Hampshire
Mediation
- Save thousands of pounds.
- No Court or Employment Tribunal.
- No more stress, worry & sleepless nights.
- We can mediate for you within 14 days of contact.
- Our Hampshire mediators cover all of Hampshire.
- End your Hampshire dispute of any nature in 1 day.
- Mediate from anywhere in Hampshire or via Zoom.
- 100% Confidential & No Obligation
Mediation In Hampshire
Hampshire Mediation is an area we serve. As well as being home to a variety of spectacular buildings, attractions and amenities. Such as Highclere Castle, Marwell Zoo, New Forest National Park, Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, Solent Sky & Winchester Cathedral.
Hampshire Locals
Being local our Hampshire mediators can be with you within days. Equally they provide online mediation via Zoom & telephone mediation services. They have been providing Hampshire mediation services for several years in a cost effective and confidential manner.
Hampshire Mediators
We have dedicated Hampshire mediators who live, work in and cover the whole of Hampshire.The majority of our mediation's have been in East Hampshire, Hart, New Forest, and Test Valley, Basingstoke & Deane, Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport, Havant & Rushmoor. As well as its surrounding areas, our mediators will travel to you.
Hampshire Dispute Types
Covering every type of civil, commercial, workplace, employment, family & neighbour dispute, with a very high success rate. Save money in expensive legal, expert and court fees. Save time, stop wasting it on court and legal actions!
HAMPSHIRE MEDIATION VIDEO
CLICK ON THE MEDIATORS
NAME TO VIEW THEIR WHOLE CV
Director, International Commercial & Workplace Mediator & Trainer
Our Hampshire Mediation Services Have Helped
Being updated.
The defendant (D) were a housing association who rented out (“the Property”) to the claimant (C) since 2014. C issued court proceedings against D for compensation & a works order over an alleged lack of heating, a damp stain in her bedroom and because she could not afford to heat the Property (which she attributes to the D).
D however said that they had tried to sort the issues out, but that C wouldn’t let them because she insisted on a particular heating specification and would only allow works on her terms. As such D did not think they should have had to pay any compensation. The D considered paying the C a figure of compensation but stated it would be a relatively low amount and in doing so they would take a commercial view to avoid trial.
However, they were against paying any legal costs because they were likely to be significant. The C was being represented on a ‘no-win no fee’ basis whereas the D say the claim should never have been brought and that they would be successful at trial given the strong evidence of the C not co-operating with their efforts to re-introduce the cavity wall insulation, upgrade the heating system and decorate the damp stain in the bedroom.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
Being updated.
The contract was for search engine optimisation, digital marketing. The Respondent alleged that the Claimant failed to provide its services in accordance with the proposals, and asserting that it was therefore entitled to terminate the contracts without fulfilling the notice periods.
With regard to the SEO contract, the Respondent maintains that the conditional baseline agreement was never concluded between the parties. It was alleged that the contract showed a monthly baseline volume of a potential 39,834 website visitors, and that the invoices from the Claimant from January 2010 onwards were calculated using this baseline, despite an exchange of emails in October 2009 that expressed an intention to reduce the baseline to 36,640 website visitors.
A number of invoices were raised to the tune of nearly £30,000, which were not paid for defective services, onerous wording and for services not provided. The mediation lasted one day, leading to a settlement.
The claimants, were GPs practising in a partnership. They were joint freehold owners of the Property. Which comprised of two premises. Dr X retired, as both a partner in the practice and joint freeholder of the property.
Dr X had owned the previous retail pharmacy business which operated from one of the premises. He sold the goodwill in the business to the Defendant. By a lease (“the Lease”) made between the premises were let to the Defendant for a term of 15 years.
During Dr X’s ownership of the retail pharmacy his employees had been allowed occasional use of a spare consulting room at the Surgery when it was not required by the Practice, for the purpose of preparing Nomad trays of drugs and medicines (i.e. a method of storing and dispensing drugs in compartments so patients can help keep track of what to take and when to take it, which are usually provided to care homes for their residents).
This informal arrangement continued after the grant of the Lease, with the Defendant being allowed to use in common with others a room on the ground floor known as Consulting Room 7 (CR7) when it was not in use by the Practice.
When Covid struck the Claimant requested the Defendant to stop using CR7 and to remove its equipment. This was in order to accommodate Covid-19 patients visiting the Surgery, and to reduce the risks to operational safety. Prior to this there had been a history of very troublesome events leading to the upset of the Claimant’s staff and the removal of the Defendant’s from the register of patients.
The removal of the Defendant’s as patients led to the allegation of racial discrimination by them against the Claimants, and threats of litigation (i.e. a claim for damages under the Equality Act 2010). The mediation took place in person, lasted ten hours and settled.
Being updated.
Being updated.
