That's a fairly serious charge to be levelling against a legal firm. Perhaps you should call the Law Society and suggest they investigate?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Road the disaster- Resumed
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
kids are the magic key. Having kids guarantees a good income.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
You're implicitly trusting the Daily Wail, who'd never heard of Joan Edwards before the other day, over the solicitors who sat in a room with her and talked the subject over with her?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
And what was the exact wording of the will? In law, that is the *only* guide that may be followed. If there is any ambiguity, that is for the court to settle, not the media.
If it said "The government of the day", that is not the same as "The political party which is in power on the day"..
If the wording is along the lines of "Whichever party is in power", then the funds go to that party to be used as they wish. If the wording is "To the Government of the day" that means something slightly different.
On her and her family, as what happens during probate is that the meaning of the will can only be construed from the exact wording as signed and approved. Ambiguous wills cost many people much money every year. I hope they have at least had the decency to refund any fees they may have received for drawing up and administering such a badly drawn up will.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
So how do they benefit from their rent being paid? It may give them somewhere to live - but not any left over. Much the same with child benefits - unless they are depriving the kids.
If they do have lots of spare cash, they're likely getting it from somewhere else.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
That's what the BBC news said. But it would be nice to see the relevant part of the actual will.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
formatting link
Who _is_ the "government ... in office"? Is it the exchequer or the party in power? I'd suggest the latter, given the "whichever... in office". The party in power control the exchequer, but the exchequer doesn't "change" after an election.
If she meant it to go to the exchequer, the wording should have said that. If she meant it to go to the party, the wording should have said that.
Since it just says "whichever government is in office", then IWSTM that form may have been her preferred wording, hence the requested clarification from the solicitors.
The really interesting bit is the "cremated and no service", especially taken alongside the neighbour who "knew her well" and was sure she really wanted it left to the local church...
TF she didn't die in the immediate aftermath to the 2010 election before the coalition was agreed. That would _really_ have put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Basically, the only people who can clarify credibly are those who were in the room. One of them's dead, and the others have spoken.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Them's the only choices.
Either the Wail has f***ed up mightily with another half-informed knee- jerk, since she really did intended her bequest to go to the political party... or you are outright stating that the solicitors are lying.
Pick one. Because it really IS that black and white.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
In other words, the solicitors are lying.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Do you know what the average benefit is? The minimum has no relevance.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
They may be living in a better house that is more energy efficient than the one the paying less rent.
So you think they are fiddling benefits?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Perhaps we should.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
No need. They have admitted it in today's DM.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Has that never happened in the past?
formatting link
Oho, Telling porkies!
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
No you don't. That was the exact problem.
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Who has admitted what in today's DM?
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Maybe for those in the know, but not for the rest of us. A few years ago I was temporarily out of work and my wife was working part time. We were eligible for tax credits and I got contributions based JSA. Even with three kids and one of them under 1, our total gross income from all three sources was less than £15,000 p.a. and most of that was my wife's salary! We couldn't get any help with the £300 p.m. cost of childcare, but to stop it would have meant us losing the places and me being unable to start work when I found it - with a 9 month waiting list for places at the nurseries in the area!
SteveW
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
If she did mean that and they checked that at the time, they are grossly negligent in not spelling that out clearly in her will! This is supposed to be the reason for using solicitors, so that the layman does not word a will in a way that can be misinterpreted.
SteveW
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Hmmm, a very difficult choice. On one hand a moneygrabbing, closed shop known for twisting the meaning of anything way beyond any reasonable interpretation and debating the clearest of intentions while the bills rack up and on the other a newspaper (which I enjoy reading) known for managing to print stories that often project almost the opposite of reality. Sorry, that's too hard to decide.
SteveW
- Vote on answer
- posted
10 years ago
Who should have refused to use such vague wording, either suggesting clearer wording or including a clarification within the will. If the lady in question refused to budge from her wording and would not allow the clarification, they should have pointed out her folly and refused to act for her.
Indeed, very odd!
:)
That clarification should have been made at the time the will was written though.
SteveW