ground features and again used the original plan for the property as the sole guide.

It has been said that a Supreme Court decision featuring one of these types of disputes would set a strong precedent for the methodology required to decide all future ones. This would lead to greater certainty of how each party would stand early on and would make it easier for legal professionals to advise on the likelihood of being successful.  The problem with this is that it can already cost hundreds of thousands of pounds for the loser in legal costs for the dispute to reach the Court of Appeal, so with the extra hours of preparation to get to the Supreme Court, the costs will be even greater.

Once clarity is achieved, the number of early settlements should go up but human history would indicate that it is unlikely people will stop fighting wars over what they claim is their land.

An increasing number of disappointed investors are making complaint, having been snared into “land banking” schemes.

Invariably, a cold call from a company with an impressive name prompts the private investor to show an interest in the concept of buying land on the hope that one day, it will be the next Cribbs Causeway or (dare I say) Bradley Stoke. Buy land – after all, they aren’t making any more of it!

The reality of many of these schemes is that a “developer” buys a farmer’s field for £10,000 and sells small parcels of it to 100 people for £10,000 each.

It’s easy to see how he makes his money – but usually very hard indeed to see how the “investors” will ever recoup their investment, let alone the pie-in-the-sky profits which the telesales callers predict. Sometimes land will be protected green belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or even a Site of Special Scientific Interest – nevertheless it is touted as having “excellent development potential” for the future.

Anyone who has sat on a committee will be able to guess how hard it would be to get all of these “landowners” to work together on a planning application even if one were to stand a chance of success.

The promoters of these schemes will go to great lengths to take as much of their target’s savings as possible. Simply investing a little is not an option as the pressure mounts to buy more and more plots. People find themselves suckered into multiple land deals until they finally see the light.

The promoters will also try to make it easier for investors not to take independent legal advice on the matter – sending witnesses round to witness signatures for example, so that the investor is not at risk of mentioning this “wonderful opportunity” to a more sceptical neighbour or advisor. Keep it between ourselves, eh – don’t want to let everyone else onto such a good thing.

In these circumstances, a careful analysis of the legal and contractual position is called for. Robust letters followed by swift court action are often required to protect the investor’s rights. A thorough review of the sales process can identify chinks in the armour these people hide behind and go some way to recovering funds. Police involvement can be sought – but the schemes are careful to avoid scrutiny of the authorities wherever possible.

Until legislation brings this form of investment within the regulated Financial Services sector, investors should be careful to take full independent advice before parting with any funds. Those who have lost out to such schemes should have the process reviewed by an experienced Solicitor in case there is a prospect of recovering some funds.

On Monday 9th August, the Law Society Gazette reported that The Law Society has called on the Legal Services Commission to suspend the implementation of the family legal aid tender round in a letter to its chief executive Carolyn Downs.

The new contracts are due to start on 14 October, but the Law Society’s chief executive, Des Hudson, wrote to the Legal Services Commission, calling for a halt to the process: “We believe that the LSC should suspend the implementation of the tender round pending an urgent but thorough and public evaluation,” he said.

Critics of the tender are unhappy with the lack of choice for consumers and say that in some areas of the country only one or two firms will be providing legal aid for family matters, such as domestic violence and child protection issues. They fear that in complex cases conflicts of interest could prevent the only legal aid provider in town from acting for more than one person and there may be no local representation available for the others. The outcome of the tender will see a 46% reduction in the number of contracts awarded.

In his letter to the Legal Services Commission, Hudson said:

“We understand that in east Cornwall one firm has been allocated all the matter starts [new cases] which means that, in any case where more than one party is legally aided, the second will have to find a solicitor elsewhere in the county – probably more than an hour’s drive away. We believe that the situation in Wales, in Northumberland and in Lincolnshire gives rise to similar concerns. We do not understand how this is consistent with the commission’s duty to secure access to justice.”

Hudson went on to explain that  the tender outcome means that ‘over 1,100 firms will have to make significant changes to their business model with less than three months’ notice’.

The Law Society chief executive added that it was ‘quite wrong’ to assume that existing clients will be unaffected, as some firms are likely to close down and others will lose experienced staff, whom they will be unable to replace.

He said the impact of the tender would be ‘hugely damaging to the fabric of the family justice system’, and it was ‘unacceptable’ to implement it in just over nine weeks.

Hudson said that while suspending the implementation would cause ‘some disruption’, this would be ‘far preferable to the major disruption’ caused by going ahead without a review.

The Legal Services Commission, understandably, sees things differently.  In an interview with the Law Society Gazette, LSC chief executive Carolyn Downs said the 46% reduction in the number of firms awarded contracts had not been intended by the commission, but resulted from the additional quality criteria that solicitors had asked it to include.  She went on to suggest that in family cases there will be at least five legal aid providers in each “procurement area” to cover the situation where there is a conflict of interest between different parties in a single case. It seems that the two bodies may be using different measures when they talk about the areas to be covered by legal aid solicitors.

The Legal Services Commission accepts that the outcome of the tender is a significant reduction in the number of legal aid firms: subject to appeals the number of providers will be reduced from 2,400 to around 1,300. However, it is keen to point out that the process puts quality of services before cost and it says that the appeals procedures, now underway, may result in alterations to the contracts awarded.

Click here for the full interview with Carolyn Downs.

The Guardian summed the situation up well with this closing comment:

“While the Legal Services Commission’s confidence in its own processes is commendable, it ought to address, publicly, the Law Society’s concerns in some detail. The whole point of legal aid is to provide those who otherwise couldn’t afford it with access to the legal system. Drastically reducing the number of firms offering advice and representation under the scheme doesn’t appear to fit that purpose.”

Over half of Britons do not make provisions for after their death – and there is no regulation to ensure those who do are protected.  Following the Panorama programme and our recent posts, The Guardian has published an excellent review of the key issues… and why it is so important that we all write a will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/aug/10/will-writing-regulation

I was interested to view the BBC’s Panorama program on Monday evening regarding Will Writers. Hopefully the program brought to the public’s attention some of the horror stories probate practitioners come across when dealing with Wills prepared by Will Writers.

Solicitors have been calling for Will Writers to become regulated for sometime and I am optimistic last night’s program will caution the public of some of the dangers of instructing unregulated Will Writers to draft their Wills.

I trust the program will also put pressure on the industry to become fully regulated so in future a situation cannot arise where unregulated and uninsured individuals or companies can prepare Wills.  The preparation of your last Will and Testament is too important for it to be drafted by someone without the appropriate qualifications.

The public’s general consensus is that solicitors are expensive, but when compared to the hidden costs of Will Writers, Solicitors charges are competitive with the added advantage of solicitors being fully regulated and able to advice clients on other services, such as Lasting Powers of Attorney or trust creation.

I am sure that my clients watching the program last night felt pleased that they had instructed a firm of solicitors to prepare and store Wills on their behalf. I would urge anyone who has concerns regarding a Will to have it reviewed to ensure it does what it is meant to do and also to offer piece of mind that there are no hidden costs to be met by their family upon their deaths.

Wards Solicitors offer a free Will review service and I would be happy to assist anyone who has concerns regarding their Will following the Panorama program.

In this week’s Panorama programme, presenter Vivian White highlighted the risks in using a will writing service. Many people are under the false impression a ‘will writer’ is a solicitor, but unlike a solicitor they do not have to undergo any training, have insurance, and are not regulated by any organisation which ensures that they conduct their activities in the interests of the consumer and provide some form of redress, if things go wrong. If they go out of business, there is little that can be done- sometimes the will cannot be found, even where charges have been made for storing it.

Andrew Poole’s wife, Suzanne used a will writer, but the will failed to include any provision for him, leaving the entire estate in trust for his stepdaughters. Caroline Bielanska, Chief Executive of Solicitors for the Elderly, appeared on the programme, and expressed concern that a spouse had not been provided for. The will writers appeared to have failed to advise on his right to bring a claim against the estate for inadequate provision. She said, ‘a specialist solicitor would have asked why a spouse was left out, kept a detailed record of those reasons and advised of the high risk that the will would be challenged’. Solicitors are in the business of giving legal advice, taking into account the client’s domestic and financial circumstances – it does not appear that Suzanne Poole received any such advice’.

The lack of regulation has enabled many will writers to adopt high pressure selling techniques which was illustrated in the programme, often offering wills for a low or discounted fee, and then recommending themselves to be appointed as executors, selling other services without full advice, such as transferring the home into a trust in an attempt to avoid care fees.  Terms and conditions can be poorly worded and difficult to understand. In secret filming undertaken by the BBC for the programme, an elderly couple was not told the details of charges which were confusingly set out in writing but then taken away by the will writer.

The fear of solicitors costs, prompts some people to use will writers. Solicitor’s are required to set out in writing the basis of their charges, and in many cases wills are undertaken for a fixed fee with free storage of wills and other documents.

This programme highlights the potential for getting it wrong without full legal advice and the need for proper regulation of will writers.  It can be very costly to undo after you have gone and can leave your family in disarray when they have to pick up the pieces as problems generally only come to light when you have died.

For more information about this, or related matters, please get in touch.