You don't have to eat it all in one go

Well, I've had a go and it's turned out OK, but nowhere near as neat-looking as one the chef in the Buckingham Palace kitchens makes! How does she get her pastry so perfect.... envy, envy. The King and The Queen Consort's Coronation Quiche - YouTube Tastes good though, the tarragon works well. Popular with all the family so looks like I'll be making it again... Coronation_Quiche.pdf Coronation_Quiche_a.pdf

This is your in law's own vehicle (not a hire car)? So they will be likely to use it drive through the ULEZ again in future? If so, now you know about the requirement to register it makes sense to do so to avoid future hassle, quite apart from helping you with the charges already issued. Register a foreign vehicle - Transport for London TFL.GOV.UK

This article in The Guardian last month explains what's going on here. It seems the invoice may be genuinely from TfL, ie not a fake or a phishing scam, but that doesn't mean you should pay it. Follow dx100's advice. EU motorist fined almost £11,000 after falling foul of London Ulez rule | London | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM French hire car met emissions standard but had not been registered with TfL, resulting in penalty notices Incidentally, you say "The areas described are also out of ULEZ zone" and the invoice just describes it as "A2 Rochester Way Relief Road". But around 1½ miles of the A2 Rochester Way Relief Road is in the ULEZ, from the A207 Shooters Hill roundabout to the the A205 South Circular junction (it's on my patch!).

Doesn't the local council have issue a street closure order for traffic to be stopped? What does it say about resident access? It should be published on council website.

If the owner is trying to sell the business I wouldn't expect him to start any formal process on redundancy until he has agreed a sale. So I'm not sure he's under any obligation to to do anythging yet. @Emmzzi may be able to comment further. It sounds like a small company, just 7 employees (excluding the owner). Is that right? Do you know why the owner is selling? Is the business unprofitable and possibly going to become insolvent? Or is the owner selling a profitable business so that he can retire?

The original quiche on the Buckingham Palace website isn't very expensive to start with. The Coronation Quiche | The Royal Family Comparing Jack Monroe's it will be a bit cheaper as she substitutes cream cheese for double cream, peas for braoad beans, and omits the trarragon, but I wouldn't have thought there was that much in it. The Guardian doesn't offer a cost comparison. Still, the more options the merrier I say! Jack Monroe’s cheaper coronation quiche for the Big Help Out – recipe | Food | The Guardian

I'm not against having a monarch as head of state - the alternative if we replaced iit with an elected presidency right now would most likely be President Boris Johnson - but couldn't care less about watching the coronation itself. I'm fine with it happening but can't be arsed to watch it myself. Watching the coronation on TV isn't an indicator of whether you would prefer King Charles or President Johnson as head of state. And people at home in the streets chanting an oath of allegiance, apparently dreamed up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is just too stupid for words and I won't be doing it. The Sun quotes someone (can't remember who) as saying that the sale of the worldwide TV rights in the Abbey will more than cover the other costs. Most cost extimates seem to be complete inventions although it is promised costs will be published after the event. I'm going to have a go at making the Coronation Quiche though, just for fun.

My assumption too. It does say 'Tax Period 1' at the bottom and OP refers to it as "this month". I assume it's for April 2023 and so the first month in 2023-24 tax year.

Good luck to him! From what you've said my guess is nothing is going to make the neighbour come to an agreement to pay for it, or to discuss it at all, unless your friend starts the SCC process. Bear in mind that mitigating losses doesn't mean asking the neighbour to repair it. It means repairing it himself to prevent further damage then claiming the money from the neighbour. Small Claims Courts/MCOL only deal with claims for monetary compensation. Even if your friend had started a SCC when the damage was first done, and even if the court had found the neighbour's builder 100% responsible for the hole, the court would not have ordered the neighbour to repair the roof themself. It was always your friend's responsibility to repair his own roof and then start a SCC for monetary compensation.

That's what I meant. Prohibition signs operate at all times unless there's a sign saying otherwise.

The view on tre link is dated September 2022. On the sign it says only holders of SS1 permits can use the streets. The SS means 'school streets', and you can see Perivale Primary School in the street view. Now the idea of these School Streets was that they were closed to traffic other than SS1 holders (ie residents) at the start and finish of the school day, and at other times were open to all cars. If that's what Ealing have set up then here's a thing, 10th April, the infringement date, was in the school's Easter holidays so it wasn't open at all! Term Dates - Perivale School But don't get your hopes up too much as the sign appears to say the restriction to SS1 permit holders operates 24/7. Something you could explore though.

Tagging @Emmzzi

Sorry, but the earlier thread you have linked was an entirely different problem because in that case Amazon had admitted immediately that their driver had caused the damage and Amazon (ARC) agreed to pay. Liability wasn't disputed, they were just slow in paying. Your case is very different because Amazon (ARC) are denying liability. They say that the Amazon driver did not damage your car. Unforunately evidence that your car is damaged isn't evidence of who damaged it. Let's see if others can suggest what evidence you could use in the absence of any witness or CCTV evidence.

The son took photos of what? A hole in the roof with nothing to show how it was caused? When did he take them? Back pre-covid when the hole in the roof was first made? Or recently? Back to your original question in Post #1, can your friend bring a small claims court action? He can if thinks it worthwhile, starting with a letter before action and following the usual SCC processes described elsewhere on here. If the claim is £8k - £9k as you suggest then he'll have to pay a fee that from memory is around £450. If the judge decides, on balance of probabilities, that the builders caused the damage then the neighbour is likely to be held liable and ordered to pay for the damage. But is it worthwhile is the question. I can't see that evidence is compelling, but even if successful your friend wouldn't recover anything like the £8k to £9k it will cost to repair the damage now. Only what it would have cost to repair the damage at the time it occurred. All the subsequent damage caused by water penetrating the roof space is a result of your friend's failure to mitigate his losses and not down to the neighbour.

What is this "absolute evidence" that the neighbour's builders caused the damage? Are there photographs taken at the time showing the builder cauing the damage? Or at least taken closely before and after the damage was caused? Are there any independnent witness statements fro someone who saw the damage being caused? Has the neighbour &/or the builder admitted causing the damage? "The neighbours knew it at the time and still know it now" needs evidence that they knew it. What is that evidence? If none of those then what evidence would your friend put before the judge if he took the case to court? As I posted before, the neighbour can't "put it through his insurance" even if he wanted to. His insurance doesn't cover your friend's roof. If your friend made a formal claim against the the neighbour then his insurers would treat it as a third party liability claim under the public liability section of his policy. But the insurers wouldn't pay anything unless your friend could establish that the builders had negligently damaged his roof, with evidence. The duty to mitigate losses falls on the person who has suffered the damage, not the person who is alleged to have caused it. That your friend isn't insuring his own cottage is beyond stupid. Although until he mends the roof it is probably uninsurable.

In addition to the information already asked for upthread are you able to get a readable photo of any signage when you entered the site? It looks like it's a private residential development. So the approach to parking there might be that you aren't allowed to park anywhere unless it is specifically signed to say parking is permitted. If that's the case there would be no requirement to post specific parking denial signs. Everywhere is denied unless a sign says otherwise. But that would have to be clearly signposted when you entered the site. That's why it would be helpful to see the signage at points of entry to the site.

I don't know the answer to this, and the lack of other responses suggests that no-one who has read the thread feels able to advise you. Citizen's Advice might be able to help. Reading between the lines it seems that you were not able to provide the necessary level of care for your mother yourself if she had been discharged from hospital to live with you. Nor would she be able to care for herself unsupported in the view of the medical/social care professionals. So in their opinion your mother would be at risk if she didn't go to care home. My (unexpert) view is that your LPA does not automatically override the professional medical opinion and it is probably correct that you would have to go to the Court of Protection. You haven't said whether your mother being at home with carers coming in is a possibility but probably not as that can be very expensive.

You need to find out exactly how long ago the hole was made otherwise how do you know whether or not any court claim is time barred? Even if not time barred one obvious problem is that there appears to be no evidence that the builders next door did cause the hole in the roof. It all sounds very circumstantial from your description. Another problem is that your friend is under a duty to mitigate his losses but has not done this. Leaving the hole unrepaired has resulted in significantly more damage to the cottage than if it had been repaired at the time. A court would be unlikely to award compensation for all this extra damage. The neighbour and his insurers are under no duty to do anything about this because your friend has not made any claim against them. The neighbour can't "put it through his insurance" even if he wanted to. Your friend should have claimed on his own Buildings insurance policy but it's way too late to do that now Court procedure isn't my special subject but I doubt your friend's son has any legal standing to bring a claim unless he holds some formal power of attorney to do so. I assume from your post that the son does not own the cottage.

I am confused. You had two claims October 2022 the second of which resulted in your car being a write off. Who was the insurer at that time? Normal practice after a write off is that the policy is automatically cancelled with no return premium even though the write off was mid term. Is that what happened? Then you bought a new car. Which insurer quoted you to insure that car? Did you fully disclose the two accidents? If so what is the "updated claims information" that has now made them want cancel.it? Which insurer is trying to recover from you the outstanding amount for the rest of the year? The insurer of the car written off last October or the insurer of your new car?

@devjim so this confirms the house is co-owned as Tenants in Common which was your assumption back in post #1. It is correct that partner can unilaterally change Joint Tenants to Tenants in Common ("sever the tenancy") without your BiL's consent. The default is a 50/50 split. So my advice remains what I said in post #7. Neither party (your BiL or partner's Executors) can sell without the agreement of both parties, at least not without getting a court order All you can do practically is negotiate with the partner's Executor to agree to sell the house and split the net proceeds 50/50. If they insist on negotiating only through your BiL's solicitor you probably have to do it that way, although I can't for the life of me think of any legal reason why the Executor Solicitor can't negotiate directly with your BiL. So show your solicitor the documents you found and get them working for their fees. At this stage it's difficult to understand why Executor wouldn't want to sell asap. It costs both parties money to leave it empty - utility bills, insurance, council tax (who is paying those at the moment?). Empty houses have a greater risk of theft and vandalism that could significantly impair its value. Damp other deterioration gets worse and needs fixing before sale. Or even be illegally occupied by squatters. Could the reluctance be to do with whoever is inheriting the partner's half share? I asked earlier who is the residual beneficiary in the partner's Will. Do you know them? Partner's Executor has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary and maybe they are resisting sale? Or even can't be found?

Bumping this up to see if anyone can help. One question. Is the local authority paying all the fees for your mum's care home? Or is she self funding? If the local authority is paying I would think they have the power to decide which care home to place her in although it would be good practice to consult the family and offer a choice if possible.

Send the SAR and see what you get back but don't expect to get much, if anything, about why your account has been frozen. Information held by a bank that relates to a potential criminal investigation - eg what triggered a suspicion of possible money laundering - is exempt from SAR disclosure so they won't give it to you.

Just to add that Powers of Attorney expire when the person giving it dies. After the death of the 'donor' the 'attorney' can no longer use the POA.

Who gets the partner's "residual estate"? ie everything that's left after the cash sums to specified individuals have been paid? That's who will get her share of the house if it isn't specifically mentioned. Are you certain she co-owned as Tenant in Common? Probate will state the total value of her Estate. Once you deduct the specific cash bequests from that, and something for the funeral costs and solicitors fees, is the amount left large enough to include her half of the house? As you have appointed a solicitor to act for your BiL that's who you need to ask for legal advice on what to do next to force a sale of the house. It is possible to get a court order if the partner's Executor/solicitor won't co-operate but that is expensive and time consuming and success is not guaranteed. Getting the Executor's agreement is best. It's hard to understand why the partner's Executor wouldn't want to sell. Even more concerning that you don't know whether it is even insured. And if it is insured whether your BiL is named as a joint policyholder to protect his interest in the house. Keep putting the pressure on your BiL's solicitor to move this forward. That's what you pay them for.