Have you searched on gov.uk to see if Probate or Letters of Administration have been granted? If so that will include the partner's Will and tell you who she has left her half of the house to. https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk Are you certain they co-owned as 'Tenants in Common' not as 'Joint Tenants'? https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jan-apr-2017/tenants-in-common-what-happens-to-a-property-when-you-die/

As a matter of urgency you need sort out wit partner's executor/family who is doing what about things like insuring the house, making sure it is secure, regular inspection visits. Remove all valuables from the house if not already done.

The solicitor is not allowed to discuss anything with you for reasons of client confidentiality. He should be able to tell you if there are Executors for the partner and if so put you in touch with them. Even if only to pass on a request that the Executors contact you. It can't be in either party's interest to leave the house empty. Discuss direct with the Executors if you can, don't pass everything via the solicitor. Does your BiL still have mental capacity to sell the house? If not you will have a further complication unless someone has Power of Attorney for him.

My experience in the industry was a while ago now but what you describe was definitely not how it worked in the past. A no CLAIMS bonus should mean no claims under that insurer's policy. Otherwise that insurer hasn't had a claim under their policy but are still claiming the right to reduce the NCB. Sounds all wrong to me. The policy wording is key thing. What does the NCB clause in the policy actually say?

A crime doesn't become less of a crime just because it has gone on for a long time undetected.

I am not missing the point @free1 The standards of honesty of ordinary people used by the courts do not include a belief that it's OK to use electricity without paying for it for up to 20 years. Nobody genuinely believes they are entitled to free electricity. The question they'd have to answer in court would be what steps they had actually taken to get their meter registered.

I don't know how these work but is it possible the sub meters are registered for each property and they are paying electricity bills based on their sub meter readings? If the main meter in your outbuilding was registered who would it begistered to if it feeds 6 separate properties? And how would it know how much each property consumed? How is ypour own electricity for your house metered? Do you have a separate meter or is it also coming through the same meter as the 6 houses? Are you legally obliged to let the meter that isn't yours remain in your outbuilding? Or can you require the DNO or someone to move it somewhere else?

As posted earlier, the CPS are clear that no tampering needs to have taken place. The legal test for the offence, established by the Court of Appeal is "Provided that they have in fact used the electricity, that they were not authorised to do so and that in doing so they were being dishonest by the standards of ordinary people, the offence will be made out: R v McCreadie (1993) 96 Cr App R 143." "ordinary people" would see this as dishonest. I don't agree that they couldn't be proscuted. It's a lack of will by the police and the industry. The police aren't being asked to investigate electrical wiring. They are being asked to investigate dishonesty and a s13a offence. See your MP.

So, on the one hand a crime under the Theft Act is very likely being committed, but on the other hand you can't prove it directly and the organisations involved in the supply won't confirm anything to you. The police don't want to get involved in what might be a time-consuming investigation which has low priority to them and use the excuse that you haven't provided evidence that a crime has been committed. The only next step that occurs to me is to make an appointment to visit your MP at their constituency surgery and explain the whole thing and see if they can get some wheels turning - "concerned citizen trying to report a long running fraud but nobody can be bothered to follow this up", etc. Talk of it being a "Billing matter" is a smaokescreen to justify not wanting to investigate a serious crime (max 5 years imprisonment) under the Theft Act. It isn't a Billing matter.

The Crown Prosecution Service say otherwise, and I consider CPS a more reliable source than any of those you quote [my emphasis in bold]: Theft Act Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service WWW.CPS.GOV.UK Abstracting Electricity Elements Section 13 TA 1968 creates the offence of dishonestly using electricity without authority or dishonestly causing electricity to be wasted or diverted. 'Dishonesty' The test to be applied is detailed in above in the ‘dishonesty’. It is not necessary that the defendant should have tampered with the meter. Provided that they have in fact used the electricity, that they were not authorised to do so and that in doing so they were being dishonest by the standards of ordinary people, the offence will be made out: R v McCreadie (1993) 96 Cr App R 143. Allocation and Penalty The offence is triable either-way. The maximum penalty at the Crown Court is five years and/or an unlimited fine. In a Magistrates’ Court, the maximum penalty depends on when the offence was committed: For offences committed prior to Monday 2 May 2022, the maximum penalty for a single either-way offence is up to 6 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; for two or more either-way offences, the maximum penalty is up to 12 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; For offences committed on or after 00.01am on Monday 2 May 2022, the maximum penalty available for a single offence either-way offence, and for two or more either-way offences, is up to 12 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine [see The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 33) and Sentencing Act 2020 (Commencement No. 2) Regulations 2022]

I thought you said the overheating cables were in an outhouse, not in your house? How is your own house at risk? How much extra are you paying in insurance?

"one of the cables starting burning up from excessive electricity consumption," - do you know what they are doing to use so much electrity? Runing a cannabis farm? Irrespective of whether the meter is registered they shouldn't be able to use so much electricity though it that the cables burn. Isn't there a a fuse or something that is supposed to limit the maximum current that can drawn from the supply? Have they by passed it? "We believe our house is technically uninsurable against a fire risk because no-one is saying they own the meter " - That isn't correct. A meter being unregistered isn't relevant to insurance. If it were every time someone applied for household insurance they would have to confirm whether all the meters on the premises were registered. But no insurer ever asks that question. The fire in the outbuilding should be disclosed to insurers though. If the outbuilding is physically separate and some distance away from your house it shouldn't make any difference to the insurability of your house. And you have evidence from the DNO that the meter and cabling are now safe. Sorry, no idea how you get this sorted though.

Fraud? You are getting ahead of yourself. From what you say there's no evidence of fraud at the moment. Just a court claim and CCJ against you that you don't know about. Maybe there is fraud but you need more evidence than this to come to that conclusion. The first step is contact the court and find out what this is about. Get copies of all the documents then come back here and tell us what you have found. You need to find this out from the court before we can advise you what to do next.

Councils who impose LTNs have the discretion to decide on exemptions. There's no national rules requiring exemption for Blue Badge holders in LTNs. Looking at Lambeth's website it appears they have a very limited exemption for Blue Badge holders. You have to register for it in advance (for each individual LTN) and live in Lambeth yourself (amongst other things). So I guess you wouldn't qualify for the exemption anyway. Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) dispensation frequently asked questions WWW.LAMBETH.GOV.UK Guidance on LTN dispensations for Blue Badge holders. You say you didn't see the sign when you entered the LTN. Have you been back to to check if the LTN signage is actually there? If the required signage wasn't there or wasn't clearly visible you might have grounds to challenge the PCN. If it's clearly signed but you just didn't notice it probably not much you can do other than chalk it up to experience. Another thought though. Don't LTNs with traffic filters, like Lambeth's, allow vistors and delivery vehicles to enter the streets in the LTN as long as they don't pass through them and exit them via the traffic filter at the other end? So you could have turned around after making your delivery and left via the road you entered it on? I realise you'd had to have known you'd entered the LTN to know to do that.

I don't know why the financial adviser thought that was the correct thing to do, or whether they have any legal qualifications, but my understanding of the abatement rules is that each of the named beneficiaries for specific sums of money should have had their legacy reduced by the same proportion. I'm not a lawyer myself but the abatement rules are explained that way on many online legal sites that you can look at to check this. Is it possible that the deceased's brother and sister have agreed to waive their legacies to enable the deceased's common law wife to receive more? However in reality we aren't talking about a lot of money and I hope the Executors can resolve this informally without getting involved in legal arguments. The specific cash bequests totalled £50,500. The money available to pay those, £10,500, is just over 20% of the amount bequeathed (20.79% to be exact). So each beneficiary should have been paid 20.79% of what was left to them in the Will. The two family beneficiaries, the deceased's brother and sister, should have been paid £2,079 each. Unlikely they will sue the Executors for an amount that small - it would be eaten up in legal costs before they even got to the court door. Do the brother and sister know what's happened? Are they happy to leave things as they are and let the the deceased's common law wife keep their shares? I wouldn't try and hide from them what has happened. If they are happy to waive their legacies they should confirm this to the executors in writing. Properly this should be done by the Executors drafting a Deed of Variation for the brother and sister to sign. You'll find specimen wordings online. Sooner or later you'll probably get the charity chasing you for its £500. But after abatement that's now only £104. As it's the chosen charity of the deceased I'd ask his common law wife to make the donation from her legacy.

It's for a "Penalty Charge", so I'm guessing a council-issued parking ticket or some other sort of traffic offence (PCN - Penalty Charge Notice). Does he remember getting a PCN? Or any letters about being taken to court for unpaid parking/traffic offence fines? Presumably they would have been sent to his old house if that was the address of the Registered Keeper in the car's log book/registration document [V5C] Has he updated his Registered Keeper details in his V5C to show his current address?

@linbren03 The Executors are in a potentially serious position and need to take action quickly. It's irrelevant that the money was paid in good faith. It was negligence by the Executors that it was paid to the wrong person and the beneficiary it should have gone to can sue the Executors. The Executors would then have to pay it personally if they cannot get it back from the person they gave it to. Can you give us some more information please. How many Executors are there? Are you one of the Executors? Did all the specific cash bequests get paid to the named beneficiaries in full? Is it only the residual estate that is the problem? How much money has wrongly been paid to the Deceased's Common law wife? From the Will £30,000 was to go to "my partner". The residue was left 100% to "my wife". Which of those is the Deceased's Common law wife? Has the Common law wife received both the £30,000 and all of the residue?

The ownership of the land is not relevant, what matters here is that the land you are parked on has been designated a public highway (as I understand your post #4). As it's public highway the normal rules about parking on the highway apply so the local council can issue a PCN where there are DYLs. The public highway appears to extend right up to the fence (not just up to the edge of the pavement) but that is something you can check with the council. If it does extend up to the fence then you are parked on a public highway, who owns the land is irrelevant. It is common for the freehold of public highways to be owned by a private owner. It doesn't in itself give you grounds to challenge a PCN.

If a debt is statute barred it still exists. It's just that the lender cannot take any action to recover it. So if NatWest identify that you still owe them money they can use that as a reason to refuse to give you a mortgage or make any further loans to you. Being statute barred doesn't prevent them using the debt as a reason to refuse you future lending. I don't know how long NatWest keep records for but I expect they will still have all the details of a 2008 default.

He should put the mail into a postbox marked 'Addressee doen't live here' or similar. Royal Mail then attempt to return it to sender. Otherwise he breaches the law linked above. Mind you, that doesn't mean you'd ever have received it. If the sender has not put their address on the envelope or in card you wouldn't have got it back anyway. Maybe you should have told the landlord what you wanted to happen to any post sent to your old address?

On reflection Ithink this may be what's happening here. If 'profits' - ie, the investment income from investing the premiums paid - had been added to the original sum assured it's highly improbable it would come to exactly £800 after 56 years of premiums being invested. It's far too round a number. More likely that's the original sum assured and the profits haven't been added yet. Contact Phoenix and see what expalanation they give you.

Get an SAR in but I doubt you'll get much back. The likelihood of sales notes from 56 years ago still existing is about zero. How old is your mother? Check if it is true that it would be cancelled if she stopped paying. As it's a Whole Life policy that's probably correct. But if that happened I expect you would lose all the money that has accumulated. Also check that the accumulated profits have been included in the £800. Sometimes life insurance statements just include the original guanteed amount payable on death and only add the profits when the policyholder has died. I'm wondering if this is what's happened here because thedifference between what's paid in and the £800 seems enormous. I'd certainly expect the with prifits pay out to exceed premiums paid in. When you get the policy remove all personal information and post a copy here. And of the latest annual statement. Phoenix Life is a traditonal life insurer, one of the oldest in the UK. It has a reputation, and did back in the 1960s, of being a bit traditional and staid but 'scammer' isn't a description you'd usually attach to them. The deal could still have been crap of course!

If they do play silly beggars and claim they don't receive post someone (probably best not you - your husband maybe?) could go round to the premises and hand deliver it. Leave at Reception? Take a photo of themselves handing it over and then write a brief statement to confirm they delivered it @ time/date. Shouldn't be necessary because as advised earlier letters sent first class are deemed by law to be delivered two days later. But belt and braces etc.

You don't need to do anything. It's just for information at this stage. The law requires these hard to understand letters whenever there is a 'Scheme of Arrangement'. They have to be sent to everybody but for the great majority of people who get them nothing needs to be done. You will automatically be in the group of customers who might be eligible for some compensation. Just wait and see what happens. You can only gain, you can't be asked to pay any money into it. Don't get overexcited though! Unless the loan you had was massive the compensation won't be much. It seems from the letter that the regulator has told them their affordability checks weren't done properly so they have to pay borrowers compensation. But there's a complication. Everyday Lending Limited doesn't have enough money to pay the compensation and if it paid it from its own money it would go bust. So they've come up with some complicated financial scheme (the 'Scheme of Arrangement") to put more money into Everyday Lending Limited so that in can pay the compensation. But the Scheme has to be approved by the High Court first.

New one on me so nothing specific I can advise. I suspect you are right about the regulatory oversight. The regulator has been reviwing their lending practices and found them inadaequate probably. Failure to do affordability checks would be my best guess .