I was wondering if some kinds souls could offer some direction. My wife's father ( who has been estranged for approx. 20 years ) has passed away. She has bee informed by her Uncle that there is no will so it falls to my wife and her brother as beneficiaries. Her Uncle asked if he could be executor of the estate and gone as far as to assign a solicitor. On contact by the solicitor to see if my wife agrees to this, she said no. My wife and brother in law would like to be executor. The fear is that the Uncle will not take kindly to this and may be ...obstructive. How would be best to ensure we obtain all relevant accounts ( there are a few by all accounts) and keys to the property. We are looking to instruct a solicitor to handle but firstly want to get a ball park figure as to the estate size. Any guidance / thoughts appreciated!

Hello hopefully in the correct section and there is a Scottish expert for this soap opera I will outline the scenario and my understanding of the law. First the not too complicated part (I believe) Mrs X died without leaving a Will Mrs X is survived by Mr X (20 years separated but not divorced) and 3 Children. Mrs X owns 100% property A (that was signed over legally to her from Mr X 20 years ago.) My understanding of Prior Rights: Mr X is the widower and thus on the face of it has prior rights. However he does not live in property A, so does not "qualify" as the survivor. Therefore he has no prior rights. Then property A would become part of "the remainder of the estate" and the 3 Children inherit the house (33.33% each), as the intestate estate devolves according to legal rules. Basically "The Children" are at the top of lists to inherit, and well before the surviving spouse. So if I am correct so far then please read on. Mr X lives in property B. Property B deeds are still in joint names for Mr X & Mrs X Mr X qualifies as "the survivor" as he lives in property B. Hence under prior rights Mr X claims the house (Value below £473000 etc). Again hopefully correct and not too complex. Heres the fly in the ointment. Mr X also rents out property C to a tenant. It appears that property C deeds are also still in joint names for Mr X & Mrs X. (Mrs X would not have realised and never got half rent etc. Not worried about this part). Following the same rules/pattern it would appear that property C would also not go to Mr X under prior rights, but that 50% of property C would end up being split to the 3 children !! Can anyone tell me if this all looks correct ? There is no in family fighting going on here but rather just trying to ensure all is correct in my head before engaging legal help.

Hi, I'm afraid I have to go into a bit of slightly irrelevant history before I get to the point, so please bear with me! I own a freehold property that I bought in 2005 and currently rent out. I discovered two months after the property purchase completed, that although my property is freehold, there is a management company involved and a covenant in the Land Registry deeds. The management company refused to agree to the register of the title in my name, until I signed the covenant, so I had no option but to sign it. Around two years after I bought the house, the management company started to try and charge an annual maintenance fee, which I have disputed in full since they first contacted me, on two grounds - firstly that I signed the covenant under duress (although I am aware that is a case of 'caveat emptor' and it may be deemed that I should have been aware of what was in the deeds). The second ground is that the management company have not provided me with any tender documents or invoices for any work carried, despite repeated requests, and the management company's fees represent more than 50% of their annual expenditure. Despite the fact that I have disputed their invoices in writing on numerous occasions, they have passed the debt on to a third party, Property Debt Collection Ltd, who have disregarded, or failed to understand the nature of my dispute, and it is they who have now served the Notice in the thread title. They claim in the accompanying letter that they will commence possession proceedings if the amount remains unpaid; have added a £650 preparation fee to the outstanding sum (disproportionate for a two page Notice, surely?); and refer to an estate rentcharge, which I don't believe this is. They also state in the Notice that they intend to enter the property and take the income thereof. I have tried to research this Section of the Act online, but I am struggling to find out firstly whether this is even the correct Notice as the charges are estate management charges and not a rentcharge, or whether thay can take any action such as their threat to enter without a Court order? I have read of a charge being added to the mortgage under Section 123(4) but I don't want my mortgage company to pay a disputed debt. I would actually be happy to go to court as I would like the opportunity to put my defence! I should also comment that I work in residential lettings, so I am relatively familiar woth most legislation, but this is a new one on me! Any advice would be gratefully received.

How exciting. Those nice people at Rock Law who have been so nice trying to contact me from a Birmingham number - 0121 6152941 finally spoke to me today. Very strange because when I tried to call the number, it wouldn't ring. They were really keen to talk to me because they had been calling me repeatedly although strangely each time I answered there was silence. A loose connection I expect. Anyway, we finally spoke. Very nice guy called Gavin with a Welsh accent and he told me that he was in Swansea even though his number came from Birmingham very clever of these people to be able to do that and to be in two places at the same time Swansea is a very nice place I know because I've been there and he told me that I had some PPI which needed to be reclaimed and he also told me that every loan ever made by any bank in the last 25 years had PPI embedded in it and could be reclaimed. Wow and he was from Rock Law Rock like the stone and law like the police he said and he laughed because I think that it was meant to be a joke and he was going to send me an email to get things going but he wanted some personal information first and he really tried to persuade me to give him the information even though I said that I was worried about handing personal details over the phone to someone I didn't know but he was very nice and I nearly trusted him but not quite and so he said that he couldn't help me if I wouldn't tell him my birthday and I wouldn't so he went. Rock_Law_Gavin-2.mp3 And those people at Rock Law are very busy but they still find time to be very worried about my finances because they even phoned me again Rock_law.mp3 Call number one recorded on a Samsung mobile phone using the automatic call recorder app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorderpro&hl=en no processing Call number two recorded through Skype using Amolto call recorder http://amolto.com/ no processing

I saw this a little while ago and thought it may be interesting to many on here. http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/leaving-the-eu-impact-on-case-law-and-legislation/ ‘the Treaties shall cease to apply [to the UK] from the date of entry of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification…unless the European Council, in agreement with the [uK], unanimously decides to extend this period’ (art 50(3)) "Insofar as any such amendment or repeal seeks to deny EU law direct effect in UK law prior to the date on which, as a matter of EU law, the Treaties cease to apply to the UK, this would put the UK in breach of its obligations under EU and/or public international law—though it is unclear what legal (as distinct from political) consequences this would have. Depending on the form and content of the future relationship between there UK and the EU, it will also, almost inevitably, be necessary to enact legislation to provide a basis for giving effect to that new relationship."

I am 67 years old and severely disabled as a result of Polio contracted at age 9 Months. For the past 25 years I have been confined to a wheelchair full time. For this reason I sought and bought a bungalow on a flat and level site so that it could be easily adapted to meet my special needs. The bungalow which I now own and occupy is built on part of a site which was formerly an American Navy Air Force Base during World War 2. There are in excess of 150 similar such properties on this site. I bought the bungalow in 2002, and shortly after was fortunate enough to be given a “Disabled Facilities Grant” by the Local Council to install ramps to facilitate easy entry from the outside, adapt the bathroom, and install central heating. One of the conditions of that grant was that I remain “Resident” for at least 5 years. Therefore it came as something as a surprise when within a year I received an Enforcement Notice from the Local Council saying that I had to vacate on the grounds that I was contravening one of the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission under which my property was developed which stated the property was “Holiday Use Only” and could NOT be utilised for residential purposes. Of course I fought the case which went all the way to Crown Court in December 2005. At that hearing the Judge threw the case out saying that the action taken by the Council was an abuse of the legal system and a waste of public money. Council did not really accept the Judge’s ruling and still held that the Enforcement Order was valid. However, Council did decide not to take any further action against me personally, but warned that if I ever vacated for any reason, they would take similar action against the next occupants if they deemed it necessary to maintain the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission. Following that, and for almost 10 years, Council took no enforcement action against the many other occupants who had taken up residence in similar properties to mine developed under the same Planning Permission containing the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Until very recently that is, when they began issuing Enforcement Notices against a number of other properties whose occupants have been long term residents here. Since my case of 2005, I and a number of other interested parties have continued our research. What we have uncovered is quite interesting:- 1. In April of 1971, there was a Section 37 Agreement granted on all this land which was formerly an American Navy Air Force base. This Agreement permitted the development of “Dwellings” amongst other structures, but stipulated that the “Dwellings” may not be used for “Residential Purposes” for the period from 2nd January to 28th February in any given year. Note:- “Residential Use” was permitted for the remainder of the year – that is from March to December inclusive. My understanding of such Agreements is that they cannot be rescinded at the whim of a Local Council Planning Department without obtaining a “Deed of Release”. Something which to my certain knowledge has never been done. However, what Local Council Planning Departments do have the power and authority to do is “Lift” restrictions on such agreements. Some development took place and was successful, the properties sold well. Some years later, a new developer took possession of the land, and seeing the success the previous developer had enjoyed, that developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. 2. In 1986, Planning Permission was granted to build the bigger and better bungalows, BUT, within that Permission the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” was introduced. A good number of the bigger and better bungalows were constructed under this Planning Permission, mine being one of those. Note:- Council either did not realise or chose to ignore the previously existing Section 37 Agreement which was still in force and does allow “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year. Some years later, Council may have realised that the 1986 Planning Permission was flawed because of the previously existing Section 37 Agreement. 3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1991. Here a resolution was floored. The intention was apparently to rescind the Section 37 Agreement, but they did not have the power or authority to do that. At that meeting, the resolution that was floored was worded in such a way that all it achieved was to relieve the restriction as to when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. This much was within their power to do – that is – relieve restrictions. Nevertheless, two days after that meeting, a Memo was sent to the Council Land Registry Department saying that the Agreement of April 1971 (Section 37 Agreement), allowing “Residential Use”, had been cancelled. I have copies of the notes of that meeting, including the wording of the resolution that was passed, and the memo to the Land Registry Department. Note:- There seems to be deliberate deception by the Officers involved. Planning and Development Committee did not have the power to rescind/cancel the Section 37 Agreement, so they amended it, then informed the Local Land Registry that it had been cancelled. This was a lie. Shortly after that Planning and Development Meeting, Council began issuing numerous “Enforcement Notices” on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, causing considerable worry, stress, inconvenience and financial duress to many people. Many, if not all of these actions by Council were successful, lots of families were evicted. Of late, since Council began issuing Enforcement Notices again based on contravention of conditions contained within the 1986 Planning Permission – some of these have been challenged by owners and occupiers of the properties concerned. We have it on record that Council have admitted that the Section 37 Agreement is still in force and has never been rescinded. Now, one of the new Enforcement Orders has been challenged by the owner of the property who pointed out that according to the original Section 37 Agreement of April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991, the property in question had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council admitted in a telephone conversation that this was the position, and that the “Enforcement Order” had been withdrawn and the case closed. However, they refused to put this in writing. This is of great interest. Why do Council refuse to put this in writing? The theory is that if Council admit the Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year is still in force on all this land, then the 1986 Planning Permission attempting to introduce a more onerous “Holiday Use Only” condition is unenforceable. That would effectively mean that all the successful actions Council took for eviction on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, were in fact “Illegal Evictions”! It would also mean that following the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991 when restrictions were lifted as to the periods when the properties could not be used for residential purposes – all 150+ properties have the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. So my position and question is this:- I have been arguing with Council over the years on many different levels and aspects of Planning Law that my property has the benefit of “Full Residential Permission”. Not least because it would significantly increase its value and make it easier to sell if I ever decide to re-locate. All of my arguments have been dismissed as irrelevant as in their view the 1986 Planning Permission stands and the “Holiday Use Only” condition is valid and enforceable. Now, of late, I learn that the original Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Occupation” for 10 months of the year still stands. I also know that the restriction on the 2 months of the year when it could not be used for “Residential Occupation” was lifted in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991. Thus allowing “Full Residential Permission” all year round. This means that the “Holiday Use Only” condition in the 1986 Planning Permission was never valid or imposable in full in the first place, and that since March 1991, well before taking me to Court, my property had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council Officials were well aware of that before taking me to Court. My problem is how to get Council to admit that, put it in writing, and have that recorded in the Local Land Registry, and the National Land Registry?

I have my own personal collection of law books in my bedroom for me to study and reference. Although this is mine it is often used by other family members and friends to study. It is also why I know more than I used to when I first joined CAG. I have just written down just a few of my titles at random. Please feel free to read my PDF as this has the list of most of my collection of law books.... attachment.pdf

Orbit visited my home whilst I worked the night shift 01/04/16 at 20:54 regarding an alleged Southern water Debt. They were told by my recently moved in wife I work shifts from 18:30 until 06:30. They tried to call at 08:00 on the 02/04, then sent a great big fat bully boy round at 10:00. Without an appointment he demanded I was woken up then got all aggressive. No joke the guy was about 170 kilo's. He wanted national insurance numbers and the amount of PIP my disabled wife receives. My partner set a £10 a week agreement in my name. She also asked for a manager to call her regarding his harassment, not surprisingly nobody has called. Should I cancel this payment?

Very interesting reading up on the difference..

Hello folks. I'm hoping for some advice on tenancy agreements please? Sorry for the long read, but I think I need to be as clear as I can. My son is at Uni and he and 9 friends decided they wanted to share a house. Being young and foolish, they all got pressured into signing the tenancy agreement, as they were assured they would lose it if they didn't sign quickly. None of them clearly understood the agreement and all of them required guarantors. I am currently guarantor for my son in his present, single accommodation, absolutely no problems there, but when I read the new tenancy agreement for the proposed new house, I raised numerous concerns and refused to sign as guarantor. Like many such, it is a joint and several tenancy agreement, but how any guarantor would ever sign one of those is a mystery to me. I am perfectly happy to take responsibility for my son's rent and actions, he's a great kid, but I would never agree to take joint responsibility for 9 total strangers. The guarantor agreement also stipulated a joint and several responsibility. I also noticed a number of clauses, in the main tenancy agreement, that caused me concern, and looking at the OFT site, there is a large section there, on this very subject, that seemed to bear that out, if I am understanding correctly? EG. There is a clause that insists (Not advises) that each tenant must take out insurance to cover contents and accidental damage to the property. There is a somewhat hidden clause, by way of a reference to a paragraph in a chapter of the 1988 Housing Act, that, once I'd managed to hunt it down, gives the landlord the right to give 2 months notice to the tenants to quit the property, but there is no such option for the tenants to do the same. There are 2 conflicting access clauses, one that states the tenants are entitled to peace and quiet and to not be disturbed by the landlord, and further down states that the landlord/agents can demand access at any reasonable time of day. There are others that I think are dubious too, but I'm rambling enough as it is, so those are the main ones. It appears to me as if the landlord has added amendments to a standard agreement to suit his needs. None of the other guarantors agreed to sign either, and based on that, all of the tenants decided it was a bad move, and wish to pull out, but they have already signed the agreement and the landlord is trying to force them to fulfill that agreement. I realise that they were foolish to sign the agreement in the first place, and that they should have ensured that they, or someone they could trust, had thoroughly read and understood it first, but are they now stuffed and liable? My thought is that the agreement is unfair and could be challenged if it comes to that, but how many unfair clauses would it take for the contract to be deemed unfair? We have spoken to the landlord to try and come to an amicable agreement, but he is now saying he cannot find anyone who will pay full rent (So much for the queue of potential tenants that forced a quick signature initially!!) and the signed tenants would have to make up the shortfall in the rent from the proposed replacement tenants in order to be released from the agreement. I'm also wondering, if it did go to court, would the students be eligible for legal aid in a civil case, as none of them are employed, but living on their loans. I hope someone can advise, and apologies again for the length of this question. Thanks for reading, those of you who have struggled to the end of this.

If you're a dog owner , 2016 marks a change in how you register your pet. It becomes the law this year for ALL dogs to be microchipped under Government plans announced three years ago. From April 2016, every dog in England and Scotland will have to be microchipped in a move which the Government says will help reunite people with lost or stolen pets and track down the owners of vicious or illegal dogs. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-microchipping-laws-what-changes-7113932 Free microchipping Free microchipping is available throughout the year at all Dogs Trust rehoming centres (by appointment) as well as at their free chipping roadshows, as well as participating vets http://www.chipmydog.org.uk/have-your-dog-chipped-for-free/

Under the 2104 Children and Families Act 2014 Councils have certain Statutory directives regarding children who are not in education, for whatever reason. My daughter has been out of education for three years with separation anxiety brought about by her mother's domestic violence. Under the Act the Council are supposed to have provided 'alternative education' for her. The Act says they must work with schools/colleges to identify children in need and consult with them/their parents and other professional to provide alternatives suitable to their needs. Under the Equality Act and SEN regulations she is now classed as 'disabled and with SEN needs. However to date the Council have not followed any of the statutory directives. They have not even contacted me about her. I have complained to them. No result. I have complained to the Local Government Ombudsman. No result. I have complained to the Ministry of Education, told it was not their remit. How can I get them brought to task and get my daughter compensation for loss of education resulting from their not following the law? All over the UK there are families in the same situation.

The company I work for last Friday informed us five staff from our office were under threat of redundancy. Two production staff and three designers. We were then informed at the start of our 2 week period, that the two prod staff were gone and only two designers were needed. I offered voluntary redundancy straight away which I have only found out today nine days later was refused through an email from our Northern HR, the decision has come from London HR who we have not spoken to or seen. We have been informed our interview is tomorrow (we received a letter today), this will be held by two staff one is our manager who has never used a mac, the other is an IT manager who knows nothing about design or publishing. Why would they do this when they have many more qualified personnel to take the interview in our London office - sorry but just dont trust them?

The government plans to close 91 courts and tribunals across England and Wales, and integrate or merge 31 more. The Law Society want your views and case studies to help formulate thier consultation response. Please complete our short survey to let us know how you will be affected. Their interactive map shows the courts affected by the proposals, where the work would move to and how long it would take by public transport to get to the alternative courts. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/court-closures-we-want-your-views/

Hi, I don't do Facebook so I have started a thread on the MoneySavingExpert forum - The Acenden (administered mortgage) Escape Committee in the section called "Mortgage Free Wannabe" (I can't post links here yet). - Acenden have apparently recommenced selling mortgages on behalf of their new owners. Do join me there. I will post more information on that new thread in a while, eg about the danger signs that indicate that Acenden means to repossess. Everyone's case is unique but there are things we can to help each other get clear of these cowboys.

Hi, I quite often record calls to companies so there can be no confusion on what was said. I am aware I do not need to inform them or gain permission as the recordings are for my own records only and I need the other parties permission to use the recording for any other purposes such as supplying it as part of a complaint against them. However, what is the law regarding Transcripts of the call? If I sit and transcribe it can I legally supply a written record of the call as part of a complaint without requiring permission? The call in question is one that happened between myself and a Senior Revenue Officer of my local council and he is now telling porky pies as to the things he said on the phone. Thanks

Hi, I am a newbie to this forum so please excuse any ignorance! So, I was under a 2 year contract with DL where I was paying a direct debit monthly. After 21 months of being a member, I decided to cancel my direct debit as I was relocating to London for a new job role. I emailed the club to let them know in advance, and then shortly cancelled. I cancelled in Sep 15 (my contract was due to expire Dec 15). Unfortuantely, I didnt provide them with "proof of relocation" untill now - after recieving letters from ARC and consequently Major Law Solicitors, telling me I owed the final 3 months fees etc. Having spoken to the manager at DL Derby, they are having none of it. The bottom line being, I am being summoned to court to pay the outstanding amount owed, simply because I provided the 'proof of relocation' a few months late (after my contract had expired).I agree that is through no fault than my own, as they had told me they required this letter. Will Major Law Solicitors continue to take me to court over this matter? I have proof of relocation and against the date I cancelled. I also emailed the club to let them know. So is this fair?

Halloween me and a couple of mates went to a party. We were all really really drunk, I got was being stupid with some random boy and ended up slapping him but we sorted it out after I had apologised and it was done however hours after the police had arrived because two people got stabbed and instead of arresting anyone else I was arrested because of that boy. I've been on bail since then for ABH but the police said the boy has bruises on his face which is common assault not ABH. In the interview I didn't admit to anything, I said we had a little argument but i can't remember hitting anyone. They have asked me to go back to the station today I'm a little nervous as I'm a first time offender never had a problem with the police and never really had a fight before (I'm 17). What should I do about this/ what will happen to me?

Trying to help a friend of mine who has got himself into a bit of bother He is an events manager, and runs events for a venue The venue pay him and he in turn puts the nights on/ pays the acts etc, he has never had any form of contract with them - not sure if that makes a difference- he ran 5 shows so far all of which he was praised for the quality of etc A few months ago he was contacted by an agent of a big name act who offered to supply him with some very decent acts to try new material out - at a higher level than he was currently, he put this to the venue and they paid my friend to organise/ promote it, they also paid for a range of 2016 shows. The total of which came to £13500 The issue he had was at the same time baliffs etc have been visiting his home demanding money, he used the above money to pay them and as a result does not have that money anymore. He then discovered that the agent that promised the acts and he had the agreement with was doing so without the acts behalf - he contacted an act who had no knowledge of it - he contacted Action Fraud and has a reference number for it Fast forward to a month later and he has had an email from the venue to say they are going to both the police and civil routes to recoup the money as he has not used the funds for the intended purpose He is in a position that he can repay in full within 3 months which they have rejected Now obviously I dont for a second believe he booked it fraudulently and the fact he went straight to Action Fraud I believe shows this but have they got a case against him with regards to him spending the money on the baliff company , if the shows had gone ahead he would have been in a position to pay it all as planned by the time the nights came along

In a nutshell I object to the placing of a neighbours satellite dish overhanging my drive. The dish is attached to my neighbours side wall, which forms the boundary between our properties but totally overhangs our drive adjacent to the neighbours wall. The biggest bones of contention are the tendancy for birds to sit on the dish and crap on our car/drive and often finding workmen on my drive maintaining the dish/cables with absolutely no notice or warning. My neighbour insists we do not have a right to ask him to move the dish. His view is that he has a legal right to place ancillary structures on his wall and similarly has a right to access my drive to access his 'ancillary structures'. Does this sound correct? Is there really nothing I can do to get the dish moved?

I find the media a fickle bunch, who change their views depending on the wind direction. Tom Watson MP was seen as a hero for pursuing allegations about child abuse, but now that some of the alleged victims have had their allegations questionned, Tom is being criticised. The Police have not finished their inquiries yet and it is a bit too early for friends of alleged abusers to start demanding apologies. Because the newspapers keep going on about such stories for days on end, digging at the information, it must put the Police in a very difficult position. And it is not just newspapers, but some TV programmes as well. Let the Police complete their investigations without unhelpful media involvement and see what happens. If any cases get to court, media coverage of victims and alleged abusers, may hinder any chance of a fair trial. If politicians want to be helpful, perhaps they should pass laws that require abusers and victims to be anonymous until after the alleged abuser has been formally charged, with a court date set for a hearing. The Judge can then decide on whether identities should be revealed, to help serve fair justice. We want an independent robust free press in the UK, but they must remember that they should look to serve the public interest and not act in a way that disrupts the Police or courts.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has launched enforcement action against Ryanair. This action follows a review by the regulator that found Ryanair is not complying fully with European consumer law designed to support passengers following flight disruption. Ryanair is now required to make policy changes or face the prospect of further enforcement steps leading to court action, if the airline remains non-compliant. The CAA has concluded that: • It is not satisfied that Ryanair is dealing with compensation claims for disruption caused by routine technical faults in line with applicable consumer law – this is despite the UK Court of Appeal (in the case of Jet2.com v Huzar) clarifying how such claims are to be treated and assurances given to the CAA by Ryanair; and, • Ryanair is attempting to impose a contractual two-year time limit, from the date of the flight, for passengers to issue compensation claims at court – despite previously publicly committing to a six year time limit and in spite of the UK Court of Appeal (Dawson v Thomson Airways) ruling that passengers have up to six years to issue such claims at court. Ryanair is now required to make policy changes or face the prospect of further enforcement steps leading to court action, if the airline remains non-compliant. https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2484

Afternoon all I'm hoping someone can help me advise a friend with an issue he has at work My friend is employed as a civilian within the emergency services. Recently they have been under a review, this subsequently resulted in a re structure within the department. My friends job title has stayed the same but the name of the unit changed. They were told to sign new contracts or accept redundancy. This new contract was at a lower pay scale losing them a few hundred pounds per month. Contracts were signed to stay in employment but stated as accepting under protest. Their role profile had 3 duties added to it (things they don't do and have received no training for), in fact the role profile and summary of duties are 95% the same as before. Due to the restructure of the department the role was classed as a "new" role; due to it being classed as a new role (even tho the exact same duties are carried out as before) the review team and the HR department are saying there is NO right to appeal the decision. My friend is wanting to submit a fairness at work grievance as they have not been allowed to comment or input on the entire process (despite being told they could, their job has even been re-evaluated by people who do not understand the complexity of the job) Can anybody offer any guidance or advice as to the legalities surrounding this scenario and what route to take for a grievance against their employer Cheers Fore_right

Ministers have launched a cross-party review of the Freedom of Information Act that is likely to be viewed as an attempt to curb public access to government documents. Critics argued that a commission was likely to lead to more secrecy – allowing politicians and officials to conceal “bad decisions and mistakes”. Campaigners fear that the commission could tighten rules stating that if a request from the public or the media takes a long time to process, it can be rejected on grounds of cost. At present, anyone can ask for information so long as finding it does not cost more than £600 in the case of a government department, and £450 for another public body. Officials have discussed either lowering that limit or including extra items in the cost, including time spent on “considering and redacting” any releases. Labour MP Tom Watson said: “It is quite clear this isn’t a review, it’s a process to roll back the Freedom of Information Act. This is an Act which should be extended to cover more public bodies, yet the Government is going to weaken it by making changes that will render it virtually useless for people who believe in greater accountability.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-end-of-foi-right-to-know-in-peril-as-government-targets-freedom-of-information-10397935.html

Does anyone know from a legal or banking perspective the date I have made payment if I use a debit card over the phone? Is it the date I give the card details or Is it the date the payment shows on my statement? The organisation I am dealing with is not authorised to go in my credit file due to the terms of the loan agreement unless I go into arrears. They are doing their best to make that happen. Am I in arrears if the payment is still 'pending' on the day it is due even if I phoned the day before? Thanks