Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'estoppel'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Found 6 results

  1. Can't seem to find any information about this either here or via google. What is the process of applying for estoppel in an inheritance act case (to prevent the early distribution of the estate), and how much would the court fees be ?
  2. 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.....
  3. I am hoping someone will take the time to answer, as I feel the need for a 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion! I will give as many details in as brief a format as I can.. I have inherited a property from my father who died intestate. Letters of Admin were completed with Solictor and the 6 month claim period is also over. This property is currently occupied by my fathers nephew who despite my giving him 1 months notice, has not vacated and is now refusing to leave. He recently sought Solicitors advice and they informed mine that the nephew will continue to reside in the property according to his uncles (my fathers) wishes as my father had indicated to him that he would be entitled to live in the property for the rest of his life. To add to this, on several occasions my father had verbally told him that the property would be left to him (apparently). My Solictor referred me to her Litigant Colleague who seemed to think that the only procedure to take would be to issue a court order for eviction, which would be defended by the nephew on the basis of the information above. The word Estoppel was mentioned briefly, so I am assuming this would be the claim the nephew would be going for? My Solicitor told me that his chances of success are likely, and my best option would be Mediation. I have a hard time believing this and have done as much research as I possibly can on Estoppel cases but the outcomes do seem to be widely varied. I would really appreciate some more opinions on this as I am being warned that I could be faced with £20,000 + court fees with not much chance of winning. I do not know the nephew at all, only met him a handful of times so can only tell his background as I have been led to believe by him. My father purchased the property, the nephew moved in with him and contributed money each month towards payment of bills. I do not understand why my Solicitor would think that this would be a good basis for a claim. Can anyone advise? Thanks in advance.
  4. hi guys, wondered if anyone could help please? My recently deceased grandmother owned several fields, one of which she had always promised to my dad, the rest of the land was promised to his siblings on a sale and break-up basis. Several promises were made that my dad would inherit this land, such as "do what you see fit, it will be yours one day" and at one point there was a suggestion my dad may wish to seek planning permission for the land to build a house for him and my mum. Her will contained something entirely different in that three of the six siblings who were due to inherit (one took his share when my grandfather passed away) would have £10,000 each, the rest of the estate, including a farm house and several fields would be split among the other three siblings, making a share of C.£100k each. I understand that a caveat can be entered in order to stop the grant of probate, but what is the next step? my dad really can't afford to employ a lawyer and with the history there is a clear case for estoppel
  5. Hi everyone any advice would be appreciated. I have been working for my the company since Feb 2008. On April 28th 2009. I received a pay rise letter that my salary has increased to a much larger figure than I was originally on. The next day I rang head office to confirm with them if it was correct or incorrect, the company secretary who deals with everything said yes and I am very lucky. A few days later I went into work I thanked my boss for the payrise, he said thats fine the company is doing well and we are very busy. It constantly for several months referred to my payrise when he wanted me to stay late or come in early as I work part time. March 16th 2012 I received a phone call from Company Secretary telling there has been a mistake with payroll saying they have overpaid me and I knew and should of brought it to there attention. I told here I dont know what she is talking about the only wage I have received is whats on my payrise letter which she herself confirmed and my boss who is the Senior Partner who I work directly for. She said well according to the Employment Rights Act they can deduct my wage without asking me. I told her no you cant as I have my payrise letter and have had another payrise in 2010. So they would need to prove it first. She ignored me anyway. Then the day before I get my salary at 4.15pm my boss came into my office and said your salary has been cut due to overpayment. I told him he couldnt do that as I have my payrise letter. He said well its been done because the company secretary has looked into it. This was the first conversation I had with a member management. Anyway the next day I checked and they had deducted over £500 per month and continue to do so. I had a meeting with him I shown him the paperwork and asked him to prove in the body of the letter where it was wrong and how I would know it was wrong. He couldnt and said ok its for us to prove, I am still waiting for proof nearly a year later. I said I would attend the meeting this 17 Jan 2013 to discuss factual proof of overpayment documents. I have read all the Employments Act numerous times. I know all about the Tribunal Procedure etc etc. I have been studying very hard. I am not going to the Tribunal as the amount in question is above the Tribunals maximum payout. So I need to go Civil Court All I want is for them to reinstate my salary and return all the money they have deducted from me nothing more. My question is does anyone know the steps to take to file a estoppel and nunc protunc in the Courts. I rang the courts asking what forms I need they said they have never heard of it. I cant find any information on line on how to file this. I need to follow correct steps to ensure it is not thrown out in court due to not filing it properly. Thanks if you manage to read all thissssssss any advice would be greatly appreciated
  6. Been reading this Upper Tribunal case > http://www.landstribunal.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j881/LRX-82-2011.pdf It deals with housing right to buy and service charges issues which may be of interest to some. But what I find most interesting though is the use of 'Estoppel', something that has mystified me somewhat, but here it is put to good use (the freeholder council technically wins but Judge decides the principal of Estoppel overides this (see paragraph 41), this could be useful for anyone involved in legal action who has been told/or lead to assume something which is later denied. Andy
  • Create New...