Archive

I propose a change to the wording of Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.
A recent judgement (Churchill & Churchill Vs First Independent Factors) interpreted “with a view to being” as having effect to what is now. Whatever the precise English interpretation and I believe that as English is a live language the commonly and widely accepted interpretation should prevail, it is clear that for 20 years Insolvency Practitioners and their legal counsel have taken the view that while “with a view to being” clearly described future intention it had no bearing on the status at the time of sending of the notice referred to in the rule.

1. Repeal this and ALL other as-yet unimplemented Acts- or bring them into force asap. Why enact legislation which is doomed never to take effect?

2. Consolidate ALL pre-1901 Acts as first step towards condensing legislation into more modern (language/layout) and shorter corpus.

At present, entitlement to a myriad of tax credits and benefits, not least the "right" to claim through the Child Support Agency is based on recipiency of Child Benefit. The completion of the Child Benefit application form is nothing more than an accident of history - few think about the implications of parents separating at the time of a child's birth. However, in cases of shared care arrangements, be it through the Court or otherwise, the system is fundamentally flawed.
Of course, I speak from experience: I have a 50/50 shared care arrangement with my ex-partner - the care and residency of her is more than shared, it is joint. Because my ex completed the Child Benefit (hereafter "CB") forms shortly after our daughter's birth, she has the legal right to claim through the CSA. The forms for CB are in the Bounty pack delivered to 3.2 million new mothers at the hospital bedside each year. Over the last 3 years, and approx 3000 samples and flyers contained in the pack - 99.8% have been aimed at the mother; 0.2% at the father (last one was back in Sep '06 - 2 cans of Red Bull). The form is in a pack whose contents are specifically aimed (99.8% of the time) at mothers. In most families it will be she who goes through the contents and completes the forms. Once again, the impact of this in the future is realised by very few.

Under the terms of this Act litter droppers can be fined up to £50K and be subject to up to 5 years in jail. BUT (having had tinkers in a field close to me who deposited bulk filth over a short period-gas canisters, plastic toys, disposable nappies etc.) I find the Act can only be enforced by a Council employee who SEES the litter being dropped. This is absolutely useless: the Act, on the face of it, is ideal for disciplining the likes of tinkers and fly tippers, but needs urgent amendment so the law can be applied to those who cause the worst offences and get away without any sanctions. Very many towns around the country are held to ransom by tinkers and the litter problem is something that should be tackled.