header-logo header-logo

06 September 2007
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Troubled Brits keep stiff upper lip

News

The British are over four times more likely to first turn to their family, friends, acquaintances or nobody to discuss financial or debt worries than they are to seek professional advice, a survey reveals.

The study from Community Legal Service Direct   shows that the British stiff upper lip is alive and well, with only 18% with cash worries saying they would first turn to professionals for advice.
The main reasons revealed in the research for not turning to professionals for advice on financial or debt matters was that it costs too much (42%), that they are strangers (41%), while 40% of respondents felt they couldn’t be trusted.

Most people (69%) would rather deal with a financial problem themselves than turn to others. When they do, over half of those with financial worries (54%) ask family, friends or acquaintances for advice first. One in five (18%) have turned to their hairdresser, pub landlord, taxi driver or religious leader to discuss their money problems.

Of those polled, only 47% of those who sought financial advice—including from acquaintances—felt that they were given some good tips. Almost one in five (19%) said their source of advice on financial or debt worries was unhelpful.

With Britain’s personal debt increasing by £1m every four minutes and 330 people being made insolvent in the UK each day, John Sirodcar, head of Community Legal Service Direct, says it’s worrying that people, especially the most vulnerable, are not getting the financial and legal advice they need.
“While it’s natural for people to look to those they know to give them advice, well intentioned as it may be, this is clearly not always going to be the best advice,” he says.

Issue: 7287 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll