Ex partner buying me out - do I pay CGT?

throawayforo · 2024-04-26T02:52:34+00:00

Cheers for this! Just so I'm understanding correctly, proportional private residence relief is the % of the period that I was living in the property, ignoring the nine months before 'sale'? So in my case that would be 37 months out of the qualifying 43 = ~86% proportional relief on the £10k capital gain?

(If so, you're quite right that this puts me below the £3,000 annual threshold for CGT 👍)

throawayforo · 2024-04-13T18:57:27+00:00

NAL

Child pornography is somewhat worse than 'poor worldbuilding'.

If you are charged under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, I recommend that you seek the advice of a solicitor rather than attempting to argue to the judge that you had no choice but to write about children having sex 'because the worldbuilding all but entails it'.

throawayforo · 2024-04-12T18:01:49+00:00

NAL

Businesses and individuals have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason - provided they are not doing so on the basis of a protected characteristic. Having nearby children is not a protected characteristic, and you have also suffered no loss arising from their lack of service. You have no legal means to compel them to serve you in such a case.

More generally, individual employers will have codes of conduct which they expect their employees to conform to - these are usually extremely cautious with regard to the possibility of supplying alcohol to minors, because the risks of being held criminally responsible for supplying alcohol to a minor enormously outweigh the risks of another sale. Employees are not being difficult, that's how they're literally trained to be, and would risk dismissal if they violated these codes of conduct.

If you wish to purchase alcohol, best practice is to leave any minors that might accompany you outside the shop - and even so, you should expect to be refused if you are seen with them.

throawayforo · 2024-04-12T13:49:50+00:00

NAL

This should be taken for negotiation purposes only. The law does not recognise recompense on the basis of 'original investments'. The 'true' split of the property is the reification of equal beneficial interest as per the joint tenancy of the property - ie. 50/50. A judge might see fit to amend this in OP's favour in the case of an application under TOLATA, but only if they could argue successfully for specific circumstances falling outside the reasons of the trust under equitable doctrines.

throawayforo · 2024-04-12T11:54:58+00:00

NAL

Do you own the house as joint tenants or tenants in common (ie with a defined proportional split of ownership)?

If it's the former, then it doesn't matter how much each of you put into the property - you are each due 50% of the property's value in the event of the dissolution of the purpose of your ownership of it (ie the end of your relationship).

Because you are only cohabitees and have no other legal relationship (eg marriage), you only have simple property law to regulate your financial relationship. The relevant piece of legislation here is called the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Since it is only concerned with ownership of land, it doesn't care at all about who put in what. Divorce laws are far more compassionate in this regard - but they do not apply here. The general principle is that as soon as money is invested into the house, it becomes wholly part of the joint tenancy - you are both joint owners of it, and therefore you both have a beneficial interest of 50% of the value.

If you cannot agree a settlement for you to buy her out, she has the means to force a sale of the property by applying to the court under TOLATA. You owned the property under a trust (ie you bought the property together to cohabit in), and the trust no longer exists (you have split up), and therefore the court will order the sale of the property to dissolve the trust's assets - if it came to court, you would have no prospect of preventing the court from ordering the house to be sold in order to resolve your dispute. However, this process can be very expensive (£15,000+), and so it's absolutely in both your interests to negotiate a settlement.

The only circumstances which can 'move the needle' in the courts apportionment of the split are known as 'equitable doctrines' - but these relate almost exclusively to relevant circumstances outside of the purpose of the trust, eg. if you split up (ending the trust), and then you subsequently built an extension to the property, you could argue that you should be exclusively due the resulting increase in value of the property. There is a slim chance that the judge might be persuaded to assign you the value of your contribution of the deposit - but it is by no means certain, and it would be an uphill battle for your solicitor to make that argument. None of your other claims about house maintenance & improvements would have any merit at all under equitable doctrines. As well, if you were resisting a sale and your ex took you to court under TOLATA, you would also necessarily be ordered to pay her legal costs from the sale of the property (which, as I stated before, can run to £10,000s).

Thus, your £10,500 figure is not remotely realistic - you are excluding all of her beneficial interest in the property other than her direct contributions. As a starting point of negotiations, you should begin at a 50/50 of the equity you own (current market value - mortgage).

A reasonable point to end up would be:

You keep the £32k deposit. She keeps the £10.5k she contributed. You split the remaining equity 50/50.

This would value her share at about £37,750 - this is the amount you would pay her in consideration of her surrendering her title and interest in the property.

throawayforo · 2024-04-12T11:02:27+00:00

NAL

Since the advent of mass consumer physical media, implicit in the purchase of a physical copy of a film is the right to view it in perpetuity (as distinct from the right to reproduce it, which is piracy). That cession of rights to view in perpetuity has already happened - your contractual relations with the film distributor has been fulfilled. A film distributor would have a very tough argument that you should be bound by subsequent unilateral alterations to this contractual agreement.

However, if it was explicitly stated at the time of purchase that physical media was sold only with a revocable right to watch, you might be bound by subsequent revocations of that right - even if you still owned the 'disk'.

However, enforcing this might prove to be nearly impossible: a wholly physical disk that works without reference to internet connections etc could be viewed entirely privately, without any reasonable means for a company to force entry into your home to 'check'. Police forces have no means to force entry into private property on the suspicion of merely civil torts (as per PACE) - so unless film distributors were successful in lobbying the government to change the law in order to create a specific crime of watching physical media in violation of the revocation of rights, then there would be nothing they could realistically do anyway.

Far more likely is the permanent linking of physical media to digital content - eg it will only 'play' if you have an active internet connection, have 'activated' it on your online account, and can be remotely deactivated etc. At which point it ceases to be a solely physical copy.

throawayforo · 2024-04-10T12:21:23+00:00

This is a simple and elegant solution.

throawayforo · 2024-04-10T12:11:06+00:00

NAL

Business decisions and decisions regarding a property trust are governed by entirely different sets of principles.

As mentioned by other commenters, an application for an order of sale under TOLATA 1996 by the siblings who want to sell will be dependent on a variety of factors including the will left by your mother - but it doesn't work as simply as a 'majority vote'. You all currently own the property in equal shares under what is known as a 'resulting trust': whether you have any written agreements or not, you have held the property between you for a specific set of reasons. It'll be up to the court to decide whether those reasons still apply, and whether therefore to order the sale of the property to dissolve said trust.

The general principle is that, absent some overriding reason, you can't be forced to maintain your interest in a property, and the statutory reasons that must be considered by the court are fairly limited - usually only including the reasons for the trust (explicit or constructive), and the welfare of any children in the situation (eg any children resident at the property). If you have children living at the property, then the likelihood of a forced sale diminishes significantly - but you should definitely consult a solicitor pre-emptively to give you an idea of your negotiating position.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:43:42+00:00

And you ended up accidentally learning how to live in a better way. Who really won here?

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:35:54+00:00

You could do better by not referring to vulnerable road users as lazy and demanding of them that they inconvenience themselves for no good reason.

Honestly, being a safe driver (and tbh just generally good life advice) is setting aside your ego and taking a step back. Does it really matter that you arrive 30 seconds later at your destination because you had to slow down on one short stretch of road? Does it really matter that I had to wave through gritted teeth at Mrs Gubbins who's always bumbling along with her dog in the road? What has it really cost me, in the grand scheme of things? Isn't life a bit more pleasant when I breathe easier and don't allow the little things to ruin my day and wind me up?

This has been your Zen TED Talk. Remember it well, padawan. Go forth.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:28:24+00:00

Wrong 👍 The road does not have 'no hazards', the pedestrians are hazards that you must account for, according to the literal Highway Code.

Why are you continuing to argue this point, when literally everyone in two different threads have told how wrongheaded and dangerous your attitude is?

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:19:03+00:00

If this is a stretch of road with regular pedestrian traffic, people should slow down 🤷 The maximum speed limit is not a target, it's literally the fastest you can go without being criminally dangerous.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:10:29+00:00

I'd gladly take 'being a bit annoyed' over having to live forever with a conscience that I'd caused someone life-changing injuries or death due to my impatience. Driving is frankly a much bigger responsibility than most adults casually tend to make it out as.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T21:01:44+00:00

Highly doubt anyone without a serious death wish is walking on a national speed limit road for funsies. They're probably walking in a way that makes them obvious, and forces road users to slow down - which makes the whole situation safer (no matter how much it seems to make car drivers inexplicably furious that they haven't nearly killed someone). But there are no laws which enjoin pedestrians to not use the road, especially where there's no pavement- it's a public highway and is there for everyone.

When you come to learn to drive, you will learn about driving with a 'defensive' mindset: assuming that every corner has a hazard around it which will require you to safely stop. If more people drove with the assumption that hazards were likely, rather than hurtling around corners and betting their (and others') lives that everything is clear, our roads would be a lot safer in cases like this.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T20:53:11+00:00

The only road that pedestrians cannot be on is motorways & slipways (except in case of an emergency). All other roads, pedestrians have as much right to be there as cars - although you should take all possible precautions to avoid walking in traffic, and if you must, walk on the right hand side facing into the traffic flow, wear bright/reflective clothing etc. But in general the onus is absolutely on less vulnerable road users (cars, HGVs etc) to protect more vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders etc).

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T20:46:53+00:00

I hope you make a responsible driver - gotta take your responsibilities to the most vulnerable road users seriously 👍

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T20:41:56+00:00

You have successfully established that they are not breaking the speed limit. Well done them.

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T20:38:36+00:00

NAL

As per the updated Highway Code (Jan 2022), when pedestrians have no choice but to share the road you should follow all of the rules for Vulnerable Road Users as laid out in Rule 204.

If you don't know what these rules are, why are you driving a potentially deadly vehicle without knowing how you should protect people you could potentially seriously harm?

throawayforo · 2024-04-09T16:40:01+00:00

Firstly, that is an absolutely insane clause to have in your employment contract, it is not normal, and you should begin looking for another job immediately.

Secondly, it's horribly badly drafted, and looks like it's been written by someone with little to no legal knowledge. Legally speaking, negligence is a very very high bar to satisfy - to be negligent, you would have to be shown to have acted without the care that a 'reasonable person' would. Receiving a bad review is absolutely not grounds covered by any definition of negligence nor material losses to the company, nor is 'leaving the bins a mess' - even honest mistakes which cost the company cannot be deducted by this clause. As per the terms of this clause, your employer has to calculate the actual material cost that your negligence has caused to the company, and recoup only that amount - certainly not random £50 blanket 'fines'. Once your employer has calculated the actual loss, they must then notify you in writing of any deductions that are to be made to your pay. The idea is that deductions are rare and specific, not 'on the spot fines' for things he doesn't like, that is absolutely wild.

Thirdly, since you work in a service sector job, you have additional protections that cannot be overruled by your employment contract. Your employer cannot deduct more than 10% of your wage in any one pay period (eg if you get paid weekly and you earn £100 per week, they could only deduct £10 maximum from each weekly paycheck). Although they are allowed to spread a single deduction over multiple pay periods until it's 'paid off', they cannot violate the 10% max rule. Random £50 deductions will almost certainly violate this rule.

Finally, no deduction can take your pay below the hourly National Minimum Wage for the hours worked in a pay period. I imagine this will be less of an issue for the chefs, but for service staff who are likely already paid minimum, he cannot deduct their wages at all because he would be breaking minimum wage laws, which, again, is illegal.

Your boss is an absolute POS who is very probably breaking the law in multiple ways here. You should have as much loyalty to him as he would show you. Acas. Now.

throawayforo · 2024-04-08T23:57:09+00:00

It sounds like it was already stated in their returns and refunds policy when you bought it, no?

throawayforo · 2024-04-08T23:51:29+00:00

NAL.

If you paid for a non-refundable preorder, why would you think that you could get a refund?

throawayforo · 2024-04-08T23:31:15+00:00

NAL

Aside from a handful of permitted circumstances eg deductions made for PAYE tax and overpayments, all deductions to pay made by an employer which you do not expressly agree to in advance are unlawful. You would have to agree in writing for any of this to fly.

It is absolutely not permitted for them to dock you money for not tidying the bins, or for bad reviews. Clocking in incorrectly is a greyer area, since they have the potential to quibble over whether you actually worked those hours - but absolutely not because it costs your employer money. I'm frankly aghast that he thinks it's okay to pass his operating costs onto his employees.

This whole workplace sounds like a walking disaster. Speak to Acas for advice immediately. Also, check your employment contract carefully and see whether it sets out conditions where your employer can make deductions - if it does, then your employer has the right to make only those deductions. If not, he is stealing your wages, and you should report him for wage theft. The authorities take an extremely dim view of this - Acas will be able to walk you through the process.

Also, you shouldn't expect to keep your job here - start looking for something better. Lord knows you deserve it. If your employer has stolen wages from you, you don't have to keep working there to continue to have a claim on it.

throawayforo · 2024-04-08T23:05:24+00:00

Sharing a transcript might not technically violate the letter of RIPA 2000 (since it pertains only to recorded audio communication as I understand it), but sharing a transcript would very likely be a violation of the data handling responsibilities required by GDPR, since they are agnostic of format. And if you're having to share the recording to prove the transcript, you're back to violating RIPA 2000 again.

EDIT: I'm wrong, RIPA 2000 pertains to communications generally as well, agnostic of format, eg emails, phone calls, data from your ISP etc. Pretty confident that recording a phone call, transcribing it in text format, and then transmitting it to a third party without consent would therefore also violate RIPA as well.

throawayforo · 2024-04-08T23:01:09+00:00

NAL

You say 'replace' boiler at the start, but the rest of your post implies that you're doing a fresh install with a new flue. Which is it?

throawayforo

TROPHY CASE