Why do they matter?

The Information Commissioner (‘ICO’) who is responsible for implementing and enforcing the Data Protection Act in the UK has decided that Cookies can only be used if the user has:
• been told that they exist
• been given clear and comprehensive information about the purposes for which the cookie is stored and accessed; and
• given his or her consent.
Although this legislation came into force in May 2011 the ICO acknowledged that website operators faced considerable technical, legal and organisational challenges in complying with the legislation and so confirmed he would allow a lead in period of 12 months for organisations to develop ways of meeting the new requirements. 

Organisations have until May 2012 to get into shape and if they fail to do so then the ICO will start to use its enforcement powers to compel organisations to do so. 

Count your cookies! 

The ICO recommends that a first step will be to undertake a cookie audit.  Identify which cookies are operating on your websites and what those cookies are doing.  Is the cookie necessary to perform an essential function of the website or to deliver a service or is it for non essential functions (eg. Customer recognition, customer tracking and profiling).  If the cookie is essential for the operation of the website then consent is not needed.

In addition you need to:

1 identify what data each cookie holds and confirm whether the cookie is linked to any other data you hold about the user.  If it is linked to other information it could be deemed to be personal data and must then comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.
2 Identify what type of cookie you’re using.  Persistent cookies (which stay on a user’s hard drive between sessions)  are more likely to be more privacy intrusive than session cookies (which expire at the end of a user’s session) 
3 Check the lifespan of your cookies.  Maybe the lifespan of a cookie is excessive when you consider its purpose and could be shortened.
4 Are you the only part using cookies on your website? Sometimes website operators allow cookies to be set by third parties in order to target online advertising or to analyse site traffic.  Check with your third party users to see what cookies they are using and why. 

Now what do you do?

Check your Privacy Policies to ensure you are giving accurate and up to date information to your users about your cookies.  Depending on the number and type of cookies used your explanation can be either broad or specific. 

Flag your cookies

Bring them to your User’s attention.  This is the hard bit.  You don’t want to distract your Users’ from their browsing.  The ICO has suggested a few ways this can be done:

Prominent Links – set up a separate webpage with a prominent link to it at the header of each page of the website providing users with easy access to the information and a clear explanation eg. Information about our cookies.

Cookie Icons – use an easily identifiable, clickable icon to link to the information about cookies and make it clear that the icon relation to cookies. 

Short Term – use links or blogs with a link to your cookie information page.

Ask for consent  – before the cookie is set!  Remember, only needed for non essential cookies.  The ICO has suggested that this can possibly be done using:

• Pop-up windows or splash pages containing tick boxes (be wary as some user’s block pop ups and splash pages)
• Static information banners containing tick boxes. Can you imply consent if a user fails to tick the box? The Jury’s out and further guidance is being sought.
• Terms and conditions and Privacy Policies? Possibly but this is still implied consent.  Website Operators must bring the attention of user’s to changes to their terms. 
• Features and users’ preferences where it is possible for a user to personalise their view of a website.
• Browser settings is one to watch in the future.  At the moment default settings cannot be relied on. 

Third party cookies?
It will be hard for the third parties who are placing cookies on users’ equipment through a website that they do not operate themselves to obtain consent and they will need to ensure that the website operator  will obtain consent on their behalf. 

To assist you with this minefield and to discuss the options available to you please contact Cathy Cook at cathy.cook@jordanssolicitors.co.uk

MPs have called on the insurance industry to abandon sharp practices in the management of car accident claims to curb the runaway cost of motor insurance premiums. The cross party Transport Committee has also called for the Government to impose a higher threshold for the payment of any compensation in whiplash cases.

Inquiry: Cost of motor insurance
Transport Committee
In a report that follows up the Government’s response to the committee’s March 2011 report on the cost of motor insurance, the Transport Committee warns that the spiralling cost of motor insurance is primarily the result of market dysfunction and, in particular, the escalation of uncontested claims for whiplash injury.

Launching the latest report, Louise Ellman, Transport Committee Chair
said:

“Insurers, solicitors and claims management companies have themselves driven up the cost of motor premiums by encouraging people caught up in road accidents they did not cause to claim for personal injury, car hire, and other legal costs.

Although we strongly support access to justice, drivers should not be railroaded by cold callers into launching legal action. The insurance industry must abandon sharp practices that push up premiums such as passing drivers’ personal data to other parties or taking secretive referral fees from solicitors, garages and car hire firms.”

The committee also concludes that the rise in personal injury claims is the main reason for the rise in premiums.

“Many of these claims are for whiplash, an injury where diagnosis is often subjective and therefore very costly for insurers to challenge.
The threshold for receiving compensation in whiplash cases should be raised and, if the number of such claims does not fall significantly, the Government should bring forward primary legislation to require objective evidence – both of a whiplash injury and of it having a significant effect on the claimant’s life – before compensation is paid,” adds Louise Ellman.

MPs also question the effectiveness of the Government’s recent decision to ban referral fees relating to personal injury cases, particularly once rules restricting the ownership of law firms are relaxed.

“The Government should ensure that the new legislation is implemented in a manner that will prohibit insurers from receiving referral fees across the board rather than simply in relation to legal action.

Greater transparency is also essential. To expose the ‘merry-go-round’, the Government must oblige insurers to provide clear information to consumers about how and where they pay referral fees,” adds Louise Ellman. 

The committee also cautions that numerous factors combine to affect the cost of motor insurance and that tackling any in isolation will not deliver a significant or lasting reduction in premiums.  MPs therefore call on the Government to:

 Review how well the ‘pre-action protocol’ and ‘online portal’
established to handle low value insurance claims have operated since their introduction in 2010. Results should be published within six months.
Establish a cross-departmental ministerial committee on reducing the cost of motor insurance and publish a plan to address each aspect of the problem. 
Send a clear message to the insurance industry that it expects 2008 data protection legislation to be fully respected and impose stricter
penalties for any breach.  
Initiate an investigation of cold calling undertaken to generate personal injury claims and then examine the legal and regulatory options for curtailing this activity.
Lastly, the committee confirms that previous recommendations related to the cost of insurance for young drivers will be followed up further in a forthcoming inquiry on road safety.

Background
At the start of 2011 the Transport Committee held a short inquiry into the rising cost of motor insurance. This examined the reasons and consequences of recent increases in premium; the impact on young people of the high costs of motor insurance; the extent to which the cost of motor insurance is influenced by the prevalence of road accidents, insurance fraud, legal costs and the number of uninsured drivers and what steps the Government might take in response to policy issues in this area. The committee published its report on 11 March 2011

Report: The cost of motor insurance
The committee published the Government Response to its report on 9 September and decided subsequently to reopen the inquiry.

Government response: The cost of motor insurance In November 2011 the Committee also initiated a debate in the House of Commons using time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee at which the House passed – without division – a motion calling for the Government to establish a cross-departmental ministerial committee to develop a plan to deal with the different aspects of the problem and to bring forward measures to curb the cost of motor insurance.

A spokesperson from the Law Society commented “The reality is that the insurance industry itself is fuelling the costs of accidents and passing them back to motorists. The fact that it sells accident details to third parties inevitably fuels the number of claims.
Some firms have a record of seeking to pay off the victim of an accident whether or not that victim has been injured.

‘There needs to be a full investigation of the industry’s practices. It needs to put its own house in order before pointing the finger at others.

“Above all, however, it needs to be remembered that for many accident victims whiplash can be a painful and debilitating injury. Claimants who seriously suffer from it are entitled to compensation and the Government should not make it more difficult to claim that compensation just because the insurance industry has failed to sort itself out. ”

Jordans Solicitors does not pay referral fees to insurers or claims management companies or coldcall injured members of the public to gain clients but has always relied on its reputation locally for persuing the best results for its clients

Hours: Salary: 15,000 – 16,000

The Role:  The Crown Court Clerk within our criminal litigation team is a critical one.  Our crown court clerks are responsible for assisting in preparing cases for hearing at the Crown Court.  This includes attendances with clients in the office, prison or in counsel chambers, instruction of counsel or experts and sitting behind counsel in the Crown Court note taking. 

Ideally candidates will be an accredited police station representative able to undertake legal services commission police station work.

The Candidate:   Key Attributes:

• Excellent communication skills
• Organisational skills to a very high standard
• Self-motivated and enthusiastic to learn and develop
• Excellent attention to detail
• Current driving licence and own car
• Ability and experience of dealing with the public

 How to Apply: Send CV to Sara Taylor, Personnel Manager, Jordans Solicitors, Neil Jordan House, Wellington Road, Dewsbury, WF13 1HL or by e-mail to recruitment@jordanssolicitors.co.uk.

Closing Date:  Friday 9 February 2012.

CA (Civ Div) (Rix LJ, McFarlane LJ, Sir Mark Potter) 14/12/2011 PERSONAL INJURY – HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK – NEGLIGENCE BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE : PERSONAL INJURY :

SAFE SYSTEMS OF WORK : TRIPPING AND SLIPPING : VISITOR TRIPPING OVER PLASTIC ICICLE IN SANTA’S GROTTO An event management company was in breach of its duty to a visitor who suffered a leg injury after tripping and falling over a plastic icicle during a visit to Santa’s grotto. Although a safe system had been devised for checking the floor of the grotto, it had failed on that occasion.

The appellant (D) appealed against a decision that the respondent event management company (M) was not in breach of its duty to her after a fall. D, who was elderly, had gone with five members of her family to visit Santa’s grotto at a well-known department store in London. The store had contracted the operating of the grotto to M. D fell during the visit and injured her leg. The grotto was four metres by three metres in size and was operated by two employees, one who played Santa and the other an elf. The elf’s job was to escort visitors in and out of the grotto and to ensure that everything ran smoothly and that there was nothing loose on the floor. It was also Santa’s responsibility to ensure there was no danger and he had 90 seconds in between the entry of each group of visitors to look around and check from his throne, as he was essentially immobile, that there was no danger. D’s case was that she had lost her balance by stepping on a plastic icicle, a Christmas tree bauble, on the floor of the grotto. M’s case was that she had lost her balance and that there was no icicle on the floor to be tripped over.

The witnesses included an employee of the store who had filled in an incident/accident report within 24 hours of the accident that indicated that the icicle was removed from under D’s left leg. The question for the judge was whether the icicle ought to have been seen by Santa and the elf in the performance of their duties. His view was that, since the icicle had not been seen by them and there was a good safety system in place, there had been no breach of duty; the icicle was not in plain view as it was partly hidden by a toy train which was on the floor alongside the wall.

HELD: (1) The question was: if the icicle was there to be fallen over, was it there to be seen? Even though the system used by Santa and the elf might have been excellent, the elf was concerned with many other duties and it was possible that on that occasion Santa and the elf were not as careful in the taking of precautions as they should have been.

The only proper inference on the balance of probabilities was that the icicle was there to be seen. If it was there to be stepped on, it was there to be seen. The district judge took an overly benevolent view of the performance by Santa and the elf of their duties in D’s case. (2) At the conclusion of the case, the court had been asked to rule on contributory negligence. The judge had not reached a conclusion on that matter as he had found in favour of M. D was an elderly grandmother who had gone with her family on an exciting visit to Santa’s grotto.

Including Santa, there were 8 people in a small space made even smaller by toys and two Christmas trees and the lighting was dim. The accident had happened when D, at the request of the elf, had stepped side-ways and backwards so that she was out of range of a camera. She could not have seen anything at that time as her attention was drawn on entry to the other side of the grotto where the toys were. In the circumstances, it was not D’s duty to ensure that there were no tripping hazards in the grotto; it was the duty of Santa and the elf. Therefore, there was no contributory negligence to take into account.

 I feel privileged to work in the field of helping victims of abuse. I am constantly amazed at the strength and dignity shown by my clients. My team of lawyers and support staff are truly dedicated and are what makes the abuse department at Jordans so effective at achieving justice.

View Jordans Solicitors Debating Competition Photostream

For further information, please contact Jordans Solicitors on 01924 387110 and ask to speak to Cathy Cook.

The heats will be held on the evenings of 10th and 17th November at Jordans new Wakefield office at 6pm with the winners of each debate together with the running up team with the best mark will go through to the next round. Following these rounds there will be quarter finals, semi finals and finals to be held February/ March.

Debates are:
This house would ban the Burkha
This house would de-criminalise drugs
This house believes celebrities give up their rights to privacy (17th November only)

The English Speaking Union are organising judges from local university debating societies. Stephen Proctor, Partner and Cathy Cook, Head of Company and Commercial Department will be chairing the proceedings.

For further information please contact Lisa Lister on 0787 982 0725

This move represents a significant investment for us and reflects our pride in being an established part of the local community. Clients have access to the full range of legal expertise ranging from our established commercial services team to our new family mediation service which is being launched this month.

One of the key reasons for growth is the importance we put in our infrastructure and IT systems. We are launching a new state-of-the-art website and are one of the first law firms in the area now able to offer divorce online. This reflects the demands from working people to be able to make arrangements out of office hours and in the comfort and convenience of their own homes.

Our solicitors are among the best in our region and on a national stage, it has recently been announced that we have been shortlisted in the national Personal Injury Awards 2011. The awards celebrate the excellence of individuals and organisations across the whole of the personal injury claims sector.

For further information, please contact Jordans Solicitors on 01924 387110 and ask to speak to Stephen Proctor