The important thing about the Supreme Court [2015] case is that they just reinforced common law (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1967) Court of Appeal), in that the liberal judge Denning essentially said if the clause terms are clear, ie £85 for going over the 2 hours and this notice is available in several places (assuming it's a large car park), then the clause is valid. However Denning in Thornton also said the clause must not be too onerous, so in my view it's a balance of interests: Thornton. The other case the Supreme Court [2015] ruled in along with Parking Eye was Cavendish, which related to a business relationship of 'restrictive covenants' (ie land agreements obligations). Restrictive covenants' penalty clauses are enforceable and are not unconscionable for businesses, and this is pretty much the view of the courts with contracts, ie the contract is carried out to the letter of the law, as the contractors intended it to at the point of contract. So, is the clause fair, ie not unduly onerous and is the notice available in several places for all to see. As Denning in Thornton said, the larger the land the more that it required. I hope this helps.

What fact was concealed or what fraudulent activity was there for you to believe the statutory 12 year period should be extended?

"...had a credit card with a large balance of £13k with a well known high street bank.." & "...will be paying almost £24k when the loan has finished. It is 23.00 %APR which is ridiculously high..." Financial Services Ombudsman A bank has a duty to take care of its customers. According to Ungoed Thomas, J. (the judge) in Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock [1968] 1 WLR 1555 at paragraph 1608, the duty to take reasonable care extends to all aspects of banking business with regards to the customer in the law of contract. If it applies to all bank business, it must also apply to High Street banks offering credit cards. The standard the bank must demonstrate, Ungoed says, is the equivalent bank standard in the same circumstances: Ungoed. This is clearly the reasonable bank standard where the bank provides financial products such as a loan to pay off a substantial £13k credit card debt to what is probably a woman either nearing or actually at pension age. If the end result is worse for her then this could be a breach a duty. This will be more so where there is a relationship of trust, where woman is reliant on the expertise and professionalism, and qualification of the bank staff. The reasonable and qualified bank staff especially in their professional capacity ought to be diligent in sourcing financial products to match their customers' requirements especially where the detriment is foreseeable or ought to have been foreseeable by an equivalent in their position. If the end result is a £24k debt from an original £13k debt that is indeed a problem. Whilst am not a qualified lawyer, I do know that a reasonable bank/ reasonable staff when compared to any equivalents in its or their position ought to have offered a financial product that would have benefitted what is probably an elderly lady not for the debt to nearly have doubled.

How much Debt? if under £20k, she can consider a Debt Relief Order (DRO). If over 20k, a bankruptcy petition. A Debt Relief Order costs only £90 and is done through an application to the Official Receiver. It needs to go through an assured agency, which includes Citizens Advice Bureau. Criteria: Must have no more than £50 disposable income (ie after normal household bills, national insurance, tax etc). This could be done instead of normal bankruptcy, which costs £700, requires court order, and may not be guaranteed.

Martin, Your answer is perfectly competent when it applies to bankruptcy, ie when the court has permitted a bankruptcy and the official receiver is appointed to use his/ her powers, notwithstanding not having a bankruptcy/ restriction clause (as below). Non bankruptcy scenario, ie Creditors Hello EOS, Yes trustees have a nominal title as they only hold the assets but the assets are protected by a trust for the objects: ie beneficiaries. It also means the creditor should be making contact the trustee (The creditors may be committing a criminal offence if they're harassing you friend or the trustee). In other words the trustee has title to control the assets, the beneficiary/ies has/ have nothing to take until the point the trustee transfers the assets/ money to them, which is why beneficiaries merely have an equitable interest. A trust must be fully constituted however, ie transferring assets from the owner to the trust (held on trust). The formalities to fully constitute a trust is by a deed: s.53, Law of property Act (which gives the trustee a legal interest, nominally only). It's the trustee who has responsibility for the 10k and the assets therefore. The law even protects bankrupt trustees from his own creditors: Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Article 2 of the Schedule, no doubt to benefit the innocent beneficiaries and trust assets. Direct the creditors to the Trustee. Say, deal with the trustee. If they harass the trustee, they also have their own powers: Trustee Act 1925 (i believe) Bankruptcy scenario If you friend goes bankrupt, the official receiver (appointed Gov. official) in bankruptcy The official receiver will need to look at the deed/ trust instrument to see if there are any bankruptcy clauses, as bankruptcy clauses will over-ride the trust assets: Official Receiver at paragraph 31.5.54: https://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part5/part3/part_3.htm This is just the Receiver's job. Your friend ESO's trust situation should be safe from the official receiver if there are no bankruptcy or restriction clauses. The Official Receiver will however want to see the deed to the trust.

First Mortgage "Nationwide mortgage. 4k deposit" Hello Mscalamity, Are you saying the original house was £36k mortgage which includes the 4k deposit or in addition to it? Whose name/s was/ were the mortgage in, ie yours and your ex husbands, or just his? What was the mortgage duration, and how much were the monthly payments? This will tell me if you have a legal interest or beneficial interest? If it's in his name only, he has the legal interest (legal owner) and you have what is known a beneficial interest (owner in equity). If it is in both names it is likely that the co-owner type was a joint tenancy, which means the property by transferring to more than one person creates an implied trust of land: section 36, Law of Property Act. This is important as if the property is not in your name, you still have rights to the property (through an implied trust): Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Second transaction: Re-mortgaging existing property "In 2006 my now ex husband went to a broker to find a way of re mortgaging our property to consolidate some debts I never went with him as I was off work with stress and depression at the time I would just sign papers that he brought back with him." Please provide the details of the re-mortgage terms offered by the broker. Next, do you believe you were forced into a re-mortgaging by your ex husband at the time with the mortgage broker? If this is the case you may have been under 'undue influence,' and were it to apply, you may be able to have some/ lots of the debt wiped off your arrears. I am not sure of the date of the legal case for undue influence but the bank/ mortgagee has to make sure you are not in anyway forced to do something that you do not want to do . The fact you were depressed too indicates that you were not of the correct mind set to understand contractual intention especially signing a contract with commercial terms, which is a prerequisite for the law of contract. Your ex should be liable for this debt, and not you. Divorce/ disposal of asset; property interests "...In 2009 we divorced and my ex left the property and I was left with paying the mortgage and £3,000 arrears which is how I got the suspended possession order... I have been paying the mortgage plus an extra £100 pound off the arrears for the last six years." Did your husband come away with any assets or pay-offs from this property after the divorce in 2009? Does your ex husband have any property assets now? If so, you may be able to get either a Restriction (Land registration Act 2002) on the land register applying to his property, by completing a relevant land registrar application or Land Charge (Land Charges Act 1979) via a court order, which both effectively mean you could have the right to force a sale on him or at least restrict him from getting another re-mortgage or selling the property without paying you first. The land Charge is the more expensive route whereas the Restriction should not cost much at all. A Restriction can be just as effective as an expensive land charge. Landlord You say your property is in negativity for approx. 25k. You could move in with your partner and rent out your own property. Renting out that negative equity property, you'd be a landlord, and using this money to pay for your arrears, as property prices will rise am sure. Is this feasible for you? Secondly, the mortgagee (bank) has duty to get the best price for your property based on case law. How long has the suspension order been suspended for?

Thanks Blondebubbles. If the grounds of COP26 could be argued in terms of Op's disability, how would this affect the 8k overpaid amounts?

I am not pro capitalism but what could Communism really offer? Actually in the 60s etc Communism was about shared wealth and transfer of brilliant ideas on Communist countries such as China, and in view of Russia, it was very nice for some people. It depends whom you ask really. In Russia, they could leave their doors open...everyone apparently had enough, was comfortable and didn't need to steal. If you ask others however they may have negative view of it. The Americans were very anti Communist that they contemplated a false flag operation in the 60s which conspiracy contemplated killing their own and blaming Cuba, using drone aircraft and making US jet looks like Mig jets: Operation Northwoods, which was de-classified under Clinton's Administration.

There is no such thing as 'doesn't apply'.. it just depends how creative and persuasive an idea is. I do not look for law that matches the facts, i look at the facts and find the law to benefit the facts, even if at a stretch where possible. Law is merely a tool which may be amenable to manipulation, as what would be the point in law if there were only a verbatim application. What about the rules of statutory interpretation for instance.

Yes, and it is for that reason I told the op to explain her situation to the OP asap, then deal with overpayments afterwards, or argue there are grounds for not paying. It just depends whether her disabilities can be used to persuade HMRC to be or have the effect of reasonable due cause.

"38 Appeals (1) An appeal may [ , subject to subsection (1A), ] 1 be brought against— (a) a decision under section 14(1), 15(1), 16(1), 19(3) or 20(1) or (4) or regulations under section 21, (b) the relevant section 18 decision in relation to a person or persons and a tax credit for a tax year and any revision of that decision under that section, © a determination of a penalty under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 , […]2 [ (ca) a decision under section 36A or 36C that working tax credit is not payable (or is not payable for a particular period), and ] 3 (d) a decision under section 37(1). [ (1A) An appeal may not be brought by virtue of subsection (1) against a decision unless a review of the decision has been carried out under section 21A and notice of the conclusion on the review has been given under section 21A(3). (1B) If in any case the conclusion of a review under section 21A is to uphold the decision reviewed, an appeal by virtue of subsection (1) in that case may be brought only against the original decision. (1C) If in any case the conclusion of a review under section 21A is to vary the decision reviewed, an appeal by virtue of subsection (1) in that case may be brought only against the decision as varied. ]" NB: section 38 is Appeals

"[ 21B.— Late application for a review (1) The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs may in a particular case extend the time limit specified in section 21A(1)(a) for making an application for a review if all of the following conditions are met. (2) The first condition is that the person seeking a review has applied to the Commissioners for an extension of time. (3) The second condition is that the application for the extension— (a) explains why the extension is sought, and (b) is made within 13 months of the notification of the original decision or of the date the original decision was made if not notified because of section 23(3) . (4) The third condition is that the Commissioners are satisfied that due to special circumstances it was not practicable for the application for a review to have been made within the time limit specified in section 21A(1)(a). (5) The fourth condition is that the Commissioners are satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension. (6) In determining whether it is reasonable to grant an extension, the Commissioners must have regard to the principle that the greater the amount of time that has elapsed between the end of the time limit specified in section 21A(1)(a) and the date of the application, the more compelling should be the special circumstances on which the application is based. (7) An application to extend the time limit specified in section 21A(1)(a) which has been refused may not be renewed." NB: This does not say anything about HMRC making an error. It just alludes if there is good cause: s. 21B, Tax Credit Act 2002 (subject to upcoming amendments by the Welfare Reform Act 2012).

Well, the overpayment is owed by you, but if your partner were to help you pay it back that would be fine. What do you mean by 'joint claim?' Did you have previous claim for tax credits with both your names on the application form? They could take a certain amount out of your, and your partner's potentially, wages. This is assuming you are forced to pay back the overpayments. You could ask HMRC to review their decision; ask for a review even if the HMRC review of that decision is made within 13 months: Section 21B, Tax Credit Act 2002. Debt Relief Order £8,000 is lot of money to them. Since you rent they can't take a property that you don't own. Have you considered a Debt Relief Order? Debts below 20k, so 8k qualifies. Will relieve you of this £8k debt. Must have no more than £50 per month (after taxes, normal spending, taxes, national insurance etc). Only costs £90. Application to Official Receiver (Gov. Official) but need to go through 'assured agency' including Citizens Advice. No court order needed. Bankruptcy Have you considered making yourself bankrupt: https://www.gov.uk/bankruptcy/overview You could do it through court petition, there will be costs involved (£700). Ask some advice on this forum. If you are made bankrupt, it will relieve you of this £8k debt. There will be restrictions with credit such as getting loans or credit cards. Am not a bankruptcy expert so I do not know if this is feasible for you or HMRC. It's a more expensive route and I think the Debt Relief Order is possibly better for you. I am just saying that you have options if the HMRC make life awkward for you. NB: I am not a qualified lawyer - it's just my opinion to try and help you.

A qualification to me is merely a piece of paper - any degree is piece of paper and in fact pertains to the formality of the certificate To do an essay on public law, criminal law, land law Equity Trust, EU law, Commercial Tractions, Tort....just one essay in fact requires thorough research. I studied sociology and psychology but as hard as they were, compared to the standards for law, were like child's play. The law degree is demoted in the modern world in terms of credential inflation in England/ the UK. However, the law degree in the USA is not only a premium subject it is post graduate subject. The English law degree is broad equivalency to the US equivalent. We sit a 3 hour exam notwithstanding demanding course work per LLB module. We do not do soft dissertations for LLB modules. So, I do not care if someone has gone beyond the academic stages of the law degree and has gone to practice stage. Those person cannot practice unless they have the foundation knowledge, and it's that knowledge of substantive law that is more important or at least it ought to be in any qualified lawyer's life. In the UK now, any degree has the same value - as Marx would say, now universities set the scene and dictate the grade type whereas the employers take on the acting role by listening to the universities and putting those demands on the graduates even though many employers have never been to university.

What is it with you people? Are you not bright enough to think for yourselves, or think that a law degree is too difficult to do? It's like everything I say has the gestapo on my back. What have I done wrong? Are you guys any more qualified than I to discuss the things that I have? This is starting to feel like harassment now owing to controlling personalities who have propensity to be clique-like.

Yes let HMRC know the situation asap. Tell them you are not able to pay if you're not able to pay. Do you own your own home, ie via a mortgage, or do you rent the home you live from landlord or council etc? Are you or partner employed?

I have studied all the law degree subjects relevant to the qualifying law degree, whereas many who have done law conversion courses have not. This qualifies me at the least to have an opinion in matters pertaining to law.

Some are doctors, teaching assistants, factory workers...and?

The state already has the right to use surveillance, hmm first they tried to pass the Identity Card Bill which we rightfully rejected, now they try to pass other equally outrageous legislation on us. What happened to that good ole 'legitimate aim' and 'principle of proportionality' before the state qualified to interrupt out human rights. Oh, yes that's right the Tories also plan to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights that will just keep us useless eaters pacified ..until we read that law and wonder what the heck we did. Look at the US Constitution - it is substantive....has been operable for about a 100 years.

Well if the Tories get their way, they'll be no more Lords to scrutinise primary/ secondary legislation. The Tories have more numbers in the Lords too...

Communism essentially just means share. However since Darwin's Origin of the Species different societies received different values. At one time you needed GCSEs now you need a degree (credential inflation). The 'A' grade GCSE now is the old C+ grade (grade inflation). The problem with capitalism is that the upper classes decide who are the future factory workers on minimum wage, who are the architects, the doctors, the lawyers. 'Come to us and get an education, you will change your life, the same rhetoric used today was used many years ago when the politicians said to the famers 'come, let us educate you in our schools where your sons will be educated and will help you run your small family business farms. Then Parliament passed the Education Act 1859 (I believe's the date) The politicians use 'rights' to do this or that when they want to change one economy to another. Now we have the information economy as the industry economy has long gone. They say 'we have climate' change.. because they want a green economy. The thing, we fall for it hook, line and everything else, every time

Communism whilst a brilliant and benevolent idea cannot really work in practice, so Marx ideas nowadays are just very inconsequential. Marx caused a lot of suffering to those who subscribed to this middle class person's ideologies: Communist Manifesto, insofar as the poor working class (the pro letariat) became violent and lost their liberty in prisons. In terms of economics and the modern life and therein its quality, Communism would be like going back decades, such at Cuba's 1950s cars for example. Notwithstanding these things, people are too socialised in the normal life wherein the capitalists are too enmeshed in their normality to consider any anti Western capitalism ideologies. However, life is better for many under capitalism in the developed world anyway, but not so great for developing nations. As Macpherson said, first comes capitalism then comes liberalism..in that ideas of individuals' rights only come into play if there are first markets which create choice. How could capitalism ever work in 2015?

Hello, Jay "..forgot to change the claim and had a letter from concentrix telling me that the are investigating me.." HMRC has the power to call off Concentrix (they're debt collectors, right)? It sounds to me as though it's just an overpayment problem. How much tax credits (in £s) have you claimed between April 2015 and 16 November 2015 (today's date)? This is the applicable period of overpayment. You have not stolen, if anything you just continued receiving unknowingly. Try not to think of it being a crime. Do you have any type of disability which impairs your memory, do you have any anxiety problem or any other nervous disorders, if you do, you may be able to say you were significantly affected by these things which made me forgetful, potentially. Are there any other type of affecting issues that you, your household have that may help your situation? They may just try to claim back any over-payments especially if it was just something you never realised. You could however also say that you should not have to pay it back too by appealing the decision: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/benefits-introduction/problems-with-benefits-and-tax-credits/challenging-a-tax-credit-decision/appealing-against-a-tax-credit-decision/

Andy, are you aware of any legal authority where a debt can be assigned/ transferred for pence in the £? I am not aware of any such legal authority for this. In normal law of contract its origins are mainly founded in common law/ case law ratio principles (binding precedent), albeit even though common law is volatile as ever as it could hardly be said to be consistent. I do not know how said assignments are legal, and even if such transactions are legal, it is grossly immoral in the new season of democracy.

Don't put the cart before the horse, before you spend money on a solicitor. Contact the Receiver and find out what is going on. Then when you have a better idea, maybe we can help you more. It is very difficult to research legal issues if we do not have sufficient legal information to narrow down to some feasible answers. Alternatively, look online. This is a forum, ie a platform where consumer issues/ law is discussed. So, look for Law Forum types online. Use these key words in an internet search to narrow down the results/ pages. Then when you better understand you could also come back and we will help you. Please try not to worry, I can only imagine just how stressful this is for you as a very sick elderly gentleman. I really hope you have good family/ friends around to help you during this time. Please take care.