Jump to content

Ethel Street

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ethel Street last won the day on January 10

Ethel Street had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,379 Excellent

About Ethel Street

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sorry to disagree with the usually excellent advice of ericsbrother, but what he has said about Rylands v Fletcher is wrong. The case has no relevance to your situation In any event you do not need to consider possible common law claims against the water company because it has a strict liability for damage caused by leaking pipes in the law BankFodder has already pointed out - s209 Water Industry Act 1991. You say "I have had a good look through the act and I am unable to find if I can claim compensation for the damage to my property from the water company" but the water company's liability to pay you damage to your property is expressly stated in s2019 (1). Pursue them on that basis, their liability under s209 (1) for the damage caused to your house. Just as background to Rylands v Fletcher, it has nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety - it dates from 1866 when H&S legislation still a century away and anyway expressly excludes claims for bodily injury. It's a special type of common law claim in nuisance for compensation if you can't prove that the person who caused the damage was negligent, a strict liability. (Mr Fletcher built a reservoir which leaked into Mr Ryland's adjoining coal mine - budding law students can read the 1868 House of Lords decision here). When I was a law student we always learnt that the liability in Rylands v Fletcher only arose if the defendant had made a non-natural use of the land (eg Mr Fletcher's reservoir). But modern law cases have confirmed many times that water pipes for domestic supply, wherever they are, are not a non-natural use so Rylands is irrelevant. Again for budding law students (as it's 36 pages long!), see the House of Lords judgement in Transco plc v Stockport Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61
  2. Because travel insurers will always require a statement of professional opinion from the doctor about whether the child was fit to travel. The letter for school is unlikely to mention fitness to travel to go on holiday. I can see that OP won't be able to get the necessary doctor's letter herself for her grandchildren, but surely she can ask her daughter to get it? I recommend though that OP checks with insurer whether they need GP to sign a specific form. Often insurers have their own medical certificate they want signed. Better to check that before approaching GP for another letter.
  3. Hoseasons insurance policy has this definition of the relatives whose death entitles you claim for cancellation. It doesn't include your daughter's sister in law. Submit the claim anyway, with Death Certficate, you never know. But I doubt it will be covered. Relative (means) Your mother (in-law), father (in-law), step parent (in-law), sister (in-law), brother (in-law), wife, husband, son (in-law), daughter (in-law), step child, foster child, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, cousin, partner (including common law and civil partnerships) or fiancé(e). A medical certificate for your grandchildren is more likely to be the route to getting a refund paid under the insurance policy. You won't get anything if you don't submit the medical certificate. The letter the GP gave you for the school will not be sufficient. Insurers need the GP to state expressly whether or not in their professional opinion your grandchildchild was fit to travel. That won't be in the letter to the school. Ask insurers for the claims form and medical certificate the GP needs to sign.
  4. Are you claiming against a travel insurance policy or against Hoseasons directly? I ask because the letter from Hoseasons that you've quoted seems to be about claiming a refund from Hoseasons directly under their standard booking conditions, not a claim against a travel insurance policy. If a travel insurance policy is it one sold to you separately by Hoseasons or did you arrange it yourself? If it's a travel insurance policy insurers will always require a medical certificate of some sort confirming the illness of your children and that in the GPs opinion they are not fit to travel. You only need the certificate for one of the children to say they are not fit to travel and that ought to cover you for cancelling for the whole family who were booked to travel together. It's unlikely that the death of your daughter's sister in law is insured by your travel insurance policy cancellation cover. Cover applies to the death of a 'close relative' but polices always give a detailed definition of what they mean by 'close relative'. Check your own policy, but normally a daughter's sister in law isn't considered by insurers to be a 'close relative' so there is no cover.
  5. For clarification, these solicitors were acting for you in the JR? Did the court order any confidentiality? Has the case been published elsewhere? http://www.bailii.org/ for example? If you do an internet search with the full citation that should bring it up if it has been published. If it has been published elsewhere does the published version include your full name and address?
  6. More detailed comments on this website https://who-called.co.uk/Number/02035914010 These people ignore the law and constantly change their numbers. the numbers are often spoofed anyway and aren't their real numbers. Apart from blocking them there's not a lot you can do.
  7. It would probably turn out anyway that the information on pay rates came from another employee discussing their own pay rather than from the employer so no privacy/data breach under the Data Protection Act would have occurred. "Do I not already have a right to view my personel file without the need for a SAR? " No.
  8. But you are the person liable to pay the penalty fare. An error in the DoB the inspector wrote down doesn't make you a different person. If you were taken to court the person stopped for not having a valid ticket and the person in the dock in the Magistrates Court are the same human being.
  9. It's a Data Protection Act Subject Access Request [SAR] you need to make, not Freedom of Information Act request. Freedom of Information Act only applies to public bodies so not to eBay. Data Protection SAR applies to all organisation in UK/EU. There's a SAR template you can use on here, just click the link to SAR in this post and it will take you to it.
  10. Did you complain to the Estate Office? I'd ask them to intervene given these rather uncommon circumstances. Although you may have left it a bit late if it was last August.
  11. A 'deceased estates' s27 notice in the London Gazette is really about unknown/unidentified creditors, not ones you know about but who haven't confirmed the exact amount owing. Once the s27 notice expires you are protected from any unidentified creditors. Are the creditors you are talking about things like store cards with relatively small amounts owing, a few hundred ££ at most? I don't know the strict law about this, but I had a similar situation acting as Executor when I didn't know whether the Estate would be solvent (it was in the end). After initially advising them and sending them a copy of the Death Certificate, and telling them I didn't know when I would be able to tell if the Estate was solvent, I never heard from any of them again. Not one of them, not ever. That was over 5years ago! I think in practice that these store cards, as long as they know the cardholder really has died and it isn't someone trying to avoid payment, write it off and close the a/c immediately if its just a few hundred ££. It's not economic/they can't be bothered to keep the a/c open and chase it. I'm not saying that's right in law, just my experience!
  12. You need to go back to the lawyer who is advising you and ask them to clarify. The Citizen's Advice page HB linked says that the £18,600 income requirement does not apply if you receive certain benefits, but ESA isn't one of the benefits listed: You won't need to meet this financial requirement if you have one or more of the following benefits: Disability Living Allowance Severe Disablement Allowance Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Attendance Allowance Carer's Allowance Personal Independence Payment Armed Forces Independence Payment or Guaranteed Income Payment under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Constant Attendance Allowance, Mobility Supplement or War Disablement Pension under the War Pensions Scheme Police Injury Pension If you get one of these benefits, you'll just need to show that you receive enough money to look after your dependant - this is called ‘adequate maintenance’. How much this will be depends on your individual circumstances.
  13. The BBC page Andyorch linked says this. The link from "set procedure" goes to Citizens Advice website but the page it linked to is no longer there, it might be elsewhere on the CA site if you search. So if they were sent by mistake what do I do? If items are sent to you by mistake, you will need to contact whoever sent them and ask them to collect the goods. That shouldn't cost you anything or inconvenience you in any way. You should also give the company a reasonable deadline to collect the items. Can I sell items delivered incorrectly to me? Yes, but it's quite a process. You must try to contact the company twice in writing, following a set procedure. Even after you've sold the items, it'll be at least six years before you can spend the dosh. During that time the original owner can still claim the money back from you.
  14. Yes but the chances of £30 being the outcome and the chance of £408 being the outcome are not equal, or anything near equal. The experts here (I'm not one!) seem to be clear that you have very little chance of ending up paying £130 (the £30 + £100 fee) and a very high chance of paying £508 (the £408 + £100 fee).
  • Create New...