Jump to content

Manxman in exile

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Manxman in exile

  1. Yes. To clarify my earlier post: where a testator leaves a gift to a child or remoter descendant, then if that beneficiary pre-deceases the testator the gift does not fail, but goes to any surviving issue of the deceased benficiary - unless the will specifically states otherwise. Wills Act 1837 (legislation.gov.uk) So in the OP's case I don't think she will benefit if her husband dies before her MiL, but his children and grandchildren etc will - if he has any. People really need paid for legal advice from a solicitor (not a will writing firm) unless their wishes are unbelieveably simple. And most people's are not. The problem the OP has is that this is not her (or her husband's) will...
  2. I've never heard of JAJA. I presume they're a bank - although perhaps not what I would term a "proper" bank. Just to check - what you paid with was definitely a credit card and not a debit card or a charge card? I suspect the problem might be that they don't know their "JAJA" from their elbow. As far as I'm aware, what they said about "JAJA have advised [us] that for them (JAJA) to have a valid claim we must provide a written expert report at our cost" is meaningless. If you are making a s75 claim you are claiming against JAJA - whether they (JAJA) have a claim against the contrcator is irrelevant. So long as you have a claim against the trader you have a claim against JAJA. It's up to JAJA whether they accept the evidence you've already provided. They don't have to prove to anybody that JAJA have a claim Are you certain that they understand you are making a s75 claim and not a chargeback? I suspect you may end up having to sue them and your contractor jointly - if you are confident that the evidence you have already provided to them supports your claim and if you think it's worth it. (Sounds like it probably is worth it - but up to you). See what @BankFodder advises. They're good at this sort of problem.
  3. I've no doubt he will know - or will suspect - that someone has spoken with the police. But that doesn't mean he'll find out who. Best of luck
  4. @snowdragon - I don't think anybody is criticising either you or your friend. I think everybody feels sorry for you both. It's a pity you got a couple of replies suggesting the police cannot be trusted. I'm sure that isn't everybody's experience. I suspect that @dx100uk is right and that this bloke doesn't know anything and is just guessing. I don't want to know any of the details but is it possible for your friend to contact the police and impress upon them the importance that any information given by your friend about this person does not get back to him? @honeybee13 suggested earlier that your friend could speak to a police family liaison worker or ask a social worker to act as intermediary? Apart from thinking along thoes lines I have no idea what else to suggest.
  5. I might be mistaken but I presume the OP would have said if the wording of the will took account of the scenario where her husband predeceased the testator? @dillon21 - without knowing the exact circumstances and wording of the will nobody here can really help you. I would suggest that if your MiL's will simply leaves a bequest to your husband and does not spell out what will happen if he pre-deceases her, then you cannot assume that you will get anything as his widow. However, if he has any living children or other issue surviving both him and your MiL, they will probably inherit. I presume your MiL is still alive? I would suggest that she gets proper paid for legal advice from a solicitor to make sure that her will puts her actual wishes into effect after she dies. (My wife is a local authority solicitor and we have three law degrees between us. When we got married we did our own wills because our wishes were really simple and we thought we knew what we were doing. A couple of years later we realised that we had made a complete pig's ear of them. We paid a solicitor in private practice to do them properly)
  6. So has what your friend feared might happen actually happened? (ie it's got back to the person that she was asked about?)
  7. I suspect that might be like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube...
  8. It would be OK if the OP was talking about children or grandchildren of the intended beneficiary - they would inherit if the intended beneficiary pre-deceased the testator (s33 Wills Act). But I don't know that the same appiles to the widow/widower. I'd have thought it didn't apply...
  9. Without knowing the details (which I don't want to know) if your friend really wants to make an official complaint she needs to follow these steps: Independent Office for Police Conduct (They used to be the Independent Police Complaints Commission) I've not had occasion to look at it for some time, but I seem to recall that even if you complain direct to the IOPC they will first refer it to the force you are complaining about. Simply read and follow whatever they say. Despite what Homer says I would encourage you (or your friend) to make a complaint if you consdider the matter serious enough to do so. If people doen't complain nothing will get fixed. If they do complain there is a possibility that it might. Personally I would always also copy any police complaint into the local Police and Crime Commissioner from the outset. Good luck
  10. So if an intended beneficiary pre-deceases the testator, the gift doesn't lapse, but goes to the intended beneficiary's widow (or widower)?
  11. In relation to contracts for the sale of goods the Consumer Rights Act provides that if those goods fail to conform to contract within the first 6 months there is a presumption that they did not conform on the date of sale, unless the seller can establish otherwise. Thus in the case of goods that don't conform to contrcat in the first 6 months the onus is on the supplier of those goods to establish that they did conform when sold. But so far as I am aware there is no corresponding provision in relation to a contract for the provision of a service. So insofar as your claim relates to the provision of a service (ie installing the lawn) your card provider is presumably saying that the onus is on you to establish that your contractor did not provide that service in accordance with the contract. * (NB - generally the law requires the party making a claim to prove it. The way contracts for the sale of goods are dealt with in the Consumer Rights Act is a specific exception to that general rule) So you might be able to argue that because the materials actually supplied by your contractor were not as specified in the contract, then the supplier is in breach of contrcat with respect to the materials used (or not used). But whether that is also evidence that they did not provide the service as specified, I don't know. I suspect it is, but I can't tell you with any certainty that it is. As I said previously, I'd be more confident of my response if this was solely a contract for goods - but it isn't. It might be that others such as @BankFodder or @dx100uk can give you a more helpful answer. Can I ask, are you dealing with a "proper" bank here? eg HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds or Santander? *As I posted previously I don't know why your card provider will not accept the report you already have as evidence. Have you asked them why it isn't good enough for them and what would satisfy them? Are you clear what they are asking for and why?
  12. Just for clarity - you say "... but had been advised by a solicitor..." rather than "... was advised by a solicitor..." To me "had been" means that you had already been advised to ask for evidence before the FPN letter arrived. But "was" means you were advised after the FPN letter arrived. If you were advised "after" you received the FPN letter I'd certainly be complaining to the solicitor and I'd also want a refund. I think I'd want them to pay the excess of the fine over the FPN too! And complain to the SRA...
  13. What you have to remember is that your card provider is not your friend in a s75 claim - they aren't necessarily on "your side" in oppostion to the supplier and it isn't necessarily in their best interests to help you. Unlike a chargeback - where the refund to the consumer comes out of the supplier's own bank account - any claim paid out under s75 comes from your card provider's own funds. The legislation doesn't prevent them pursuing the supplier for reimbursement, but they often don't bother to do so. For that reason card providers (a) really don't like dealing with s75 claims and prefer to use chargeback where there is a choice between the two, and (b) they might ask for a lot more evidence before paying out a s75 than they would a chargeback claim. (Although why they won't accept what evidence you already have in this case I have no idea). Making a s75 claim against your card provider is very like suing them rather than your supplier. It's not a simple case of making a claim and sitting back waiting for the money. BTW - if your card provider won't back down and you do end up commissioning a special report, I don't think I'd be expecting them to pay for it if it doesn't show a breach of contract. Why should they? If the report shows no breach of contract I'd have thought there was no claim against them for anything. (Or at best there would be two independent reports saying two different things plus an apparent admission from the supplier. You'd have to argue the point with your card provider). If you have to get a report done I'd have thought you pay for it initially and claim the cost back from the card provider if it shows a breach of contrcat. If it doesn't show a breach it's your loss... To decide whether to risk £750 on a report depends on (i) how much money is at stake overall and (ii) how strong you think your case is. If you don't get satisfaction from your card provider on the s75 claim but you still think you have a case your only options then would be to sue the supplier and your card provider jointly.
  14. Also, while it may be prudent to notify the insurer, is it strictly necessary to do so? I might be wrong but I thought the current legal position was that while you had to honestly and truthfully answer any questions that your insurer asks you when taking out the policy, that it wasn't necessary to volunteer information that was not asked for. As I say, I might be wrong, but the OP's son might want to check their policy documentation to confirm what questions they were asked and what answers they gave. And check their T&Cs to see what - if any - requirements there may be about notifying the insurer about new infor that comes too light.
  15. Sorry but I'm confused. Are you saying that you have paid 50% of the total contract value on your credit card, but you are refusing to pay the remaining 50% because of the issues that you've raised with the contractor but that they've ignored? And you're anticipating that the contractor might claim against you for the outstanding 50%, but they haven't done so yet? And your s75 claim is in respect of the 50% you've already paid? And that 50% is all you've paid the contractor so far? Is that an accurate summary to date? So is what has happened something like this: 1. You agree with a contractor that they will install an artificial lawn for you at an agreed value of - let's say - £4000. 2. You pay £2000 on your credit card and the lawn is installed 3. You discover that the lawn has not been installed as per the agreed contract specification and decide not to pay the outstanding balance 4. The lawn that has been installed is unacceptable to you for the £2000 you have already paid. 5. You raise a s75 claim with your card provider to get a refund of the £2000 you've already paid. Is that where you are now? What are you wanting from your card provider? Are you simply looking for a refund of what you've already paid or are you wanting the lawn ripped up and re-installed properly? In a contract for the sale of goods, if the goods are found not to conform to contract within the first 6 months, then they must be taken not to have conformed on the day of purchase, unless the supplier (or your card provider) can establish otherwise'. See s19(14) & (15) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) In respect of contracts for the provision of a service, I don't think there is a "6 months rule" corresponding to that for contracts for the sale of goods. So there is no legal presumption that the service has not been carried out in accordance with the contract, and you will need to demonstrate to your card provider that the contractor is in breach. Because I think this contract might be considered more of a contract for the provision of a service (the installation of a lawn) than for the sale of the materials, your card provider might be well within their rights to request evidence from you showing that the contractor is in breach of contract. But why your card provider won't accept as evidence the report you already have, I don't know. You need to ask them why a further report is required. If they persuade you that a further report is required, I'd suggest that who pays for it depends on what the report shows. If it shows the contractor has breached the contract then your card provider should pay. If it doesn't show a breach of contract I suppose you should pay for it... The above is just my view as a non-lawyer and isn't legal advice. I'd be a bit more confident if you could make it clearer exactly what your s75 claim is based on and what remedy you want. I'd also be more confident about what I was saying if this was just a contract for the sale of goods rather than for a service.
  16. And what remedy are you looking for? A refund? The job doing properly?
  17. Did they? Are they definitely doing a s75 claim and not a chargeback?
  18. @rizel23 - can you confirm whether this contract is for the supply of goods or for the supply of a service (or a combination of the two)? If the contract is for the supply of goods then any "faults"* that materialise within 6 months of being delivered to you are presumed to have been present at that time, unless the seller can establish otherwise (on the balance of probability). See s19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk). In which case it's not your responsibility to prove that the goods were "faulty"* when you bought them, it's up to the seller (or your credit card provider) to prove they weren't But if it's in relation to the supply of a service, then a corresponding "within 6 months" provision doesn't seem to be built into the legislation - see Chapter 4 of the Act linked to above - so I don't think it would apply, but I'm not 100% sure. If it doesn't apply the bank might be right that you have to provide evidence that the service wasn't performed according to contrcat. s75 of the Consumer Credit Act basically says that if you have a claim against a supplier in respect of misrepresenation or breach of contract and you paid with a credit card, then the credit card provider is jointly and severally liable with the supplier. This means if you have a claim against the supplier then you have an identical claim against your credit card provider. If a supplier breaches any of their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, they are in breach of contract. s75 doesn't apply to debit cards. * Note: When I use the terms "fault" or "faulty" in relation to goods I'm using them as shorthand for "do not conform to contract". This could mean for example that the goods you received were not as specified in the contract or were missing entirely.
  19. This ^^^^^^^^. If your friend isn't in a union - or doesn't have easy access to a union rep - then first port of call should always be to ask payroll for an explanation
  20. I'm not entirely sure what the OP is claiming has happened, but I presume it would be something along these lines. 1. The OP suffers from diabetes 2. Diabetes is recognised as a disability 3. The OP was parked in a car park. 4. The OP (I presume) suffered some sort of hypoglycemic episode while in the car park which temporarily incapacitated them to the extent that they overstayed and got a parking charge. (OP - I don't think this is an example of "automatism" in law) 5. The OP notified the PPC of her disability in the expectation that - as the overstay was a direct result of her disability and outside of her control - that the PPC would cancel the charge, or at least consider cancelling it, but they did not. [Edit: Thiswould have been the reasonable adjustment - cancelling the charge] 6. The OP believes she has been directly discriminated against as a result of her disability. Whether or not that argument would amount to a viable claim in law, I don't know, but I'm not necessarily sure it can be dismissed off-hand as "bunkum" either. Of course, if such a claim did get off the ground, the PPC might possibly argue that cancelling the charge was not a "reasonable adjustment" in all the circumstances. Assuming the OP did have a potential discrimination claim, I'm not sure that the fact(?) that the OP didn't follow the correct procedure in defending the parking claim would be relevant. Any alleged discrimination by the PPC is a separate issue from the OP having judgment against her on the parking charge.
  21. I know I said I'd watch it, but I can understand that people might not want to. Regarding BBC sycophancy the Coronation is being covered by them simultaneously on BBC1, BBC2, the red button, BBC news channel, BBC radios 3, 4, 5 and BBC local radio. Bit much?
  22. Dave - I'm no monarchist or royalist either, but despite my post #21 I'll be watching on TV. I wasn't born when Queen Elizabeth II was coronated and lots of people will have been born and died between coronations and never seen one. You don't need to support or approve of something in order to witness it or watch it, and in many ways this is such a historic event that I definitely want to observe it - if just to see how odd and anachronistic it is, and to be able to say that I did witness it. It's something these days that is uniquely British as a tradition and I think I'd regret missing it. I may not be around for the next one. In fact I suspect the next one will be relatively low key as I think the general influence of the royals over our society and culture is on the wane. None of this is a criticism of your point of view - it's just that I se it as an opportunity that shouldn't be missed while it still happens! (PS - what does hack me off about the whole royals thing is the BBC's obsequious and servile attitude towards anything royal. For such a "right on" organisation the BBC's obsession with not being able to say anything faintly critical about that aspect of the establishment is - frankly - baffling. They put the unctuous Uriah Heep to shame).
  23. But if somebody wanted to make a disability discrimination claim against somebody other than their employer (eg a shop or a public body - or a private parking company) is that still the same route?
  24. It's arse about face. Charles should be swearing allegiance TO the people of this country and those parts of the Commonwealth that aren't republics
  25. I'm of an age where I can remember that there might have been a certain amount of stigma or shame attached to being in receipt of "welfare" or "social" benefits, but I've honestly never understood the logic behind it. In my view, if you are legitimately entitled to benefits but don't claim them, you've nobody to blame but yourself - absent some very convincing reason for your failure to claim. It's fake reasoning that leads to a lot of money being wasted making benefits universal when they should be targeted on those who most need them, not on everyone.
×
×
  • Create New...