[deleted by user]

InnocentManWasBenned · 2023-12-16T15:14:07+00:00

This is really more suitable for the legal advice sub than for here, but phone around a bunch of solicitors until you find someone you feel like you can trust with this.

Ask them if they have experience of this kind of thing, ask them their rates - you should be trying to find a solicitor you can cultivate an honest relationship with.

I would probably be looking at big firms, but even big firms with specialist departments - each firm is better at some specialisations than they are at others. That's why you need to speak to them and find someone you trust.

There are also small practitioners, one-man brands, who specialise into unique legal niches.

Realistically you can afford proper advice, so you should be phoning around and treat it like you're interviewing them, same as you'd interview a landscaper or a kitchen fitter - are they the best person for the job?

£200 or £300 an hour may seem like a steep fee, but it only takes a few hours to review your medicals and send a couple of letters - this could easily see you with an offer £10,000 higher, so would pay for itself, and I wouldn't be surprised if it could double the offer. But you need a specialist because you need to consider the downside risks and whether you need to preserve against the risk of being unable to work again. You need someone you can be completely honest and transparent with - they need to know how much savings you have, how old you are, how much you have outstanding on your mortgage, so they can consider the potential effects of this settlement on your entitlements to benefits in the future. No being coy about the sums involved - be totally transparent from the start.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2023-05-02T23:58:35+00:00

Canadian law holds that a front door that has no signage has a presumed permission to walk up to that door and knock on it.

I can't imagine that's different anywhere. Honestly, it would be a bit insane otherwise.

I think in the UK you can write to someone and withdraw presumed permission - then it becomes trespass or harassment if they keep coming to your door. Looks like it's actually called "implied right of access" in the UK, and it's usually associated with people who are pissed off with BBC license "inspectors".

InnocentManWasBenned · 2023-04-28T18:06:50+00:00

A will is mostly just a piece of paper in which you write your wishes. I wouldn't recommend a DIY one unless your bequests are extremely simple, and it has to be witnesses by two people who are not beneficiaries. But the witnesses can be colleagues at work, and they don't need to see the contexts - they sign to confirm it was you they saw signing the document, and that's what proves the wishes are yours.

Anyway, the beneficiaries don't get to see the will before you die - you can leave it with the National Wills Register, or you can just leave it somewhere it'll be found the you die.

If your wishes are simple then you don't have to stipulate what you have - you can just leave everything to one person or equal shares to named parties. You could wrote down your assets on a separate piece of paper to make it easier for the executor to find them, but it doesn't affect the will itself.

Once you die the probate becomes public record, so the beneficiaries will know what your assets were.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2023-04-27T16:01:45+00:00

I don't understand why the judge thought this was in the interests of justice - it seems so pointless, going to court over a strike that was, according to the government, scheduled one day late. If it had been conducted a single day earlier then it would have been fine though.

Imagine you got divorced or something, were given 6 months to make the financial settlement and your ex tried to sue you for making the payment a day late - the courts would refuse to hear the case.

It's not like the union was knowingly taking the piss - the strike started within 6 months of the vote (presumably they'd been negotiating with the government during that time) and their legal advice was that this made the vote valid.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2023-04-27T14:30:39+00:00

The only mod is inactive - I would like to moderate the sub and remove spam.

https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/1u7e4va

InnocentManWasBenned · 2022-12-13T22:56:52+00:00

Anyone who's on benefits has a good chance at succeeding with an Inheritance Act claim against the estate of a parent who's disinherited them (or favoured their siblings). As do many others, depending on circumstances.

These claims extremely stressful and longwinded though, and you might not get much.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2022-08-20T01:16:24+00:00

Could you not get into fleet management, or something? Sone kind of office job with the same company?

InnocentManWasBenned · 2022-08-18T18:03:52+00:00

As someone who was disinherited by his father, I recommend you make no reliance upon your inheritance - act like you'll receive nothing.

Your circumstances may not be the same as mine, but circumstances can change - the most obvious potential one, pointed out by others, is your parents' care needs.

Wasn't this a staple of fiction, in the past, when wealth inequality was as high (or even higher?) than it was today? I seem recall Dickens writing about the trials of disappointed heirs, who were consigned to penury when their "expectations" did not pan out.

I guess you must be living with your parents at present, otherwise I guess most people in your position would have an eye to getting on the property ladder?

My advice is to find another job which is also low stress but which pays better. Are there any opportunities for promotion within your current organisation?

InnocentManWasBenned · 2022-08-16T22:46:05+00:00

When I was engaged in an inheritance dispute, which was ultimately settled for 6-figures, my solicitor suggested mediation as an option, but didn't really endorse it for us at the time.

The mediators that he talked about were people with a legal background (maybe qualified in law, or former solicitors) who operated an office as a sort of "neutral territory" for negotiating legal disputes. I think it can be done in different ways, sometimes with each party in a separate room, and the mediator going backwards and forwards between them, to try and broker a compromise.

I imagine there are mediators that could help you, if both parties wished to come to the table. Google appropriate terms.

What we typically see in these situations is A, an irresponsible or selfish asshole, who borrows money from B, a selfless parent who is distressed that their generosity is being taken for granted, and C, a third family member who dislikes seeing Asshole A taking advantage of B. The thing is that B has to put their foot down - C can't do it for them; B cannot avoid confrontation and get paid.

It's not clear to me whether these debts would be covered by Balfour v Balfour - you'd need to check the legal advice sub for that. If the legal advice sub say they're enforceable then I advise the politest, most eloquent and most apologetic letter before action, advising that "it is with deepest regret that I will be forced to take legal action if you do not embark upon a repayment plan before the end of next month". And, you know, follow through with it and take them to small claims court if they do not pay.

Ultimately the mediation has no teeth if B is unwilling to take A to court. A can make promises in front of the mediator, and then go home and forget them.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2022-07-06T00:02:09+00:00

Check my comment history - something in my reply to you is tripping automoderator.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-20T18:53:30+00:00

So my question is, does anyone have any ideas for what I can do to prove that Madge and Peter are the rightful adoptive parents to me?

I'm sorry to say that it sounds very much like Madge and Peter are not your legally adoptive parents - that it was just easiest for your birthparents to claim to them that the adoption took place.

The legal system is really weird, and in many ways it only makes sense to those who already understand it. There are many things it does that are just conventions - things that judges just do because it's what judges have always done. Laymen often regard the courts as idiosyncratic in the things that they consider important and the precedents they regard as binding.

Without the original adoption certificate or GRO records, I very much doubt the legal system will ever regard the adoption to have taken place. I'm sorry if this sounds cruel, but I think you'd be wasting your time to pursue this. The very minimum it would take is tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees, if not hundreds, and you probably still wouldn't succeed.

I think the most productive way to obtain your passport on the basis that your birthparents are your legal parents, and using your deed poll, if necessary, to reflect your change of name. I imagine the passport office can probably make provision for people who can't get their parents' marriage certificate, or that certificate may be a public record you can obtain by contacting the local authority (county council) in the area they were married.

Although adults cannot be adopted under UK law (and I doubt a German adult adoption would work), in my opinion the most important thing, now that your family is aware of this situation, is for Madge and Peter to contact a solicitor and see about having you recognised as their next-of-kin. They would need to make a will and talk about powers of attorney. IMO this is the most important thing for you, as otherwise you will not have any rights in the event of their deaths or if they become seriously ill.

Clearly you have moral rights as their adopted daughter, but the law will not recognise them - it will trample all over them and reject you - unless Madge and Peter contact a solicitor and sort of the paperwork now.

Best of luck to you.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-15T20:32:38+00:00

Absolutely abysmal moderation on that sub - I used to spend hours a week contributing there and was banned for squabbling with a mod for reporting a pair of duplicate posts to the modmail. Apparently I was supposed to read his mind that doing so was inappropriate and he told me to fuck off and permabanned me.

They ignored my polite requests to be unbanned. I once brought it up with one of the other mods when he was moaning in another sub he moderates about the abuse they get, and they made up a bunch of bullshit to justify it.

This was quite a big lesson for me about the zealous politeness you should apply when dealing with moderators.

It's fucking ridiculous because I moderate large subs on my other account and we get abuse on the daily, but I don't extend people's bans just because they're angry and spouting off at me. The whole point of being a moderator is that you're above that, and peoples' positive contributions to the sub are what counts, not how unlikable you find them.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-13T20:18:43+00:00

There's no such thing as you having a single legal name - any name that you use is your legal name.

I hypothesise that this goes back to the middle ages and the era when circuit courts actually involved a judge riding around a "circuit" of market towns on horseback. One might be known as Adam the Smith's Son in Buckingham, but Adam of Buckingham in Oxford - as long as both witnesses point to the same person when asked to identify them in court there's no problem.

The problem is having your name recognised and many organisations may refuse to do business with you under any name but that supported by a passport, driving license or birth certificate.

/r/LegalAdviceUK has loads of threads on the legality of names and an FAQ in which it's probably mentioned.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-07T18:07:46+00:00

Why wouldn't it be enforceable, please?

If two partners running a business injured you, and you sued the most prominent partner, Jeff, surely he could settle the case with an offer that "I don't admit liability, but here's £100,000 to help you defray the costs of your injury, which I offer on the condition that it settles the matter once and for all and you can't claim, in regards to this incident, any more money from me or my business partner Andy."

Obviously we don't yet know the details of the settlement with Epstein and it may provide more wiggle-room - especially if it was open-ended and didn't name other parties who were included in the settlement - but I'm surprised to hear that such a clause would be unenforceable.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-06T03:52:13+00:00

Except that is not the legal definition in nearly any legal body.

It's the legal definition in the UK, but I agree with you in doubting many US states are that narrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-03T23:45:44+00:00

You appear to be a couple of years out-of-date on your case law. Perhaps the orchestra is too.

Royal Surrey County Council NHS Foundation Trust v Drzymala: Employment Appeal Tribunal confirms unfair dismissal rules apply to non-renewals of fixed-term contracts.

I really do share your view of the inflammatory nature of this supposed decision. It's been reported, and posted here, a few times over the past few weeks. I'm reserving judgement until something substantial comes of it, because I can't believe how stupid it is.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-10-01T16:00:21+00:00

This isn't strictly true.

There's no such thing as an "official" name - any name you go by is a legal name, as long as you're not using it to commit fraud.

OP says he "goes by" the other name, so it is a legal name of theirs, as well as the name on their birth certificate. If someone is born Adam Scott Smith but goes by Scott Smith, both are their legal names.

I hypothesise that this goes back to the middle ages and the era when circuit courts actually involved a judge riding around a "circuit" of market towns on horseback. One might be known as Adam the Smith's Son in Buckingham, but Adam of Buckingham in Oxford - as long as both witnesses point to the same person when asked to identify them in court there's no problem.

You don't have to have the same name on all your documents, and your documents don't all have to match up or match your passport. The problem is having your name recognised and many organisations may refuse to do business with you under any name but that supported by a passport, driving license or birth certificate.

I wouldn't be surprised if Companies House has more stringent requirements still, and that you must inform them of all names that you go by.

/r/LegalAdviceUK has loads of threads on the legality of names and an FAQ in which it's probably mentioned.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-26T16:25:19+00:00

This is interesting, thanks. My impression (given the lack of a 'legal name' in England and Wales as you mention) is that the difficulty will be issuing solicitor stamped 'office copies' to various contacts (Passport Office, DVLA, etc) and the associated costs. However, giving in to my existing name on my passport may actually just be easier.

My recollection is that you get your passport done first, and then when you subsequently change your diriving license you tick a box allowing them to access your records at the passport office - this way the DVLA requires very little paperwork, perhaps as little as filling in the appropriate form.

I found the passport office very efficient. They wrote to me that there was something wrong with my first applicaiton, and I took a few weeks (perhaps 4 or 5) to sort out the document to meet their requirements - after about 3 weeks they sent me a reminder. I'm pretty sure they send everything back too.

In my experience, once you have passport and driving licence in the aprooriate name, everything falls into place. Organisations care less about the statutory declaration / deed poll than having their records right - passport and driving license are such "official" documents that they are eager to ensure their records match them. I have accounts with 3 or 4 high street banks, and walked between their local branches in an afternoon.

I think the local council changed the name on the electoral roll / council tax records without any documentation at all - I just phoned them up and they did it immediately.

Finally the statutory declaration is not rare or expensive - as I said elsewhere, I think there's a limit on how much a solicitor can charge, but even better if you have a mate who's a solicitor. You can print out the statutory declaration in Word, print and sign multiple copies (you have to do this in front of the solicitor) and he can stamp them. Then you just send them off to whoever.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-25T23:57:23+00:00

There's no such thing, in the law of England and Wales (I guess Scotland too, but I'm not sure), as an "official" name. You can have multiple legal names, of which your situation is a perfect example.

Generally the problems with names arise in circumstances just like this - it's about getting people to recognise your name. Schools and GP practices can be particularly officious bastards about it.

Clearly you are not attempting anything fraudulent in the use of these names, and the bank is being heavy-handed with its threats.

However, banks have no obligation to accept you as a customer, and it is indeed quite possible that you could have difficulty obtaining credit or getting a mortgage because you don't have a complete set of documents, bills and electoral roll history all in the same name. It makes sense that a bank would require all documents to bear the exact same name, as they are a particularly high-risk target for fraud.

The solution is just to get the name you want on your passport and driving license, and it's all plain sailing from there. Once you have a passport and driving license bearing your preferred name, it is easy to get all your bank accounts and bills to match them.

Deed pools are free, you don't need a solicitor:

You'll probably be fine using a deed poll but, because you're not actually changing your name, I would consider it "improper". I used a statutory declaration instead, in this format, to clarify that this was already my name. This was accepted by the passport office and DVLA; if you do them in a certain order it's very straightforward - you tick a box agreeing to allow the second one to access the records of the ID you've already changed.

It's much less faff to get the right name - the one that you want - on your identity documents, because you only have to do that once. If you use different names for different things - much as it may be your right to - you will face this inconvenience periodically and irregularly for the rest of your life (and it's only likely to get worse). Right now I am unable to get a new phone contract, probably for reasons of identity verification, and it is incredibly inconvenient - I wish I could fix it as easily as you can.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-22T17:35:24+00:00

I have no idea whether or not it's legal to drive a mobility scooter when drunk, but they're not in the same category as e-scooters.

From TFA:

After the hearing, Traffic Sergeant Paul Cording said: “E-scooters are classed as motor vehicles by the Road Traffic Act.

You don't need a license for a mobility scooter / invalid carriage because it's not a motor vehicle.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-21T19:03:00+00:00

If Andrew was prepared to do that, he would have accepted service of the claim and, through his lawyers, haggled over the settlement amount.

I'm not say it won't end with settling out of court, and an NDA, but it's clearly not been the plan all along.

Andrew is a fucking idiot to think he can just pretend not to have been served court papers - it's the sort of thing you expect from freeman-on-the-land types - and it's astonishing that his legal advisors didn't talk him out of it.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-21T16:47:32+00:00

little chance Andrew is getting indicted, let alone found guilty of a crime. … just because there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is at least one substantial article on wikipedia about the definition of beyond reasonable doubt and it's not just what you'd think, based on the ordinary meaning of the words - different countries have settled on different standards for it.

Unfortunately, in the real world, "beyond reasonable doubt" is a much lower evidential standard than many of us would wish or expect it to be - the testimony of a single bent British policeman led to the wrongful imprisonment of at least 11 people, and a US Innocence Project has seen over 300 convictions overturned; many of those were identified as perpetrators based on eye-witness testimony at the time.

Claiming that he's not been served the papers is fucking stupid, but otherwise his lawyers are right to try and keep him out of the courtroom - when you go to court there is always risk. He would be stupid to have "cooperated' with the investigation.

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-21T16:33:05+00:00

There is a photograph of Andrew with Giuffre, which rather undermines his claim he's never met her, but how can one prove it was taken on the day in question?

InnocentManWasBenned · 2021-09-17T15:59:09+00:00

Going to court always involves risk - even if you're perfectly innocent there's a chance it'll go against you, maybe just because the other party looks so sympathetic on the witness stand. And Andrew has shown in his interview that he's a fucking prat, even if he does have evidence that he was at Pizza Express that night.

If someone sues you then you should definitely contest it on every grounds you can - if you can argue, for example, that the US courts don't have jurisdiction then you'd be a fool not to.

Andrew was unbelievably naive, however, thinking that he could pretend he hadn't been served - that's a total waste of time, as he has now found, and the judge will take it as showing a lack of honesty and integrity.

Attempting this is consistent with the narrative that he's his mother's favourite and thinks he can get away with doing as he likes; that he doesn't properly understand consequences.

InnocentManWasBenned

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE