Find Out More

  • Accreditations
  • Join our Team
  • Terms of Business
  • Pricing Information
  • Client Feedback
    • Leave a Review
  • Complaints
  • Regulatory Information
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation

Harold Stock & Co. Solicitors

Rooted in the community

  • Mossley:
    01457 835597
  • Failsworth:
    0161 682 2400
  • Stockport:
    0161 456 5012
  • Get In Touch
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Team
    • CSR
  • Legal Services
    • Personal Injury
    • Medical Negligence
    • Serious Injury
    • Commercial and Company
    • Family Law
    • Property
    • Wills, Probate And The Elderly
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • More

Solicitors

Happy birthday, Mr Stock

28th July 2016 by Harold Stock & Co

Staff from Harold Stock & Co. Solicitors gathered together at a local restaurant last night to celebrate the 60-something-th birthday of the firm’s founding Partner, Paul Stock. Paul founded the firm in 1978 and was the first Solicitor to practice commercial law outside of the City centre. Paul retired as a Partner in the firm some years ago and is now employed on a Consultancy basis. He specialises in all aspects of company and commercial law and is well known and respected in this field. 

[Read more…] about Happy birthday, Mr Stock

Filed Under: Commercial Law, Commercial Property, News, Solicitors

Domestic conveyancing: going the extra mile for your satisfaction

15th December 2015 by Harold Stock & Co

At the start of a new year they say a young man’s fancy often turn to thoughts of love, but for more practical people their thoughts are often dominated by far more practical considerations; considerations like buying a house or putting their house on the market. If you are considering this, then there’s a question you need to answer honestly, and that’s who is best placed to ensure that any potential sale or purchase runs as smoothly as possible? Who will always put your interests first and work hard to ensure that your dream move becomes a reality? Well, the answer is a qualified and experienced conveyancing solicitor.

[Read more…] about Domestic conveyancing: going the extra mile for your satisfaction

Filed Under: Solicitors

Would you like to change your solicitor?

26th October 2015 by Harold Stock & Co

Are you unhappy with the service you’re getting from your personal injury solicitor? Do you feel you would get a better quality of service from another clinical negligence claim solicitor? Well, if you are dissatisfied with the standard of legal representation you are receiving, there is some good news: if you are unhappy and are looking for new representation, you can change solicitor at any time.

[Read more…] about Would you like to change your solicitor?

Filed Under: Blog, Solicitors

Property Fraud – Protecting your property

12th August 2015 by Harold Stock & Co

Sadly, mortgage and property fraud are on the increase. Did you know that your property can be fraudulently sold or re-mortgaged without your knowledge? Several factors can make your property more at risk of fraud than another. These include:

  • Rental properties
  • Empty properties
  • Owners living overseas
  • Unregistered properties

There are steps you can take to protect your property from fraud and the Land Registry have produced a really helpful video which shows you how.

Moving house can be one of the most stressful experiences in life. Whatever the nature of your conveyancing transaction, at Harold Stock & Co Solicitors we aim to remove the stress by making the process transparent, informative and swift. If you are thinking of buying or selling a property, contact us for a no obligation quote on 01457 835597.

Filed Under: Blog, Commercial Property, Property, Solicitors

Solicitors Should Play A Key Role In Securing Capital Allowances For Clients, Claims Law Society.

2nd April 2015 by Harold Stock & Co

Research by the Law Society and Catax Solutions has found that conveyancing solicitors take an inconsistent approach towards capital allowances, leaving them open to risks ranging from loss of income to client complaints and litigation.

[Read more…] about Solicitors Should Play A Key Role In Securing Capital Allowances For Clients, Claims Law Society.

Filed Under: Solicitors Tagged With: conveyancing, Law Society, Solicitors

Occupier’s Liability: What Do The Courts Consider To Be Reasonable And Appropriate Maintenance?

22nd January 2015 by Harold Stock & Co

The recent downturn in the weather will have been a source of consternation to many home owners.

Some properties will have been substantially damaged by the high winds: some severely affected by the snow. Such problems are irritating in themselves, but these problems can also be compounded by the issue of occupier’s liability. In law property owners are legally bound by a duty of care owed to anyone who visits their property or its grounds.

The law states that occupiers are liable for prosecution if it can be demonstrated that they were negligent in their duty to protect others from harm, and that any maintenance undertaken must be reasonable and appropriate. But, how far does this duty extend, and what evidence do the courts take into account when determining whether an occupier has or hasn’t been negligent? Hopefully the following court judgements will make the issue a little clearer.

Bowen v National Trust

In Bowen v National Trust, the court found that the Trust’s risk assessment for cutting trees and prioritising remedial for damaged trees was reasonable, even though a falling branch had killed one child and injured three others. The children were sheltering from the rain, when the branch broke and fell to the ground. They had been walking along a designated trial in the 250,000 Trust-owned Estate. The trust had a system in place which identified damaged trees: the system identified the magnitude of risk (how far the branch would fall and what damage it might do), the probability of how far the branch was likely to fall, and the consequences, given the location and how often the area was visited. The tree had been inspected and was found to be damaged, but the Trust did not believe that it posed anything other than a medium risk. Had it been identified as high risk, it would have been repaired immediately.

The Judge dismissed the claims, holding that the Trust’s system of risk assessment was reasonable, and that the inspectors had exercised appropriate care and had received adequate training and instruction. Any further requirement on the Trust was held to be more than was reasonable. The Trust had ensured that the children were reasonably safe to use the woodland area and had, therefore, discharged its legal duty. The court held therefore that the Trust had not been negligent and had not breached its duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957.

Micklewright v Surrey County Council

The County Court held that the Council was not liable for negligence when a diseased tree branch overhanging a public parking space, broke and fell causing fatal injuries. The Claimant was the partner of the deceased who had died from the injuries suffered. A branch had fallen from a tree in Windsor Great Park and killed the deceased as he was unloading a push bike from the roof of his car which was parked in a marked parking bay in a road adjacent to the park.

The court heard that the tree was between 200 to 300 years old, and there had been concerns that the overhanging branch, which was estimated to be 15 metres long and weighed 900 kilograms, might be a danger. However, although it was agreed that the tree was in fact infected by a fungal disease, there was no evidence to suggest that it posed a serious or imminent danger to the public. Two shorter branches were trimmed, though neither was found to be infected.

Surrey County Council had a system for dealing with such problems, set up in 2004 by arboriculturalist, Graham Banks, to deal with some 2 million tress and 5,700 kilometres of road network. The system comprised:

  • Maintenance of the trees within the Authority on a 3 year rolling inspection by 2 qualified inspectors.
  • Routine highway inspection to report on any noticeable tree defect. The tree in question had been inspected in 2007, and no visible defect was noted.
  • 43 highway officers were trained and despatched to identify potentially actionable problems with trees reported by the public.

All the parties agreed that an appropriate system for inspection was for a quick visual inspection of the trees and a written report every year or two by a qualified person with a working knowledge of trees as defined by the Health and Safety Executive. The Claimant’s expert maintained that there would have been a noticeable difference between a healthy branch and a diseased branch and that its position and size should have been enough to warrant a referral to a qualified inspector for further checks. The Defendant’s expert witness maintained that there would’ve been no structural defect visible, even to an inspector who climbed up to take a closer look. There was no evidence to suggest that the tree should have been inspected further. The Claimant alleged that the Council was liable in negligence under the Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957.

The judge held that neither common law nor statute requires an owner or occupier to make his/her land completely safe.

Their only duty is to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable. The judge found that the Council’s system for tree inspection was in fact inadequate. Nothing had been done to address the problem prior to 2004. It was growing in a high risk area, and because the tree was “a massive tree, overhanging a public road and designated parking area, alongside a well-known and much frequented public park”, there ought to have been a record of it.

However, he also noted that even with an adequate inspection system, there were no guarantees that the problem would have been spotted and the accident prevented. Matters were compounded by the fact that the Council had the cut and removed some of the branch the day after the accident.

In view of the evidence available, the judge took the view that the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof and establish that, had a better system have been in place, the accident could have been avoided. He argued that on the balance of probabilities, the accident had been unforeseeable.

Filed Under: Solicitors Tagged With: duty of care, negligence, occupier’s liability, Occupier’s Liability Act, reasonableness

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

  • Accreditations
  • Join our Team
  • Terms of Business
  • Pricing Information
  • Client Feedback
    • Leave a Review
  • Complaints
  • Regulatory Information
  • Acceptable Use
  • Complaints
  • Email Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy/Cookies
  • Regulatory Information
  • Terms of Website Use
harold stock solicitors

Mossley (Head Office)

55-57 Stamford Street
Mossley
Tameside OL5 0LN

Tel: 01457 835597
Fax: 0330 024 9210

harold stock solicitors

Failsworth

Ivy Business Centre
Crown Street
Failsworth M35 9PB

Tel: 0161 682 2400
Fax: 0330 024 9210

harold stock solicitors

Stockport

Pepper House
1 Pepper Road
Stockport SK7 5DP

Tel: 0161 456 5012
Fax: 0330 024 9210

Email: info@haroldstock.com

Harold Stock & Co Solicitors is a trading name of Harold Stock & Co Limited, a Limited Company registered in England and Wales. Company No: 07201476. Registered Office: 55-57 Stamford Street, Mossley, Tameside, OL5 0LN. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (535629). VAT No: 991 015 916 A full list of Directors is available at the Company’s Registered Office.

  • Acceptable Use
  • Complaints
  • Email Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy/Cookies
  • Regulatory Information
  • Terms of Website Use

Company Registered in England and Wales. No. 07201476
Copyright © 2023
Log in
Instilled Ltd

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT