34% of your claim is better than the 0% you would have got without small claims court surely? You might be able to appeal, but appeals are more difficult to win and often not worth it. We'd need to know more about your case to say whether you might be able to appeal or not.

The pre-action protocol says that "The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated". Your LBA can be short but it should include the basic details of your claim. Regardless of what you put in the LBA, the Defendant is going to have at least 28 days from your POC to file their Defence (assuming they file an acknowledgement of service). Personally I think that holding information back is pointless. 28 days should be enough time for them to work out what to write in their Defence, surely?

If the evidence against the Defendant is clear, obtaining a civil CCJ should not be particularly difficult. There would be a cost to filing the court claim though, which you might not get back if the Defendant has no more money, unfortunately. In the circumstances fingers crossed that the criminal process gives you some sort of resolution.

It would normally be the executor who brings claims on behalf of the estate. Not the beneficiaries. See http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19#19.7 and http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2016/01/14/a-potential-beneficiary-cannot-bring-an-action-on-behalf-of-an-estate/. Legal fees and expenses can be paid out of the estate. It can be a good idea for the executor to ask for the beneficiaries to confirm they are happy for the executor to take that action where possible, so that there can be no question of the executor mismanaging the estate. The timing is difficult. It would be easier to bring a civil claim after the criminal case - as facts proved in the criminal case could be used as evidence in the civil claim. However, waiting gives the Defendant more time to hide assets. If any assets belonging to the Defendant can be identified (e.g. a house, a bank account), it may be worth the executor proceeding with legal claims ASAP, to reduce the chances of the Defendant disposing of those assets without making payment. By the time you get to the end of the criminal case the money will probably be gone. Options such as a freezing order over the Defendant's bank account can be considered. It would probably be a good idea for the executor to take an initial bit of legal advice to assess whether there are simple steps that can be taken now to secure the assets. Indeed, the executor's duties to the estate probably demand they at least consider properly whether the estate should be taking legal action now or not.

I think you just need to let your application for default judgment work its way through the process. You are correct on the rules, save to note that the courts can and often do grant time extensions. Generally the court will err on the side of letting people file a defence rather than issuing a default judgment. If the DJ is minded to do that, there is not a great deal you can do to stop it unfortunately. If an extension is granted you would need to continue with the court process until it reaches its conclusion.

Yes, thanks very much indeed for the update. It sounds like the landlord was lucky to get off lightly on this occasion. The landlord would be well advised to heed the judge's warning, and to offer a settlement to the tenants to settle their other claims. Otherwise it sounds like the landlord risks new claims being brought against him which as the judge said could cost the landlord tens of thousands.

What a nightmare. I would be talking to the police more regularly - each time he harasses you. I wonder if more frequent reports would help. You could consider taking civil action as well, under the Protection from Harassment Act? Though this would be to claim monetary damages rather than a criminal sentence.

Sorry to hear about this. I agree with Emmzzi. It sounds like finding a nicer job and moving on with your life might be the best thing for your mental health. You certainly have grounds for raising a grievance but it sounds like a grievance is not likely to achieve very much, given that this is a small business. Engaging with a grievance or Employment Tribunal process could be stressful and may make it harder for you to move on from this.

Personally, I would ask the solicitor for a copy of the will or at least a copy of the provisions relating to your wife and daughter. Hopefully this will all become much clearer when you know the exact wording of the will. Your wife can then make an informed decision as to whether she requires professional advice or not. If this is a 'bare trust', which may be the case if the daughter is the only beneficiary, the daughter would be legally entitled to require your wife to transfer the money to her anyway. Unless the will says something unusual I suspect there will be no issue with transferring the money to the daughter now. I don't see how the tax man would get involved as this is clearly an inheritance rather than income, the solicitor's letter is more than enough proof of that.

It is difficult to say what an appropriate % settlement would be without knowing: 1) How strong the case is, i.e. what % chance there is of the claimant winning 2) How likely it is that the claimant would be to get the full amounts asked for in the schedule of loss if successful However, I think it is fair to see that most settlements are for less than 50% of the amount claimed. In many cases much less.

Thanks for the update. Its really common to negotiate over a settlement figure, and for the parties to start quite far apart. A settlement of 38% less than what you are claiming would in most cases be a very good settlement. People often get a lot less than that. As well as the chance of not winning, you have to consider that even if you win you might get less than you asked for, or in many cases what is known as a 'Polkey reduction'. The barrister would have asked for the most she thought could reasonably be asked for. So your friend should be prepared to negotiate a lower figure - and work out in advance of the meeting what her negotiating strategy is, and what her 'proceed to Tribunal' settlement figure is.

In small claims track, a third party (such as a wife or other family member) only has the right to represent a party if the party is physically present in court. If a party is in hospital, his wife has no legal standing to represent him. The rules are pretty clear on that - you can only be represented by a solicitor or barrister if not present. Though to be fair it is very possible - probable in fact - that the judge would just let it slide and hear out the wife despite what the rules say, rather than go through the bother of rescheduling the hearing. To me it sounds like yet another reason why the landlord should try reach a settlement in advance of the hearing. Yes the tenant is liable for damage to the property, if the landlord can prove that the tenant damaged the property (e.g. by a check-in inventory compared to a check-out inventory). But I think the landlord also has to accept he did not protect the deposit and there will likely be a penalty for that.

I don't know how HMRC would investigate this, but there are lots of presumptions in tax legislation dealing with connected persons - see https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/inheritance-tax-manual/ihtm04442. I suppose the trigger would be if the house was sold for clearly less than market value, that may cause questions to be raised. Aside from Inheritance Tax, there is also Capital Gains Tax that needs to be considered if the house is not the seller's residence. There are also deprivation of assets issues if the seller goes into care. It is very difficult for HMRC to challenge tax on a genuine third party sale, but if the persons involved are related/friends then the possibility of tax avoidance being alleged is much higher. Difficult to say more without knowing the details.

This sounds to me like a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation - the company does not have authority to share your personal data (such as debts owed) with family members. It also sounds like a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. How you take that forward is more difficult. I would probably respond asking that all correspondence regarding this matter is directed to you, and indicate that you may have to make a harassment complaint to the police and/or raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office if this person continues contacting your children.

Legal costs are not usually awarded in small claims track. However, they can be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably. From what you've posted so far this particular landlord sounds as unreasonable as they come. Based on the limited information in this thread it sounds like there is a very good chance of him losing the case, being ordered to pay a penalty for not protecting the deposit and being ordered to pay the claimant's legal costs. This is the worst of it. If the judge concludes that the landlord has been dishonest in his evidence, the landlord is highly likely to be ordered to pay the claimant's legal costs. This is possible - anything can happen in court. But I don't think it will be easy for the judge to overlook blatent non-compliance with the requirement to protect a deposit, fraudulent evidence and what sounds like an illegal eviction. The landlord has got himself in a real mess here. The best advice might be to try and reach a settlement with the Claimants before getting to court.

Life is too short to be unhappy at work. It sounds like you should start searching for another job which suits you better. When you find one it is best to politely resign, work your notice and leave on good terms. It sounds like you do not enjoy the environment or feel that you have a lot in common with your colleagues. This is understandable. But it is also impossible for the employer to fix. You can't exactly tell the employer to hire more men, and the employer can't control what people talk about in their daily conversations. Going on long term sick leave sounds like a very bad idea. If you are not genuinely sick, then going on long term sick leave is fraud. It also makes it more difficult to find another job or get a good reference.

The view HMRC takes of this depends whether you are connected to the seller. If you were buying from your uncle, then it looks like a sale at less than market value. If you were buying from someone completely unrelated, then it looks like much better.

It sounds like your ex is a co-owner of the house. He/she is therefore entitled to enter the property. He/she could move into the property and live there if she/wanted. Of course removing your stuff would be theft and opening mail addressed solely to you could be an offence under The Postal Services Act 2000. Both are points you could mention in a response to the solicitor.

No worries. The key thing to remember is that a deed must be witnessed in order to be valid ... so make sure the tenants get someone to witness the signature as well as signing themselves! The witness can be pretty much anybody.

The law makes a distinction between ordinary contracts and deeds. As you say that this is a "deed of transfer", I assume it needs to be executed as a deed. There are special requirements to execute a deed. In particular, the deed must be 'witnessed' and 'delivered'. The document will need a signature block saying something like 'executed as a deed by [NAME]', with another signature block for the witness saying 'witnesses by [NAME]'. The formally correct way of handling this is to ask each tenant to print out and physically sign the document. The witness would need to sign as well. The tenant should then return a scanned copy by email, and would confirm in their email that a master copy may be created once all signatures have been obtained. You would insert the date and create a master copy containing all signatures produced once all signatures are received. This is the process which is suggested by Law Society guidance in cases where signatories are not physically present in the same room. What would not be valid is someone just responding to the email - they do have to print and sign the document, in order for it to be validly signed as a "deed".

I see. It is difficult to comment without details of what they ICO said in their decision, unfortunately.

Hi, what decision are you referring to? Are you referring to a published ICO enforcement notice?

That all makes perfect sense to me to me. Personally I would focus on the inadequacy of the plans you actually received vs. what you were promised in your reply to him, and in your defence if he does decide to chance his luck with a small claim.

The only trepidation I have with your defence, is that you must have known he was not an architect when you asked him to do the work? So I think it is difficult now to turn around and say that you shouldn't have to pay anything just because he is not an architect. To defend in full, I think you would have to point to some way in which he is in breach of contract due to his services not being up to scratch. For example, if he agreed to do plans for submission to the planning authorities but the plans are no good for that purpose, then his work product is not fit for purpose. Yes, that is completely reasonable and very normal. You could respond simply saying that you are considering his letter and will respond by xxx. The Civil Procedure Rules suggest a response within 14 days to an initial letter before action, though that is not a hard and fast rule, and the rules say that a longer period should be allowed where necessary.

I would suggest a short letter in response briefly setting out why you think he does not have a valid claim - i.e. he only did a small portion of the work quoted for, and the work was not done to an acceptable standard and had to be redone by somebody else. You could also mention that, if a claim is issued, you will counterclaim for the cost of getting the job done properly. I do not think the fact that you never signed a contract is relevant. Generally, if you tell someone to do work and they do it, you have to pay for it - you can have a verbal contract. To be fair - it sounds like you did ask him to do some work and he did it - and you knew he wasn't an architect - so there may be merit in offering him a few hundred quid in full and final settlement.