Ethel Street

I can't imagine that the public or MPs would agree to a change in the law requiring people to cross roads only at designated safe crossing points in order to make life easier for self driving cars. If that was the principle it would have to apply to all roads. Hard to imagine people complying with such a rule in residential areas.

s103 does not require a time period for response, or to invite a response at all,, if the variation concerns "... a variation of the rent, or of payments in respect of services or facilities provided by the landlord ". [s103(3)] So for an increase in service/gas charges no period is needed. And even if you had been entitled to respond to the proposed Notice the only right you would have had is for your comments to be "considered". You wouldn't have been able to prevent the 60% increase. You are going round in circles with your trawling of the internet, You need to obtain the financial figures from the council and analyse them and post them here. Submit a Freedom of Information request. And you need to give us copies of relevant documents. Some have been asked for earlier. Also post up here a copy of the Notice of Variation and everything the council sent out with it. There is no reason to keep the identity of the council secret, but if you want to then just cover up the council identification details.

I have a feeling that at this stage your friend is not entitled to see the police evidence. The police will only produce the evidence if he elects to plead not guilty and go to court. Man in the middle is knowledgeable about this and may be able to confirm if my recollection is correct. @Man in the middle If it were me I'd take the course - no points, no criminal record, normally doesn't have to be declared to insurers. Even if the police evidence is simply one officer saying what they saw who are the magistrates likely to believe?

If it goes to court and the police say the first light at the stop line was amber does your friend have dash cam or other evidence that the light was green? Did the police at the time say whether they had it recorded on camera? Or could it end up with magistrates having to decide who they believe, your friend or the police?

What do you mean by "traveling through a green/amber light"? There is no combination of traffic lights that shows green and amber at the same time. It is correct that Amber means stop so to drive through it is an offence except in two situations as explained in the Highway Code "AMBER means STOP. You may go on only if the amber appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident." Nothing he can do until he has received something from police indicating what action they are proposing to take. Come back and update us when that happens. Just to check, are his vehicle registration document (V5C) and driving licence showing his correct current address?

You can organise any utility bill in any way you choose and have any name on the bill and the suppliers are fine with this AS LONG AS the bill is being paid. It's when the bill isn't paid that utility companies start being unhappy and using their statutory powers. Utility companies and council tax are in a special legal position in that the law makes all adults occupying the premises jointly liable for unpaid bills irrespective of whose name is on the bill or arrangements the occupiers have made between themselves. That law on joint liability doesn't generally apply to other private contracts, such as broadband.

The Charge shown on the Land Registry Title is a public document that anyone can read and download. They could download it themselves but are too.mean to spend £7 to do it and/or can't be arsed to do anything to help you. There's no harm in sending them a copy of the LR Title with the charge wording as it currently stands so that there can be no doubt what it is you want removed. It's not as if they are falling over themselves to be helpful now. Possibly it will help move it forwards, although I wouldn't hold my breath.

Although it's impossible to give an absolute guarantee that Sainsbury's won't later decide to involve police it is so unlikely it isn't worth worrying about. If police were not called at the time I have never heard of Sainsbury's calling them later. Sainsbury's didn't even ask him for proof of ID or address.

No. CT liability does not depend on whether the property meets standards for legal occupation. Being the occupant under Licence makes you liable for CT. Even squatters illegally occupying a property are liable to pay CT Some councils give a CT discount for property undergoing renovation but that discount usually requires the property to be unoccupied. Check with your council CT department.

Kearns are overstating the law on SB. It is not sufficient for them to show that a payment was made on the account. They have show the payment into the account was made by you or by someone you authorised to make a payment on your behalf in respect of the debt. A random payment onto the account by some third party without your knowledge and consent does not stop the SB period. Sections 29 and 30 Limitation Act 1980. So ask for details of where the payment originated.

I can appreciate that you are hoping to get a definite answer whether further enforcement action will be taken after 6 years but I doubt it's possible for anyone to give that certainty. The difficulty is that there is something of a 'judge's lottery' if the creditor seeks permission to enforce. Because it is at the judge's discretion what is a 'good reason' it wasn't enforced within 6 years you might get a judge who feels the creditor has simply failied to get their act together within the 6 years and the court shouldn't allow them to disadvantage you because of their inefficiency. Or you could get a judge more sympathetic to the creditor who believes you had deliberately been trying to prevent the creditor finding you until the 6 years was up and that is a 'good reason' to allow further enforcement. So it's hard to say more than that it is possible the creditor could come after you after 6 years and a court might allow them to enforce. The large amount involved makes it more likely that they will do that if they find you and realise they are over the 6 years. Although in theory they could go back to the court at any time in the future in general the more years that have passed the less likely a court is to permit further enforcement. I'm sorry that doesn't give you the certainty you are hoping for.

Yes they would need new court permission to enforce after 6 years from the original CCJ date. They would need to show good reason why they had not enforced within the 6 years. For example, if you had moved abroad and could not be found and had only returned to the UK after 6 years. Have you changed address since the CCJ? Did the creditor know your new address? I wouldn't post the creditor' s name on here or any public forum in case they monitor online forums for references to them. They might then be able to identify you and realise the 6 years is nearly up.

Surely this isn't your husband's problem? He just returns the letter, unopened, to DVLA marked "Not known at this address - Return to Sender".

I don't understand why MoriartyLaw would issue a 30 day notice of intention of issuing court proceedings unless the water bills have not, in fact, been paid by your wife. Unless there is a debt owing to TW what would the proceedings be for? Unless TW have billed both of you for the same charges and your wife has paid them already. Every adult who lives in a property is jointly liable for water charges whether their name is on the bill or not. So if you are both living there and your wife has not paid TW you are liable because you are an occupier and are using water. Is there money owing to TW?

Does the executor realise the potential complications that might arise here when mother dies? Possibly your partner should have an informal talk with with the executor? Your partner, as a beneficiary, has few if any powers in this. From what you've said if I were the executor I would be planning to appoint a solicitor to act for me in estate administration. For one thing although your partner assumes their brother will not want to stay in the house and wants the money he might change his mind! But even if the brother isn't interested in staying long term he may not be willing to move out quickly. He may well say that until he gets money due to him from the Estate he can't afford to move out. Getting Probate and then selling the house could easily take a year in some circumstances. How will the Executor manage that situation? Is the Executor going to let him stay? On what legal basis? It is possible for the Executor to evict him but that needs advice from a lawyer specialising in landlord and tenant law. If he refuses to go court action would be needed. The Executor cannot just go round and change the locks and dump his stuff in the garden. If he does stay does the Executor appreciate that they have taken on the legal responsibilities of a Landlord? Liability for property maintenace, safety inspections, right to rent checks, etc Evicting him might provoke him to bring a claim that he is entitled to equitable part-ownership of some sort. Even if the claim is meritless it takes time and cost (to the Estate) to deal with. Hopefully these are 'worst case' outcomes and the brother voluntarily moves out promptly, but the Executor needs to think about it. If the brother is going to be allowed to remain for a period of tine one thing the Executor can easily do quickly is make him pay the bills - gas, electricity, water, council tax. All the Executor needs to do is send the death certificate to those organisations and tell them that from date X the account in the name of the mother should be closed and the occupier is now the brother. Those organisation will then contact the brother and bill him direct. And cancel the Broadband and phone, he can arrange his own.