It looks like the bays in my council area where they allow pavement parking. Sometimes the marked bay is partly on the road and partly on the pavement. Is that the case here? I can't make out whether there are dotted lines on the pavement behind your car. If that is the case I imagine the contravention is because the front wheels of your car are outside the marked bay. It may be a free parking space where your front wheels are but it isn't marked for pavement parking, which is what you are doing. Sorry, not sure what grounds you could challenge it on.

Re: amout of claim, how do they calculate "£165 for the tyre damage, £125 for the tyre" if it was only one tyre? Either the rip was repairable, or it wasn't and the tyre needed replacing. Their bill to you appears to charge for both. Sorry, just realised I'm misreading your post. The £165 and the £125 aren't separate amounts. It's £125 to replace tyre + £40 Europcar's admin fee = £165. Yes?

If you pay for an insurance policy, and then submit a claim under the policy which is paid, why on earth would you ,expect to get the premium returned to you!

If the cancellation cover is the premium for an insurance policy, and if they are paying you back the £625 as a claim under the policy, you can't expect them to return the insurance policy of premium of £74 as well. If you hadn't paid the premium you wouldn't have got the claim paid.

Statutory notice periods are covered by the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 86 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/IX/crossheading/minimum-period-of-notice ACAS guidance http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4096

I (not a lawyer either!) also think they are not as clear as they could be and assume they are standard clauses and the various words in them - "effects" for example - have had their meanings decided by courts over the years. The Will drafter has used a standard wording and included the phrase "...not otherwise disposed of by this my Will..." even though in this case nothing has been "... otherwise disposed of ..." . The reason for leaving it in is probably because the Will could have been altered later by adding a Codicil to leave some specified items to someone else. I doubt clause 6 could be interpreted the way you suggest. Personally I'd expect a court to interpret clauses dealing with specific assets of the deceased to be interpreted before the clause dealing with the residue. Otherwise you end up with a very circular interpretation!

It's well known, isn't it, that the EU fuel consumption tests are artificial and don't represent real world fuel consumption? Why are you surprised? https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/fuels-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures

I'm not qualified to advise you on what to do with your £10k, but I will say that most advice sites that I've seen recommend that if you have a lump sum available it is in most cases better to use it to pay off your debts than to put it into a savings account simply because most people are paying much higher interest rates on their borrowings than they could get with their savings. And prioritise the debts to pay off so that you pay those with the highest interest rate first (which probably isn't your mortgage). That said, when I was made redundant and able to pay off my mortgage I jumped at it just know that my house was, at last, all mine and if mortgage rates went up it no longer mattered to me! MoneySavingExpert for example: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/pay-off-debts/

Posting as an information share, not something I need help with, as this comes up on CAG from time to time. When I've been an Executor I've received letters from the DWP asking me to repay to DWP any pension etc benefits they paid out after the date the person died. I always assumed the DWP had the legal power to recover that money. Turns out they never did and I could have ignored their requests! [But note this does not apply if the DWP had overpaid benefits before the person died. DWP might be entitled to recover those.] http://paullewismoney.blogspot.com/2019/03/dwp-cannot-enforce-demands-to-repay.html

From this site? https://www.gov.uk/invoicing-and-taking-payment-from-customers/payment-obligations It is referring to business-to-business invoices, although the page isn't very clear about that, and is summarising the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (interest) Act 1998 and subsequent amendments. So it wouldn't apply in your case as you are not a business. In any case, as the gov.uk page says, 30 days is only the default if the invoice doesn't state some other payment date.

Sorry to hear about your loss. When someone dies it is usual for the Executors to remove items of value (including sentimental value) from the house for safekeeping. That shouldn't mean the Executor who removes them is planning to keep them for themself, only that they items have been moved to a safe place while the Estate is dealt with. Executors have a duty to safeguard items this way and not leave valuables in an empty house. Doing this doesn't affect where the items ultimately end up, that is as set out in the Will. Joint Executors should agree the removal though, each should know and agree what the other is doing. My reading of this (I am not a lawyer but have been Executor a number of times) is that para 4 relates to the house - the buildings and land - para 5 covers all the contents of the house and para 6 everything else the deceased owned at death (eg cash and savings that aren't covered by para 3, or other houses/flats she owned). Executors don't normally have a meeting with the solicitors who drew up the Will unless they are planning to appoint the solicitor to act for them in dealing with the Estate. Are they? Or are the 2 Executors going to do it themselves? Have they been granted Probate yet? If they ask the same solicitor to act for them they will get the Will interpreted by default! In the Will there are only 2 beneficiaries, and they are also the 2 Executors. So from a practical point of view if the two of them agree to share out the personal effects in a particular way instead of selling them and dividing up the cash 50/50 that is fine because there is nobody else with a legal right to challenge what they have done. Just make sure whatever they agree they confirm in writing to each other.

There's a website (in English) provided by the French authorities on which (amongst other things) you can review your offence file to check it is genuine and pay the fine: https://www.usagers.antai.gouv.fr/demarches/saisienumeroconsultation?lang=en And according to its Appeal page FAQ the only circumstances when you can name another driver is if in your appeal you can state either of these two things: "I owned this vehicle at the time of the offence but: I had freely lent it to somebody" or "I owned this vehicle at the time of the offence but: I had loaned it out" Neither appear relevant to your circumstances, so looks like as Registered Keeper you are legally liable. (I don't know what would happen if you lied and said your son from HK was driving but CAG doesn't condone lying to the police or courts, not even the French ones ) https://www.antai.gouv.fr/faq#11793 Ah, the link to the FAQ takes you to the French site only. I've screen shotted it.

Why are you worrying about who was driving? As has been posted several times, in France the liability to pay the speeding fine is on the Registered Keeper, not the driver. That's why the document you have received doesn't require you to state who was driving. It's irrelevant who was driving. No Points are added to the Keeper's UK licence.

It's more than an invitation to submit payment, it's a demand for payment. It's equivalent to a British Fixed Penalty Notice. Identifying the driver is not required. Under French law it is the Registered Keeper who is responsible (according to the RAC link). So you are responsible and are legally liable to pay it unless you have valid grounds for appeal (which, according to your posts, you don't). If you have any doubts about it being genuine you could ask the French embassy to confirm and also call DVLA and ask if French authorities have requested your details. It would be a very elaborate s cam, for not very much money, considering it identifies a road and a date and time you say you were actually on and you say you remember the camera flashing as you drove by! If I were you I would pay it. I suspect that, as you go to France so often, there is considerable scope for getting a lot of hassle at the border or from the French police when you are there if you ignore it.

Ha! Is that all King? I've heard that the government is expecting the country to be overrun with flesh-eating zombies. But that's not the worst of it. In the midst of the disintegration of British society DCAs will still be roaming the country collecting unpaid French speeding fines. Back to OP's problem. It looks like it's a genuine French equivalent of a Fixed Penalty Notice for Speeding but OP could ask the French Embassy to confirm it is genuine and not a s cam. Since 2017 France has been able to get details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA so that it can serve an FPN. It appears that in France the Registered Keeper is legally liable to pay the FPN so issues about identifying the driver do not arise. Although the good news (?) is that means that points cannot be put on the Keeper or Driver's licences. What's less clear is what happens if you ignore and don't pay the fine. I can't find anything online that explains this, just some rather general references to the French authorities having the power to enforce it in the UK. But I don't know how in practice they would do that. However if you return to France you might well get picked up as you enter, which could be an issue for the OP as he has a house there and goes regularly.

Presumably it's as a result of this change in the law in May 2017. The DVLA now supplies Keeper information to France (and other EU countries) to allow cross-border enforcement of motoring fines for 8 specific offences, one of which is Speeding. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/what-is-the-eu-cross-border-enforcement-directive/ In the Great Brexit Debate I'm surprised no-one has asked what happens about cross-border enforcement once we leave the EU!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.