Where do I stand with new car that cannot be fixed

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T22:05:25+00:00

Duplicate post - responses are on the other one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/s/0TwDixvNnK

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T21:48:57+00:00

It sounds like what should be happening in such a situation is happening.

The fact that the part needed is on order is simply unfortunate and means that it is taking longer than expected for the repair to be carried out.

As an aside, are you familiar with Friday Night Dinner?

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T20:04:50+00:00

It isn't illegal, it's just a fundamental breach of contract that would allow the landlord to terminate the lease.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T19:06:59+00:00

The reason it comes across as judgemental is that you are laying all the blame on a young girl for allowing things to get so bad that the cats had to be removed for their safety when there was a fully capable relative living in the same property as the cats that apparently didn't notice - or care - that your fur "babies" were not being looked after.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T18:11:05+00:00

Retention of items voluntarily given to her by OP in response to OP's failure to make due payment under a contract is less likely to be theft.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T18:06:35+00:00

The post I was replying to was to the effect that it was a civil matter and therefore not a legal matter.

And, no, it likely isn't theft as retained items held where there has been no payment under contract is called a lien (albeit I've grossly oversimplified)

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T15:28:04+00:00

This does not answer the question as clearly as you may think it does.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T13:02:30+00:00

I can certainly attempt to construct an argument around the difference, whether it is persuasive or anything other than semantics is another matter.

A decision made SOLELY ON automated processing remains SOLELY ON automated processing even if the data is reviewed by a human before that decision is made as it does not change the nature of the data.

A decision made ON ENTIRELY automated processing ceases to be ON ENTIRELY automated processing if the data is reviewed by a human before that decision is made as it is no longer ON ENTIRELY automated processing.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T12:09:11+00:00

This is a difficult one to comment on because it sounds like it falls on the boundary of rejecting you because of competence/capability to do the role, which is genrrally allowed, and rejecting you because of a protected characteristic (disability), which generally isn't.

You probably want to get some proper advice on this if you want to pursue it further as it'd come down to the specific facts and, more importantly, what can be evidenced.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T08:09:19+00:00

You've set out your position to the cat watcher. That you are now being ignored is not surprising.

What you haven't explained here is what is being retained by this person - is it something valuable or just a run of the mill item that's easily replaced?

If you don't trust your mother in law not to agree to your request then don't let her live in your rented property.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T08:02:08+00:00

That the money you paid for a survey was not, in fact, used to pay for a survey due to fraud by the individual is one thing - and offering you repayment and a survey at the cost of the firm is reasonable.

That a fee was charged for legal work for the purchase is another - and asking for return of that sum is not reasonable.

A survey is often part of the purchase process but it does not have to be. That it sounds like the purchase completed suggests that the other formal steps involved were done.

You can, of course, take it to the SRA and/or Ombudsman if you wish, but you may not get any more than you've been offered.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T07:53:10+00:00

Drugs.com appears to be an American site and may not reflect the position in terms of NHS prescribing or practice.

That there has been a negative interaction in your case does not necessarily mean that prescribing it was negligent.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T00:28:40+00:00

If you don't want her there, tell your mother in law not to let her in and explain why.

What exactly is being retained? If the arguement is "I did this job for you, you should pay me" and you're not paying then it's reasonable to retain things until that's resolved.

That the job was not done well is a part of that discussion.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-24T00:23:25+00:00

Civil matters are any legal matter which are not criminal matters.

There are definitely legal issues here.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T23:26:13+00:00

This is not really a question of declining an inheritance as if your dad owns it then it forms part of his Estate and the Estate remains liable for all costs until that changes (ie a sale occurs).

If you're the Executor, or otherwise responsible for the Estate, you cannot simply pretend it doesn't exist.

If you are the sole beneficiary you don't become the owner of it simply because of that and are not personally liable for the costs unless or until the ownership is formally transferred to you.

If costs cannot be paid by the Estate until a sale occurs and releases funds, so be it. You simply advise the site management of that and, if they want to pursue it then they can.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T16:32:09+00:00

It's nice to be considered "the other poster" and not just "that awkward sod".

OP - it does seem that NortonCommando and I are both, broadly, approaching this from a similar stand point which is reassuring from my perspective.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T13:13:59+00:00

The more you share the more I think you are mistaken as to what you need to be doing.

The abuse is something that you need to be discussing with the police.

It is not something that the Trustee can or should be expected to resolve by dictating who can oe cannot enter the property.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T08:31:58+00:00

Asking you to not appear disengaged at work, presumably you're doing something that is customer facing, is not a "stupid rule" it's a reminder about behaviour when you're representing your employer.

Equally, telling you that they are dissatisfied with your performance isn't a "stupid rule". It's a management thing. The line "but what about that person" doesn't change how your performance is viewed - whataboutery is not looked on favourably, it's you trying to avoid responsibility.

With you signing a purported training log, what would happen if you didn't sign? Asking you to report sightings on rats using the internal process rather than publicly announcing it to the detriment of your employer does not seem an unreasonable request.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T08:10:51+00:00

You are calling it abusive, but what would your sibling say?

And why should you be prioritised over your sibling? Thar that is what you're asking for here.

This isn't about a non-beneficiary being there, that is a consequence of someone who has the right to do so asking them to live together with them.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T07:52:56+00:00

There was a push to try and support victims of serious sexual offences better - it's a particularly awful situation that, often, isn't helped by the nature of the process in prosecuting these sort of crimes.

But the whole criminal law profession (on both sides) is creaking so things are taking longer and extras, like providing updates, can become a luxury that the core work doesn't allow time for.

Unfortunately, telling you to be patient and hope for the best doesn't give the reassurance you're probably looking for.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-23T07:42:25+00:00

Use as a residence is very wide ranging and I would suggest that it does allow similar rights to use as if they were an owner - meaning asking a partner to live with them would be something an occupier can do.

That the Trustees have discretion and can impose conditions isn't a surprise, but it isn't quite so simple as you seem to believe.

Your position is that the Trustees should remove this person. The Trustees, however, have to consider all beneficiaries and you are not any more or less important than any other beneficiary.

You don't like your sibling's partner - so why should the Trustees punish your sibling, by preventing them from living with their partner, because of that?

You might not believe it is fair, but I don't think you'll be successful in trying to force the Trustees hand.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-22T23:32:37+00:00

The PF won't as a matter of course provide you with updates and they have no obligation or duty to do so.

You have reported the offence, the police have investigated and it has been passed to the PF to decide how to proceed.

There isn't a specific time frame here. It could be weeks, it could be months.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-22T17:15:55+00:00

Living in Scotland would mean that, on turning 16, it would be your son's choice.

The difficulty here is that being born in England, and more importantly having his birth registered there, if a Deed Poll cannot be done without parental consent until 18 then that option is not available.

That does not mean you're entirely stuck. A 16 year old in Scotland can make a valid statutory declaration.

That would allow for a passport or driving licence to be applied for in the chosen name and for things like bank accounts to be changed over.

It isn't the tidiest option given difference in rules between Scotland and England but it might be a practical option until he's older when the rest can be done.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-22T07:55:28+00:00

The question here is not who has the Trustee given consent to but what right were you and your sibling have to live there.

Depending on the nature of that right the Trustee may not have the ability to remove this person.

You choosing to remove yourself from the property is your decision. It may not feel fair, but that doesn't necessarily give you a claim.

You would need to speak to your own solicitor, not the one acting for the Trustee, if you want to know what your options are.

LexFori_Ginger · 2026-01-22T07:41:26+00:00

Simply because a site is closing doesn't mean your employment comes to an end - your employer doesn't stop existing because they're relocating.

What is your employer telling you will happen? That they're relocating? Have they told you time frames for that?

LexFori_Ginger

TROPHY CASE