I'm no expert myself but I have a similar situation and was advised at the time that it depends how the tennancy was set up. I believe that under joint tennancy the title of ownership passes automatically from the deceased to the other tennant(s) so if you have this arrangement then no other party can lay claim to any part of the property as it will automatically become yours. Conversely, if you have a tennancy in common arrangement then your fathers daughters may have claim to a portion of his share of the property. In simple terms, if you both own 50% and your father dies without leaving a will, his 50% share of the property would be shared under the rules of intestacy so could potentially end with a third each for you and your sisters leaving you with two thirds in total and them each having one sixth. As I said, this is my laymans understanding and probably worth spending a few quid to speak with a legal professional.

Hi Hammy, That's great. Thanks a lot. Regards Stephen

Hi Mozz, That's a great help. Thanks very much. So far we seem to have everything in hand and without it costing a small fortune in legal fees. Regards Stephen

My father recently passed away and as joint executor's of his estate my mother and I need a little help with the transferring of his property to my mother. My father died leaving a will that stated everything was to pass to my mother. He was 71 and had paid off the mortgage many years ago and the ownership of the property was solely his. We have tracked down the deeds but due to the firm of solicitors holding them being shut down by the Law Society we have had to apply to get these. Will this delay transferring the ownership to my mother? Please note that after a bad experience with using a solicitor in a previous probate situation and the relative straightforwardness of my fathers estate, we are trying to manage as much of this ourselves. This may, however, be an area we involve professional help but as you'll see, it seems straightforward enough with a little friendly guidance. We have not used a solicitor so far for any of his affairs and it's been easy to sort out his banking, car, utilities, etc so we cannot see how solicitors can justify the ridiculous fees they charge. The only sticking point so far is how we go about getting the house transferred to my mother in accordance with the will. We have already applied for a grant of probate which we believe will take 4-6 weeks but have been advised this shouldn't hold anything up. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Louis, At present it was just following a conversation with one of their rude and terse advisors and it shocked me that they can make that decision irrespective of what's actually right. They did say that investigations were continuing and a full statement would need to be taken. I'm just trying to understand whether this is common practise and whether other people have had experience of ERS settling claims in the 3rd party's favour even though it was clearly their fault.

Hi everyone, I just wanted to ask if anyone has had any dealings with Equity Red Star regarding their car insurance. I was involved in a RTC when a vehicle emerged from a side road, without giving way and smashed into the side of my car. At the scene the driver admitted it was his fault but has since claimed it was mine and has put in a personal injury claim. The Police said when i was giving a statement that it was a clear cut case and as he's failed to 'give way' it was his fault but my insurance are now saying that as there are no witnesses they will 'take a view' as to whether they would be 'likely' to win a court case and decide on blame from there. They said that according to the terms and conditions I agreed to, they have the right to make that decision irrespective of my views or wishes. Has anyone fallen foul of Equity Red Star's stance on this? Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

It was Macclesfield Court. There was another bank charges case there too and their banks barrister got them to agree to a stay too. Part of me wishes I'd stood my ground and fought the case there and then but it was the first time I'd ever been in a court and was unsure of my footing so err'd on the side of caution. Having heard your take on the process for the banks claiming back their money then I wish I had gone through with it. Ah well, will just have to wait until Jan and accept the additional 8% interest. :o)

I recently went to court to get Barclays to settle and was greeted by their barrister who advised that as Barclays are involved in this test case they are pushing for a stay. I eventually agreed to a stay after talking with the judge although I got the impression he'd have been happy to hear the case and make an award. However, Barclays would then be entitled to claim the money back, apparently, if the test case went in the banks favour. I have since got a letter from Barclays advising the same and that they will not entertain anything further regarding this complaint until after the test case. This is probably why Barclays still aren't paying up. However, if you have a judgement then send in the bailiffs. Oh, and for those who don't know, the test case in set for hearing next January... That's 2008! District judges still appear to be happy to make a judgement but be aware that the banks may be entitled to claim the money back if the test case goes in their favour. Also, my District Judge took the time to commend me on my court bundles and said that of all the bank charges cases he'd judged, mine was the only one that followed the requirements as set down in the summons. He also said it was essential for people to do the same if they want to succeed against the banks. Just a bit of free advice for my fellow pioneers.

Hi Joe1969, thanks for reading and responding to my drivel. Thanks also for reminding me that it was indeed Girobank that was the state run bank. Not one of Maggie's better decisions I'll grant you. Maybe it's time for a resurrection or phoenix from the ashes to help out the consumer. I don't want any interest or other bells and whsitles. I just have 3 accounts. A cash account for my day-to-day spending, a bill paying account with one standing order in and all my DD's and SO's out and an instant access savings account. I have a cheque book and debit card on my main account and cashcards for the other two. I don't have any overdraft facilities and always try to operate my accounts within my means but would be happy to pay a reflective charge if and when I get it wrong. Why should I now be charged for these 'basic' and essential facilities? I think Richard Branson should do his public imagine another power of good and set up another Girobank - a non-profit/non-loss making banking service.

Hi PPMAN159, thanks for your input. There's no easy solution and where people impsoe themselves on the bank with unauthorised overdrafts then they should be charged but this whole scenario is a result of the banks making a profit from it. If it only costs £4, for arguments sake, then charging £38 is a rip off and not fair on the consumer. I would happily run a basic account where I paid a reflective charge for getting my sums wrong and earned no interest for money that was in that account if it meant that I wasn't paying a insulting fee to make the bank more money. What I think the consumer wants in this scenario is a fair service for a fair price - not to be, and please forgive the picture this analogy may give you, rolled over a barrel and shafted by the banks fat cats. Your suggestion that charging consumers for a service so that the fat cats can get fatter but by a different means than unlawful charges will open banking up to greater competition smacks or corporate rhetoric and I would suggest that you've been duped by the banks marketing hype (in the nicest possible way). Banks are in the business of making money, not providing a service. Like many other industries where specialist knowledge is provided (solicitors and estate agents spring to mind) there is very little thought given to providing a service and banking is no different - in my most humble of opinions.

Hi all and thanks for reading yet another rambling by me. This is getting somewhat addictive. With all the news stories and murmurings by the banks that free banking will be a thing of the past (as they will now be forced to obey the law) it occured to me that many people and mostly those which cannot afford it, will be forced to providing yet more profit to these institutions. I, like millions of other employees, am paid directly into our bank accounts with no other option and people on benefits and pensions are also paid in this manner. I also have to pay several of my bills by direct debit. Therefore, if the banks insist on bringing in annual charges to simply have an account and additional charges for facilities such as direct debits, standing orders, chequing services, etc then I will not be able to avoid funding their fat cat's lavish lifestyles. Is it me? Or is that a little beguiling? I fully appreciate that banks are profit making organisations and they have shareholders, etc that they are answerable to. I also appreciate that basics of a free market economy whereby profit making organisations are allowed to charge what the market will stand for their product or services. But is banking as simple as that? I know if my telephone provider charges me things I don't agree with, I can swap provider or, if I feel strongly enough, stop using the phone. But if all the banks are introducing charges for basic banking, I have no option but to pay them as I need a bank account. Didn't the post office provide free basic banking services in conjunction with Alliance and Leicester? Is this still available? Should the government provide such a free service as I believe it to be an essential service? As a free account it would be acceptable (to me at least) to have no frills such as interest paid on positive balances, free overdraft facilities and to have agreed reasonable charges for my financial mismanagement (bouncing cheques, unpaid DD's and the like). This way, I am still able to get my salary and bills paid without funding the lifestyle of a multi-millionaire into the process. What say ye all?

Hi Jayz1979, Sorry if I came across as poking the proverbial finger as this was not my intention. I was merely stating that the management of my finances by me at the time of the charges was bad and exasperated by Barclays taking the charges and that in many cases I could have avoided a night out in order to cover the cost of the charge and reduce the impact of the cycle. Obviously I can't comment on your particular circumstances as I don't know the details. I suspect though a clever lawyer would argue that a £30 charge for going overdrawn by £10 would amount to a £40 debt, which is a good night out and unless you'd lived like a hermit you might have had the opportunity to stop the cycle reaching £1500. However, I am not a clever lawyer or one to judge. I just like to play devils advocate for the good of a debate.

Hi Jayz1979, Thanks for joining in the thread and contributing your thoughts. As you will have gathered, I'm no legal eagle and not sure of my ground here so good luck with getting your damages. I've decided that I don't have the time, knowledge or sufficient motivation to go for the damages route but that could change if Barclays (and soon to be Halifax) don't see reason and play ball. My contemplation of going after damages was due to similar reasoning. The Banks have made huge profits from these charges which are 'unlawful' which has allowed the fat cats to get fatter whilst those who can least afford it, people like I who were incurring these charges as a result of poor finances and financial management, were funding their lavish lifestyles. As such, surely they should be held accountable and punished for acting unlawfully for profit? Again, my legal knowledge is a little rusty but isn't that fraud or theft - obtaining money unlawfully? (Fraud is obtaining money by deception and theft is taking without the owners consent with the intension to permanently deprive) When I was at the peak/pit of my financial problems and Barclays were quite happily helping themselves to well over £100 per month of my money (thus creating an even harder cycle for em to break) I went to the branch and asked for some advice or to come to some agreement so that I could work my way out of the situation. The branches response was that cos I was already over my overdraft limit they would not consider increasing it and that 'I should learn to manage my money better'! Well stop taking my money each month and I would be able to, I thought! As it is, I changed jobs, changed banks, rejigged my finances and now have much better financial dealings with Nat West and my relationship with a bank has, for the first time, been mutually satisfying. Although I do wish they'd stop ringing me to sell some ISA/savings plan/insurance/etc. I think I preferred it when they didn't want to speak to me. I guess the lesson for us all in this is if we learn to manage our money better, the banks wont charge us and we wont get into this financial mess. Whilst I accept my responsibility in my financial problems I still feel that the banks should be brought to task for acting unlawfully and causing undue pain and stress to situations which are already stressful. However, the relationship between banks and customers isn't as black and white as that I would argue (by the way, my uni essay's were less writing than this is turning out to be). People rely on basic banking services as salaries, pensions and benefits are often paid deirectly into them so it's impossible to exercise a customers right to vote with their feet. Therefore, there should be a non-profit making organisation providing those very basic banking services without any interest or leeway. ie, if you have a payment going out and insufficient funds then you should be charged a reasonable fine/fee for it to be rejected. wasn't this what the post office used to do? Anyway, I suspect that's another thread for discussion. 8)

It's difficult for me to say really as I pay scant regard to what the media have to say in general as most reporting is laced with the jounalists opinions and I have to say, in my experience the phrase 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story' is high on the curriculum at hack college. I would suggest that based on what I've seen of the coverage so far they seem to be behind us rather than the banks but probably as most of the journalists are doing wat we're doing. What do you think?

Hi Indebtstudent, Thanks for responding to my post - this blogging is new to me so it's great that people actually take time to read my ramblings. I take your point about using the term 'illegal' as opposed to 'unlawful'. That was more a figure of speech and a lack of legal understanding of the subtle differences so I stand corrected. Thank you.