Yes. I'm not a "lawyer" except insofar as I have two law degrees from 40 years ago! Never used the qualifications professionally though. I too am sure it is standard "boiler-plate" wording, but my lay-man's interpretation is that "...not otherwise disposed of in the preceding clauses 3 and 4 of this my Will..." would have been clearer and not open to any doubt.

Yeah - I'd forgotten your post mentioning the CCG. I agree that going to the GPs again should be the quickest way of dealing with this, but it would seem that sopiaa's relative is on the list of a somewhat difficult and intransigent practice, but without being physically able to witness the exchanges between them I can't say for sure. I agree with you about the other poster's "advice"!!! A quick way of getting nowhere and/or getting kicked off the list! There is no point in making anything resembling a complaint until you've gathered enough information to identify the substance of the complaint or, indeed, to identify whether there are grounds for a complaint at all. I think sophiaa is still at the information gathering stage. sophiaa - when you contact the CCG be prepared to have to explain the problem to more than one person. It's not unreasonable for the first (or second or third...) person you speak to not to be in a position to give a definite answer, but somebody must be able to do so. Also, if English not your first language (apologies if this assumption is wrong!) then I think you can legitimately use this to reinforce your confusion and puzzlement over why patient choice is not working how you think it should. Play it as you not understanding the system and being grateful for somebody to explain it to you.

Sorry to butt in - I'm not a lawyer (so this contribution may be worthless!) but am interested in wills at the moment. I'm assuming that the will was drawn up by a solicitor and that the clauses used are standard ones, but is there not a lack of clarity in clauses 5 and 6? What I'm thinking about is clause 5 refers to personal effects "...not otherwise disposed of by this my Will..." Could it be argued that the effects referred to in 5 are "...otherwise disposed of..." in clause 6? I'm assuming that I must be wrong as the wording must be standard, but I don't see the purpose of that phrasing in clause 5 and why it should be necessary. To my simple understanding the will is clearer without that wording(?). No doubt I'm wrong and probably wasting everybody's time!

Hi sophiaa Don't think I can add much to my advice in #33. First, I think you need to get a GP appointment to discuss this, preferably with the original referring GP. Try to get that sorted now even if it's a couple of weeks away. Try to impress on the reception staff that for you and your relative it's important to you although not (necessarily) a medical emergency. (I'm assuming it isn't). As honeybee advised in an earlier post, keep any conversations calm and non-confrontational. I appreciate that timing may be an issue for you, so try to arrange an appointment ASAP. Alternatively, try again to get an appointment with the practice manager. Second, I'm not familiar with how secondary referrals (ie to a hospital specialist) work in your area. In mine, I'd expect either to get a 'phone call from the hospital to arrange an appointment, or get a letter from them with an appointment together with instructions on how to change the appointment. This would be to contact an appointments secretary/clerk. I would try contacting this person or the medical secretary of the specialist whom the appointment is with and try asking them about the appointment and why/who cancelled it. If this information is not immediately obvious, I'd ring the hospital's main switchboard number and ask to speak to whomever deals with appointments for whatever specialty it is. Third, find out who your local Care Commissioning Group is, 'phone them and ask to speak to somebody about how choose and book/patient choice works in their area, and explain to them what the problem is (or what the problem appears to be). Again keep it calm and non-confrontational and emphasise your confusion/puzzlement. I'd also make it clear that you aren't making a complaint at this stage - just seeking information and advice about why the system doesn't seem to be working as you understand it should be. You need to try all avenues available to you before making any kind of complaint. You can complain later if necessary. I don't think it matters what order you do the second and third steps in. In fact I'd do all three together unless you can get a really quick GP appointment. Like honeybee, I appreciate that you'd like to keep a paper trail, but I agree with him/her that it would be better to speak to someone on the 'phone initially (you should get it sorted quicker in my experience) and then follow it up with a confirmatory email exchange. That's all I can suggest I'm afraid. I also understand that it's easy for me to post the above (my NHS role involved a lot of sorting out problems when things had gone wrong and trying to improve systems) but that it may be confusing and stressful for you to do. Good luck! (PS - I think contacting your CCG may get you an answer to your issue quicker than anything else. If you can't find their contact details on the web, I'm sure someone here could identify them for you if you are happy to tell us where you live - of course you may not want to do so.)

Apologies for quoting my own post but I seem to be too late to edit it. The bit highlighted in red: this refers to a first OP appointment so not very clear to me what "...already receiving care and treatment..." actually means. It can't mean from a previous OP appointment because it only applies to first OP appointment (or can it mean a previous OP appointment?). So does it refer to "care and treatment" from your GP? If "Yes" then the patient will almost never be entitled to choose OP services because they will already have received "treatment" (in its broadest meaning) from the referring GP. Also, I've tried the "service-search" link for my area and it's not clear to me whether it is up to date and accurate. The whole thing seems a bit of a mess to me but it presumably works for most people trying it. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Sophiaa - apologies if I've only muddied the waters further! See what think about it says.

OK - I've just searched for my own CCG and it's not as easy as I thought! Looking at patient choice you do not appear to be eligible if: "Are these legal rights? Yes but there are circumstances in which you may not choose. These are set out below. When am I not able to make a choice? You do not have legal rights to choose if you are already receiving care and treatment for the condition for which you are being referred..." This refers to outpatient appointments and can be found in the NHS Choice Framework here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-choice-framework/the-nhs-choice-framework-what-choices-are-available-to-me-in-the-nhs#section-3 Could this apply to your relative? Also might be worth searching for health condition and postcode to see if your preferred hospital works with the NHS. https://www.nhs.uk/service-search Hope I've not made this more complicated and apologies if you've already done all of this. See what think about it says.

If I recall correctly, think about it has experience of practice management so I'd be inclined to follow their advice. I also worked as an NHS manager for over 25 years (so am well aware of what can go wrong!) but don't have any experience of choose and book. I suspect that what think about it says regarding limitations/exclusions on your freedom through choose and book is correct and that it may not be available at the moment at the hospital of your choice. Or it may be that you are not asking the right questions of the right people. If I were in your shoes I would consider the following if I wanted to try to get to the bottom of this: 1. on the original appointment letter from the NHS hospital you don't want (I'm assuming you have such a letter - that is how it would work here) there ought to be a 'phone number for the medical secretary (or appointments secretary) of the specialist your relative has (or had) an appointment with. Ring them and ask them if they have a record of the appointment and who (if anybody) has cancelled it. 2. I'd try to get an appointment with the GP who did the original referral and ask them to explain what is happening and why choose and book is not available (I appreciate that may be difficult to do in terms of timelines etc. so it may be worthwhile just trying to see any GP at the practice). 3. You could also try contacting your local Care Commissioning Group and ask to speak to somebody there about choose and book and ask them if they are aware of any limitations that would apply in your relative's case. You ought to be able to get details off the internet or there may be a link or contact details on the practice website. Again don't say anything about making a complaint, simply explain that you don't understand why choose and book does not appear to be an option in this case. 4. Follow think about it's advice in their last paragraph. Before doing any of the above I would wait to see if think about it has any advice on my suggestions above. They may think I am giving the wrong advice. For what it's worth, I've never understood how choose and book was meant to work within a national health service. I've always seen it as a political gimmick. I worked in the NHS for over 25 years and I would not necessarily know how to decide where the best place to go is, or who the best person to see is. My local NHS acute hospital is in special measures and I've had to use their services a lot over the past few years (I spent a week as an in-patient in February) and I've never had any complaints about the service they provide. Sometimes a bad reputation is just bad luck. Out of interest, is your relative waiting for an outpatient appointment or what exactly? Appreciate if you don't want to reveal this information.

I think that's fine. As think about it says, get it sent off and the sooner you'll get an answer. Let us know what sort of reply you get. Out of interest, how did you get to speak to the preferred hospital to find out they would accept your relative as a referral?

I am reluctant to get involved further with this, but here goes: Q: What does the OP want? A: To sell his car losing only whatever value he's had out of it since "buying" it. Problem: There appears to be a HPI mileage discrepancy marker against it, which greatly reduces its value and saleability. In the OP's shoes, the first thing I would do after being made aware of the recorded MOT mileages is to compare them against the car's service history mileages. This will confirm either that there is a real discrepancy or that there was an input error when recording the mileage for the 2015 MOT. (Or get Jag to check their central service records or get mileage on the ECU checked). If the service history indicates that the mileage recorded for the 2015 MOT was a typo, I would use this evidence to get the HPI flag cleared myself. It may be the dealer's or finance company's responsibility to do so, but I wouldn't trust them if I thought I could do it myself. I would at least be asking what I can do to clear the marker. Whether the OP can reject the car, or whether they've bought it or hired it, or whether they can VT it, is a moot point until it's established that there really is a mileage discrepancy and the car was not as described. I'm not convinced that an honest typo (if that's what it was) on a 2015 MOT amounts to a defect entitling the OP to reject the car. BF might be of the opinion that I'm trolling here, but he or she could not be further from the truth. I'm trying to put forward an impartial point of view which I think could be of benefit to the OP while considering their position. The only "evidence" of trolling that I've seen here was BF's own comment about taking a "trade-facing" point of view which I took, perhaps mistakenly, to be aimed at me. I have no connections with the motor trade - I am simply trying to present an impartial POV. I'll leave others to discuss the "finer" points of this problem now. EDIT: On a final note, nor am I convinced that the HPI report means that the car was not as described when "bought", "hired" or whatever, IF that HPI report is itself wrong because of a typo dating back to 2015.

I agree with "think about it". If you can't get through on the 'phone (which could be said to be a problem in itself) just send a simple and straightforward letter as you have explained here. I think the wording I suggested earlier for a face to face conversation will do as well in a letter as in a conversation. If you have written authorisation from your relative to act on their behalf include a copy, otherwise get written confirmation now and include that. There's no special formula or wording you need to use, just explain your concerns in a non-confrontational way as honeybee suggested. If English is not your first language(?) say so in the letter and apologise if your wording comes across as abrupt - say it's not intentional and you are just looking for an amicable resolution. OK?

Yes - this needs to be resolved, but I think you need to try to be a little more certain about what has happened. First(?) MOT was in 2014 and for the 2015 MOT the car had covered ~ 26,000 less than had been recorded the previous year. Most relatively new cars have service intervals which indicate a service around MOT time (not sure about Jaguar). What does the service history for your Jag reveal about mileage covered in 2014/15? Does it reflect the mileage recorded for the two MOTs? Also have you tried contacting Jaguar to see what they say about the mileage from service records / ecu output? When you say it was sold as clear, what did the finance company actually tell you?

I'm not entirely sure what your understanding is so firmly based on and I do not understand how you can be absolutely sure that your view is correct and that there is a defect in the vehicle. Let's say the OP bought the Jag with 80,000 on the clock and it was advertised as such. If in fact it had covered 106,000 then I would agree with you that there is a problem with this sale. Now it actually appears that some discrepancy has been uncovered in the mileage recorded in 2015 which appears to indicate the car was clocked by 26,000 miles between MOTs. The point I'm trying to make (and to be honest I'm surprised that you are not completely sure what it is) is that if the discrepancy in 2015 is due to a typo or some other clerical error, and the 80,000 miles (or whatever it is) is in fact correct, then there can be no defect because the OP has bought exactly the car that was advertised and that he thought he was buying. I don't see how a clerical error in 2015 can possibly amount to a defect now that entitles the OP to reject the car. And the OP could not have been misled by this error because they never checked it themselves before purchase. I agree that the OP needs to get this bottomed out with HPI - that is, has it actually been clocked or is it simply a clerical error in 2014? As has already been posted, the OP should be able to sort this out definitively by checking the service interval mileages on the service history or by asking Jaguar to confirm it. Also, I'd be grateful if you could explain the reference to "...a trade-facing view."?

Just to clarify, if there was a MOT mileage typo in 2015, then I don't see how there can be any remedy now against the finance company or dealer if the recorded total mileage on the car was correct when sold to the OP. If the wrong paperwork referred to by BF in #68 is the HPI/TotalCarCheck report, what remedy does the OP have against them - there is no relationship between them? Also, IIRC, HPI specifically excludes liability re cloned cars amongst other things. I would not be surprised if they also exclude errors caused by misleading or erroneous source material for the same reason. How can they verify a mileage figure taken from a government website and originating from a MOT tester four years ago? If it is a typo the OP doesn't need a remedy against the finance co. or the dealer because the car will be exactly as advertised (with respect to mileage). Yes - the OP needs to get HPI (or is it DVLA - they are mentioned in respect of errors on the govt. MOT website?) to correct the MOT mileage. Now I'm not sure if the dealer or finance company can or should help the OP with this. That's why if I were in the OP's shoes I'd be checking the service history mileages and/or contacting Jaguar myself in order to get this sorted ASAP. But I may be wrong and the car may be clocked and the OP get his money back. I try never to be 100% sure of anything.

We've cross-posted dx100. I'm not saying there has been a clerical error here - simply that it's just as likely (if not more likely) than that the car has been clocked. 56k mistyped as 23k is certainly a feasible explanation. I'm not sure BankFodder will shift from the certainty of there being a defect though... Needs a diagnostic run or examination of service history to bottom this out. EDIT: I'd be surprised if somebody with the knowledge and wherewithal to clock an electronic (I assume!) odometer would be thick enough to record negative annual mileage between MOTs...

If the mileage is correct, what paperwork is wrong and whose paperwork is it? If the mileage is correct and as described by the vendor, how can there possibly be a defect and a remedy against the vendor? If there's been a clerical error it's probably been committed by whomever did the MOT in 2015. Does the OP sue them? Please note my use of "if" in this and other posts - I'm trying not to make assumptions, just pointing out that there could be an innocent explanation other than that the car has been clocked. And that it may be helpful for the OP to at least be made aware of this (probably unlikely) possibility. BF - I am surprised that you can be 100% certain that there must be a defect.

I think you may be begging the question. You are assuming as a fact that the mileage is wrong. You don't know that, the OP doesn't know it and none of the rest of us do. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the discrepancy is down to a clerical error in recording the mileage at the 2015 MOT. If, and I emphasise "if", this is the case, and the mileage was actually correct when the OP bought the car, then there can be no defect and the OP would have no remedy as he bought the car that was described. Please note I am not saying that this is what has happened - just that it's possible. I feel the OP is being led to believe that there is only one possible outcome here - a successful one for them - whereas I would be more cautious. By all means attempt to reject the car, but it may not be a foregone conclusion. FWIW I think it's a very bad analogy. Again you assume as a fact that the mileage is wrong. I would not make that assumption. If I were OP I'd be wanting a Jag dealer to confirm the mileage from the ECU (I believe this can be done) and/or check recorded mileages from the service history. (Does the OP have a full service history? Mileage ought to be evident there).

The OP has already shown the mileage figures in a PDF in an earlier post - the report from TotalCarCheck. This also shows the vehicle's reg number and the full MOT history can be checked online from that. (Probably should have been checked before buying the car...) I'm still interested in what report the finance co. got. I have looked at the 2014 and 2015 mileages and it's not obvious to me that a transposition error has occurred, but it could be some other kind of input error. I'm not saying it was an input error - just that nobody here knows whether it is or not.

BF - I'm not disagreeing with you that it is prudent, given the timescale, for the OP to try to reject the car now so as to keep all his irons in the fire. However, I'm not sure the outcome is necessarily as clear cut as you think. At the moment the OP doesn't know if he's bought a car with a defect or not. All he knows is that a car check has flagged up a mileage discrepancy on the 2015 MOT. This may or may not have an innocent explanation (eg clerical error recording mileage or Jaguar have reset the odometer for some reason - I believe this is possible and legitimate*) and it may or may not be a reason to reject the car. This is why I think the reason for the discrepancy is relevant. If it's just a typo on the MOT record then there is no "defect" and the car appears to be as described. I note on the govt. MOT check website it is possible to see where a particular MOT was carried out, but you need the V5C number to be able to access this. I agree with you that the OP shouldn't be trying to rectify this with HPI himself, but I do think forewarned is forearmed and I would be wanting to prepare myself for any possible response from the finance company/ dealer. As Buyer Beware pointed out, the mileage discrepancy seems to have occurred during one person's ownership. Seems odd (but not impossible) that this would be deliberate as it would stick out like a sore thumb. I also note that according to the TotalCarCheck posted by the OP, the car's price at a dealers would be ~ £21k not £18k. OP - did you see a written report when you bought the car? Do you know who the finance company used to do the check, if they did - although I presume it is in their best interests to ensure the car is "legit". * Although this may be possible and legitimate I'm not sure how it would be recorded. Presumably on the car's service history? I think Buyer Beware also suggested that the ECU can be interrogated to confirm actual mileage?

I'm inclined to agree. I'd want to get to the bottom of the mileage issue (the MOT history should tell a story) before rejecting the car. I don't see how a clerical error (if that is what it is) can amount to a defect. Unfortunately the OP seems to be running out of time and needs to act quickly. For the benefit of other posters, you only need a car's registration number to view MOT history. Mileage discrepancies (or at least some of them) should show up there. (I would always check MOT history before buying a used car). 26,000 does seem a very significant error though, not to have been picked up before (eg by the last vendor).

As honeybee has said, at this stage you are NOT making a complaint. Just ask to speak to the Practice Manager and seek an explanation as to why your relative has not been referred to the hospital of their choice. By acting "bemused" I mean saying something like "GP so and so agreed to refer my relative to such and such a hospital, but when the referral letter came through we were puzzled to see that it was for another hospital not the one my relative wanted. I'm sure it's just some easily explained clerical error or mistake and I'm sure it will be very easy for you to put right for us. Can you do that please?" That's it. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in making a written complaint before you've tried to resolve it informally. EDIT: I fully agree with honeybee's last post

yogi - I would certainly be following BankFodder's advice at this moment, but I'm also interested in the points I think Buyer-Beware and johnjordan are hinting at. What does the MOT history of the car show in terms of mileage (in particular the last one before you bought it)? Looking at that history, is it feasible that it's been a simple mileage typo in the past? You state a discrepancy of "26,000" miles but I'm assuming you've rounded this figure. Is the actual figure divisible by nine? I ask this because a difference divisible by nine can be an indication of a transposition error. (eg 64,000 recorded as 46,000 = difference of 18,000 = 9 * 2,000). Of course, if this has happened (and it's not unknown) the MOT mileage history would be all over the place and I would have expected it to have been spotted before now. I would follow BankFodder's advice but I'd also check the MOT mileage history to see what the figures tell me. (In the case of a 26k discrepancy I would have expected - depending on previous usage - either a suspiciously low annual mileage or even negative mileage!). But I'm no expert, so stick with BankFodder...

Like ericsbrother I think you may have a problem with the streetlights which probably indicate a restricted road with a limit of 30 mph - no signs (except for the lights themselves) necessary. How far apart are the lights?

Sorry - I'm confused. What do you mean by "...did not offer any choice at all when she sent the appointment letter..."? The GP decides where to refer the patient to, and the secretarial staff follow the GP's instructions and arrange the paperwork for the referral. Do you mean that the practice wrote to the patient confirming the referral (to the wrong hospital)? It's just that whenever I've been referred to secondary services I've only received an appointment letter from the hospital and nothing from my GP (or their staff). Also, I find it strange that you were advised to ring (the wrong hospital!) yourself to change the appointment to the hospital you wanted - this makes no sense at all. Are you sure this is what has happened? Because if it is, you need to contact the practice manager PDQ because there is something very seriously amiss here. God knows what else this secretary/receptionist is doing and telling other patients. When speaking to the practice manager I would not be approaching this as a "complaint". Just recount the facts as you've stated them here. I would also act a little "bemused" as to why your relative has not been referred to the hospital of their choice, which you understand to be their right under patient choice. Approach it as if you think a simple mistake has been made and you just want it rectified. You could also "innocently" ask why the secretary doesn't seem to have followed what was agreed with the GP. Depending what response you get you may want to take it further.

Where your relative gets referred to has got nothing to do with the receptionist. Is it possible you have misunderstood what they have said and that it is the GP who has NOT referred to the private hospital? Ask to speak to the Practice Manager and ask him/her for an explanation. If that gets you nowhere you'll have to go back to the GP for an explanation.

Receptionists and medical secretaries don't have the power to determine where patients are referred to - only the GP. As ericsbrother has suggested there may be many good reasons why a referral has not been made to the private hospital. One may be that it is not appropriate to refer your relative there because they don't have the facilities/expertise. (Private hospitals can be surprisingly limited in what they can offer outside of relatively routine treatments. There may(?) also be funding issues - I'm not sure how NHS referrals to private hospitals work within patient choice). The only way to resolve this is for your relative to discuss it with the (or a) GP in question. The relative will need to do this themself unless they've given you written authorisation to discuss it on their behalf (I don't think a power of attorney is necessary but I may be mistaken). Can they get a 'phone consultation? Nothing to prevent you being present for that or for a face to face consultation. PS - if your relative has a FtF consultation but you can't be present, get them to ask the doctor to write down what the problem is - assuming there is a problem.