Jump to content

Ethel Street

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Ethel Street last won the day on June 1

Ethel Street had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,390 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. I don't think we disagree BankFodder. I understood uncleb to be asking about natural justice in the context of the actions and decisons of UK courts and tribunals (English law). There is, as you say, a much wider philosophical dimension to 'natural law' but it isn't something, AFAIK, something that would be taken into account by an English court or tribunal except to the extent of the Human Rights Act. But I'm not an expert and happy to see further information or links on this interesting subject.
  2. 'Natural justice' is a term often bandied about by non-lawyers to mean some general idea of fairness but it has never meant that in law. It derives from two fundamental principles of English Common Law: (1) The right to a fair hearing: nobody should be judged without a fair hearing at which they have the chance to respond to the evidence against them. (2) The right to an unbiased tribunal: courts and judges should be unbiased and have no personal interest in the outcome Various related rights are associated with these two rights - the right to have legal representation, to know the charges against you etc, - but these (essentially procedural) rights flow from the two fundamental principles. It's similar to what is called 'due process' in the USA. Because it's a common law principle there wasn't in the past a specific 'law of natural justice' that anyone could turn to. Like all common law, judges would have to 'find it' in the court decisions and precedents over the centuries. However nowadays, whilst judges can still do that and use Common Law principles, it's more usual to cite Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1. Article 6, "Right to a fair trial", is essentially a restatement into statute law of the traditional common law principle of 'natural justice' and so can be applied directly to any case before a UK court. s6 of the HRA says "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right." Is that any help?
  3. Did you get a reply to either of those letters? Even if they only acknowledged receipt it's useful evidence should you ever need it. Generally speaking a written record of what happened that you make at the time carries more weight than one made later only when the PCN arrives.
  4. UPDATE: PCN cancelled. I followed the advice on here, wrote to council including evidence of holiday. Got a letter back today from council saying that my registration number had been recorded as being present in the bay when the 'bay suspended' signs were put up so they were cancelling the PCN and apologising for the inconvenience! Jamberson was spot on. Thanks to all those who replied. It did make me wonder how many other people who didn't come to CAG or other advice sites would just have paid it, thinking there wasn't much point in complaining.
  5. You say you can't find the CCJ now, it isn't on your credit files or TrustOnline. But in your first post you said that when you returned from travelling you realised you had a CCJ. How did you know you had a CCJ? The answer is probably blindingly obvious - the court papers had been delivered to you - but just checking for clarification. The court papers had presumably been sent to your new address, how did the landlord know that?
  6. Why would a Data Protection Act SAR be useful dx100uk? Surely it's the information they hold about the water pipe that's needed, not the information they hold about the OP?
  7. I thought there was a template letter on here for making a Freedom of Information request but I can't find it. This page from the Information Commissioner's site explains it. https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ As you are already in contact with them and they have told you that they carried out the investigation it's pretty straightforward. Just write back to them asking for a copy of the investigation report and associated information and mention this is a Freedom of Information Act request.
  8. Another thought, you could make a Freedom of Information request to get a copy of their investigation report and see if that has anything in it that would help you.
  9. I fear that may be the end of the road for you. It's s209 (1) [linked earlier in thread] and says "Where an escape of water, however caused, from a pipe vested in a water undertaker causes loss or damage, the undertaker shall be liable...". The water company are saying to you that the leaking pipe was not "vested" in them so they are not liable. Theoretically someone - previous owner of site? property developer or contractor who built your estate? - might be liable but from what the water company says the likelihood of ever identifying them is remote, and proving liability after more than 20 years would be difficult even if you could find them and they are still in business.
  10. Probably an obvious question, but if you have gas as well as electricity in your café - I guess you do - are nPower supplying both and do their bills to you show clearly that they supply both? If you have only been there 16 months is it possible British Gas are claiming money is owed to them for the period before you took over the café? If so when you go to court make sure you have the documents to prove when you became responsible for the bills for the café premises, the lease etc
  11. I'm not a lawyer so I couldn't say whether the lodger could make any claim on your aunt's Estate (which anyway could only happen if your aunt died before the lodger). I suspect even a lawyer couldn't give an absolute guarantee about it. The law allows people who have not been left anything in a Will (or think they should have been left more) to go to court and ask the courts to give them a "reasonable financial provision" from the Estate. See this article for example - there are many other articles about it if you search online. On the face of it, from what you have said, the lodger would find it difficult to bring such a claim but it may not be impossible. The lodger might, eg, claim that he and your aunt had been cohabiting as man and wife, or that she had been maintaining him financially. I doubt there is any way you could be certain the lodger couldn't make a claim on your aunt's Estate. If you are concerned about the possibility you need to consult a specialist solicitor. A different possibility is that the after your aunt's death the lodger might claim he wasn't actually a lodger but was a tenant and had tenancy rights to stay in the house, which could prevent you selling it. I don't know much about housing law but I don't believe it would ever give the lodger the right to own the house (fully or in part) but it could take you some time to get him out so that you could sell. It might be worth you having a discussion with your aunt about what legal agreement she has in place with the lodger that would evidence that he is a lodger not a tenant. There have been threads on here recently about lodger -vs - tenant. People don't always draw up 'lodger agreements' with the same care as they do tenancy agreements and that could cause a problem for you, as Executors, in the future. If there is no legal agreement you could tactfully suggest she gets one drawn up professionally.
  12. If your aunt is intending to pay you your 12.5% in cash and raise the cash to do that by selling her house and buying your grandmother's house from the Estate then I can't see any problem in principle. The main issue that arises is that she is planning to sell it in her capacity as Executor to herself so there is a potential conflict of interest in setting the value of the house. The other beneficiaries should be insisting that there is an independent valuation - preferably more than one. eg HMRC, if they want the value declared for Probate confirmed, usually ask for 3 independent valuations and take the average of the three. Your aunt as Executor is under a legal duty to ensure she pays a fair open market price for your grandmother's house (open market price with vacant possession, not with your aunt living in it!). Once the house has been sold to your aunt you will have received your 12.5% of the Estate in cash so it doesn't matter to you who your aunt moves into the house and what their relationship is. The house is no longer part of the Estate at that point so it's irrelevant to you as far as receiving your share of your grandmother's Estate is concerned. It might affect what happens at some time in the future when your aunt dies. But that's all academic and not worth worrying about. It could be 30 years time or more! Anything could have happened by then. And you can't do anything about it now anyway, you don't have any rights in the matter once the house is owned solely by your aunt.
  13. But not relevant to this thread though as OP's car is parked in London
  14. Sorry to hear about your grandmother. Let me check I have this right, you are the granddaughters entitled to 12.5% each of your grandmother's Estate? Who is the Executor(s) of your grandmother's Will? Is her house the major part of her Estate? Who lived in it before she died? Your grandmother on her own? Who is living there now? Is it unoccupied? Is it still furnished? What, if anything, does the Will say about selling the house? Ignore what your Aunt's Will says. It's irrelevant to your question, and anyway she could change it.
×
×
  • Create New...