As a Spanish citizen, he can live and work in the UK (or anywhere else in the EU) without any restriction so he doesn't really need a British passport except out of pure choice. He will have difficulty if there is any conviction or caution on his police record, but an informal chat with the police will not have been recorded.

No problem, that's what we're here for. At worst, you'll probably have to convey twice, first to you and your brother jointly, then to your brother as a second and separate transaction. I hope it works out for you both.

Thanks for getting back with the additional points. It seems very odd for the lender to expect the property to be in his name *before* the 'sale' takes place, and that's effectively what it is. I hope you are able to find some more understanding lenders, although remember that multiple credit applications over a short period won't look good on a credit file, whoever it may be, so it might be advisable to check whether they are carrying out a search on 'enquiry'. Perhaps you should enquire of a solicitor as to whether the trust option is possible. They usually offer the first hour for free and then at least you'll know whwre you stand.

If I understand you correctly, you and your brother currently have an equal share in the house, as a result of your mother's will. With probate, you as executor have legal control over the land registration but you would normally be required to convey the property to you and your brother's jointly. This step can be skipped because probate allows you as executor to transfer the property, and beneficiaries are allowed to make private agreements about distribution. He wants to buy your half but is having difficulty obtaining a mortgage to do so. The lender asking for the land registration to be in your name has misunderstood the fact that their lending will be secured against something of which your brother already owns 50%. Do not use that lender because in that situation, you will be holding the property in trust but with no control over it. If he is buying your 50% to obtain sole ownership then it would in fact be odd for the registration to be in anything other than his own name. The third lender in your list is therefore correct to demand this, and it is necessary administration. As far as protection is concerned, there will be a completion date for the transfer, when the mortage lender will transfer the cash to you for 50% of the property's value. Your brother will then own 100% and is responsible for repaying the loan secured against his ownership. You will no longer have any interest or control in the property and you won't need it either.

It might seem unfair but if your daughter has permanent accommodation somewhere else then your spare room is deemed unnecessary and you will be asked to pay for it. On a practical level, the only way around this would be to demonstrate a need for the room, for example if your daughter's accommodation required her to move out during holidays (as was presumably the case until recently), or if she returned home to work during them because no work is available in her current location. Perhaps you could try taking in a short-term lodger to cover the shortfall, with a condition that they vacate the spare room at the end of the university year. That could be better than having eventually to move into a smaller place, and your daughter could stay during the summer holiday.

These debt purchase companies, one of which claims to have been assigned the debt which is the subject of the Charging Order, can be a bit slow on the uptake. However, their failure to update the Land Registry has no legal effect on the Order itself, even though it would be normal to request the Court to vary the judgement in favour of the new assignee, and then update the LR. If the previous assignee was paid accidentally then they would be obliged to pass the money to the new assignee. It isn't quite correct to say that a CO cannot be made on jointly-owned property. It can, but it's unusual to request one because obtaining a Sale Order would be virtually impossible (the other joint owner has a right not to be disturbed). If you jointly sell the property in the future then the CO will have to be satisfied from the OP's share of equity in the house, with the joint owner remaining unaffected. However, if the OP's equity is insufficient then the beneficiary of the CO could theoretically block the sale, so their permission should be sought beforehand. If the debt is repaid before any sale then the CO should be removed and the LR record updated to its previous, unrestricted state.

How long does your contract have left to run? If it's near or beyond the minimum term then you can use that as leverage for a goodwill gesture. Even if not, it's worth pleading ignorance by asking for a one-off refund of say 50% of the landline calls, on the basis that you thought they were unlimited. Make sure to ask them for a printed reminder of the terms of your contract.

The lease is apparently not being renewed so the only thing relevant here is the sale price which, as you correctly state, is below the SDLT threshold. There might of course be some additional fees (not SDLT) for transferring the lease, but that's a separate matter.

Corporate cards are usually billed directly to the company, so there should be no reason to credit-check the individual, unless the issuer wanted to check your file as part of an identity check (like some banks do for the opening of a savings account - in this case bad credit should not affect the decision). If the card is only for office admin then it would almost certainly be a corporate card. Some companies run affiliate programmes to issue individual cards to employees who travel regularly and run up expenses, but it doesn't sound like you're in that category. In any case, unless you work in financial services or certain related professions (e.g. accountancy), your credit history is really none of your employer's business.

Perhaps it would be reasonable to ask your landlord to have his electrician explain how he made the installation safe. For example, if the socket was fed by a spur, he could have isolated the supply at its branching point from the ring main and the blank faceplate is just cosmetic, with no live supply remaining behind. If it's part of a ring main, he could have joined the cables safely and used appropriate insulation for damp conditions. A damp, live electrical installation is certainly a hazard, but if this has been addressed by a certified electrician, then it should now be safe. If your distribution board is modern (i.e. Miniature Circuit Breakers rather than cartridge fuses or even worse, fuse wire) then the risk of a fire would be very low both before and after the landlord's intervention. However, if you start having trouble with circuits tripping, that could suggest there is more to the problem.

I'm not sure there's very much he can do about it then. I'm afraid contractual cancellation and admin fees are normal in insurance these days, and with such a low premium, they might argue that admin fees are justified by the extra work incurred. Insurance fees unfortunately haven't yet come under the kind of scrutiny that bank charges did, and I'm not aware of any legal grounds for arguing that the fee is unreasonable. In any case, they'd probably argue that classic car insurance is a specialist product anyway, by way of justification.

Couldn't he just let the policy time out, thereby avoiding the cancellation fee? £68 for a year's insurance is very cheap anyway.

It's very important with EBay that you start your complaint as soon as possible, which you have done. Just be patient and see the process through. When you write to EBay, try to break your text into paragraphs, because that makes it much easier to read, and therefore more inclined to listen to you. Unfortunately, the only way to be sure when buying items like this is to go to a real shop, where you get personal service and a proper guarantee in case of any faults!

This is one of the things that unions are supposed to be good at, not least because they should be familiar with the process and the territory. Are you a member?

As you probably know, if you go abroad then you're supposed to tell them about any income you receive so that they can assess your repayment level (which could be zero of course). If you don't do that then they'll assess a 'standard' repayment, as well as add penalty fees, and if you don't pay that then they might eventually try to take legal action. If you're hiding out in China (excluding Hong Kong) then they're unlikely to get very far! However, but if/when you return, and start working in the UK, they'll find you via your NI number and have your employer deduct at the usual rate, which would also then trace you so they could recover amounts previously due. Since your earnings in countries like Thailand could be quite low by UK standards, it is probably best to keep in touch with SLC and avoid racking up penalty fees and other unwelcome surprises. Your loan would accrue interest but is eventually cancelled (at age 50, I think). Have a look at the information on their website about overseas repayment - there are different repayment thresholds for each country.

No, they do not ever become SB, nor are they cancelled (any more) in the event of bankruptcy. The 2001 loan you will repay in accordance with the rules if you're employed and earning above the threshold, or if you have to file a tax return. You're supposed to tell your employer if there is an outstanding loan, by ticking the appropriate box on the P46 form for new starters. Otherwise, you will eventually be picked up by HMRC/SLC matching your NI number, assuming you work in one place for long enough. If it's still outstanding when you turn 50, the remainder is cancelled. Delinquent pre-1998 loans are often in the hands of debt collectors and it would be in your interest to deal directly with SLC than a DCA. If the reason for not repaying is that you are or have been on a low income, especially if you have proof, then there is no reason why you should continue to hide from them. Otherwise, you'll find your account and lots of penalty fees are passed or sold on to a DCA charlatan who has no regard for the law and every interest in ripping you off.

This bailiff has behaved outrageously in anybody's book. This payment is essentially theft because (a) it relates to a matter that is nothing to do with her and (b) was forced out her under duress, or with menaces if you like. The bailiff should be reported to the local court and you should consider reporting it to the police. Getting the money back might require her to make a claim in the County Court (she could use Money Claim Online), if they won't cooperate any other way, and if the bank won't accept it as a chargeback under the circumstances. However, the first thing to do is to write (NOT phone) to the bailiff company and demand immediate repayment, stating that money was taken under duress. As your friend is no doubt now aware, the circumstances in which bailiffs can force entry to a residential property are extremely limited, and almost always require entry to have been made peacefully beforehand. If it isn't already an offence to claim police attendance falsely, then it should be.

You can't withhold your number on a text message - every message must have an identified sender. There are various websites that let you send messages where the sender is only identified as the website, but you might have to pay.

Maybe even 0900-1800 on weekdays only would be a reasonable compromise, depending on the tenant's circumstances. I think it is important to recognise that the landlord could still sell with sitting tenants, and that the tenant is being offered three months of free accommodation as well as (apparently) full and early return of their deposit, which gives plenty of time to organise replacement housing. I would consider this reasonably fair as a starting point, but I do agree that privacy and the right to 'peaceful enjoyment' are important issues to be taken into account in the surrender negotiation.

Agreed that 12 hours of access is a bit excessive!

I'm not an expert but I have the following observations: - The moving-out date is not mentioned, unless this is meant to be in Clause 1. - Although neither you nor the landlord are obliged to accept a surrender, the landlord would still be legally entitled to sell with you as sitting tenants (possibly at a reduced price), and you would probably find that your existing agreement makes provision for visits, with reasonable notice of course. You're doing him a favour, yes, but don't overestimate it! - Allowing viewings on any day of the week gives the seller flexibility but doesn't mean there will be people there every day, and you could state a limit per week. However, if you wanted to be really restrictive by insisting on being present, I don't think you would get three months free rent in return. It is normal for people selling non-rented houses to allow estate agents unsupervised access. - It is reasonable to expect your deposit back on termination of the tenancy, less any reasonable deductions (is it protected?) for damage. If your landlord agrees that there are no deductions, then you get it all back. It is probably best not to confuse this with the 'favour' value, and remember that the landlord takes a certain risk if he gives the deposit back before moving out. - However, with the three rent-free months, it raises the question of whether termination occurs on surrender (with a three-month licence to occupy free of charge), or on moving out (simply a variation to the original tenancy - maybe £1 pcm would be more advisable - followed by delayed surrender). - Clause 9: if you're going to make a list of non-excluded maintenance then it would need to include more than just heating, plumbing and electrics. What if the roof blew away? - Remember that deeds need to be witnessed.

I don't think there's much point trying to argue the morality of the punishment you've been given, or that 'it was only a short trip' either here or in Court (if you don't pay the fine). The offence is a matter of strict liability, and the grounds for a defence are very limited indeed after the event (any medical reasons would have had to be established beforehand). It is compulsory to wear a seatbelt if fitted, and you were not, so there is little room for manoeuvre. So you will have to find a way to stump up £100 or else argue for instalments in Court, with the risk of having to pay more overall. They don't have the option of giving points for this offence because the law applies to all occupants of the vehicle, driving or not. In any case, offence carrying penalty points always also carry a fine. For what it's worth, I reckon you'll be making absolutely sure from now on that you and all your passengers are wearing seatbelts before you move off. This saves lives, and reduces the burden on emergency services workers who come and clear up the mess afterwards.

There is usually some flexibility, especially after 12 months. If you cancel outright then there will be a cancellation fee, which as DX says, will most likely be less than what you'd have had to pay otherwise, but of course for no further service. Depending on the phone you have and how long you've been with the network, they might want the phone back, although I'd say that's unlikely. Assuming you keep the phone, you could then go PAYG or just sell it. Alternatively, they will usually let you switch to a cheaper tariff after 12 months - the point you're at - to a certain extent. It's always worth explaining your situation and seeing what they offer. If you just stop paying without making any arrangements then they will pursue you for the full contractual amount, and report missing payments on your CRA file. Whether you want to get into that or whether it even matters to you personally is up to you, but I wouldn't recommend it.

It used to be necessary to paint headlights yellow before driving on the continent, supposedly to reduce dazzle. You sometimes see glasses for cycling and other sports that have a light yellow tint. I might be making a false connection but possibly worth a go? Unfortunately there's not much to be done about the offending cars!

Looking around elsewhere on the internet, various Councils cite case law as the main basis for determining 'residency' for the purposes of applying or removing discounts. You can be living mainly somewhere else, even abroad (as in one case cited in the Guardian), and still be counted as 'resident' with someone else, and therefore no discount. In this case however, if the OP's ex-partner is living elsewhere and they don't intend to live together again, there should be no argument about continuing to allow the discount. If there were any dispute then the OP's ex would presumably be able to provide proof, especially if he pays the Council Tax on his own home. Friends etc. can stay overnight, seemingly even for long periods, but if they are resident elsewhere then they shouldn't put the discount at risk. There doesn't seem to be a specific number of nights or proportion of time, and the Valuation Tribunal (the appeal body for these disputes following termination of a Council's complaints procedure) can base its decision on all sorts of factors, only really bound by a few cases that went all the way to the High Court.