West Sussex to get extra electric vehicle charging points
He said: "This next phase is another important step towards building a cleaner, greener future for the county, giving drivers the confidence that reliable charging is never far away."The latest charging points will be installed with additional underground wiring to make it easier to expand further in the future.Joy Dennis, the county council's cabinet member for highways and transport, said no changes to existing parking arrangements were proposed yet, and any future changes would be subject to the normal consultation process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Divorced man awarded only 0.5 per cent of wife's $80million fortune wins 'gender bias' appeal
A city trader who claimed his divorce settlement was 'gender prejudice' after being handed $450K of his ex-wife's $80million family fortune has won an appeal case to have the arrangement reviewed. Simon Entwistle's three-year marriage to Jenny Helliwell ended in 2022 but he was awarded just 0.5 per cent of her fortune. He blamed gender bias for the decision and has won his case at the Court of Appeal in London, meaning his settlement will now be considered again. Appeal judges ruled Jenny had engaged in 'fraudulent' behavior by not declaring almost $64milllion of her £personal fortune whilst making a prenuptial agreement. The couple had a lavish wedding in Paris in August 2019 and Entwistle 'enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth,' it was said. They were living in a luxury villa in Dubai gifted to Helliwell by her father, businessman Neil Helliwell. But when they split up, Helliwell got her lawyers to order her husband out of the family home with just 48 hours' notice in August 2022. The pair, both 42, then went to court, with Entwistle asking for $3.3million from his interior designer ex-wife's personal fortune. Entwistle claimed he needed $48K a year for flights and $35K a year 'on a meal plan just for himself' because he said: 'I can't even cook an omelet. The judge told him: 'Being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that after the relationship has ended.' He was left with a 0.5 per cent share of the pot after the judge upheld a pre-nuptial agreement the pair had signed promising they would each keep their own assets in the event of a split. Appealing that ruling, Entwistle said he was a victim of 'gender prejudice' and that the prenup had been invalidated by Helliwell having failed to disclose assets worth almost $64milllion- amounting to 73 per cent of her wealth. Now, Lady Justice King has ruled that the nondisclosure by the heiress amounted to 'fraudulent' behavior which had invalidated the prenup. She allowed Entwistle's appeal and sent the case back to the divorce courts, ordering it to be recalculated as if the pre-nuptial agreement did not exist. The judge said: 'Willful or fraudulent breach of that agreement such that the disclosure made bears no resemblance to the true wealth of a capable of being material non-disclosure, as it deprives the other party of the information that they have agreed is necessary in order for them to decide whether to agree to a pre-nuptial agreement. 'Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand.' Challenging the judge's ruling at the Court of Appeal, Deborah Bangay KC, for Mr Entwistle, said: 'The judge was warned against gender prejudice, but failed to heed that warning. 'Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship.' She also argued that the prenup, which had been key to the husband's low award, was invalidated by Helliwell's failure to disclose her full wealth. Lady Justice King, giving her ruling, made no finding on the gender prejudice argument but said: 'The husband and wife entered into the agreement on the day they married, July 12, 2019. Upon divorce, each party would retain their own separate property and split any jointly owned property as to 50 per cent each. 'At the heart of the dispute is whether the wife's undoubted failure to disclose the majority of her substantial wealth should have the consequence that the agreement should not be upheld by the court. 'In the present case, the non-disclosure of the majority of her assets by the wife was undoubtedly deliberate.'
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Car finance scandal victims to get less than £950 each in compensation
The financial regulator estimates the compensation scheme for those impacted by the car finance scandal could cost between £9 billion and £18 billion, a significant reduction from the £45 billion initially projected. Individuals eligible for compensation are forecasted to receive less than £950 each. The statement from the FCA comes after the Supreme Court ruled that hidden commissions from lenders to car dealers on car loans were not unlawful, impacting millions of potential compensation claims. The decision means the majority of claims for mis-sold car loans will not proceed, with only the most serious cases eligible for compensation. The FCA plans to launch a consultation for payouts by early October, with the first payments expected in 2026, advising consumers against using claims management companies.
