p3t3r wrote: The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread. The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc. In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices. IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh. So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home. The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home. Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees. However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc. There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access. Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial. If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc. The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client. If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion. A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased. Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property. Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy. Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated. EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law. Discuss.

I hope someone can help. My daughters husband had a vasectomy 2 weeks ago today.. All went well on the day. He was fit as a fiddle. Two days ago he was complaining of stomach pain sickness and Diarrhea. also he hands and feet were numb and he was a strange purple colour. This was on the Wednesday at 11 am and my daughter phoned the gp who said it was a gastric flu...She said she wasn't happy and could he make a house call whereupon she was tod they don't do house calls. In the space of time it took to get her 3 year old from nursery and get back some 20 minutes her husband was dead ..She tried cpr and the paramedics tried but he was gone. There will be a post mortem but the coroner thought it was probably a massive bacterial infection from the vasectomy which turned into septis and it killed him in less than 4 hours.. The day before he had been fit and healthy at work.. we will know for sure on Monday My daughter has lost her best friend and is beyond grief they had 7 children and they have lost their dad. were are in complete shock don't know what to do next....will my daughter be able to sue and get some help for her and the children...They have lost the main breadwinner more importantly will we get answers thanks in advance for any advise give

Hi guys, new to this but tried reading as much as possible on other threads to get an idea of what to do but my situation is slightly different so hopefully someone can help. Went into DW Milton Keynes back in August last year to cancel my membership. Spoke to just a young girl working behind the front desk who let me know what i already knew.. . its fine I've made a note of you giving your notice and 1 months payment will have to be taken still. AT NO POINT DID I SEND A LETTER OR RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN CONFIRMATION. Money was taken in September which was fine ...but it was also taken in October. I wasn't in a position to visit the gym at the time as i was in sheffield - tried calling a number of times to query but either was left on hold or the person i needed to speak to wasnt about to take my call. I decided to just call my bank and get them to cancel the direct debit so nothing was taken in November and they also got back for me the money from October. STILL NO WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. I received emails over the coming weeks from DW saying they were unsuccesful taking direct debit from my account. I applied to these emails explaining my situation but heard nothing back. Then in December i received a letter from ARC Europe stating they were trying to take £94.00 on behalf of DW. Maybe foolishly ignored this letter but now it has been passed onto Major Law who are looking for £94 plus £25 court fee plus £50 solicitors costs and £7.52 annual interest. saying i have 14 days to pay or they MAY issue the claim. I feel foolish cus i signed no cancellation form when i went in or sent a letter to DW all i have is 2/3 unresponded to emails from the time they tried taking my direct debit again unsuccessfully. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I have an issue with a work program provider regarding MAN ( mandatory activity notifications.) Appointments. I am using as my source : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417141/wp-provider-guidance-chapter-3a-cpa18-v2.pdf the relevant section : Annex 1 –Appointment MAN (JSA ONLY) The pdf has this section highlighted in red [Please Note: the following template must be used and the structure must not be altered or added to] The section where my issue lies, At: (Start and Finish time) Further on the guidance states. "Consequence The Labour Market Decision Maker (LM DM) will make a decision based on an assumption that the MAN meets requirements. If you fail to mandate correctly any sanction imposed would not be underpinned by the legal framework." Now this document is a recently revised edition, I believe, updated to reflect the amendment made to "THE JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE (SCHEMES FOR ASSISTING PERSONS TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT) REGULATIONS 2013 " http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/276/pdfs/uksiem_20130276_en.pdf This amendment I believe was the result of an application for judicial review in the case of Reilly and Wilson v DWP, although DWP won the case my point lies in section, "4.3 However, the Court of Appeal found against DWP on two grounds: Specifically this is the relevant part. b) The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that letters sent to claimants when they were mandated to an ESE Scheme did not comply with the regulations. " So it seems to me work providers when mandating an appointment have to stick to the legal framework and use the template provided as highlighted in red due to this ruling. So from this I have rightly or wrongly come to 2 conclusions. If I failed to comply with the MAN for whatever reason, I am on solid ground, because they failed to provide a “finish time” (If you fail to mandate correctly any sanction imposed would not be underpinned by the legal framework.) the case would be thrown out, as in, I would have nothing to appeal against. Secondly if I have taken the correct complaints procedure, adviser , office manger , head office and they still refuse to include a finish time then my next step would be the Independent complaints examiner (ICE) again taking into account the above they would have no choice other than to uphold my complaint on the grounds of maladministration. I know it might only seem like a small thing but apart from the technicalities of my argument and sticking it to the man, my primary objective and all that I ask at this point is, when I am mandated to attend an appointment I am given a “Finish time”, for example say I am mandated to attend at 9:00 AM without a “Finish time” they could keep me at the offices 5 seconds or until who knows how late into the night, if I did receive a “Finish time” I could plan my time more effectively and know if I should take a packed lunch or not, not make any other arrangements for that day and so on. I am flexible, just a rough indication of the length of time would help, surely it is just plain common courtesy regardless but it seems like they only road they are leaving open to me is to take my complaint to ICE. If anyone can pull me up where I might be going wrong here regarding the legal side of my argument before I begin the fight or point to other resources that might be useful I would be most grateful.

Ok, I'm maybe being a little naïve and probably more than a little thick (Not to mention coming from Scotland, who kicked clampers out years ago, so have no experience with this.) But aren't there laws over clamping? I got clamped for being 11 days into the month without tax. I'd just got the van out the garage (Which hadn't fixed the problem,) so was waiting for it to get picked up again. Next thing, I'm clamped. Fair do's I'm guilty, put me up against the wall and shoot me. Now, I've had tickets before (Parking mostly, and speeding) and I always get a formal notification in the shape of some official government form. In this case, I got a yellow sticker, and an "INFORMATION" pamphlet with a phone number on the back, which demanded I pay £100 immediately or I'd be towed and disposed of (I do hope they meant the van, not me personally.) Two things that immediately make me balk, is that surely, under law, an INFORMATION pamphlet is not a legal notification of an offence. I've spoken to the police, and they said it looked like something someone had picked up at the post office for a laugh. The associated website (cartaxenforcement.co.uk) is also very dodgy looking, with no details of who you are paying, etc, displayed on the site at all. The police have taken copies and they have taken it, and are investigating it, as - in his words - "This looks so much like a con." Now, after a morning of research, and talking to the DVLA, it turns out the "contractors" are a company called NSL. Now, at no point did anyone identify themselves to me, neither by phone nor in person, and the sparse documentation (The INF32 and website) does not mention the name of the company. I asked the DVLA directly "Is CarTaxEnforcement a contractor you use?" and they said no." Only NSL is used in my area apparently. So the question of misrepresentation is eating at me too. So what is the law? Can someone who doesn't tell you who they are, simply put a pamphlet under your windscreen and clamp you? Certainly the local plod don't think so, and my bank is supporting my withholding payment on the basis that the cartaxenforcement.co.uk website looks well dodgy. I'm really ready for a fight, so if someone can give me a legal basis, I'll give them grief.

Govan Law Centre has launched a campaign which it hopes will give a voice to people in the private rent sector and lead to reforms. Staff from the service which provides free legal support are holding street stalls throughout the city as part of the lottery funded research project. They hope tenants who have had problems with landlords will come forward and tell their story. READ MORE HERE: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/law-centre-campaign-to-help-tenants-203848n.123407248 More info Here from GLC: http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/govan-law-centre-endorses-living-rent.html

Hi all, I joined Virgin Active gym few months back, and after 2 months of joining I left because I ended up not going because of loss of interest and the price, so I cancelled the DD (the contract was for 6 months), and like a week later I received a letter from them demanding the money, and they sent me a few text messages too. After a few more weeks I received a letter from ARC demanding me to pay £210, they keep calling me constantly, sometimes like 10 calls; one after the other, which I ignored. After couple more weeks ARC sent another letter threatening court actions if the outstanding balance was not paid. 2 weeks later (today) I received a letter from Major Law solicitors threatening court actions as well, they have said I should contact ARC to repaid the debt. I have have had no contact with Virgin, Arc or Major sols yet, meaning I haven't spoken to them. Can they actual take me to court? I don't really care about credit ratings. I am 20, living with my parents, can they get the bailiffs involved? Thanks very much. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Now i might be wrong and probably am but didnt a new law just come in, something about once you borrow money, you will never have to pay back more than x 2 the amount, i take that to mean £100 borrowed, no more than £200 to be paid back, ever, and £1000 would mean no more than £2000 back, ever, But look on the provident website, they are offering loans like borrow £2000 and pay back £4400 or borrow £2500 and pay back £5500, is this not against the law.

I've worked at my current role for 2 and half years. For 2 yrs I had two managers, neither of which ever raised any problem with my work. The company I work for are very small and we don't have any appraisal or any HR process - so my feedback had always come via 1to1 meetings with my managers. Over my 2 yrs I had also been given praise from some of our clients over work delivered. Six months ago I got a new manager. At our 3rd meeting she told me she had concerns over my work, suggesting I wasn't fulfilling the job as she'd see fit and had told the company directors I was thinking of leaving. This stemmed from a private conversation I had had in an earlier session which I joked about leaving - unfortunately this was taken literally and passed on to the company director as fact - something I wasn't very pleased about. At the same (3rd) meeting I was told that I'd need to improve or it "wouldn't end well". Understandable this shook me up. After that meeting relations didn't improve. For the past couple of months I continued to do my job as I had before, and a couple of times since I have been told I need to do things to match her way of doing things - nothing has ever been written down - it's all verbal. I've also been given new processes and systems to work on, but no training has been given other than the offer of sitting with my manager when she's available to be shown. I have done this, but lately I am asked for forward work to her for approval, or for her to update rather than me spending time on it. I am made to feel like a spare part. I have understandably become a lot less confident in my role as I feel I am not supported. This in turn has made me more withdrawn with my colleagues. Recently I've been told that directors have been discussing me (openly) suggesting if my quieter mood doesn't improve there would be consequences. I did try and meet with my director to discuss, but he didn't follow up on my requests and frankly gave me the impression he wasn't keen to meet. We have no written disciplinary process other than a sketchy paragraph in my contract about "not fulfilling my role". I am keen to know legally if I do have an employment law I can refer to ?

my sister in law worked for nearly 2 years at a local convenience store ,most of the time as manageress . 2 weeks ago the owner came in and said he had sold the lease to someone else and gave everyone 2 weeks notice . except my sis in law , he offered her a job at one of the other shops they own, today she did her last shift at the current shop . he has offered her 2 shifts (16 hrs) a week at another local shop and maybe more shifts at one further afield . But he has told her he has to finish her like the rest of the staff ,or they could take him to a tribunal and she would have to work for 2 weeks cash in hand @£40 per 8 hour shift . Then he can re-employ her but she would have to then work a week in hand . she doesn't want to loose her job she was working 40+ hours a week some times 16 hours a day with no break. which i thought was disguting @6.80 ph for a manageress . with manual labour involved carring stock up stairs (cases of beer etc) i think there's something fishy about the whole thing , the new shop keepers offered a job but only for 2 month while she trained up their family workers . is this even legal what he is asking ?

I have come across the following article which I thought might be of use to folk. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2981794/10-minute-let-avoid-parking-ticket-month-new-law-let-overstay-meter-without-fine.html

I dont know if any experts on here can help with this one, it is a bit complex! Is is correct that creditors are not entitled to charge interest on a secured debt after bankruptcy occurs? What legislation allows secured creditors to just sit on their security...? because essentially all debts, whether they are secured or not are in fact included in BR. Anyone with any legislation would be gratefully received.....

Hi some urgent information needed on Tupe Law. A friend of mine has been working via Tupe regulations for a number of years as she works for employment training / provider services the nature of which is that the services bid and the best bid wins resulting in staff then being Tupe'd over as I'm sure most of you guys and girls will know how it works. Anyway my friends company recently lost the new contract and untill today was being told they where all being tupe over to the new service so obviously along with others did not see the need to look for new employment. However today she has been told that she along with a number of other staff are surplus to requirements and as such is being made redundant. As I see it it is a transfere of business. The new company have cherry picked current staff for TUPE showing liability and as such the 2006 regulations apply, also by cherry picking they have acted discriminatory towards staff. Her current employers have told them however that when the contract finishes on the 5th March 2015 to go to the new providers on the 6th March 2015 and if they are then turned away they can go for unfair dismissal under the Tupe Law. Is this correct and how does that work???? Cheers Bill

Hi everyone, I need some advice. Virgin Media sent me a letter last year saying I would be getting upgraded to the 50MB broadband service. I'm currently on 20MB and I find uploading files tedious. I recently corresponded with Virgin Media on Twitter to find out why I had not been upgraded. They told me to login to my account online and click a button to begin the process. I followed the web form and it did indeed say it was free. However I logged into the main dashboard where I saw the same upgrade option yet it cost an extra £2.85 a month. From what I can gather the upgrade is not free at all and the only reason they state it's free is so customers bind themselves to another 12 month contract. My first question would be is this illegal under UK law? My second question is Where can I report them to inflict the most damage? I've sent screenshots to the advertising standards authority But who else can I contact? I've included a screenshot.

I am in England and sold an item on ebay to a buyer in Scotland. Payment was by PayPal and delivery was made by a courier. The buyer is now unhappy (as they didn't read the description properly) that the laptop they bought is broken. The listing described the problems perfectly and said the laptop was "for parts or not working". Therefore I have no issues about defending this, should it go to court. However, the issue is which law applies: England and Wales or Scotland? I am not acting in the course of a business.

Hi, I contacted SHELTER SCOTLAND regarding Calling up notice in Scotland and they gave me a very good information .Below i have paste the information from Shelter Scotland for fellow Scots who's been threathend Repossession by the Bank. Dear .............. Further to our telephone conversation I have the following information for you. I note that you wish to challenge a Calling-up Notice on the basis that RBS have so far failed to provide you with a breakdown of the money due by you. There are two legal provisions to consider at this stage. There are two legal provisions to consider at this stage. Firstly, under Section 19(9) Feudal Conveyancing and Reform Act 1970, upon receipt of a Calling Up Notice, a debtor may request a ‘statement of the amount as finally determined.’ This must clearly be in response to the debtor having received the Notice, as opposed to a general request for information, Bank of Scotland v. Flett 1995 SCLR 591. The creditor must respond within one month from the date of serving the Calling Up Notice (s19(9). Should the creditor fail to comply with the request, the Calling Up is of no effect. Should they provide the statement as requested and within one month of service of the Calling Up, the notice will take effect. The debtor nevertheless has the opportunity to attend court or be represented, and she may have a Pre-Action Requirement defence as follows:- It is also possible to raise court proceedings for suspension of a Calling up Notice, however this would be where the existence of the debt is disputed and not for a dispute as to the level of the debt, and the breakdown of the various component parts- interest, charges etc. Secondly, under Section 24A(2) of the Feudal Conveyancing and Reform Act 1970 which covers the Pre-Action Requirements creditors are now required to provide the debtor with clear information about:- (a)the terms of the standard security; (b)the amount due to the creditor under the standard security, including any arrears and any charges in respect of late payment or redemption; and ©any other obligation under the standard security in respect of which the debtor is in default. The Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements)(Scotland) Order 2010, Article 2 states that (2) In providing the debtor with clear information for the purposes of section 5B(2) of the 1894 Act and section 24A(2) of the 1970 Act— (a)information about the terms of the security must include a description of the nature and level of any charges that may be incurred by virtue of the contract to which the security relates if the default is not remedied; and (b)information about the amount due to the creditor under the security, including any arrears and any charges in respect of late payment must be broken down so as to show— (i)the total amount of the arrears; and (ii)the total outstanding amount due including any charges already incurred. (3) For the purposes of those sections “charges” do not include any expenses for which the debtor is personally liable to the creditor by virtue of paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the 1970 Act, as read with section 11 of that Act(1). (4) The information required to be provided to the debtor by virtue of those sections must be provided as soon as is reasonably practicable upon the debtor entering into default. It is not entirely clear whether this requirement to provide clear information applies both before expiry of the Calling up Notice and after expiry. In any event, it would be advisable for you write to RBS or their solicitors requesting this information before service and after expiry. Should the creditor fail to comply with the Pre-Action Requirements the action would be incompetent. If you receive court papers you should take legal advice as soon as possible. Helpline Adviser T: 0808 800 4444 Shelter Scotland Glasgow Advice Service 1st Floor, Suite 2 Breckenridge House 274 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow, G2 3EH

Hi, this is my first time on a forum so apologies in advance for the length of this posting. We owned a 1934 classic car and in October 2011 it was being transported to a venue by a reputable carrier in whose tow vehicle my husband was a passenger. Unfortunately the car was totally destroyed when the carrier's driver lost control and both vehicles somersaulted across three lanes of the motorway. The carrier accepted liability and, as we had legal cover and it seemed a straightforward case, our insurers passed us onto Minster Law to handle the claim. Problems arose very soon after the claim was initiated. A friend, who is by co-incidence the head of a legal department with another insurance company, told us to claim as cargo, but Minster insisted the claim be handled as a RTA, even though our car was actually being transported by a third party. Months went by until eventually, the TP's insurers offered a ridiculously low sum in settlement, despite them having a certified receipt for the vehicle. (Anyone with any knowledge of classic cars would know that values actually increase with age, plus ours had been maintained in top condition.) They then deducted a high amount for salvage based on the assumption that because it was a specialist car we could disassemble it ourselves and sell it for parts!!! Minster suggested another option so we declined the offer and were told that court papers were being prepared - indeed they sent us a copy of the official notification. Still matters dragged on. We had to frequently chase for updates and answers to questions, some of which were totally ignored. We were worried because our car was being stored at a specialist garage and charges were growing daily. Getting desperate, we asked for copies of letters relating to our case. They were promised several times but nothing ever materialized. Then, in September 2012 we were informed, out of the blue, that Minster had received a cheque from the TP's insurers. Since we were under the illusion that court proceedings were pending, we were aghast that they had accepted this. When we queried it, we received a curt letter, which basically said 'like it or lump it'. The handler claimed it was an interim payment, that she had advised us previously to accept the offer (she hadn't) and we went against her advice. She intimated that our car was not worth the money we'd paid for it. She also told us we are now liable for storage charges from the date of the cheque. No further mention was made of court action. We reluctantly accepted the payment on the basis that we could still dispute the valuation but my husband phoned our insurers to report our unhappiness with the way things had progressed and also contacted the Complaints department at Minster Law. The claims handler suddenly went on long-term sick leave and the case was transferred to someone else. Despite this, the position remains unchanged. Minster refused to fight the claim as cargo and since we have continued to argue the valuation they are now refusing to act any further on our behalf. They ask that any new solicitor submit a 'lien'. We have no idea what this is, but it sounds ominous and expensive. Despite our requests for a meeting with the Complaints department, they say they cannot see any benefit in it. We invested my husband's entire redundancy payment in that car and had just started up a wedding business, but that has now been blown out of the water, yet we're not asking for compensation, only for justice. None of this was our fault, we've acted honestly and in good faith throughout, yet it feels like we're being punished for trusting: a) the carrier to transport our vehicle safely: b) the insurers to play fair and c) the lawyers who are supposed to be looking after our best interests. How can this seemingly straightforward case have gone so badly wrong? Answers on a postage stamp please!

How can you have a C.C.J 1 Claim number 2 reference numbers 3 satisfaction dates all for one C.C.J Please can anyone help....the ref: was changed from rent....to non domestic rates....& I was made bankrupt surely this can't be legal

I was involved in RTA almost 2 years ago, suffered concussion , some bruising, 3rd party admitted liability, witnesses, clear cut case, with my insurance policy at time turns out that Minster Law would be handling my case, I have had a general feeling of incompetence with ML handling this case, why has it taken nearly 2 years to settle, I had email year ago informing me of change of staff, someone new has taken over my case file . Ok, fine, acceptable stuff. Then another email 6 months later, same again. Late October I had the new ML employee phone me and apologise for the change in staff, delay, but assured me all would be settled before end of 2014, Now I have received another email (Jan 2015) , once again, change in staff, and case is under review for another 6 weeks. my gut feel is that ML are just not processing the case in a competent manner, and why have we still not settled, I have emailed them in past, but all I got in return was generic letter saying if they need any more info they will contact me, I feel like escalating this now, writing to Ombudsman, or Law Society, I have found this web article in Law Gazette http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/minster-law-axes-17-in-management-shake-up/5043150.fullarticle http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/accident-guides/how-long-will-a-personal-injury-claim-take-to-settle.html according to above guide lines, based on my offer from 3rd party, case should have taken no more than 9 months this does not add confidence to my current position all advice welcome, what would you do ? I have read quite a few bad reports on ML on web

I wonder if there is anyone among you, who have experienced Leasehold Fraud. The point being, in that some may have been Repossessed due to Service Charges, even when they've redeemed their Mortages for the considered sum. I'm looking to speak to anyone who fits that specific criteria. It appears that Leaseholders are being deemed as Tenants.. . This is a sufferance & not to be mixed up with actual Tenants. Even RICS have stated that Managing Agents in particular are the wild west of their industry. Also how many have the statement: "the lessor is seised of fee simple in possession free from encumbrances" - as far as I know with that statement it should mean once the Mortgage is redeemed - it's yours. Providing you've been in situ in excess of 12 Yrs with the Freeholder not actioning recovery of the Premises - you're meant to be on the home run. Apparently not so. So does anyone have any info about this?

Hello everybody I am in the process of going through an Employment Tribunal at the moment, due to geographical factors I am unable to get legal advice ... I live in Scotland and the ET is in England! The ET is for disability discrimination dyslexia & depression brought about by lack of adjustments made. I an also claiming unfair dismissal. It is a complex case that goes back to 2008. I'm not doing too bad with the proceedings as the ET are very helpful, but there are a few things they can not help with! if anybody out there would be willing to share their knowledge I would be extremely grateful Many thanks in advance

I am looking for clarification on Law regarding Vet referrals. As I am sure a lot of us have learned over the years, Vets can be rip off merchants, incompetent, abusive, use rough handling of our furry family members etc. These days, I find I no longer have a main Vet but try to use the best of each Vets speciality. For example I follow the nutrition advice of one Vet. If I needed neutering surgery I would go to another, in an emergency I woukd be forced to another and so on. Sometimes though, for diplomacy, I think its better to just go to a new Vet with a fresh start. If for example I disagreed with one Vets diagnoses and/or trt plan - rather than offend his ego, I would prefer to simply find a new Vet. Also this helps me know that the new Vet is not swayed by any other medical misdiagnoses of other Vet. I believe the professional etiquette is to get a referral for a second opinion and have the Vets communicate with one another, but I dont believe this is la A new Vet surely cannot force me to disclose past Vets, if I dont think its in my animals best medical interests?

Have there been any recent changes in what cca request we send ie Credit card cca and loan cca? Mr W

Hi, I order a bike collection from a courier. The bike wasn't dellivered but I only notice 15 days latter (because the delliver was to be in a friends home in UK) The courier told me they lost the bike and they are looking for it. They also told me that I should made the claim until 7 days after the dellivery date. They have this info on their terms and conditions. Is this 7 days period to claim valid or the comon law override this terms? Thanks, and sorry for my bad english.

Hi All, I am looking for a mentor who can explain about basic law of employment. I want to know about point of law in very simple term with example (case law) I want to know about error of law in very simple term with example (case law) when a employer dismissed a employee with knowledge of disability on ground of capability but after dismissal if found by regulatory body that claimant has no professional incompetence then based on new evidence what will be the case ? Is there any effect of fresh evidence in the court of appeal ? now respondent argued that when they dismissed the employee in that moment they have no knowledge of fresh evidence so they are not guilty of any discrimination. my understanding that when a employer is going to dismissing a disable employee (with knowledge disability)they should more careful than non disable employee..isn't it ? it would be highly appreciate if you could answer my question..please help me out : thanks in advance regards P