Jump to content

Ethel Street

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    926
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0.3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Ethel Street last won the day on January 10

Ethel Street had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,378 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. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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).
  11. can The original firm has gone out of business so I'd guess your chance of any redress against them is zero. When a firm closes down voluntarily (eg the partners retire) they are supposed to ensure another firm takes over outstanding business. No doubt the new firm in this case will blame the old firm for any delays. If you think you have grounds for complaint - and if the amount of lost interest etc is worth it - you could complain to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Agency). From what you say I'm doubtful whether that's worth the effort, but only you judge that. As Executors I think they have an obligation to pay all interest earned on your Uncle's Estate to the residual beneficiaries because Executors have a general fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries. But I couldn't point you to any specific bit of law that spells that out. These articles might be of interest. They confirm that the Executors have a legal duty to provide a copy of the Estate Accounts to the Residuary Beneficiaries. https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-sept-dec-2018/what-are-estate-accounts/ https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jan-apr-2017/can-a-beneficiary-of-a-will-see-the-estate-accounts/ Your best course of action, now that the solicitors have finally woken up and are getting on with it, is probably to co-operate with whatever they are asking and keep pushing them. There is no point in getting into legal dispute with the solicitors, which would be paid for out of what's left of the Estate, if the remaining Estate is worth next to nothing. The remaining assets would just disappear in legal fees.
  12. Is the address registered for your car with DVLA - ie, the address shown on the V5C document, the log book - the address where you have been living since January 2018? If you have moved and not told DVLA that would explain why you hadn't received anything.
  13. 22 years sounds like a ridiculous time to take but there might have been legitimate reasons. It can happen. Do you have a copy of the Will? Can you clarify 3 things: 1. Are the solicitors named in the Will as an Executor? Or did the Executors in the Will appoint them to act for the Executors? 2. Who are the Executors named in the Will? Is your sister one? 3. Is your sister a 'residual beneficiary'? ie one of the people who is entitled to a share of your Uncle's remaining Estate after all specific bequests and expenses have been paid out. Who are the other 'residual beneficiaries'?
  14. Baliffs and plumbers are not comparable. Baliffs carry out public law functions and so have statutory duties, plumbers do not. But even if plumbers do have (so far unidentified) statutory duties relevant to this case it wouldn't help OP in the slightest. OP's plumber is insolvent and his only worthwhile asset appears to be his insurance policy. OP is only going to get compensation or damages if it is covered by the insurance policy. The policy does not pay compensation or damages for breach of statutory duty. So debates about whether the CRA creates statutory duties for plumbers will just take OP up a blind alley. The policy does cover negligence though, but it is unclear whether insurers accept that the plumber was negligent. The difference between OP and the insurer seems to be as much about which property is covered by the policy (the contract works -vs - OP's own surrounding property) as it does about the basis of legal liability.
  15. So did I! Especially the reference to JCT contracts. After a bit of digging though it was this thread I was thinking of, which is about something different (although coincidentally the same insurer's policy wording!) Without knowing in detail what the damage to your property was and how it arose I'm not sure I can add much more. Sedgwick, the Loss Adjusters acting for the insurer QBE, seem to be taking the position that the policy covers accidental damage the plumber caused to your own property but not for the costs of rectifying the faulty workmanship. Obviously I don't know what happened, what's damaged, what the plumber was doing, or what contract you had with the plumber so impossible to say whether that is correct. But on the face of it their position isn't obviously wrong or untenable. Debating whether the plumber was in breach of a statutory duty is pointless waste of time. Even if they were, breach of statutory duty is only covered by the policy to the extent the plumber was being prosecuted in court for a breach of statutory duty (ie the breach was a criminal offence). Then the policy would pay the plumber's legal fees to defend him in court. That's all. Nothing else. It wouldn't help you at all (as the plumber isn't being prosecuted)
×
×
  • Create New...