Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

And I wondered why there was a "talk to yourself" thread ;o)

Hands up those that are surprised re the CPS decision that no one is to be charged over the Cash for Honors farce.
In my last job the CPS were referred to as The Criminal Protection Society.
How can a final decision be taken by persons put in the job by those possibly involved. Conflict of interest!
Talk about you scratch my back.
Government more corrupt than ever.
At least we can once again trust the BBC as they are all being sent on How to be Honest Courses.
I understand on completion of these courses there will be new programme where you can vote for which presenter has the most honest looking face.
If it was the ordinary man/woman in the street, there would be corruption, fraud charges pouring through the letter box.
Cynicism rules. OK.

Takes some believing (well I thought so anyway).

Names have not been mentioned to protect the guilty.

Having a dispute with a Solicitor re a legacy left to my wife.

The basis of the dispute is as follows.

The solicitor (sole executor) took about 5 months to finalize a will.
He did not answer requests for account details involved (5 requests over 4 weeks) and admits to not chasing up a building society for 8 weeks after a none reply to an initial inquiry.
I have evidence to this from the solicitor himself, via an E-Mail.
Eventually I contacted the Building Society myself who quickly admitted that one delay was partly their fault and quickly offered compensation (after a threat of the FSA).
Not so the solicitors firm. I made a formal complaint to the solicitors firm.
I received a reply stating that, they do not act for the beneficiary (which I was aware of), and that they only have responsibility and duty to their client the executor.
On contacting the senior partner I had the following conversation.

Q "Can you confirm that you only have a duty to the executor"
R "Yes"
Q "Can you confirm you are the sole executor"
R " I'm not sure without looking at the file"
Q " I can confirm that you are the sole executor, so if so can you confirm that you are your own client"
R " Yes".
Q " So you are stating that you only have responsibility to yourself and no one else"
R " Yes"
Q "So you are only answerable to yourself"
R " We are only responsible to the executor who is our client".
Q " But you are the sole executor, so it follows you are your own client"

At this stage he became a bit stroppy. I think he realized I was one of those people that solicitors don't frighten.

It was at this stage I informed him I was taking this to the Law Society.
In my opinion the above could be the script for a Monty Python sketch.
I feel that the client is in the first place the person who made the will. The solicitors responsibility can't end on the death surely.

You couldn't make it up.

If the Law Society disagree with me and side with the solicitor I will take this as far as it can go.

As a foot note. Within 4 days of me chasing the Building Society the money was released to the solicitor, who 3 days later released it to my wife.

We pay these people well over the odds for a service which is often totally inept.

Priceless Greek, couldn't agree more! I have come across many solicitors in my life who have been exactly like the one you dealt with; having said that there are also just as many who are completely the opposite......I would like to think that the majority are not on the 'dark side' but would not be overwhelmingly surprise to find that is not the case!!

This solicitor sounds like a fool.

He was surely wrong in saying he only had responsibility and duty to his client, the executor.

The Executor has a responsibility to The Estate and the beneficiaries.

If he is also the Executor it follows he has a duty to the Estate and a responsability to discharge the wishes of the deceased.

See here:-

http://www.willsprobate.co.uk/executors.html

'Once the grant has been issued it gives the executor the legal right to deal with the assets of the estate in accordance with the wishes of the deceased. This may involve the sale of property, the liquidation of shares and calling in the balance on bank accounts. Once the assets are realised and all debts including tax are paid the executor must distribute the residual estate to the beneficiaries. Executors must be extremely cautious about the way in which they deal with matters and must remember that they have a responsibility for tax and a responsibility to the beneficiaries.'

In common law, everyone owes a duty of care to his neighbour.
His neighbour being defined as anyone who should reasonably have been in his thoughts when he acted or omitted to act.
From that I would say that he would struggle to say he did not owe a duty of care, but he could probably argue that no damage has resulted.
I'm not a legal type though, thank God.

Looks like the Tour De France is going to be keeping a few solicitors busy. The way things are going, it will have to be renamed 'Rout De France'

Oblomov,

I agree the solicitor sounds like a fool, and he is a senior partner.
If I did not have the letter stating his comments, re client responsibility, executor etc, I would find it hard to believe a solicitor could leave himself so open to challenge.

The solicitor actually dealing with the Will in one of his E-Mail replies stated, something to the effect, On contacting......I had not received a reply, until I contacted them again (some 8 weeks later) so he is admitting he let mattes rest for 8 weeks. I feel he has shot himself in the foot, by admitting this.

Also thanks very much for the link.

If it goes to court greekman ,make sure you have the right judge.

Oooo Jimmy, she can hold my gavel anytime.

Jimmy,

If she was the Judge, and the penalty was 100 lashes, tied to a bed (whipped with celery and whilst wearing a flying helmet, for fans of Allo, Allo), you could find me guilty anytime.
I could make a joke about penal servitude, but this is a family show, so I won't.

It,s summer at last ,that means the mini skirt is back ,,shouldn't be allowed .

You're right Jimmy, it shouldn't be allowed, it should be damn well compulsory.

i saw plenty of that last week on me hols :))

this is what i love most about youtube, stumbling across a classic i had forgotten all about.

ma heart was broken. sorrow, sorrow

fantastic song :)

Compulsory! Now if a political party put this on the NHS (Please), what a vote winner.
By the way, it's not a mini skirt, it's a pelmit.

I read a long report over the weekend, re causes of road accidents (I'm a retired driving instructor). Funny how there are no figures for, the number of accidents caused by sexily dressed females. I remember when I first saw such a girl in Hot pants (No Jimmy, please I just can't stand it), I was a passenger in a car, and the driver very nearly drove through a shop door.

I try to fully concentrate on the road ahead, really I do, but on a serious note, they must be the cause of distraction. Not blaming them at all, but I wonder what the percentage is, IE accidents caused by beautiful, sexy females, and those caused by the ugly ones.

Just so the political correct brigade don't track me down, I would like to state that as soon as I saw the above picture I thought, 'OK a great body, but beauty is only skin deep, I would probably just want to talk to her to find out what she is really like. I would be interested in her thoughts, views, feelings.
'YER RIGHT!
I know what its like to be wanted just for my body. Well I can dream can't I?

That's not a pelmet Greek, it's a bandage..............already available on the NHS, yipee!

On the serious note of road safety....................
I see the government have made it a priority (yet again). They are blaming accidents on youth and speed. Interesting. While I am neither young nor fast I wonder whether they have considered that these are not the biggest dangers to life and limb.
Firstly speed. Whenever I go on a plane I hurtle down a runway at God knows what speed and then set off across the sky at something like 400 MPH, yet this is the safest form of transport there is.
Now youth. Yes they drive too fast and have little experience, but give me a 19 year old at 40 MPH every day, rather than a 68 year old at 30 MPH. Myopic, with his / her nose against the windscreen and steering wheel carving a groove in their stomach, and with reaction times best measured against continental drift. I know which makes me feel safer.
No, the real cause of too many accidents is arguing and restive kids in the back seat, sticking sharp objects in each other because they are bored, while the wife snores in the passenger seat and dad tries to shout at them, watch his satnav and keep a wary eye open for speed cameras, while weaving around to avoid the dreaded speed bumps that would cost him a new set of shock absorbers. Even Lewis Hamilton would struggle to drive under these conditions.
The only way to make roads safe is to only give a driving license to people who prove they can handle a car at speed in poor conditions, remove speed bumps and speed cameras, and make it a basic qualification for driving that you undergo a vasectomy first.

Hot Pants ,i'll have to get on to that Greekman..

Re accidents.
I am a great believer in speed cameras, but not at the expense of Traffic Police. Speed does kill, mainly because those that speed and cause these accidents, either speed in the wrong places, situations, or/and can not handle their vehicles at these speeds.
In a perfect world, if everyone drove sensibly, there would be no need for speed limits at all.

In my previous profession prior to becoming a Driving Instructor, I was a Road Traffic Accident investigator with responsibility for Fatal and Serious RTA's.
Without going into details, I have attended over 100 fatal road traffic accidents and many hundreds of serious RTA's.

There are many causes of these accident, including use of Mobile Phones (a triple death) eating at the wheel (child on cycle) smoking (a young girl who died after hitting a tree after dropping a cigarette down her cleavage) lack of sleep (Selby Rail crash, 10 dead, where I was 2nd at the scene) even a male shaving on the way to work.
And yet when these persons are prosecuted, the public often feel that it is over kill (no pun intended).

I do agree that old age, although not a cause itself, but a factor re condition/health is not treated as it should be.

My big gripe is drivers with poor eyesight. Just try the test yourself by reading a new style car number plate at the distance requirement of 20 meters.
That distance is pathetic. I tested a driver who failed at 8.5 meters, who had driven into a skip. He was about 80 and could hardly walk, and his reactions were almost nil. A fatal RTA waiting to happen.

I could go on, but I know I am bias, you tend to be when you have seen what I have.
Rant over.