Ethel Street
-
Posts
2,229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Ethel Street
-
Obviously I don't know what happened at your brother's MC but as Bazza pointed out in post #17 co ck up is usually the explanation, not conspiracy. Maybe the the bosses has decided to restrict unsupervised access because there had been theft or vandalism? That happened at my son's flats, keys to the supposedly secure arae had got into the hands of non-residents somehow and there had been break ins to individual units. Maybe in your brother's case the bosses told the front line staff the policy but not the full reasons - it happens all the time. Then people make stuff up - 'it's elf 'n' safety' (or 'it's the insurance' is another popular one). Does the management company fall under an Ombudsman or is it an entirely private sector organisation (not Council or social housing)? All Ombudsman schemes require you to first go through the complaints procedure of the organisation you are complaining about. That will probably get you an apology, nothing more. There's no other obvious legal route after that - your brother has not suffered any financial loss and the breach of the lease (if there was one) has been rectified so going to court doesn't seem to be an option. -
Not off topic because it's the precise question you asked for advice on. Follow their complaints procedure if you want to take it further. Don't expect the outcome to be that the staff will "lose their job, their family, friend, house, etc and end up in the gutters asking for spare change." There isn't the slightest evidence that there has been an attempted fraud and it's a highly improbable explanation for what happened. If you obsess about that you will end up very disappointed.
-
If you are asking about the legal position I can't comment. I suspect no-one here can say anything more than that you might have a claim but medical negligence claims are complex and you must take advice from specialist solicitors. If it's the "morality" of suing the NHS bear 2 things in mind. This is not, on the face of it, some sort of 'unfair enrichment', you're not playing the system for some trivial or inconsequential error. Your brother has suffered major injuries and become disabled as a result of negligence. Loss of employment and income probably. Maybe a whole family who will suffer. He will need aids to enable him to participate in normal life, things that will cost a lot of money. His living standards, and maybe of his family, will drop. If the NHS were responsible they should compensate him for that. Otherwise you would be asking your brother and his family to personally subsidise the NHS. No doubt some claimants are taking the p*ss, but that's not the case here. Look at it another way. If the NHS incurs no consequences from from serious failure in medical care then what incentive do NHS managers have to do anything about it? Because money is short it's also the key driver of the decisions they take. If the failures cost them a lot of money they're more likely to do something to improve. It might be too late to help your brother but others could benefit from the improvements in the future. Don't feel bad about taking legal action.
-
What advice are you seeking on here king12345? Now that you've got full access back the only advice you're still asking for seems to be: Is that still what you are asking? Can you clarify how brutal you want to be? Are we talking just emotional brutality? Harrassment? Physical pain? How far do you want to go? . . .
-
The MC haven't taken ownership of your brother's property, not according to your posts. You said that each flat has its own locked storage unit and the MC hadn't entered the individual storage units or taken away the contents. The MC haven't even prevented the residents accessing their storage units. Initially they said they would allow access weekdays 9 - 4. You and other residents complained this was unacceptable, they've taken account of what you said and reverted back to giving residents their own keys. At no point has anyone taken ownership or possession of your brother's property. Problem solved. Your obvious anger and burning desire for revenge "in the most brutal way" against the staff of the MC is likely to end with you either in a police cell or a cardiac intensive care unit. Let it go.
-
You're the management company for your neighbour's garage are you? If not it isn't the same thing at all.
-
I thought it was your brother who was the hot-headed madcap? There isn't the slightest evidence of fraud so you're right, the police won't be interested.
-
According to the NatWest FAQ on GetCash "We then provide you with a secure cash code that will be valid for 3 hours (you can use the code yourself or use the option to text it to a friend or family member)" so presumably it's fine to give it to someone else. Probably a routine check when they noticed a transaction which is different from your usual pattern of account use. https://supportcentre.natwest.com/Searchable/913209212/What-is-Get-Cash-and-how-do-I-use-it.htm
-
Hadn't come across it before. I can see it would be useful for an Executor, although its scope is quite limited, basically just removes the name of the deceased from junk mail lists. I wonder how effective it is? Apparently it relies on junk mailers (sorry 'direct marketing companies') checking the bereavement register themselves - the register doesn't proactively send out the details to DM companies. So presumably if they don't check it junk mail continues. https://www.thebereavementregister.org.uk/
-
There's one called 'Tell Us Once' that you are offered when you register a death, but it only advises central and local government organisations so it wouldn't help with advising CRAs. https://www.gov.uk/after-a-death/organisations-you-need-to-contact-and-tell-us-once Is there one that notifies other organisations? I haven't come across one.
-
If courier damages eBay sellers wallpaper who is liable?
Ethel Street replied to JunieJ's topic in Online Stores
Get the couriers to take photographs of the room after they have removed the item to show the wallpaper was undamaged when they left. If possible photographs when they arrive as well. Otherwise the seller might claim that pre-existing damage was caused by your courier. -
It may be that Link as a DCA cannot themselves take action but if you are the Executors be cautious about distributing the estate to the beneficiaries without paying off the debt. As MIL has been paying off the debt, albeit only by a small amount, it presumably isn't statute barred so the original lender (or someone they have assigned the debt to) could take action to recover the outstanding debt from the Estate. (I'm assuming the Estate is solvent and could, in principle, pay off this debt and all other monies owing.) Executors are not personally liable for the debts of the Estate eg if the Estate is insolvent, but if Executors distribute the Estate without settling a debt that they knew existed and was legally enforceable the debtor might be able to take legal action to recover it from the Executors personally. Whether in practice the original lender/assignee would find out about your MiL's death, and if they did be able to pursue recovery in court, I don't know. But if I were the Executor I'm not sure I'd want to risk my own money by ignoring it.
-
Although this is about criminal offences not civil liability interesting to see that there were two separate offences for which charges were brought for the incident -- "the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the passenger -- "permitting the opening of vehicle door so as to injure or endanger a person" - the charge brought against the taxi driver Passenger pleaded guilty and was convicted and fined. Taxi driver pleaded not guilty so his case has not yet come to court. I presume the outcome for the taxi driver will depend on the facts of this specific incident rather than the legal principles.
-
Suspected fraud over late aunt's will and probate.....
Ethel Street replied to jackieandwayne's topic in General Legal Issues
I don't follow that at all. Whether the estate is liable to pay IHT depends on the net value of the estate. What you referred to as "how much the non-charity beneficiaries are getting" doesn't make any difference to whether the Estate is liable to pay IHT. If the net Estate value does not exceed the Nil rate band threshold - £325,000 - there is no IHT to pay. If it is over £325,000 then IHT is normally 40% on the amount over £325,000. "how much the non-charity beneficiaries are getting" doesn't make any difference to liability to pay IHT. Substantial donations to charity might make a difference to the RATE of IHT payable over £235k, but not whether tax is payable at all. No, but if the donations to charity exceed a certain amount the standard rate of IHT - 40% - is reduced. It's a while since I looked at the detailed calculations but search 'inheritance tax reduced rate' and you'll find it. -
Suspected fraud over late aunt's will and probate.....
Ethel Street replied to jackieandwayne's topic in General Legal Issues
Why would the amount beneficiaries are getting under the provisons of the Will affect whether the estate is liable for Inheritance Tax? -
The father has done a good publicity job with the media of saying 'the council fined my 5 year old daughter' but actually as the copy of the FPN shows the council fined the father. Presumably they considered the father was running the stall and the father should have obtained a traders licence. He was presumably there at the stall, he hadn't left a 5 year old on the street on her own! Commonsense would suggest that a 5 year old isn't running a street trading business. She was serving lemonade under the supervision and control of, and with the agreement of, her father It was heavy-handed and the council were right to withdraw it, but if they hadn't I can't see why they would need to use different legislation. They weren't trying to enforce the daughter's fine against the father. The father was fined and if unpaid they would have enforced it against the father in the usual way. The father's defence could have been that he wasn't running the stall his daughter was, but I suspect that argument would have got short shrift in a court.
-
Well, yes an Executor can indeed take anything away and sell it if, as here, the Will requires all the deceased's property to be sold and bequests of money to be made from the proceeds. Your neighbour's choice of language - "magic'd away'" "taking valuable stuff away ... poof!" isn't a reasonable way of describing what the Executor has done. The Executor is just doing what the Executor is required to do! In your first post you talked of the executor "rifling the place". I can tell you from experience that that is precisely what executors have to do. A primary responsibility of the Executor is to identify all the assets and liabilities of the deceased, collect in the assets and pay the debts. You can't do that without rifling through every drawer and pocket in the deceased's house. You find the most surprising things in the most unlikely places. However, the Executor is accountable to the beneficiaries for their administration of the Estate and for the assets. If the Executor has sold the items the proceeds must be held in an account in the name of the Estate. The Executor can't keep it for themself (if that is the implication?). The beneficiaries could take legal action against an Executor who failed to act honestly or didn't comply with trust law. If the solicitors are joint executor then I'd have thought the other Executor needed to have their agreement. Are they not talking to her? They're solicitors with a specialism in this area. They must know what they can and should do to make sure one executor doesn't act without the agreement of all executors!
-
We are in complete agreement Bazza
-
My editing got timed out. That should read: "The Executor does not need to have Probate to do this, although is likely to need Probate to deal with the 'outside world' in administering the Estate."
-
My understanding from having been an Executor several times and discussed this with my solicitor is that under English law an Executor is always a Trustee who holds the Estate in Trust for the beneficiaries except in the uncommon situation where the Will specifically makes someone else (a non-executor) the Trustee to hold the assets. Although it's a common standard form of words for a Will to say 'X is appointed Executor and Trustee,', X will be a Trustee of the Estate anyway even if 'trustee' isn't mentioned in the Will. An Executor/Trustee is the legal owner of the deceased's assets from the point of death. [but I am not a lawyer so please don't act on my understanding!] Executors therefore have the power to take possession of the deceased's goods and property, and the duty to safeguard them. Not only is an Executor entitled to have a set of keys to the house I'd say they have a duty to have a set (to safeguard the assets) and duty to collect in keys held by anyone else. My solicitor advised me, as Executor, to change the locks so that I was in sole possession of all the keys to the deceased's house. If there are no specific bequests of particular goods, only bequests of money, then in principle the Executor can remove and take possession of the deceased's property. Executors are usually advised to remove valuables from the deceased's property as soon as possible. for safekeeping. The Executor needs to have Probate to do this, although is likely to need Probate to deal with the 'outside world' in administering the Estate. The bit I'm unclear about here is how many Executors there are. If there is only Executor then what is described sounds legal. But if there is another Executor then they need to act jointly I'd have thought? An individual Executor could take possession of property and safeguard it but because the executors are joint trustees of the estate, and therefore the joint legal owners of the property, the sale or disposal of the assets must surely be agreed by all the Executors?
-
• Advisory spaces are marked out for the use of disabled people, but they are not enforceable and there is no legal sanction to prevent other people using them. That is about on street parking, nothing to do with off street car parks. "The Blue Badge scheme does not apply to off-street car parks whether local authority or privately owned." is true obviously but irrelevant to Sad sam's situation. He didn't get a PCN for breach of the Blue Badge regulations. He got a PCN for breach of the "rules" set by the car park operator for the use of the car park.
-
Is this the document? If so it's the one Sad sam has refered to a number of times. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01360#fullreport In Sad sam's case he wasn't parked on private land, it was a local council car park. But if he had been on private land the report doesn't say disabled bays "cannot be enforced upon". It says: • Privately-owned car parks (e.g. most supermarkets car parks): effectively, the landowner (usually a parking enforcement company acting on their behalf) has the power to impose reasonable restrictions. So, in theory (and indeed often in practice) a space can be marked for particular groups, e.g. disabled people, and the company enforcing the parking restrictions may issue a penalty charge to people for parking otherwise than in accordance with the relevant markings or signs.
-
Sad sam, I repeat my earlier request. As you are still reading this thread it should be straightforward for you to link us to the site you refer to. Thank you.
-
Please provide a link to that site so that we can all read it. Thank you.
-
Arrow/? Claimform - Old HSBC contract debt
Ethel Street replied to knapper78's topic in Financial Legal Issues
No-one's commented on this from OP's first post Could it be relevant? A debt that the ex incurred and defaulted on and OP is somehow a guarantor for or linked to? Just asking in case it's relevant. I don't know the answer
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS