What kind of target do posses by SEO procedure ?

The area office confirmed on 17 February that their files would be kept. The contact proceedings were held at a County Court on 11 February. Mrs H wrote to LAB on 17 February saying that Mr A had been granted only indirect contact and any further applications in that respect would require prior leave of the court. She therefore wish to claim compensation for the legal expenses she had incurred contesting those proceedings. In their seo companies reply on 19 February the area office said that claims should be submitted with full details to their head office it was their view, however, that it was unlikely that compensation would be paid.

Mrs H submitted her claim on 1 March and cited three areas where she considered LAB had made significant errors and omissions. She said that there had been insufficient investigation into Mr As financial circumstances when his 1997 certificate had been issued and for the period it continued. strength of her merits representations against his 1998 certificate and that his 1998 certificate has been discharged in January 1999 because she had provided information which LAB should have known about much earlier. LAB replied on 5 March saying that payment of all claims of more than £1,000 required authorisation from the Lord Chancellors Department, and those for more than £2,000 had to be considered first by a Costs Appeals Committee.

They explained that the Costs Appeals Committee comprised two LAB members with considerable litigation experience and a similarly qualified member from the Council of the Law Society. On 26 March LAB asked Mrs H for copies of her solicitors bills to substantiate your claim. medical evidence to support the claim for worry and distress, and more information to support the claim for the earlier proceedings, including details of how she considered LAB has been maladministration.Mrs H provided more information on 18 April and quantified her claim for distress and worry to her and her children at £3,000, taking her total claim to £7,227.84. There is no evidence however of any loss arising from this. It is likely that Mr A would have pursued his application for contact in any event.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *