Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BazzaS last won the day on August 25

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,290 Excellent

About BazzaS

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Either party in a marriage can seek an entry on the Land Registry protecting their right to occupy the matrimonial home (/ prevent it being sold from under them!) where the other party in the marriage holds the sole legal ownership (at the Land Registry). There is no need (nor ability) to do this if the legal title is held by both the married people. This harks from the era where the man was the breadwinner / the name on the title, and was to protect the wife from being able to be put out of the matrimonial home and it sold without regard to her rights. Times have rightly moved on, and the matrimonial home sections of the Family Law Act 1996 don’t consider which partner holds the legal title, just that the rights of the other can be protected. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applications-under-the-family-law-act-1996/practice-guide-20-applications-under-the-family-law-act-1996 https://www.beestonshenton.co.uk/divorce/matrimonial-homes-rights-is-there-any-point/ Neither has rights over and above the other, it just gives protection to the one who doesn’t feature on the title. It also ceases when the divorce is finalised (where it is expected the financial aspect is also finalised) So “if she wants him out” : this can’t be forced until the divorce is concluded. What she can ask the solicitor to aim for is: a) how she can get the divorce ASAP (& how long this is likely to be!), b) if a realistic financial settlement is that one of them gets to stay in the house with the children until all the children reach 18 (or 21 if in full time education) : the focus will be on keeping a family home for non-independent children i) if this is likely to be her that stays with children ii) that the other holds a charge / interest in the property but can’t order the house sold until the children become adult / independent. At some point he will be able to insist on his share of the property, though how much his share will be will depend on the “common intent” between them when they a) purchased it, and b) married. The starting point is 50/50 split, unless it can be shown a different arrangement was agreed or envisioned.
  2. The time to sue / ask for rent reduction started when you became aware of the issue (that is 10 years ago). You are absolutely unable to claim for anything for more than 6 years ago, as it is 'statute barred'. As for claiming anything within the last 6 years, if you have left it this long, expect the LL to claim that you accepted the error. If you wished to claim, you should have done so well before now. Expect them to claim that you accepted it, and are onl;y now claiming different as a result of their claim. You'd then have to persuade a judge otherwise.
  3. I'm confused. You've (albeit not deliberately) had a false claim. You've said that providing all the information needed helped them a) get the true situation, and b) decide not to prosecute, just to reclaim any overpayment. So, how can you say both "explain the situation as thoroughly and as openly as you can" and, at the same time " However I have thoroughly thought it through and although we would be entitled to joint claim the amount that we would be entitled too is just not worth the scrutiny that you are put under. I just don’t understand the system and therefore I don’t want to be subject to it at all. Being asked for private information at the drop of a hat". Perhaps they need the information to help you make the correct claim, and to prevent people making incorrect claims, then having to worry about being prosecuted, and having to repay over-claims?
  4. Did Stagecoach pay for any training for you? In particular: did you start already holding a driver CPC (or licence class D)? If not, they may have a contractual term to limit the risk that they pay for driver training and then have drivers leave soon, having the benefit of that training at Stagecoach’s expense. Have you checked your contract of employment?
  5. Are their coaches registered (for ‘number plates’) a) to the firm in the U.K., or to a subsidiary or contractor, and b) in the U.K. or e.g. Germany? (They’ve already tried “wasn’t us, was a contractor” already). HCEO’s would want to show the coach was an asset of the firm, not a contractor, and would have access to DVLA’s database of registered keeper, but may not have access to the equivalent (non-DVLA, foreign) database(s).
  6. You move in intersecting circles? Drop hints (hints only, nothing in writing!) that you have dashcam footage, and that you are considering reporting the “impartial witness” and driver to the police for conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. Then see if the impartial witness maintains their stance ........
  7. If you are indeed “very sure” you weren’t going above 70 : plead not guilty and let them prove otherwise. it depends how “very sure” you are .....
  8. which pre-action protocol are you referring to? Often PAP is used relating to civil claims, and this is a criminal matter (either you accept a PCN if that is what they are offering, or it goes to a Magistrates Court as a criminal, not case). There are Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions (usually called Crim PR to distinguish them from the [Civil] CPR), but they don't include 'pre-action protocol', which is civil. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-practice-directions-I-general-matters-2015.pdf includes: I'd agree with the info the court has given you: The prosecution doesn't HAVE to provide you with the evidence prior to court. That doesn't mean you can't ask, and they MIGHT, but don't HAVE to provide it until court. Whatever you do, don't miss out on identifying the driver if you have been served a S.172 notice to furnish driver details ; that would be a separate offence by the keeper (6 points and a fine, on its own), and "I was waiting for a reply" wouldn't constitute a defence.
  9. Well, if they don't have any of your data, they'll find it hard to provide any evidence (beyond personal recollection) to dispute your statement / version of events ....... If they do say "well, we remember", you can point out that your recollection is likely to be more reliable than theirs : you've only had to deal with one (or a few) agencies, and they'll have dealt with lots of clients .... If they then suddenly "find" lots of documents, you can show that their systems aren't reliable, as they said they had all been destroyed when you SAR'd them!
  10. The SAR may reveal what age was stated for the driver, even if a precise date of birth wasn’t given. So much the better if they took a date of birth (or driver number, from which DofB can be derived). Send them (in the pre-paid envelope): a) a print out of this thread b) a printed pic of a black box (since it is a bit like the black box they want back, but with a different source [address] to the one they sent out / and different date of birth) Hopefully that will get the message across....
  11. CF11 is the money laundering reporting officer role within a company, NOT “has been reported for money laundering”! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCA_Controlled_Functions
  12. If it went to court the “I’m colourblind, so should never have been allowed to start the course, as the contract would be ‘frustrated’ “ argument is a strong one. However, I’m confused as to why someone would want / allow their young child to complete a (safety critical) test for them, and can foresee a judge wanting to question that, too. Did the salesman know your daughter was completing the test on your behalf? (The most common ‘colour blindness’ being rare in females)
  13. would a solicitor be able to add any new information? and if so, why not write again with that new information?. New info? yes, but you could write again. No new info: can't see the letter being from a solicitor adding anything.... except cost to your finances.
  14. Absolutely dx, except: 1) OP hasn’t mentioned if this might be heard under a Single Justice Procedure (SJP) hearing, as, if so : a guilty plea means no hearing in person 2) OP’s prime stated aim was avoiding a criminal record, and again, a guilty plea won’t give that result. If OP still wants that they’ll need to gamble on not pleading guilty, attending, and persuading the prosecutor, BEFORE the case, to accept an out of court settlement.
  15. What are you looking for as a (realistic!) outcome, and how do you think appearing in court might help achieve that?
  • Create New...