Markel expands professional liability coverage for law firms

Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. Frankly and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you are affiliated with this page and would like it removed please contact pressreleases@franklyinc.com

SOURCE Markel Corporation

RICHMOND, Va., Sept. 15, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Markel Corporation (NYSE: MKL) announced that it has enhanced the policy form and protections for hard-to-insure law firms which can no longer secure coverage in the admitted markets. Markel has been insuring lawyers and law firms for 47 consecutive years, and this coverage is available on an excess and surplus (E&S) lines basis using a claims-made policy form. Highlights include: disciplinary proceedings coverage up to $50,000; policy limits of $5 million per claim/aggregate; coverage for breach of network and information security system; and new optional coverage enhancements-mutual choice of counsel, subpoena coverage, and expanded consent to settle provisions.

Markel Logo (PRNewsFoto/Markel Event Insurance)

Target risks are law firms with 3 to 50 attorneys. Risk management services include a risk management hotline, and claims are adjusted by an in-house, experienced, dedicated team of Markel professionals.

Scott Culler, Senior Managing Director at Markel, remarked, “Keeping our professional liability policies current and ensuring that we are offering the range and types of coverage that our customers require is a first priority for us. Insuring hard-to-place risks is one of the things that Markel is known for, and these enhancements build on a long history of providing necessary and multi-dimensional coverage for hard-to-insure law firms.”

Robin Russo, Chief Underwriting Officer at Markel, added, “Professional liability is a core line of business for Markel, and we are making real improvements to many of our forms and policies. We have a corporate commitment to getting closer to our customers, innovating, developing new products, and improving existing products. This enhancement for law firms is a great example of Markel surveying the marketplace, listening to our business partners, and responding with a better, more customer-centric product.”

The product is available through regionally-based underwriting teams located in Richmond, VA; Chicago; Plano, TX; Red Bank, NJ; New York City; Alpharetta, GA; Scottsdale, AZ; Woodland Hills, CA; and, San Francisco.

About Markel Corporation
Markel Corporation is a diverse financial holding company serving a variety of niche markets. The Company’s principal business markets and underwrites specialty insurance products. In each of the Company’s businesses, it seeks to provide quality products and excellent customer service so that it can be a market leader. The financial goals of the Company are to earn consistent underwriting and operatingprofits and superior investment returns to build shareholder value. Visit Markel Corporation on the web at markelcorp.com.

View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/markel-expands-professional-liability-coverage-for-law-firms-300520392.html

©2017 PR Newswire. All Rights Reserved.

Go to Source

No-win, no-fee firms taking 40% of flight delay payouts

  • The middlemen are taking up to 40 per cent of compensation for delayed flights
  • At worst, passengers are being asked to hand over £215 from a £532 payout
  • Passengers use the firms because of airlines’ tendencies to try to avoid paying

James Salmon Transport Correspondent For The Daily Mail

Frustrated holidaymakers are needlessly handing over hundreds of pounds in compensation for delayed flights to claims management firms.

The ‘no-win, no-fee’ firms deduct up to 40 per cent of payouts for flights that are delayed for three hours or more or cancelled.

In the worst cases, passengers are being asked to hand over £215 from a £532 payout.

The fees include a basic cut of up to 30 per cent of the compensation, plus an ‘administration fee’ of up to £25, and VAT charged at 20 per cent of the main fee, according to an investigation by consumer group Which?

Frustrated holidaymakers are needlessly handing over hundreds of pounds in compensation for delayed flights to claims management firms (file photo)

Frustrated holidaymakers are needlessly handing over hundreds of pounds in compensation for delayed flights to claims management firms (file photo)

Frustrated holidaymakers are needlessly handing over hundreds of pounds in compensation for delayed flights to claims management firms (file photo)

 Despite the exorbitant costs, campaigners say hundreds of thousands of travellers are turning to these firms because of airlines’ tendencies to wriggle out of paying compensation. 

Airlines have also been criticised for making the process as tortuous as possible to put Britons off lodging claims, even though they are entitled to do so under EU law.

Claims management firms have been the main beneficiaries, raking in tens of millions.

The ‘scandalous’ fees have prompted calls for tougher rules forcing airlines to automatically pay compensation.

Most firms offer a ‘no win, no fee’ basis, meaning they will not charge for unsuccessful claims.

Under Brussels rules, passengers departing from EU airports are entitled to compensation of between £220 and £360 on short-haul flights and up to £532 for longer journeys. 

The ¿no-win, no-fee¿ firms deduct up to 40 per cent of payouts for flights that are delayed for three hours or more or cancelled (file photo)

The ¿no-win, no-fee¿ firms deduct up to 40 per cent of payouts for flights that are delayed for three hours or more or cancelled (file photo)

The ‘no-win, no-fee’ firms deduct up to 40 per cent of payouts for flights that are delayed for three hours or more or cancelled (file photo)

Flights have to be delayed at least three hours. Which? analysed the most popular claims management firms.

It found flightdelays.co.uk took a fee of 29 per cent of the compensation, plus a £25 fee and VAT. No information on fees is featured on its home page. The firm claims to have recovered more than £25million. Based on this it would have taken £7.25million from the main fee, plus £5.5million in admin charges.

Airfair.com takes a 30 per cent cut plus VAT – equating to £191.50 on a £532 payout. Again there is no mention of the fees on its home page. EUclaim.co.uk deducts £185 – including a 25 per cent fee, a £25 admin charge and VAT.

Tory MP Huw Merriman (pictured) said the compensation process ¿unnecessarily complex and in desperate need of an overhaul¿

Tory MP Huw Merriman (pictured) said the compensation process ¿unnecessarily complex and in desperate need of an overhaul¿

Tory MP Huw Merriman (pictured) said the compensation process ‘unnecessarily complex and in desperate need of an overhaul’

Other firms, including Which?, offer a free service. Which? spokesman Alex Neill said: ‘The fact that passengers are willing to lose a substantial chunk of the compensation … shows that the system must be changed.’

Tory MP Huw Merriman, who sits on the Commons transport committee, said the rise of the claims industry showed the compensation process is ‘unnecessarily complex and in desperate need of an overhaul’.

Flightdelays said its charges are slightly higher as it covers the cost of clients’ legal proceedings. Managing director Steve Phillips backed calls for airlines to pay automatic compensation. 

Airfair boss Will Smith said: ‘Airlines are continuously putting up barriers to make it difficult for passengers to claim themselves. We have overcome these barriers.’

EUclaim said it had a ‘97 per cent success rate in court’, adding: ‘We are proud at how many passengers we are able to help at our current … prices.’

Trade body Airlines UK said airlines were ‘clear with their customers’ that direct applications were the best option, and that paying fees to third parties was ‘unnecessary’.

Andrew Haines, of the Civil Aviation Authority, said: ‘Passengers can be confident that we have undertaken a number of significant steps to ensure that airlines comply with their obligations.’

 

Go to Source

GST credit: Taxmen to probe claims of 162 firms

NEW DELHI: As much as Rs 65,000 crore out of the nearly Rs 95,000 crore tax collections in July — the first month of GST — have been claimed as transitional credit by taxpayers, prompting the CBEC to order a scrutiny of all cases above Rs 1 crore.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which kicked in from July 1, allows tax credit on stock purchased during the previous tax regime.

This facility is available only up to 6 months from the date of
GST rollout+
.

The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), the body which deals with formulation and implementation of policy concerning the levy and collection of indirect taxes, in a letter dated September 11 has asked tax officials to verify GST transitional credit claims of over Rs 1 crore made by 162 entities.

In the transitional credit form TRAN-1 filed by taxpayers along with their maiden returns for July, businesses have claimed a credit of over Rs 65,000 crore for excise, service tax or VAT paid before the
GST was implemented from July 1+
.

In light of such huge claims, CBEC Member Mahender Singh in the letter to chief commissioners said that as per the GST law, carry forward of transitional credit is permitted only when such credit is permissible under the law.

“The possibility of claiming ineligible credit due to mistake or confusion cannot be ruled out… It is desired that the claims of ITC (input tax credit) of more than Rs 1 crore may be verified in a time-bound manner,” the CBEC emphasised.

It asked the chief commissioners to send a report to the CBEC by September 20 on the claims made by these 162 companies.

To ensure only eligible credit is carried forward in the GST regime, the CBEC has asked field offices to match the credit claimed with closing balance in returns filed under the earlier law.

They are also required to check if the credit is eligible under the GST laws.

Till last week, as many as 70 per cent of 59.57 lakh taxpayers had filed returns for July, amounting to maiden revenue of Rs 95,000 crore under the GST regime.

However, out of this, the input tax credit (ITC) data for Central GST (CGST) claimed in TRAN-1 has shown that registered businesses have claimed over Rs 65,000 crore as transitional credit.

The government, in late August, had come out with form TRAN-1 for businesses to claim credit for taxes paid on transition stock.

Traders and retailers had 90 days to file for a claim.

Also, businesses have been allowed to revise the form once till October 31.

PwC India Partner and Leader (indirect tax) Pratik Jain said the Rs 65,000 crore amount looks high, particularly given the fact that a lot of large companies have not yet submitted TRAN-1.

Under the transition rules, traders and retailers are allowed to claim a credit of 60 per cent of taxes paid earlier against the CGST or SGST dues where the tax rate exceeds 18 per cent.

In cases where the GST rate is below 18 per cent, only 40 per cent deemed credit will be available against CGST and SGST dues.

Further, the government would also refund 100 per cent excise duty on goods that cost above Rs 25,000 and bear a brand name of the manufacturer and are serially numbered such as TV, fridge or car chassis.

To avail this, a manufacturer can issue a Credit Transfer Document (CTD) to the dealer as evidence of excise payment on goods cleared before the introduction of GST.

The dealer availing credit using CTD will also have to maintain copies of all invoices relating to buying and selling from the manufacturer, through intermediate dealers.


Go to Source

Taxmen to probe claims of 162 firms

NEW DELHI: As much as Rs 65,000 crore out of the nearly Rs 95,000 crore tax collections in July — the first month of GST — have been claimed as transitional credit by taxpayers, prompting the CBEC to order a scrutiny of all cases above Rs 1 crore.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which kicked in from July 1, allows tax credit on stock purchased during the previous tax regime.

This facility is available only up to 6 months from the date of
GST rollout+
.

The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), the body which deals with formulation and implementation of policy concerning the levy and collection of indirect taxes, in a letter dated September 11 has asked tax officials to verify GST transitional credit claims of over Rs 1 crore made by 162 entities.

In the transitional credit form TRAN-1 filed by taxpayers along with their maiden returns for July, businesses have claimed a credit of over Rs 65,000 crore for excise, service tax or VAT paid before the
GST was implemented from July 1+
.

In light of such huge claims, CBEC Member Mahender Singh in the letter to chief commissioners said that as per the GST law, carry forward of transitional credit is permitted only when such credit is permissible under the law.

“The possibility of claiming ineligible credit due to mistake or confusion cannot be ruled out… It is desired that the claims of ITC (input tax credit) of more than Rs 1 crore may be verified in a time-bound manner,” the CBEC emphasised.

It asked the chief commissioners to send a report to the CBEC by September 20 on the claims made by these 162 companies.

To ensure only eligible credit is carried forward in the GST regime, the CBEC has asked field offices to match the credit claimed with closing balance in returns filed under the earlier law.

They are also required to check if the credit is eligible under the GST laws.

Till last week, as many as 70 per cent of 59.57 lakh taxpayers had filed returns for July, amounting to maiden revenue of Rs 95,000 crore under the GST regime.

However, out of this, the input tax credit (ITC) data for Central GST (CGST) claimed in TRAN-1 has shown that registered businesses have claimed over Rs 65,000 crore as transitional credit.

The government, in late August, had come out with form TRAN-1 for businesses to claim credit for taxes paid on transition stock.

Traders and retailers had 90 days to file for a claim.

Also, businesses have been allowed to revise the form once till October 31.

PwC India Partner and Leader (indirect tax) Pratik Jain said the Rs 65,000 crore amount looks high, particularly given the fact that a lot of large companies have not yet submitted TRAN-1.

Under the transition rules, traders and retailers are allowed to claim a credit of 60 per cent of taxes paid earlier against the CGST or SGST dues where the tax rate exceeds 18 per cent.

In cases where the GST rate is below 18 per cent, only 40 per cent deemed credit will be available against CGST and SGST dues.

Further, the government would also refund 100 per cent excise duty on goods that cost above Rs 25,000 and bear a brand name of the manufacturer and are serially numbered such as TV, fridge or car chassis.

To avail this, a manufacturer can issue a Credit Transfer Document (CTD) to the dealer as evidence of excise payment on goods cleared before the introduction of GST.

The dealer availing credit using CTD will also have to maintain copies of all invoices relating to buying and selling from the manufacturer, through intermediate dealers.


Go to Source

Time to patch the holes in state firms bill

PTT Plc headquarters on Vibhavadi Rangsit Road in Bangkok. The National Legislative Assembly is vetting a bill on the development of supervision and administration of state enterprises, aiming to enhance efficiency and transparency in these organisations, including PTT. KITJA APICHONROJAREK

Corruption scandals, inefficiency and a lack of accountability have been key problems plaguing a number of Thailand’s state enterprises for years.

Currently, the military-installed National Legislative Assembly (NLA) is vetting a bill on the development of how state enterprises are supervised and run which will address these problems by enhancing their efficiency and transparency.

But the bill in its present form needs more work. It must add a number of key elements to ensure the public benefits while being careful not to distort competition in the market.

In Thailand, there are 56 state enterprises with total assets of 11.9 trillion baht that employ 42,000 people.

Notwithstanding their high net worth, these organisations still face distinct governance challenges in a market economy, notably in these three key areas.

First, state enterprises have suffered undue interference from ruling politicians who might have used them as tools to seek political benefits.

Second, passive oversight and distant control by most governments have weakened state enterprises, giving them few incentives to perform in the best interest of their organisations or the general public whom they serve.

Third, state enterprises operate de jure or de facto without the need to compete in the market, resulting in lax corporate control and facing risks of bankruptcy.

These challenges call for new institutional arrangements as a specific governance model for state enterprises, which is usually distinct from private firms, to ensure an efficient market economy.

Thai state enterprises contribute substantially to the country’s GDP, employment and market capitalisation. They are businesses mainly operating in public utilities and infrastructure industries, such as energy, transportation, telecommunications and finance.

Ideas have long been floating around about how to develop and improve the administration and management of state enterprises in Thailand.

This was especially the case in the wake of the 1997 financial crisis when the International Monetary Fund proposed its deregulation and privatisation plan to the government.

On July 24, 2001, the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet approved the first draft of a bill to reorganise the administration and management of state enterprises by establishing a national holding company. This bill had never been passed as such an idea received a hostile reception from the public.

Almost 16 years later, on Sept 1 the NLA passed its first reading of the new bill, part of which aims to make state firms more accountable.

The bill calls for the setting up of two-tier governing bodies to supervise and manage state enterprises.

The first is a “superboard”, or a state enterprises policy committee which will be entrusted with a supervisory function. The other body is a national holding company, which will be designated with handling management and holding ownership in state enterprises.

The superboard will govern the holding company, which will have the same status as a state agency rather than a state enterprise.

The Ministry of Finance currently holds majority ownership in corporatised state enterprises. It will transfer all shares in these organisations to such a holding company.

Notably, the new governance structure will separate policy making from regulatory function and ownership.

The holding company will supervise, in its shareholder capacity, the operation of state enterprises to ensure reasonable profits. It will follow the organisations’ plans on strategy, investment and assets management.

Initially, during the first 180 days following the promulgation of this bill, the Ministry of Finance will transfer all of its shares in 11 key corporatised state enterprises to the national holding company.

The eleven organisations are: PTT Plc, TOT, CAT Telecom, MCOT Plc, Thai Airways International Plc, Airports of Thailand Plc, the Transport Co, Dhanarak Asset Development Co (a state enterprise under the Treasury Department), Thailand Post Co, the Syndicate of Thai Hotels & Tourists Enterprises Ltd and Bangkok Dock Co.

In addition to the first round of share transfers, the bill allows the superboard to approve additional share transfers of other corporatised state enterprises to take place later on.

But the bill still has holes in it and lacks some key internationally recognised principles.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) 2015 edition of Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises is a good reference for Thai lawmakers when vetting the bill.

It provides frameworks for good governance.

These are: Rationales for state ownership, the state’s role as an owner, state enterprises in the marketplace, equitable treatment of shareholders and other investors, stakeholder relations and responsible business, disclosure and transparency, and the responsibilities of the boards of state-owned enterprises.

The bill lacks two key OECD principles: One pertains to state enterprises in the marketplace, and equitable treatment of shareholders and other investors.

The NLA should revise the bill to include a requirement that all state enterprises’ business activities must be consistent with their corporate policies and legal and regulatory frameworks. This is to ensure a level playing field and fair competition.

Once these organisations harmonise business activities with their policies, high standards of transparency and information disclosure, particularly on cost and revenue structures, will be maintained.

This will prevent them from operating with state subsidies, which can be detrimental to market competitiveness.

More importantly, state enterprises must comply with the same laws, tax codes and regulations that apply to their competitors.

The bill should also stipulate that state enterprises’ engagement in public procurement projects must follow procedures that are competitive, non-discriminatory and safeguarded by appropriate standards of transparency.

Additionally, the bill needs to include a requirement for state enterprises to recognise the rights of all shareholders including non-state investors.

This can guarantee shareholders’ equitable treatment and equal access to corporate information.

These two principles are non-negotiable. They can help state enterprises maximise and secure many benefits in the long run.

The NLA should incorporate them both into this bill, otherwise state shareholders will be able to withhold valuable information, opening the door to insider trading and the appropriation of corporate opportunities.

This would translate into a lack of transparency and unfair practice to non-state shareholders.

The bill must be revised so that state enterprises compete on a level playing field amid efficient regulatory bodies and frameworks.


Go to Source

Endo International PLC : Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Endo International plc – ENDP

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / September 15, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Endo International plc (“Endo” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ENDP). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Endo and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

[Click here to join a class action]

On May 15, 2017, post-market, Reuters reported that Orange County, New York had sued Endo, along with other pharmaceutical companies, accusing the Company of engaging in fraudulent marketing that downplayed the risks of prescription opioid painkillers. On this news, Endo’s share price fell $0.94, or 6.98%, over the following two trading days to close at $12.52 on May 17, 2017.

On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration instructed Endo to pull its opioid painkiller Opana ER from the U.S. market, citing Opana’s “high risk of abuse and potential to help spread HIV and hepatitis C.” On this news, Endo’s share price fell $2.29 or 16.62%, to close at $11.49 on June 19, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP


Go to Source

Senator to take strict new foreigners’ law to court

Václav Láska, photo: Filip JandourekVáclav Láska, photo: Filip Jandourek
The amendment to the foreigners’ law which went into force in August
started out as a
government effort to bring Czech legislation in line with EU norms,
however
changes made to the draft in the lower house shifted the bill in another
direction. Senator Václav Láska, who is preparing a legal complaint
against it, says the law treats foreigners from outside the EU as
second-class citizens.

“Foreigners from non-EU states should be warned that the Czech
authorities will not make it easy for them to get any kind of residence
here, be it temporary or permanent, that even the smallest mistake in the
form they fill in, or step they take, such as entering the country, will
disqualify them from being considered for residence. Foreigners should be
warned that when they are invited to the foreigners’ police the
reception
they get will not be friendly.”

Senator Láska argues that the law, which proponents claim is in the
interest of national security, does not impact migrants so much as
foreigners studying and working in the Czech Republic. Non-EU foreigners
applying for residence now have to go to their country of origin to do so,
for a process that may take months, and they must present the originals of
documents such as birth or wedding certificates. Most importantly
foreigners who are refused residence by the Interior Ministry can no
longer
take their case to court as they could in the past. Over a quarter of
those
court appeals were successful.

The stricter requirements have also impacted Czechs employing foreign
nationals. Employers are barred from taking on foreigners from outside the
EU if the firms get into debt, fail to pay social insurance or are found
guilty of making illegal hires. And a foreigner who gets into any trouble
with the law and is convicted will immediately be expelled from the
country.

Illustrative photo: Ondřej TomšůIllustrative photo: Ondřej Tomšů
Senator Láska says this will gradually make foreigners shun the Czech
Republic, as is now the case with migrants. Bohuslav Chalupa from the ANO
party counters that in view of the security situation in Europe and the
world today, individual countries will have to respond in order to protect
their nationals and the Czech Republic is doing just that.

“The fact is that both international and Czech legal norms were
adopted
at a time when lawmakers did not envisage our present day problems such as
a massive migrant wave, climate change or a rapid deterioration of the
security situation. So the question is whether it is not time to revise
those laws, because today we face entirely different problems than we did
ten years ago.”

Go to Source

Global e-commerce firms to be liable to pay tax in Turkey under draft law: Minister

ANKARA

Global e-commerce companies will be liable for taxes on goods sold directly to Turkish customers under a draft law proposed by Turkey’s government, Finance Minister Naci Ağbal said on Sept. 15.

He told the state-run Anadolu Agency that the budget deficit will be at around 60 billion Turkish Liras ($17.5 billion) by the end of the year.

“A global e-commerce company will be a taxpayer in Turkey if it sells products directly to consumers in the country continuously,” Ağbal stated.        

“Otherwise, we will make it a taxpayer automatically and seize their revenues received in Turkey,” he added.      

Ağbal earlier said his ministry launched a detailed examination into tax payments of global online portals, noting that tax avoiders were sent notifications demanding they pay their taxes.  

He then said the taxation of online portals has become a global issue and there are opposing views about to whom such companies pay their taxes, adding that the OECD is one of the leading organizations that has focused on placing standards regarding the issue. 

Budget results 

Ağbal also said the budget deficit in August stood at 874 million Turkish Liras (nearly $254.5 million) while the primary surplus was 4.6 billion liras ($1.34 billion).        

He said there was a significant increase in investment expenditures in the first eight months of the year, adding he expected a considerable increase in tax revenues, exceeding expectations.        

“Turkey’s budget is solid. Despite additional spending on defense and security, we manage to maintain a balanced budget,” Ağbal said. 

The minister said he projects the budget deficit to reach around 60 billion liras ($17.5 billion) at the end of the year.        

“If we had not taken measures, we would not have caught the rising trend of economic growth. Budget deficit will be 2 percent of the GDP at the end of this year,” Ağbal said.        

He also said that they will limit public expenditure, especially current expenditures, in 2018’s budget.        

Third quarter growth ‘to be higher’

Ağbal noted that Turkey’s growth rate will be higher in the third quarter of 2017 due to base affects compared to the same period of last year.     
  
Turkey’s economy grew 5.2 percent in the first quarter of this year and 5.1 percent in the second quarter, compared with the same periods of 2016, according to official data. 

“The third quarter of 2016 coincides with the defeated coup attempt,” Ağbal recalled.        

The finance minister stated that the acceleration in the growth rate will continue in the fourth quarter as well.        

“Leading indicators in production, investment, domestic and foreign demand are quite strong. Exports considerably support growth, along with pleasing developments in tourism,” Ağbal said.   
     
Recalling credit rating agencies’ outlook for the Turkish economy after the failed coup attempt, he said agencies such as Standard and Poor’s and Fitch expected Turkey to grow by 2-3 percent in 2017.     
  
“Everybody now starts to upgrade Turkey’s growth rate for 2017. International institutions mention rates like 4.7 or 5.3 percent,” he noted.        

“There is confidence in the Turkish economy in the market and it continues increasingly,” he added.

September/15/2017

Go to Source

Driver’s legal victory is one in the ParkingEye for rogue private firms

ParkingEye pays barrister £1,550 in costs over £85 fine issued as he napped in motorway services

ParkingEye sign



ParkingEye looks after the provision of spaces for motorway services and supermarkets including Aldi.
Photograph: Alamy

Driver’s legal victory is one in the ParkingEye for rogue private firms

ParkingEye pays barrister £1,550 in costs over £85 fine issued as he napped in motorway services

A driver hit with an £85 fine after taking a night-time nap in a motorway services car park – and overstaying its two-hour parking limit – has had the fine overturned, and obtained £1,555 in costs awarded against the private parking company after it chose not to challenge a court award.

As first revealed by Guardian Money, ParkingEye pursued Nicholas Bowen for overstaying the free two-hour limit at Welcome Break’s Membury services on the M4 and – when he wouldn’t roll over – decided to sue him.

What ParkingEye did not know at the time it imposed the fine was that Nicholas Bowen is a senior QC and renowned barrister who has undertaken a raft of high-profile cases.

The controversial firm – which boasts that it wins 90% of its county court claims – was ordered to pay his costs of £1,555 when the judge struck out the case on 18 August after ParkingEye failed to turn up in court.

ParkingEye insisted afterwards that it did send a representative but was told that the case was not on the list of hearings. When Guardian Money later contacted the company, it told us it was still “considering its options within the time limits set out by the court”.

Nicholas Bowen QC

Nicholas Bowen QC had taken a nap in a ‘virtually empty’ car park.

But the company has since sent a cheque for £1,555 to Bowen – though spelling his Christian name as Nickalas on the cheque and accompanying letter – both dated 1 September.

He shared his victory on Twitter, claiming ParkingEye “ran from the arguments and paid costs fearing a loss, they’re vulnerable” and urging other motorists it has threatened with legal action to “keep up the pressure”.

He has since emailed ParkingEye asking it to reissue the cheque in the correct name, while also asking for figures on the number of tickets it issues annually to people overstaying at night in motorway services car parks. He added: “Please indicate if you are prepared to engage with me in a sensible dialogue on the nighttime service station; if I do not hear from you I will continue to campaign against your current practices to help those who find themselves in a similar position to the one you put me in.”

Bowen had argued that the firm had no right to charge people for parking to take a nap in a “virtually empty” car park. He said warnings about 24-hour charging were in tiny print in another part of the car park. He claimed that charging overstayers at night was a violation of consumer protection law.

ParkingEye letter and cheque with blurred details

The letter and cheque for £1,555 in court costs that ParkingEye sent to ‘Nickalas’ Bowen.

But ParkingEye pressed ahead with its plans to sue Bowen through the county court to recover its claim for the unpaid ticket, a further penalty for non-payment and costs. At that stage he decided to defend the case.

Bowen’s case has received huge media attention as well as triggering hundreds of further complaints from motorists who claim they have been badly treated by ParkingEye and other private parking companies. They include a woman working for an animal rescue charity who parked in a coastal pay and display car park in emergency tidal conditions while trying to rescue a seal from the sea.

Contacted about the latest development in this case, ParkingEye said that it was reissuing the cheque to Bowen in the correct name.

The RAC and AA motoring groups are both backing Sir Greg Knight MP’s private member’s bill to tackle rogue private parking companies head on by introducing regulations to protect motorists. The parking (code of practice) bill 2017-18, which had its first reading in July and is likely to get its second reading early in 2018, aims to reform parking enforcement by introducing a legally binding code of practice, which could ultimately lead to a fairer appeals process and an end to aggressive debt management. Research from the RAC shows that 73% of drivers favour government regulation of the industry.

Knight said: “Following the ban on wheel clamping in 2012, private parking providers are now issuing a ticket every seven seconds – many of them in dubious circumstances.

“Some dodgy operators are engaging in practices including ‘ghost ticketing’ – the use of CCTV to spot parking infringements and issue parking charge notices, unclear and ambiguous signing and issuing tickets despite malfunctioning parking payment machines.

“Currently, there is no legally binding, mandatory code of practice.”

Go to Source

EU to demand Internet firms act to remove illegal content

  • Tech companies could face a backlash if they don’t act more quickly
  • Draft guidelines will affect firms like Google , Facebook and Twitter
  • The non-binding guidelines will be published at the end of the month
  • They will include suggestions for trusted flaggers to highlight material
  • More binding legistaltion could be brought in if companies fail to act

Tim Collins For Mailonline

and
Reuters

Illegally streaming the latest episode of Game of Thrones and other top TV shows could be about to get a whole lot harder, thanks to new EU regulations.

Leading technology companies could face a backlash if they don’t act more quickly to remove copyrighted content from their sites and servers.

Draft guidelines suggest firms like Google, Facebook and Twitter should step up their efforts, by introducing trusted flaggers and other voluntary measures to detect and remove illegal content.

Scroll down for video 

legally streaming the latest episode of Game of Thrones and other top TV shows could be about to get a whole lot harder, thanks to new EU regulations. Leading tech companies could face a backlash if they don't act more quickly to remove copyrighted content

legally streaming the latest episode of Game of Thrones and other top TV shows could be about to get a whole lot harder, thanks to new EU regulations. Leading tech companies could face a backlash if they don't act more quickly to remove copyrighted content

legally streaming the latest episode of Game of Thrones and other top TV shows could be about to get a whole lot harder, thanks to new EU regulations. Leading tech companies could face a backlash if they don’t act more quickly to remove copyrighted content

SUGGESTED STEPS

The Commission wants the companies to develop ‘trusted flaggers’, experienced bodies with expertise in identifying illegal content, whose notifications would be given high priority and could lead to the automatic removal of content.

It also encourages web companies to publish transparency reports with detailed information on the number and type of notices received and actions taken and says the Commission will explore options to standardise such transparency reports.

The guidelines also contain safeguards against excessive removal of content, such as giving its owners a right to contest such a decision.

The Commission wants companies to hone technology used to automatically detect illegal content so that the volume which needs to be reviewed by a human before being deemed illegal can be narrowed down.

Proliferating illegal content, whether because it infringes copyright or incites terrorism, has sparked heated debate in Europe.

Some want online platforms to do more to tackle it and others fear it could impinge on free speech.

Tech companies have significantly stepped up efforts to tackle the problem of late.

They have agreed to an EU code of conduct to remove hate speech within 24 hours and forming a global working group to combine their efforts remove terrorist content from their platforms.

Existing EU legislation shields online platforms from liability for the content that is posted on their websites.

This limits how far policymakers can force companies, who are not required to actively monitor what goes online, to act.

‘Online platforms need to significantly step up their actions to address this problem,’ the draft EU guidelines say.

‘They need to be proactive in weeding out illegal content, put effective notice-and-action procedures in place, and establish well-functioning interfaces with third parties (such as trusted flaggers) and give a particular priority to notifications from national law enforcement authorities.’ 

The guidelines are expected to be published at the end of the month.

Draft guidelines suggest firms like Google , Facebook and Twitter should step up their efforts, by introducing trusted flaggers and other voluntary measures to detect and remove illegal content

Draft guidelines suggest firms like Google , Facebook and Twitter should step up their efforts, by introducing trusted flaggers and other voluntary measures to detect and remove illegal content

Draft guidelines suggest firms like Google , Facebook and Twitter should step up their efforts, by introducing trusted flaggers and other voluntary measures to detect and remove illegal content

WORLD’S MOST PIRATED TV SHOWS

1) Game of Thrones

2) The Walking Dead

3) Westworld

4) The Flash

5) Arrow

6) The Big Bang Theory

7) Vikings

8) Lucifer

9) Suits

10) The Grand Tour

Source: TorrentFreak 

They are non-binding but further legislation is not ruled out by Spring 2018, depending on progress made by the companies.

However, a Commission source said any legislation would not change the liability exemption for online platforms in EU law.

The Commission wants the companies to develop ‘trusted flaggers’, experienced bodies with expertise in identifying illegal content, whose notifications would be given high priority and could lead to the automatic removal of content. 

It also encourages web companies to publish transparency reports with detailed information on the number and type of notices received and actions taken and says the Commission will explore options to standardise such transparency reports.

The guidelines also contain safeguards against excessive removal of content, such as giving its owners a right to contest such a decision.

The Commission wants companies to hone technology used to automatically detect illegal content so that the volume which needs to be reviewed by a human before being deemed illegal can be narrowed down.

Go to Source