Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'distribution'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 5 results

  1. I am having an issue with a very slow moving solicitor who is the executor of my mother's estate. In an attempt to be proactive I have just been looking on the government probate search site (https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills) and on there it shows a Probate Number and a Date of Probate for her will. Does this mean that - the probate process is now concluded and the funds from her estate can now be distributed? - does it indicate that the process has been started and that the case has been assigned a number but that is it not yet completed? Thanks in advance for any guidance you can give.
  2. The following LGO decision (which was only released this week) is a vitally important one as it deals with a number of misconceptions and inaccurate advice regarding bailiff enforcement. For instance, this decision addresses the following misconceptions:
  3. I own a long leasehold flat in a building containing 15 flats. My lease (and the lease of 13 other flat owners) states that we are each responsible for 7.1% of the service charge costs. We queried with our managing agent whether this made our leases defective since 15 x 7.1% would come to 106.5% and we are aware that if the total service charges collected at a development is greater than or less than 100%, this renders the leases defective. To our surprise, our managing agent informed us that one flat owner had noticed this anomaly a few years ago and had approached the freeholder to agree a lease variation which reduced his own service charge percentage to 0.6% - thereby reducing the total service charge collection to 100%. The annual service charges for our building are roughly 25K per annum. This means that 14 of us are having to pay £1775.00 each and one (sneaky) flat owner only pays £150.00! My questions are these: Is it legal for one flat owner’s service charge percentage to be so much lower than the rest of the flat owners? Should the freeholder have re-distributed the service charge percentages evenly so all 15 flats would pay the same service charge percentage?
  4. For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.
  5. MIDLAND COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION LIMITED ( NOTTINGHAM ) ( ORANGE DISTRIBUTOR ) Hi Does anyone have an account with Midland in Nottingham. We want to know if they are any good. I have seen reviews etc on this site and others which are not very good. Does anyone work with them?.
×
×
  • Create New...