Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[mufc1959]

On a FB thread on why it's important to get your 'documents' properly notarised, is this gem.

Sove Reign A statement ,witnessed by a third party is not likely to be contested. Otherwise anyone could make any old shit up. Think how many things that have to be witnessed to be legit .

[longdog]

The same thing happens in court when people swear on oath they never dun nuffink like wot they've been charged wiv havin' dun... Anybody could make any shit up

[longdog]

Come to think of it... Just how many things actually do have to witnessed to 'be legit'?

I have vague recollections of me and my ex having to get something to do with a mortgage witnessed and I've had to have two something-or-others witnessed by a solicitor when I've been sorting out Ma and Pa's will once they'd popped their clogs but other than that... Nope.... Never.

[Tevildo]

Come to think of it... Just how many things actually do have to witnessed to 'be legit'?

I have vague recollections of me and my ex having to get something to do with a mortgage witnessed and I've had to have two something-or-others witnessed by a solicitor when I've been sorting out Ma and Pa's will once they'd popped their clogs but other than that... Nope.... Never.

Documents which require attestation under English law are:

• Wills
• Powers of attorney
• Certain contracts for the exchange of immovable property (see here for details, if you're feeling masochistic)
• Notices of protest of a dishonoured Bill of Exchange under Section 94 of the 1882 act where no notary is available
• Doubtless some others that apply in obscure situations under which one should consult a lawyer.

[longdog]

Documents which require attestation under English law are:

• Wills
• Powers of attorney
• Certain contracts for the exchange of immovable property (see here for details, if you're feeling masochistic)
• Notices of protest of a dishonoured Bill of Exchange under Section 94 of the 1882 act where no notary is available
• Doubtless some others that apply in obscure situations under which one should consult a lawyer.

So in effect the sort of thing you're likely to run into a on a slack handful of occasions in a normal lifetime... I wonder what point he was trying to make.

[NYGman]

Several years ago, my boss was updating his will. He needed to get it notarized. We work above a bank, for which our company has a relationship with. He went down to get it notarized, and they wouldn't do it. They said bank policy will not allow them to notarize a will. I Found that interesting.

[noblepa]

In Ohio, a will does not need to be notarized. It just needs two witnesses to the signature.

[longdog]

In Ohio, a will does not need to be notarized. It just needs two witnesses to the signature.

Same goes in the UK. Two people as witnesses who are not beneficiaries is all you need.

[grixit]

I once had to declare that i was not contesting the will of my half brother. It seemed unnecessary as my total contact with him had been about 10 words over Facebook, but apparently legal housekeeping required it. No witnessing, let alone wet ink of any color was needed, though, they were perfectly happy with my pasting an image of my signature onto the form they'd emailed me and then sending it back.

[Pottapaug1938]

In Massachusetts, a will does not need to be notarized; but if it isn't notarized, along with a notarized document attesting to the circumstances of the signature, proving the will, in court, is much more burdensome. My will, that of my wife, and any will I drafted when I was in practice, got fully notarized.

[TheNewSaint]

I once had to declare that i was not contesting the will of my half brother... they were perfectly happy with my pasting an image of my signature onto the form they'd emailed me and then sending it back.

Same here. I just had to sign a form and email a PDF. This was in Florida.

[Burnaby49]

Governments can be extremely inefficient. I should know, I was a civil servant for 35 year. One example stands out.

One day, totally out of the blue (I handled my father's affairs) the Canadian government offered my WWII vet father $20,000 to settle a legal issue neither he nor I even knew existed. It required a notarized statement from my father relinquishing all rights to sue the government. I just sent a letter back saying send us the money and they did.

[NYGman]

Just saw this in the links while reading another article, and wondered how the FMOTL will deal with Bristol City Council dropping 'hired muscle' bailiffs.

Bristol City Council will run a trial of "ethical" debt collection to reclaim some of the £15m it loses every year from unpaid council tax.

It would be only the second local authority in England to do this.

Bristol is following the lead of London borough Hammersmith and Fulham which has said it will stop using bailiffs or taking people to court.

Deputy Mayor Craig Cheney, the councillor in charge of the Bristol scheme, said they only wanted to use bailiffs in the "bare minimum" of cases.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I fear there may be some people who will just not respond to being asked nicely.

I wonder what their ethical enforcement actually consists of?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I fear there may be some people who will just not respond to being asked nicely.

I wonder what their ethical enforcement actually consists of?

You are right some people won't. However… local government is my speciality. I'm not going to give away too much of my background as that could lead to my identity being traced. That said, I am one of the few people who has read the local government finance handbook and I have considerable experience with real lives and how councils operate.

Most council tax recovery is at least 95%. Because of the arse about tit way local authorities are financed, failure to pay is a serious drain on resources. A £1m shortfall in council tax collection multiplies its way to a £3m deficit.

However, in all my time involved in the issue, I would say that less than 2% of non-payers were what I would call wilful. As we are in a forum that concentrates on FOTL muppets, the perception is easy to form that this is the norm.

I'll give you one example. A family of 5 on benefits were in private rented accommodation. The husband got a part time job and declared it. It took the council 6 months to process this. However, they had been paying him full council tax benefit for that 6 months. When they finally determined the amount he owed, they demanded it all in one lump sum. £400 may not sound a lot to most but council tax bills are what are called priority debts. He couldn't pay that and rent. He fell behind in rent to his private landlord, who instigated eviction proceedings against him. End result, aggressive council tax collection resulted in a family with 3 kids whose bread winner was trying to to do the right thing ended up having to be rehoused at the council's expense.

Another example. A person who was unemployed got a job. Council allowed payment on the 1st, 14th, or 23rd of the month. He got paid on the 25th. He wrote to the council asking to be allowed to pay on the 25th. They refused… and added a £100 fine each month he was in arrears. He paid his council tax amount each month, but the fines had him £1,000 in debt after a year. They sent the bailiff around. He was homeless.

Ethical enforcement isn't a soft touch. It is pure bloody common sense. The law should only be used for the wilful non-payers.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Thank you for the clarification.

From your examples it seems to amount to 'lets not do anything bloody stupid' which seems commendable.

Is it possible that one department has pressure to collect whatever, regardless of the consequences for another department, because 'that's their problem not ours'

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Is it possible that one department has pressure to collect whatever, regardless of the consequences for another department, because 'that's their problem not ours'

Yep. This is how it works. Council silos are responsible for so much terrible decision making. I've already mentioned how our highways department would ticket refuse collection and graffiti cleaning services during the execution of their duties, who then had to take it out of their budget for doing what they were being paid to do.

[NYGman]

I do respect any effort councils to be more compassionate and work with people on their debts, and payments. This should be a requirement, and they should be reasonable. If an effort is being made, Fines, and penalties only push people further in to debt and are counterproductive. My concern is those who willfully will not pay, and have no intent to pay. It may be a small percentage, but anything seen as relaxing enforcement, or that gives them chances they don't deserve, and can abuse, are wrong. Hoping these are the small amounts that they still will use Bailiffs for, but somehow I see this as being abused by those who willfully want to abuse the system.

[longdog]

Another example. A person who was unemployed got a job. Council allowed payment on the 1st, 14th, or 23rd of the month. He got paid on the 25th. He wrote to the council asking to be allowed to pay on the 25th. They refused… and added a £100 fine each month he was in arrears. He paid his council tax amount each month, but the fines had him £1,000 in debt after a year. They sent the bailiff around. He was homeless.

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that one. As far as I know, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, local councils have no power to fine council tax payers for late payment let alone ludicrous figures like £100 per instance. To the best of my knowledge they have to send out two warning letters for late payments (and I've never had one for anything under a month late) after which the whole outstanding balance becomes due and they can apply for a liability order and pass the cost on to the CT payer.

If I'm wrong and there is a power to fine late payers please cite the relevant clause in the law.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Is it possible that one department has pressure to collect whatever, regardless of the consequences for another department, because 'that's their problem not ours'

Yep. This is how it works. Council silos are responsible for so much terrible decision making. I've already mentioned how our highways department would ticket refuse collection and graffiti cleaning services during the execution of their duties, who then had to take it out of their budget for doing what they were being paid to do.

I cannot see why a good manager would not have some oversight of these processes and correct situstions which were to the detriment of the Local Authority as a whole. This is what managers are for, overseeing everything and ensuring it all runs smoothly in a co-ordinated fashion.
If the structure is several closely guarded fiefdoms with no overall control and oversight, with no-one to knock heads together when needed, the organisation is not fit for its purpose.