Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Peter Newton, Managing Director of D2 Legal Technology, considers the role of business process re-engineering and standards to ensure legal services and operations remain relevant in a disrupted post COVID-19 world, when digital transformation really is king.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic the legal sector, in common with every other industry, had stuttered along a journey to begin to embrace the digital agenda. But the inherent conservatism of the legal profession meant that this was generally token in nature. In many cases, this was simply tinkering at the edges. Adding a little bit of machine learning here; outsourcing to cheap third party service providers there. Worryingly, there has been no fundamental change to the underlying operating model. And simply no standards that we can use to build technology solutions – for example with respect to legal agreement data models. We cannot build smart contracts off the bespoke approaches we currently see! Automation of itself is not the goal – rather it is to add more business value – and we certainly do not want to automate the business processes in place that have a 70s (maybe 80s!) feel to them.
Not only does this fail to reflect the client driven business models inspired by Uber, Amazon and the transformation in for example retail banking, it also misses the opportunity to provide firms with the foundation for the value driven business supply chain that will be the key to success in a post COVID-19 world.
The trends that were slowly, if inexorably, coalescing over the past decade have been accelerated to the point where every aspect of the business model must now be under review. The way we work will change. Where we work will change. Businesses need to be “antifragile” (to quote Taleb); people want to work in different locations. New workspaces will morph from solely physical constructs to increasingly virtual and data driven.
The trends that were slowly, if inexorably, coalescing over the past decade have been accelerated to the point where every aspect of the business model must now be under review.
Most importantly, the manner in which we work and how we work will change. Firms will have to relearn the fundamental business principle: they exist to serve clients. How can firms reconsider the operating model to better service clients while also support the new demands from employees regarding how and where they work?
When considering every aspect of the how, where and why operating model, the focus must be on the need to deliver value at every stage of the business supply chain. How, for example, can a law firm deliver legal advice to financial institutions in a way that enables it to be immediately consumed and drive value throughout the business - rather than taking weeks of expensive and intensive review by the internal legal function? Why not automatically generate drafts of trading agreements, firing off the necessary internal approvals – as soon as the client onboarding team and credit save down the relevant client details?
Systems and data have been at the heart of the scaling of these financial institutions since the 90s, but the inputs from legal departments and retained external law firms continue to be just words – analogue in nature – and more words. Legal advice needs to be provided in a manner that is cognisant of these downstream data-driven systems and processes.
This requires a new way of thinking and a new approach to innovation. Of course, there is a need to streamline processes. There is an opportunity to embrace innovative technology; a requirement to enable secure, effective working remotely as a globally distributed team; and a chance to explore a raft of third-party service options. But to deliver success in a value driven supply chain, the goal must be automation by design, not default – and the focus must be on optimising the client experience, not simply cutting costs or improving internal efficiency.
Adding a little bit of clever technology to speed up processes here and there is not enough. Legal functions need to consider how to use that technology to enable a new way of working that delivers tangible value to clients while meeting employee expectations.
[ymal]
Operating models need resilience. They must be better able to accommodate change without continual work arounds. Why use OCR signed documents when you could simply save them in a machine-readable form? They must enable truly effective collaboration, not only between internal and external teams but also with intelligent technology. Could the legal provider of the future be a part human, part virtual, part machine? The challenge is to maximise each element and play to each of our strengths. This was the future of AI that Kasparov saw on his defeat by Deep Blue – not one of being replacement by machine but seeing the dream team combining the two.
The foundation for this transformation by design is industry-wide standards. These critical building blocks, including common agreement and clause taxonomies, allow consistent representation of the real world. They enable the rapid creation of different, interconnected business outcomes and provide the chance to take advantage of new business requirements, global or market events, tooling and technologies.
For example, with industry-wide standards, internal legal expertise is supported by collaboration with third party providers measured on value, not cost. Lawyers can leverage deep digital information resources. They can mine all the contractual obligations and business outcomes of all lines of business in the bank. Essentially, plug together diverse skills and information resources in a way that allows the legal function to rapidly and effectively deliver more downstream value to clients.
This re-imagination of the legal operating model can be achieved through pretty simple technology The key is to change the approach, to move away from no or just the latest, must have, shiny tool – to meaningful technology and process improvement – through a hard look at what we are doing and the modular and foundational building blocks to make these repeatable and automatable – delivering on the promise of digitisation.
This is not an operating model to be feared; it is one that refocuses the legal function and enables intelligent individuals to focus on higher value issues that affect the P&L. And that is the foundation - value at every stage. Value of skills, value of clients and value of service delivery.
Seventeen major law firms have signed the Race Fairness Commitment (RFC), a mutual pledge to strive for racial equity within legal organisations.
Firms that sign the RFC commit to removing race-based obstacles faced by ethnics from BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) backgrounds, making an effort to recruit and retain BAME talent. These firms pledge to ensure that race is discussed in every induction and exit interview, and that qualified ethnic minority applicants are just as likely to receive an interview as their white counterparts.
Further standards set by the RFC include a commitment to ending racial pay disparity, ending “othering”, and ensuring that lawyers of all races are equally likely to receive promotions.
The RFC’s newest signatories are Baker McKenzie, Bird & Bird, Burges Salmon, Bates Wells & Braithwaite, Clyde & Co, Dechert, Fieldfisher, Gowling, Mishcon De Reya, Stephenson Harwood, Taylor Wessing, and Withers.
[ymal]
“When it comes to ethnic diversity, law firms have a lot to do; we have a lot to do,” said Stephenson Harwood CEO Eifion Morris in a statement. “But we are committed to change. Cross-sector collaboration, and commitments like this, challenge and support us to take meaningful action that will make a lasting difference. I’m really pleased to sign us up.”
The pledge was launched in July and quickly received signatures from 17 major law firms including Linklaters, Allen & Overy and Slaughter & May.
We will have to leave everything that we’ve accumulated behind. Many wealthy people write wills in order to designate who will receive the benefits of their estate. In many cases, a written will is an attempt to stop the heirs from engaging in bitter fights over the money or property left behind.
However, not all written wills bring peace; Some will spur feuds that find their way to the courts. The following are just a few of the issues that may arise in a courtroom pertaining to a written will:
We might think that this only happens in television dramas; but made-up wills are a reality for some families. Those who seek the help of the courts are usually family members (such as the spouse, cohabitation partner, or child) who are either disadvantaged or completely left out of the existing will.
Usually, the courts entertain such claims if the circumstance that surrounds the writing of the will is vulnerable to corruption. This may include an instance when there are two wills, and the one with the later date is purported to “correct” the earlier version. If the dates come too close to one another, reasonable doubt can be raised.
There are also cases where a will actually exists, but there is enough evidence that the supposed will-maker couldn’t have executed it themselves because of intervening factors such as physiological illness, physical absence on the date mentioned, and even insanity.
[ymal]
The courts will only rule that a will is valid and executory if it is proven to be fair and just to all interested parties. Because wills and inheritance issues often involve family members, decisions regarding such issues are often based on familial principles espoused by the law.
With this in mind, the court can reward a claimant with some amount of the deceased individual’s estate if it is successfully demonstrated that the deceased had a moral obligation to the claimant. This obviously requires careful and persuasive laying out of facts, so any claimant should get experienced will attorneys if they want to win.
When is a moral obligation deemed to exist? The courts consider the deceased to have a moral obligation to their children, whether or not they lived together or knew of each other’s existence. An existing relationship between the claimant and the deceased is not that important in determining moral obligation. After all, an obligation is still an obligation, even if a person ran away or actively ignored it. Moral obligation also exists between the deceased and their de-facto partner at the time of death, even if they are not married.
There are still numerous ways to question a will. If you believe some of this advice pertains to you, be sure to do some additional research and consider speaking to a lawyer.
Late on Tuesday, the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced charges of price-fixing against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The charges follow a years-long investigation by the DOJ into allegations that Teva conspired with other drugmakers to artificially inflate the prices of generic and widely used drugs.
In the DOJ’s superseding indictment, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. was charged with three counts of conspiring with other companies including Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Apotex and Sandoz, a Novartis subsidiary.
In the first charge, Teva, Apotex and Glenmark are accused of conspiring to increase prices for pravastatin – a cholesterol-lowering drug – and other generic drugs. In the second, Teva is accused of colluding with Taro to raise prises, fix bids and allocate customers for various generic medications used to treat seizures, arthritis and other conditions. The third charge is similar, accusing Teva and Sandoz of conspiring to allocate customers for drugs to treat brain cancer, cystic fibrosis and other conditions.
According to the DOJ, Apotex, Taro and Sandoz have already admitted culpability and agreed to pay penalties for their roles in the conspiracies.
[ymal]
In a statement, Teva said that it “firmly rejects the allegations and will vigorously defend the Company in court.” Teva also said that it attempted to reach a resolution with the DOJ, but the organisation showed “an unwillingness to consider alternatives that would not deeply impact Teva and the stakeholders who depend on the Company, including the patients who benefit from our medicines.”
Amy Bell, legal expert and industry advisor to Encompass Corporation, explains why the issue has caused so much trouble.
The digitalisation of key services in business has been expansive, to say the least. Every year there is a new emerging trend, a new ‘hot word’ or key term, and a new promise from technology vendors that these trends will change the way processes are run. And for the most part, they do.
Over the past decade we’ve seen mobile banking change the world of personal finance, cloud computing has permanently improved workplace efficiency and proceedings, and artificial intelligence has changed customer service, security and administrative tasks for the better.
With each new technology, concerns surrounding privacy, identity and fraud are brought into question. This means organisations are constantly facing new legal issues, and vendors, law firms, start-ups, banks and retailers are frequently presented with new rules, regulations and administrative tasks that they must adhere to in order to remain compliant.
Enter Regulatory Technology (RegTech). With the use of big data and machine learning technology, RegTech reduces the risk to a company’s compliance department by offering data on money laundering activities conducted online - activities that a traditional compliance team may not be privy to due to the increase of underground marketplaces. This assists firms with meeting their regulatory requirements.
With each new technology, concerns surrounding privacy, identity and fraud are brought into question.
In my years as a legal advisor to law firms, I have recommended, observed and implemented RegTech technology, and can vouch first-hand for its effectiveness in automating certain tasks whilst complying with the law.
However, there is one key branch of RegTech which is potentially being underutilised in the legal sector: electronic verification, which uses digital processes to authenticate identity. It does this by matching certain data to external databases (name, address and date of birth), through document verification processes or biometric checks (such as fingerprint scan and facial recognition software).
Essentially, there is wording in the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders handbook which is causing problems for law firms who provide conveyancing services, by making it unclear as to whether electronic verification technology is ‘permitted’.
Before I explain this issue in more depth, let me clarify that electronic verification (EV) is not only safe, secure, legal and extremely effective in improving and streamlining identity verification processes for property law firms, but it has even been promoted by the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5MLD). 5MLD did not make the use of EV mandatory, but it did encourage the use of it in relation to the identity and verification processes.
However, as things stand, property law firms just don’t know if EV can be used without also obtaining original documents, due to the wording of a small section in the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders Handbook.
In the UK Finance Mortgage Lenders Handbook, sections 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 of part 1 deals with mortgage fraud prevention. More specifically, it includes a specific guide to ensure that the solicitor has a document signed by the client, which can be compared to the mortgage deed, all in order to prevent impersonation fraud.
Whilst the firms can easily comply with 3.1.5 by asking for a photograph or scan of the relevant document, the wording in 3.1.6 suggests that they need to have seen the original document, or obtained a certified copy. The particular wording which causes the issue is: “You should take a copy of it”, which is taken to mean they have to have physical possession of the document and copy it.
[ymal]
From a legal perspective, this wording is confusing. It implies that EV on its own is not permitted as conveyancers must take a physical copy of a document for their own verification processes.
Many firms have been reluctant to use EV because it seems to be unnecessary duplication.
You could say that law firms should probably still be expected to take a physical copy of an important document when it comes to something as critical as taking out a mortgage (a form of loan which often equates to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt) simply because it’s believed to be more secure. But this is quite simply not true. In today’s current climate, electronic verification technology is a far more robust way to detect fraud, verify identity and authenticate documents than through physical means. What’s more, EV speeds up processes and creates a more efficient end-to-end safety solution for the buyer, the seller, the lender and the law firm.
This issue is not just affecting the mortgage side of law, either. Some firms that specialise in multiple areas of law are reluctant to adopt EV technology for any of their work, simply because they are unsure whether or not it can be used for conveyancing. This leaves the firm relying on less secure methods of verification, and great risk of identity fraud.
Beyond lockdown and social distancing measures, we’re already moving to a 100% digital environment. The 21st century consumer is very much becoming accustomed to instant, online services for the purpose of their own safety, and for their general convenience. And, if these services also happen to be far more secure, efficient and cost effective than the physical processes, surely switching to an entirely digital EV process is a no-brainer? If only the UK Mortgage Lenders Handbook would allow it.
The 21st century consumer is very much becoming accustomed to instant, online services for the purpose of their own safety, and for their general convenience.
Why hasn’t there been any clarification from UK Finance or an update of the Mortgage Lenders Handbook?
I don’t know. I personally have reached out to UK Finance and sought clarification, an update, and demanded action, but didn’t get very far.
They said they couldn’t address this problem centrally and, if necessary, each solicitor should contact their relevant lender for advice. However, I have heard differently from other practitioners - that they have been told that they could verify documents using EV with a copy and not the original document.
It’s this grey area between what legal firms can and can’t do that is causing so much unnecessary confusion, and it’s baffling that this has remained an issue for so long, when it could be easily rectified with a simple update or announcement.
What makes this refusal to resolve even more confusing is the fact that the Scottish version of the Mortgage Lenders handbook does not have the same wording. Either it has been altered, or this specific wording was never included in Scotland (for some reason), but regardless, it should be that our Mortgage Lenders Handbook is adapted, altered, or even scrapped in place of a universal (Scottish) version. After all, we are a part of the UK!
Moving forward, law firms who use the UK Mortgage Lenders Handbook should seek clarification from lenders until this wording discrepancy is resolved.
TikTok announced in a press release on Monday that it has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over an executive order banning US companies for making transactions with its Chinese parent company ByteDance from mid-September.
"The president's actions clearly reflect a political decision to campaign on an anti-China platform,” TikTok claimed in its lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California.
The executive order banning transactions with ByteDance stems from concerns voiced by administration officials that the company could use the app to pass users’ data to the Chinese government, a charge which ByteDance denies.
President Trump has stipulated that TikTok can continue to operate provided that ByteDance sells it to a US firm. He has also demanded that the US Treasury receive a “substantial amount of money” as part of the deal.
"The president's demands for payments have no relationship to any conceivable national security concern and serve only to underscore that defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with the due process required by law," TikTok wrote in its suit.
[ymal]
The company’s press release elaborated further. “We do not take suing the government lightly,” it wrote, “however we feel we have no choice but to take action to protect our rights, and the rights of our community and employees.”
One of the fastest-growing social media platforms in the world, TikTok has been downloaded moroe than a billion times worldwide and has over 90 million US users. Since the Trump administration’s executive order was issued, various tech companies including Microsoft, Oracle and Twitter have begun negotiations to potentially take over TikTok’s US operations.
With this in mind, Michael Swan, experienced Solicitor in the Private Client Team at K J Smith Solicitors, explains the different types of wills available and how they compare to other legal documents.
Your last will and testament sets out what you would like to be done with your assets after your death. It also specifies who is responsible for making sure that your wishes are implemented. If you have minor children (children under 18), then you may also wish to include a guardianship clause in your will.
Guardianship clauses state who is to have guardianship of minor children in the event of the death of the person or people with parental responsibility. From a legal perspective, a mother always has parental responsibility for her children.
A father will automatically have parental responsibility for his children if he is married to their mother at the time of their birth, if he marries her later or if he is named on the child’s birth certificate. There are other ways in which a father can obtain parental responsibility, but none of them are automatic.
Having a guardianship clause in a will is strongly recommended since it can save everyone a lot of stress at a very difficult time. In the absence of a guardianship clause, social services and the courts will decide what happens to the children. This can take time and may not produce the results the parents would have wanted. Even if it does, there is a possibility that the children will have to spend time in foster care before everything is finalised.
Wills can also be used to make provision for pets. This can allow you to ensure that they will be placed in a suitable home rather than just landing up with whoever claims them first. It can also allow you to make provision for the vet's bills an ageing pet may need.
Having a guardianship clause in a will is strongly recommended since it can save everyone a lot of stress at a very difficult time.
Your last will and testament basically deals with the transfer of ownership of your assets. A trust is effectively a legal wrapper for assets. You can transfer assets into it before your death or have assets transferred into it upon your death. Trusts can be used for a variety of purposes. In the context of wills, however, they tend to be used to ensure that you retain some degree of control over your assets even after your death.
This is particularly relevant when wills need to make provision for children. Without a trust, there is a limit to what you can do to control what children do with their inheritance once they reach the age of 18. With a trust, however, you can make arrangements to “drip-feed” them their inheritance as they mature into full adulthood. This can reassure you not just that they can’t go out and blow their inheritance, but also that they’re not going to be targeted by unscrupulous people who want to take advantage of their lack of life experience.
A mirror will, as its name implies, is a will which reflects the wishes of another will. Mirror wills are typically used in situations where couples (who may or may not be in legally recognised relationships), want to dispose of their assets in essentially the same way. You can think of a mirror will as being largely a copy-and-paste of the will it reflects.
That is not to say that a mirror will has to be set in stone. It can be updated at any time, even after the death of the other party. It just means that at the time it is created, it reflects the intentions expressed in the first will.
[ymal]
A living will sets out what medical treatments you do and do not wish to receive should you ever find yourself in a situation where you are unable to make informed decisions about your treatment. A living will only activates if the designated situations arise and expires upon your death.
A living will is a legally-binding document and so must be followed by those looking after your care. An advanced statement is not legally-binding but should still be reviewed by those managing your health. It can, for example, be used to express any treatment you do not wish to receive because of your religious beliefs (e.g. the refusal of blood transfusions or medication containing ingredients derived from pigs or cattle). The advanced statement can be kept with your Living Will to ensure that both are reviewed together.
A living will is a document in which you set out the decisions you have already made. A lasting power of attorney enables someone else to make decisions on your behalf. LPAs come in two forms: Health and Welfare and Property and Financial Affairs. The former can be used alongside living wills. Basically, the living will would be checked first and if there were no relevant instructions in it, your attorney would be empowered to make the decision on your behalf.
A lasting power of attorney enables someone else to make decisions on your behalf.
With two exceptions, all wills need to be signed and witnessed. For completeness, the two exceptions are holographic wills and a "nuncupative" or "oral" will. A holographic will is written entirely in your own handwriting. A nuncupative will is a spoken will. It can only be used in very specific circumstances, which are unlikely to apply to the average person.
Therefore, unless you really feel like copying out your entire will by hand, your will needs to be signed and witnessed. Usually, this is not a challenge, but in a COVID-19 environment, it requires special protocols to be put in place.
In simple terms, you sign the will as the two witnesses watch from behind a window. You then show them the will from their side of the window and then pass it through the window for the witnesses to sign. All parties should wear gloves and use their own pen (i.e. not share). You should also remain socially-distant from each other.
Whatever form of will or wills you use, remember that they are not “set-and-forget” documents. Your life will change and your will or wills need(s) to be updated to reflect the changes life brings to you. It’s advisable to review your will(s) annual and it’s vital to review it/them after major life events.
Data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) by the Parliament Street think tank’s cyber research team has revealed that 165 suspected COVID-19 scams have been reported to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) since the beginning of the pandemic.
Reported scams have been circulated by email, letters, phone calls, text messages and social media, and illustrate the extent to which banks and other financial services organisations have been targeted by frauds throughout the year.
One reported scam featured fraudsters pretending to work on behalf of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and targeting company owners seeking COVID-19 relief grants to ensure their businesses’ financial stability during the pandemic. Others involved efforts to obtain passport details of financial services professionals, and a scheme to steal the login information of HSBC customers with business accounts.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid increase in the number of financial crime scams entering circulation,” commented Max Worrall, General Markets Sales Manager at Encompass Corporation.
[ymal]
Worrall also noted that firms seeking to enforce Anti-Money Laundering (AM) measures and customer verification checks will also be left open to threats, as the processes involved require that the reviewing of personally identifiable information and documentation, which are attractive to frauds.
"It is therefore vital that companies have in place the necessary anti-financial crime systems, as well as the ability to identify and confirm that the customer is who they say they are,” he said.
The Parliament Street think tank is a leading UK research organisation that conducts analysis of major polices and produces papers on technology, fintech and economic trends.
Trevor Sterling, Partner and Head of Major Trauma at Moore Barlow, examines the state of current legislation surrounding e-scooters and why it is inadequate.
With the accelerated rollout of rental e-scooters across the UK, I fear the lack of scrutiny on the legalisation, which allows for the use of these vehicles on our roads, is an accident waiting to happen. As an advocate of e-scooters, I would truly like to see these vehicles successfully trialled, but this cannot come at the cost of rider safety. The Government must take note of the current holes in the regulation of e-scooters and take action to legislate and educate riders.
Until July 2020, e-scooters were illegal to ride on public roads, cycle lanes and pavements in the UK and could only be used on private land. E-scooters are classified as Personal Light Electric Vehicles (PLEVs), and therefore they are subject to the same legal requirements as motor vehicles. This has meant that until recently e-scooters did not fulfil the legal requirements enabling them to be driven on roads. For example, it is difficult for them to have rear red lights, signalling ability and a number plate. In recognition of this, the Government is now considering changing the current legal framework to allow for this emerging mode of transport on British roads.
Fuelled by the vehicle’s green credentials and successful adoption in many European cities, the Government’s original plan was to trial rental e-scooters in four ‘future transport zones’. However, the coronavirus has expedited this. With the Government urging people to avoid public transport and look at alternative ways to travel during the pandemic, the trial was brought forward to 4 July and rolled out UK-wide. This move has brought into sharp focus the current flaws with the current e-scooter trial regulations and significantly widens the potential for harm.
[ymal]
To begin with, the compulsory personal safety measures for riders are currently non-existent. The Government has amended the Motor Cycle (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998 to remove the requirement for e-scooter riders to wear a helmet. There are also no compulsory measures to help improve the visibility of e-scooters travelling in darkness, such as headlights or reflective clothing. Safety measures such as these would protect riders and other road users. Without these measures included in the current regulation, there is a significant increase in the likelihood of serious injury occurring.
There is also the issue of how e-scooters can be adequately policed. The current trial states that scooters must have a maximum speed of 15.5mph. However, not all scooters are equipped with a speedometer and the nature of the vehicle means that a rider heading downhill would be able to significantly exceed this limit. Concerningly, with the mass adoption of e-scooters we have already started to see people using their personal e-scooters on the roads. It will be vastly difficult for law enforcement to tell whether an e-scooter is part of the trial or personally bought and having completely unregulated e-scooters on our roads will be dangerous for everyone involved.
There is no consistent online legislation for purchasing e-scooters, you can buy one internationally and to a range of specifications. When purchasing, people tend to focus on price point and speed. They will not look at features like the standard of the braking system, or whether it works in the rain. Most e-scooters aimed at consumers are built with existing regulations in mind, which would typically be a leisurely ride around private land on a summer's day. They are not built with the daily commute in mind and are not currently safe enough to cope with these new demands. All of these issues combined will create complex legal problems as the use of e-scooters – both rentals and privately owned – rapidly increases across the UK in the coming months.
In my capacity as Head of Major Trauma at Moore Barlow, I am concerned that we will see a rise in single victim accidents in relation to e-scooters. With more privately owned e-scooters on the roads, no mandatory personal safety requirements and the trial virtually unpoliceable, these are far from ideal conditions for individuals to be riding in. When accidents do occur they will be tragic and the fault of the current uncertain regulation and discrepancies in rules around e-scooters. This will lead to crash victims having to pay for years of expensive rehabilitation support.
When accidents do occur they will be tragic and the fault of the current uncertain regulation and discrepancies in rules around e-scooters.
With many local authorities still approving their local e-scooter schemes there is still time for Government to act. I would propose that they immediately convene a working group with scooter manufacturers, experts in major trauma from the legal profession and rental firms, to design laws with a stronger focus on safety. Until these laws are implemented, there needs to be an immediate educational campaign on road safety and the provision of guidance on the training riders should undertake before taking to the roads.
E-scooters have the potential to revolutionise the way many of us travel and pave the way for a greener future; but the use of this brilliant technology must not be hampered by avoidable tragedy and become the focus of legal battles for years to come. It is promising to see the Government act quickly on a promising initiative, but this must be matched by proper scrutiny of regulation and result in laws that keep us all safe.
With the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to affect millions of people financially, many are left with no choice but to seek out other options to support their livelihood. This becomes even more apparent for those who test positive for the virus. They may need to stop working, which can be problematic if they are their household's main or sole earner of income. One of the options that COVID-19 patients can look into is superannuation.
Superannuation is a regular payment that an employee makes to a fund for their future pension. Ideally, it is paid out when the contributor retires. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the government made recent changes that allow those impacted by the virus to apply for an early release of their superannuation.
Depending on your eligibility, you can get as much as $10,000 from April 20 to June 30, 2020, and another $10,000 from July 1 to September 24, 2020. Each person can make one withdrawal for each financial year.
In order to qualify, you must meet one or more of the following eligibility requirements:
Superannuation is a regular payment that an employee makes to a fund for their future pension.
You can start the process by applying via your government’s taxation office. Once you are approved, you can receive confirmation. The approval process lasts for four days. Remember that you cannot directly apply to your super fund. Your taxation office will then send your insurance provider with the approved request so you can receive your payment. Ideally, you should receive your money within five days from the initial approval. If you encounter problems with your superannuation release, you can connect with lawyers who understand your claim.
Generally, you should verify if your super balance is enough before making your claim. You can check your super balance via online services. Note that your balance will be indicated as an “as at” or “effective” date of the balance. When you see this, it may mean that there were changes to your account balance.
After this, you can log in on your insurance provider’s dashboard to check your current account balance, or you can look for the last statement sent to you either via regular mail or email.
[ymal]
Citizens who are living in a different country being impacted by the coronavirus pandemic are still eligible to claim their super fund. This applies to all citizens and permanent residents. Temporary residents are also eligible to claim the stimulus package, but they must meet the following eligibility requirements:
The COVID-19 pandemic is causing significant changes to the way people live. It is a hard battle to fight. Thankfully, you have superannuation to rely on if you’re in a tough spot. Use the money wisely because we are still living in an uncertain time. Keeping an amount tucked away for future use or emergencies is highly advisable.
