Unless it was previously registered, the will is a private document until probate is granted. So 1t-bag is correct, as wills become an annexe to the Probate Order and as a Court judgement, and that is in the public domain unless ordered otherwise. I don't think you are under any obligation as Executor to facilitate access to the will by anyone not a beneficiary or other party with a specific interest (e.g. other executors). The mother of an adult beneficiary has no interest unless she herself is a beneficiary, so you can quite legitimately tell her to pursue her own enquiries without your help.

Long-term sickness is never easy, as I'm sure you know yourself, but also not for businesses. It is your choice to sign or reject the voluntary severance being offered to you, but if you reject it then they might not offer it to you again (depending on your contract, they are probably only obliged to offer Statutory Redundancy - one week per year of service). The way that they will see the problem is that it's unclear when your health will return to an acceptable level to enable you to carry out the role they employed you to do, i.e. drive tankers. Yes they should ideally try to help you back to work, but they're not doctors and cannot speed up your recovery, and yes they could offer alternative non-driving work on different terms (such as lower pay), but they might not have any to offer. There would be nothing to stop you from asking these questions before you sign the severance agreement, and I'm sure he'd understand your concerns even if there is little he can do. If you leave on amicable terms then they might be more likely to re-hire you when you do recover.

You must have a TV licence to 'watch or record TV programmes as they are broadcast', regardless of how you do that. If your TV and Xbox cannot receive TV as it is broadcast (no Freeview, Sky or other box, no iPlayer TV software installed on the Xbox or computer), then you should not need a licence. You can truthfully tell the TV Licensing authority that you do not watch TV. An officer cannot enter your home without a Search Warrant (a court order) or your permission. None of this is any of your landlord's business, although it is helpful of him to have warned you.

I wouldn't tell them you have your own season ticket, as it's not relevant unless it's for the same route (presumably it isn't). They could simply say that you should be perfectly with the general terms and conditions, one of the most obvious being that tickets are for use only by the person named on them and shown on the photocard. It looks like a fairly obvious attempt to evade paying the fare so a grovelling apology and offer of compensation is probably your only option. If you'd simply boarded the train without a ticket then you might have got away with a penalty fare at most, or even just paying for a normal ticket, depending on where you were.

Witnesses normally sign, date, and include their full name, current address and profession. I'm afraid that I can't help with funerals. Ask your local council about it, as they most likely run the crematorium and set the fees and minimum standards. If you are concerned that the estate won't cover the cost, ask the council and consider asking RAFA to help. I'm not sure that it would be simple to comply with, or prove compliance with the 'native Anglo Saxon' requirement. He is entitled to specify whatever he wishes of course but it should be as practical as possible. A donation to a University could be worth considering. Only a solicitor would be able to advise with complete independence on such a delicate matter.

I've noticed from holidays there that Barclays has quite a big branch network in France, but RBS doesn't. You don't need a computer to make an electronic transfer - you can do it at the branch (probably for a fee). But apparently the French still love cheques so I suppose it's just a question of familiarity. Anyway, an official complaint will hopefully resolve the problem. Renegadeimp is quite right to say you should only threaten legal action if you mean it, and you probably wouldn't do that in the first letter anyway.

These letters are computer-generated and bear no comparison to reality. At least it keeps the postie busy I suppose. If you kept a copy of your previous reply (as you should), send it again, by Recorded Delivery (if you didn't before). Then you have proof of sending a reply, and their receipt of it.

The only way they can enforce this is to get a CCJ. Talk of bailiffs is irrelevant before that (apart from Business Rates - but this is a bank debt anyway). Since the company has no assets (and possibly even been wound up?), the DCA is trying it on with your father as an individual. The only way they could get a CCJ against him would be to prove some kind of negligent or irresponsible behaviour as a director, such as excessive money taken out etc. Firstly, I'm sure that none of that applies here and secondly, the DCA will have a hard time proving it without HSBC's help. Since HSBC will have considered the matter closed on assigning the debt, and it is said that debts are often sold on with minimal information, I doubt that argument would get very far. The lack of any guarantees helps your case enormously. Make sure that it wasn't secured on a business asset either. Watch out though as they might try to spring a claim form on him anyway, in the hope that he ignores it. If this happens then make sure the claim is defended!

Sadly, foreign cheques really can take months, even from not so far away. The best solution is simply not to use this for international transfers - you'd have been better off with €200 in cash, or sent electronically. If the situation is not resolved after say 8 weeks, write a stern letter headed 'Official Complaint' to Think, demanding that the money which is rightfully yours, be immediately credited to the account. Don't be afraid to threaten legal action if they don't comply.

Would you normally have used a pass of your own? If so then would that pass have covered the journey you were making, as your brother's pass would if he was using it? If so then you could attempt to explain that in mitigation, when the letter arrives to say what the company intends to do. If on the other hand you 'accidentally' used someone else's pass because you thought you might get away with it, then a grovelling apology might see you get off with a warning for a first offence.

Aktiv Kapital is a debt purchase company - HSBC will have sold the debt to them for a fairly small amount, and they acquire all rights to pursue you for the full amount. However, they can still only take legal action six years after the last payment was received, and the default should only remain on your CRA file for six years from the original date. If you've been running from this by avoiding your post then it is possible they have obtained a CCJ by default. Check with Registry Trust, if nothing appears on your CRA file otherwise. If they have a CCJ then they have six years from the date of judgement to enforce it. A defaulted and unsettled account on your file will be enough to scare most 'normal' lenders. The reason CRA files exist is to enable lenders to assess the risk of lending to someone, and if they can see that you didn't pay back your overdraft, they assume that you probably wouldn't pay them back either.

It doesn't sound like your ex-wife has any title to the house at all, since you bought the legal title from her bankruptcy estate (and even if you only paid £1, it's yours) and she cannot have accrued any new title if she hasn't since paid anything towards the mortgage. Nobody can just 'apply' to register an interest or name to the deeds of a property - it requires either consent or a court order. However with domestic matters, there can always be complications and of course we don't know what your divorce settlement said about this, and when.

Yes, they are entitled to have back every penny (although not with interest) and your contract will almost certainly have a clause saying so. Check your payslips in future - I'm sure you'd have acted quickly if they were underpaying you!

Good luck. I'd be particularly interested to know how you get on with this as it's a subject close to my heart.

It would have become SB in 2010, six years from the last payment, so Lowell cannot sue you although have you checked your CRA file for CCJ's? If either Barclaycard or Lowell obtained one then it could still be enforceable. Ordinarily, it would also have fallen off your CRA file by now. Lowell probably bought the debt in 2008 (did you receive a letter of assignment) and made a fresh report but you should have received a Default Notice at some point from Barclaycard and the date of that should be the one reported, not Lowell's version of events. In practice, persuading anyone to change this information could be tedious although in theory, it is inaccurately reported and you might be able to go via the Information Commissioner to force the CRAs to correct the report. In any case, it will fall off your file in 2014 at the latest.

Well in all the years I've been driving, which has included multiple insurers, I've never heard of or been asked for a 'NCB certificate', nor would I even know what it looks like! The renewal letter has always been enough.

I apologise if I don't fully understand the trouble you're going through, but why aren't your children in full time education or training anymore - are there no places available? They'll stand little chance of ever getting work at that age, and a better chance if they go back to college and train for something specific.

Still_surviving, point taken. Although unless the lender was particularly unaware of the distinction between individuals and companies, or there was a deliberate attempt to mislead, there doesn't seem to be any implication of self-employment. As long as any money taken out of the company by the shareholders (presumably the OP) was reasonable under the circumstances, and any loans to directors were repaid in full, and especially if there were any staff then that would put any such allusions to bed. If the company was a tax shelter for self-employment then that would be a different matter, but the OP does not suggest it was.

As an aside, I wouldn't lend money to a company without security, either over assets or a personal guarantee. If he had actually lent it to you personally to help the business then it would be a completely different matter, but evidently he didn't. That your friend is less cautious is his problem.

Well since it looks like you've fulfilled your directorial responsibilities as far as you can, and you apparently have evidence that the loan was made directly to the company, then your defence can be that you are not personally liable, as this money was never in your possession and was knowingly lent to a company. You could ask for your claim to be struck out as manifestly invalid, although a skeleton defence explaining the facts and supporting evidence available would look better. If you get a solicitor to advise you and draft the defence then it should be solid, although you'd have to pay for that of course and in small claims, applications for costs are very limited.

If this person knowingly made a loan to your company and you have an agreement that proves this, then you would not normally be liable personally for your company's debts. There is no need for any link to goods or a specific purpose. However your friend might try to claim that the company, being dormant, has no prospect of paying it back and that you have acted recklessly as a director in allowing this to happen. If you have exercised your directorial responsibilities to the best of your ability then this should not be too much of a risk. However if your company has a debt or debts it cannot service then it is insolvent and it is really your responsibility to wind it up, because otherwise a creditor can present a winding-up petition to a court and have it put into administration. Then the Official Receiver would become involved, who would not look on you favourably for having failed to address the problem earlier. Perhaps you should speak to a solicitor about both matters.

With Council Tax, councils are usually quick to obtain a Liability Orde, which remains enforceable until paid in full and without time limit or further recourse to the court. Otherwise yes, debts do become statute-barred after 5 years in Scotland or 6 in England and Wales. If the creditor doesn't obtain a CCJ within that time, they cannot use the courts to enforce the debt. Credit file entries last 6 years.

A court case based on such piecemeal evidence and especially without any written agreement is going to cost you money with little guarantee of obtaining a judgement in your favour. It would only be worth risking if he has money tied up in property, against which you could obtain a Charging Order, or in bank accounts, against which you could obtain a Third Party Debt Order. If he is employed then you could get an Attachment of Earnings. I doubt bailiffs would achieve much. However before you could try any of those enforcement methods, you'd need that judgement.

They don't have to make themselves visible. They often don't bother sending anything unless you're over 10%+2, i.e. 35mph in a 30mph zone. So you might get away with it this time. They have six months to issue the Notice of Intended Prosecution, which would probably offer you 3 points + fine, or a Speed Awareness Course. But you should already know that there's a 30mph speed limit for a reason and that if you hit someone even slightly above that speed, they will probably die.

Is the account still open? If closed (and not in dispute) then they are not obliged to reply to a s78 request. They are still obliged to reply to a request under the Data Protection Act though.