Hopefully the experts will be able to advise on your main questions, but in the meantime.... "What exactly is Byelaw 17(1)?" Byelaw 17 (1) just says what you know, you must not travel in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket (and obviously yours wasn't valid): 17. Compulsory ticket areas (1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket. "Will I be getting a criminal record" Yes, if convicted in the Magistrates Court. Byelaw 23 23. Offence and level of fines Any person who breaches any of the Byelaws commits an offence and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. The full TfL Railway Byelaws are here if you want to read them: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf "How much will any kind of record hinder my career, what kind of checks are done?". Impossible to answer for sure, it depends what your career plans are. But a conviction for dishonesty (which is what this is) will not help you get jobs and in some types of job it could be a significant obstacle. eg jobs in financial services, teaching. Most job application forms ask if you have had a criminal conviction and it must be disclosed. In jobs where your criminal record is important employers get a direct check of your record on the Police National Computer made (called the 'DBS Disclosure' scheme). The good news for you is that if the criminal conviction only results in a fine it is 'spent' after 1 year from the date of conviction. That means that for most (but not all) purposes you can treat the conviction as if it never happened and you do not have to disclose it. I say most, not all, circumstances because there are some jobs where convictions are never spent and may always have to be disclosed, or may have a much longer period before they become spent (eg 11 years for a fine). That's jobs like police, some health service jobs, teaching, financial services. (All this assumes this is your only conviction, it gets more complicated if you have more than one conviction). You can read up on 'spent convictions' here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299916/rehabilitation-of-offenders-guidance.pdf

The issues you raise are hugely complex and I think you need to consult specialist SEND websites such IPSEA or Coram Children's Centre or a Parents' Advice Centre in the area where the child now lives (if there is one). There may also be specialist advice charities for the particular condition(s) the child has now been diagnosed with. To pursue this as a claim for compensation would need professional legal advice from solicitors specialising in this area. Bear in mind that it isn't a school's job to diagnose medical conditions. Schools provide the educational support needed as a result of the medical condition being diagnosed.

What do parents want to achieve? Does the child now have an Education and Health Care Plan [EHCP] (what SEN Statements are now called)?

GDPR doesn't really have anything to do with this so not much point in a SAR. You can't use a GDPR SAR to find out information about your pet because GDPR only deals with the personal information of living human beings. Not animals. On the other hand the "personal information" of animals (if you can have such a thing) isn't protected by law so nothing in data protection law would stop them giving you the information. But it doesn't look like either vet 1 or vet 2 are basing their refusal on anything to do with GDPR/data protection. They are saying that the veterinary medical records of what vet 1 did to your pet are the property of vet 1 and can only be released by vet 1. Which they have declined to do. I'm not sure where you go from there.

No relevance to the PCN whatsoever. You've already told the PPC that you received the letter about the parking permit scheme. So whether you received letters about meetings on anything else is not really relevant to what you do about the PCN.

I don't know of any reported case where a parking company has either won or lost a case based on legal arguments about whether the lessor/managing agent has the power under the lease to impose a parking permit scheme. I don't have access to the databases of decided cases that would let me search for those. Wherever a case has been posted on here which is alleged to have decided that it always turns out that the judge never got to consider legal arguments about the lease wording because the PPC lost the case either by not turning up at all or through their usual incompetence - not having the written evidence of their authority, cr@ppy signage, non-compliant paperwork etc. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their signage is faulty here too. All my comments have been about the "supremacy of contract" which is claimed to defeat any attempt to enforce the PCN in court. It doesn't automatically do that, each contract (lease) needs to be read to see what it actually says.

UKPC -vs- Davey is an entirely different case legally. Mr Davey owned his parking space freehold. So there was no possibility UKPC could ever have established they had a right to PCN his car as no lessor/management company could exist to give UKPC authority to do it. The case tells us nothing about the rights parking companies might have when the parking space is owned leasehold and so is subject to the wording of the lease.

Well PPM claim that covenants in the lease permit the managing agent to introduce this scheme. Whether that's true would have to be established. Why did you send the permit back and tell them you wanted to opt out of the scheme? They sent you a free permit and said if you don't display it you will get a PCN. I can't see what the disadvantage to you would have been to simply stick it in your car and avoid the potential hassle you now have.

Rj44, every time someone posts on here about parking schemes being imposed where a leaseholder has an allocated space lots of people pop up claiming that the scheme can't be introduced because of so-called "supremacy of contract". But this is only partly true. In fact it's common for leases to say that use of the allocated space is subject to any regulations that the freeholder/lessor/management company might make for the use of the parking spaces. If the lease for your development says something on those lines the management company may have the power to introduce parking permit schemes. Although if they have it was curious way to go about it, hence my earlier question. I appreciate you may have no idea what the lease say as you are not the leaseholder, your landlady is. Of course even if such a clause is in the lease it won't automatically mean the PPC can do what they like. There are other things that have to be got right as well, not least the procedure for introducing it, the signage, how they issued the PCN etc. They often get that wrong. And taking a case to court requires the PPC to prove in writing that it has the authority from the freeholder/leaseholder to issue PCNs and they often fail to do that either. But you cannot say that if you have an allocated space under the lease the management company can never introduce a parking permit scheme. The actual wording of the lease has to be taken into account. Yes the wording of the lease is paramount, but it might allow the management company to introduce a permit scheme.

I'm even more confused now! The Managing Agent sent all residents a parking permit and said that if you didn't want to take part in their parking permit scheme you should return it and confirm you wanted to opt out. So if they had received the permit back from you and the email confirming your opt out what then did they claim would have been the position? You could use the allocated space without a permit? You couldn't use the space at all? They'd take the space away? Did the permit they sent you have your car reg number on it? (Presumably not, how would they know what it was?). The number of the allocated space? Or just the name of the development?

C&A used to be a big High Street retailer in the UK but it couldn't make any money so it closed all its stores and withdrew from the UK market. That was 15 - 20 years ago. It was a Dutch or Belgian-owned family business I think. No idea why it doesn't deliver to the UK.

That cannot be true. Firstly marriage is not a contract as meant in contract law and the commitments made to each other in the ceremony are not enforceable in the courts. So the words, when used, are a religious duty not a legal one. The words you quote are only said in Church of England marriages and then only if the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is used. They are not in most modern versions of the prayer book. Civil marriages and partnerships do not require any such words. So even if the words did mean what you claim there's no way of knowing which couples had made the commitment and which hadn't.

I don't understand what happened. Send back what permit? Can you clarify please.

I guess the only way to be sure is ask them...….

Incidentally there is an independent body that investigates complaints against judges https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/ But note the limits of what it can investigate. Our statutory remit is to deal with complaints of misconduct. This means how a judge has behaved personally, e.g. making a racist remark, inappropriate use of social media, or falling asleep in court. We cannot accept complaints about a judge’s decision or the way a judge has managed a case. So this might not be of much use to you. Generally "complaints" about how a judge conducted a case can only be dealt with by appeals. Info here on complaining to CPS https://www.cps.gov.uk/feedback-and-complaints

What an awful situation for you. It sounds like the CPS prosecuting solicitor was ineffective. The solicitor secured a conviction but with what sounds like a wholly inadequate sentence. And CPS failed in its duty of care to victims. Maybe a complaint to the CPS is the route to go? It's not an arear I know much about though, I'm just speculating.

I was wondering that too as OP says "The other side didn't put in a defence so I got a default judgement"

I wanted to read this and comment but it's 3,000 words. I don't have the time to read it. Could you give a summary of the main issues? Thank you.

I'm not sure NE have done that as arpcov says "As they now knew who the customer was who took the luggage, National Express asked for permissiton to hand my contact details over to the customer who wrongly took the luggage, so we could basically work this out ourselves." If arpcov gave that permission then no breach of GDPR. It's a reasonable assumption that the only way NE could know who the other customer was is because they too contacted NE to say they had the wrong bag. Which suggests to me that before considering other routes arpcov calls the other person and sees if its possible to meet up and swap the bags. If the other person really wanted to keep arpcov's bag presumably they wouldn't have contacted NE to say they had the wrong bag. And hopefully they live somewhere nearby and not the other end of the country....

I don't see how that makes them at fault. Whether a CHC assessment is successful isn't a decision for them, and nor are they making such a decision. That doesn't mean they can't express an opinion or that it somehow becomes their fault if the Council/NHS in your area haven't done the assessment yet. And it's irrelevant to your obligation to pay their fees!

Some, if not all, of it is cut and pasted from this website HB. I've seen it before. https://caretobedifferent.co.uk/nhs-continuing-healthcare-should-social-workers-be-involved/ It's the website of, as far as as I can see, a campaigning group advisory service. It's certainly not an official site. I came across it when researching for my mother's CHC assessment earlier this year. Whilst I don't doubt that they are giving broadly accurate advice some of it is misleading. For example statement that "whether or not a person pays for care has nothing to do with how much money they have or whether they own a house. Instead, it is about the extent of their care needs ONLY". I'm assuming OP's mother is in a private care home. It's a private business. You enter into a contract with them for residential accommodation and care services. It's no different to any other type of contract someone enters into, how you find the money to pay them is not their concern. You are obliged to pay the fees you have contracted to pay. If some or all of those fees come from Council or NHS sources fine. If they don't you have to find them personally. You can't refuse to pay the care home the fees they are contractually entitled to just because you haven't received money from the state that you think you should do. Nor is there any obligation on the Council to fund your care home fees from the start until a CHC assessment has been completed (unless the Council commissioned the care home place - I'm assuming it didn't here). If you don't pay the care home fees they could sue you for them the same as any contractual debt and it would be no defence to say 'I didn't pay the council home because I was waiting to get money from someone else'. Mind you, I've never heard of a case where a care home literally put a resident on the streets if the fees were unpaid. I'm sure that would breach their care home licence and several other laws too. More likely they'd take court action to recover the fees. I'd think OP has a good case to take to the Local Government Ombudsman for the delay in the initial assessment. But not a good case for refusing to pay the care home. It's not the care home's fault that a CHC assessment hasn't been done.

Is your mum's house being sold? If she owns a house and it isn't disregarded for some reason - a spouse living in it for example - I'd think she wouldn't be entitled to any council funding. Does the contract with the home make you a guarantor of any unpaid fees? Often the family member who arranges the care home place is made a party to the contract (jointly with the resident). I went through a CHC assessment with my mother earlier this year, she too had Alzheimer's. It's a very high bar they set. If I were you I'd assume that CHC will not be granted but continue to push for a full assessment and see what happens. It sounds as if you might only have had the preliminary CHC assessment, not the full assessment.

Sorry, I'm wrong about that. It's not the person registering the death who says when the death took place. It's the stage before that, when the doctor certifies the person is dead. The doctor gives the next of kin a form called the Medical Certificate of Death stating the cause of death and the date of death. The next of kin gives that form to the Registrar when registering the death and that is the date that goes on the death certificate. The date on the death certificate is in turn used by the Probate registry when it issues the Probate document. It's possible for a clerical error to be made at either of the points where the date of death is copied over but unlikely. In my experience they check things like that very carefully. Or I suppose for some reason the doctor who certified death could have written the wrong date down and the next of kin who registered the death didn't notice. In the legal sense the date on the Probate isn't "wrong" if it's what's shown in the Registrar's record as what the Registrar has recorded is, for official/legal purposes, the date of death irrespective of when someone actually breathed their last (if you see what I mean). Are you certain the date is wrong?

Short answer is that if you are a named beneficiary and you have obtained a copy of the Will that shows that then you are entitled to ask the Executors what is happening and when you will receive your legacy. Do it in writing. Ultimately you could go to court to force the executors to pay you the legacy but that is expensive and very much a last resort and you'd have to appoint your own lawyers to do this. If the solicitors you mention are still involved in sorting out the Estate I'd write to them. Whether it is unreasonable for you to wait this long it's impossible to say without knowing the full circumstances. It also depends what you have been left in the Will. If it was a specific item of your uncle's property it really shouldn't take very long - provided the Executors can find it! If it is a share in something that needs to be sold, or if it's cash but there's no cash in the Estate until assets are sold, that can take time. Are the solicitors a named Executor in the Will, or have they been appointed by the Executors to administer the Estate on behalf of the Executors? Executors can be, and usually are, beneficiaries themselves. There's nothing wrong in that. I don't know how the date of death on Probate can be wrong unless the date of death on the Death Certificate is also wrong. Probate documents take the date of death as that shown on the death certificate. Is the difference significant, or is it just one day out? That could just be because someone died overnight and the person registering the death didn't know whether he died before or after midnight.

Good result.