Hylton-Potts – Free Legal Advice, Divorce Lawyer, Beneft Fraud & Motoring Offences

The Guardian and others, have sneered at Simon for his idea of having political debates with public voting like the X Factor. They should think again.

The rules could be easily set out. A non-profit making show with any excess going to charity. One vote per phone and leading politicians being involved as debaters. John Sergeant would be an admirable moderator, with his experience on Vote For Me and Kelvin Mackenzie and Lorraine Kelly could also be added.

With all the leading parties running scared of binding referendums, which have completely changed the political landscape for the better in California, this is an excellent idea which should be promoted not put down.

This is dealt with by a government agency not the court although it can intervene with “topping up” if the family is wealthy.

CSA – www.csa.gov.uk (there is an online at calculator) or phone 0845 713 4000

The maximum income on which the CSA payments are calculated is £2,000 per week.

It is calculated on the basis of net weekly income;

15% for 1 child
20% for 2 children
25% for 3 children or more

Net income is net of tax, NI and Pension contributions.

Roughly speaking this come to a maximum of;

£ 300/week for 1 child

£ 400/week for 2 children£ 500/week for 3 children

There are deductions from this if a paying parent has other children in his/her care.

Scale reductions according to 1 child, 2 children or 3 or more.

There are also deductions where the child being supported spends more than 51 nights a year with the paying parent.

When the maximum figure is reached, the court has jurisdiction in respect of top-up maintenance for higher earners.

High earner is defined as anyone earning more than £2000 net per week (£104,000 p.a.)

For further advice on Child Support and the legal world it lives in, call 0207 381 8111 for free and impartial advice off our well informed legal team.

For some time, Shared Residence Orders (SRO) were rare, as it was considered they would only work in situations of close co-operation between the parents.

This has changed and now they are being granted in situations of bitter conflict.

An SRO has been granted to a man who was not the natural father even though the children only spend alternate weekends with him (which is the usual regime).

Judges are using these orders to send a strong message to both parents, that they are equal in the eyes of the law, and that overriding concern is the best interest of the children.

Meeting Granny off a train? Family group snap?

Making a record of your visit to London – Government building, tourist landmark?

Trainspotters?

Be very careful. The Police are now permitted to stop you and search you, under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and they are doing it increasingly.

It is the same law that was used against Walter Wolfgang for heckling Tony Blair at the Labour Conference.

For years the “leftie” brigade have been howled for talking about civil liberties, but the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” brigade have got this one very badly wrong.

Of course the Police must have every weapon available to fight terrorism, but Blair’s promise that the Act would be used sensibly has proved nonsense and it must be changed.

Oh and YES, it can happen to you.

English and Welsh courts have jurisdiction to make contact orders between children living outside the EU and their parents, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court said that the boy was born in 2000 and was a British citizen.

His mother originates from India and his father from Pakistan.

In 2007, the mother applied for a contact order to obtain as much telephone contact as possible and to stop the grandparents encouraging the boy to call them “mum” and “dad”.

The High Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to make the order, but the mother appealed.

The nub of the issue is the contact which the child should have with his mother in this country. Of course, the difficulties of enforcement must also be taken into account, but the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction.

A strong Court of Appeal has decided that a pre-nuptial agreement will be relevant factor in a divorce settlements, it is is carefully drafted with proper safeguards, to avoid the stress and expense of a fully contested financial divorce battle.

(Radmacher CA 13 July 2009)

We can draft an agreement for you £200 plus VAT including all advice. If you wish to go ahead please contact Rodney by phone on 020 7381 8111 or email law@rh-p.net

Hylton-Potts – Cheaper than a divorce solicitor in London!!

There is another side to the coin of the current trend to give co-habitees legal rights after living together for two, or five years, which politicians are considering.

Insists that

It means that the man (usually) may be reluctant to allow the girl to move in and insists that she “stays at her own place” to avoid being hit by the equivalent of a “divorce”

If this goes through Bridget Jones may not have a fairytale ending.

Need relationship law advice? Contact the experts – Hylton Potts – on 020 7831 8111 today

They have become even less ‘cuddly’ after the court ruling on unauthorised overdraft charges.

It all started when the OFT decided to look into the fairness of these charges, under the regulations implementing the EU’s directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

Unfortunately, the consumer watchdog chose the wrong angle for its investigation: the banks objected that it could not, under regulation 6, question the ‘value for money’ aspect of the charges.

But the two real shockers are this

1 – The banks hired eight QCs between them and a fleet of juniors, which means the costs will be stratospheric and the OFT will be landed with the bill.

2 – The court also suggested that the OFT might nevertheless have a case under a different regulation, regulation 5, which would allow it to assess the general fairness of the charges. But it will take a brave chief executive to start all over again on this basis.

This is not only a costly funeral for a high profile case, it will further erode the status of the OFT as an effective consumer champion, while comforting large corporations that they can take on government bodies and win.

Do you feel done over by your bank?

Contact Hylton-Potts today on 020 7831 8111 for advice on your next step forward

They have become even less ‘cuddly’ after the court ruling on unauthorised overdraft charges.

It all started when the OFT decided to look into the fairness of these charges, under the regulations implementing the EU’s directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

Unfortunately, the consumer watchdog chose the wrong angle for its investigation: the banks objected that it could not, under regulation 6, question the ‘value for money’ aspect of the charges.

But the two real shockers are this

1 – The banks hired eight QCs between them and a fleet of juniors, which means the costs will be stratospheric and the OFT will be landed with the bill.

2 – The court also suggested that the OFT might nevertheless have a case under a different regulation, regulation 5, which would allow it to assess the general fairness of the charges. But it will take a brave chief executive to start all over again on this basis.

This is not only a costly funeral for a high profile case, it will further erode the status of the OFT as an effective consumer champion, while comforting large corporations that they can take on government bodies and win.

Do you feel done over by your bank?

Contact Hylton-Potts today on 020 7831 8111 for advice on your next step forward

Employees who are turned down for jobs because they brought a claim against their previous employers can claim for “stigma loss”.

If someone brings a claim like this, they can be frowned upon by other employers. Other employers might perceive the employee as a trouble maker, and that has a large money value.

Before making a claim, contact the experts – Hylton-Potts Legal Consultants – 020 7831 8111