Clare, once again apologies, I was away over the Xmas and it is now in the early hours of Saturday. I will give you all the info later around midday...Terry
Clare, the exact wording on the order, is as follows; 'The respondent ...having left .....shall not return, enter or attempt to enter..... or enter the area marked red on the plan annexed hereto.
My husband, and children moved from the original home into another property, where I now reside. He applied to the court to move back with my children and asked the court to stay at the new property and not enter the original home or its area!
Yes, he has moved some 6 miles away into a rented expensive house. Cannot understand his reasoning move?!
As I am not allowed into the area or former home, I can only assume that it is empty. Knowing him, he will probably rent it out!!
Clare, thanks answer. Not sure if you can answer my next question? If not can you pass it on?!
It concerns property: I am the freeholder of a block of four flats and the only thing I own in those flats is a small yard adjacent to the ground floor flat.
The owner of that flat, without authorisation from me, had an invalid ramp installed in my yard to gain access with his invalid vehicle to his flat. He had his main access from another entrance. The yard now as such is useless to me in that with the ramp installed I cannot erect a shed there use of the other tenants or .
The council on behalf of the leaseholder of the said flat installed the ramp and also they broke the terms of the contractual lease in that they altered the structure of the building, i.e they bricked up where the original door was and opened up another entrance to accommodate the invalid vehicle.
Prior to this I had asked the elderly leaseholder's son not to commence work until I had sight of the plans of the work to be done. The son had taken over the running of things because his father was in his nineties and is now deceased. The housing officer council wrote to me stating that work was commencing in nine days time. However I did not get that letter until after the work started.
My question to you, is, have I got a case to bring the Mortgage company to court as they are now in possession of the flat since the leaseholder died. or do I sue the housing officer who authorised the work to alter the yard and the side of the building. if so I will be going down the route of the small claim courts.
Clare, the scenario is this. My estranged husband took my then six year old daughter to the A&E, stating that my daughter was locked in a toilet cubicle and he had to kick the door open to rescue her so to speak. Everyone including me took his word that what happened was true.
However I have now been to the public toilets in the park where he said the incident happened. The toilet cubicles are those child friendly ones that have seven and a half inches clearing all round from the bottom of the door to the panels at the sides of the cubicles, thus a child of six could easily crawl underneath to escape. From the top of the door and the side panels it is eleven inches clearing to climb over to undo the lock, which incidentally is one of those, again, child friendly flat slide bolts that if you can lock you can unlock.These locks are similar to the ones that they have in her school, so she is use to that type of lock
He told the A&E that he panicked and kicked the door open and the flying door hit my daughter's head and today some ten months later still has a scar on her forehead from the incident.
What I want to know, can I can take my husband to court (what type of court?) or . The reason being. (His own words), he panicked. It's not as if she was drowning or the cubicle was on fire. the door lock has a coin slot on the outside to open in an emergency. A small adult can crawl under the door if it was locked.