egosoft.com

"Clinics" are becoming more common the US, these days. Though, due to vast differences in population concentration, some areas have few to none. Clinics are there to provide non-emergency "emergency" services... So, for instance, let's say you have a really bad flu. You could try to get an appointment with your normal physician, but that could take several days. If that wasn't suitable, you could also go to a hospital "Emergency Room." But, of course, you're probably not in a life-or-death situation and going to such a place only serves to put unnecessary strain on a system that's not really for that sort of thing.

So... Clinics. You can walk in and get seen by someone, at least, within a fairly short period of time. And, if it's serious enough, they will get you transported to an Emergency Room/Hospital in short order.

So, in the US, that's a pretty good thing. It takes the strain off of facilities designed for critical care. But, still, it doesn't solve all the problems. Clinics are not designed to monitor patient care, aren't part of anyone's "primary care" sort of arrangements (ie: Family doctor) and don't always have the diagnostic tools they may need. (Though, that is changing. I almost went to clinic instead of an Emergency Room, but the clinic told me going to the hospital would probably be the better decision, even though that particular clinic did have some advanced diagnostic tools. (CT Scan and the like, which was surprising.)

Question: Does a UK "analogue" of a US "Clinic", a place that's not quite what we'd call an "Emergency Room" at a hospital where one can go for quick care for acute illness, normally have advanced diagnostic tools like a CT Scanner?

mrbadger wrote: I absolutely love that, and even though they are back to full staff I still use it as my primary consult method for matters involving my pre-existing conditions.

Ours, if you ask for an appointment, you will get a phone consult first (unless it's bloody obvious you need an appointment - i.e. blood test, finger in the butt, knacker caressing, or other such necessary face to face things) - usually within 20 minutes. They're really good

Morkonan wrote: Question: Does a UK "analogue" of a US "Clinic", a place that's not quite what we'd call an "Emergency Room" at a hospital where one can go for quick care for acute illness, normally have advanced diagnostic tools like a CT Scanner?

We do have them, but unfortunately too many people view them as a sign of the dismantling of the NHS, so fight the replacement of outdated inappropriate services with more efficient clinics.

I used to be a nurse, I understand perfectly how much better a local clinic system would be, but the uninformed seem to want a fully equipped hospital in every town.

That just can't happen. Especially since for most of them the primary justification is that they have to travel a long way to visit someone being treated as an inpatient.

You can get NHS transportation for appointments if you're unable to travel, or you just get on a train.

I have to go to my nearest city for MRI scans. Well fine, I'll do that, because that's where the scanners are. I don't want them in my town as well, because that would cost too much.

We could have had clinics in my town a decade ago, but this goddam 'action group' keeps fighting them, so we're still stuck with increasingly outdated services that just get worse over time.

Then they complain about the fact that the old services they 'saved' aren't good enough.

Well duh... Of course they're not, that would be why they've been trying to replace them for the last decade you morons

mrbadger wrote:...We could have had clinics in my town a decade ago, but this goddam 'action group' keeps fighting them, so we're still stuck with increasingly outdated services that just get worse over time...

They fight against them? Against clinics? As if the presence of clinic is somehow detrimental to... healthcare?

Are these people right in the head? Playing with full decks? Both oars in the water?

Then they complain about the fact that the old services they 'saved' aren't good enough.

So, they're "saving" facilities with operating theaters, critical care units, neonatal services, emergency facilities that keep people from dying when their legs get cut off by fighting against clinics that serve people with colds, muscle strains and minor infections?

I love democracy and equal rights for all as well as equal representation, but some people just... shouldn't be participating.

Well duh... Of course they're not, that would be why they've been trying to replace them for the last decade you morons

"Modern medicine is bureaucratic and evil! We want more doctors that make house-calls! Housecalls, with MRI machines! DELIBBER MA BABIES AT HOME WHILE I"M INNA TUB! But, make sure they're healthy and I don't die..."

Sometimes, it's tempting to give people what they ask for, just so they'll truly realize why they should stop asking for it.

mrbadger wrote:

Morkonan wrote: Question: Does a UK "analogue" of a US "Clinic", a place that's not quite what we'd call an "Emergency Room" at a hospital where one can go for quick care for acute illness, normally have advanced diagnostic tools like a CT Scanner?

We do have them, but unfortunately too many people view them as a sign of the dismantling of the NHS, so fight the replacement of outdated inappropriate services with more efficient clinics.

I used to be a nurse, I understand perfectly how much better a local clinic system would be, but the uninformed seem to want a fully equipped hospital in every town.

That just can't happen. Especially since for most of them the primary justification is that they have to travel a long way to visit someone being treated as an inpatient.

You can get NHS transportation for appointments if you're unable to travel, or you just get on a train.

I have to go to my nearest city for MRI scans. Well fine, I'll do that, because that's where the scanners are. I don't want them in my town as well, because that would cost too much.

We could have had clinics in my town a decade ago, but this goddam 'action group' keeps fighting them, so we're still stuck with increasingly outdated services that just get worse over time.

Then they complain about the fact that the old services they 'saved' aren't good enough.

Well duh... Of course they're not, that would be why they've been trying to replace them for the last decade you morons

Whilst the destruction of the NHS is a serious issue that is quite something Mr B.

Morkonan wrote:
So, they're "saving" facilities with operating theaters, critical care units, neonatal services, emergency facilities that keep people from dying when their legs get cut off by fighting against clinics that serve people with colds, muscle strains and minor infections?

I love democracy and equal rights for all as well as equal representation, but some people just... shouldn't be participating.

There is a very old hospital in my town. I used to work there. Old, poorly equipped, and it's buildings are falling apart.

But in the city only 25 miles away we have a huge modern hospital with more facilities. So many in fact that all we need is reasonable size clinic with a CT scanner and a decent first response team.

Which is all they've been trying to build.

mrbadger wrote:

Morkonan wrote:
So, they're "saving" facilities with operating theaters, critical care units, neonatal services, emergency facilities that keep people from dying when their legs get cut off by fighting against clinics that serve people with colds, muscle strains and minor infections?

I love democracy and equal rights for all as well as equal representation, but some people just... shouldn't be participating.

There is a very old hospital in my town. I used to work there. Old, poorly equipped, and it's buildings are falling apart.

But in the city only 25 miles away we have a huge modern hospital with more facilities. So many in fact that all we need is reasonable size clinic with a CT scanner and a decent first response team.

Which is all they've been trying to build.

"A decent first-response team... ?"

You don't have one of those already? I admit, I'm ignorant in all the "Ways of UK" stuff, for the most part, but what happens if someone gets in a car accident or has a heart-attack? They have to go 25 miles to a hospital? That's like... almost all the way across the whole island, right?

Where I used to live, we had 12 hospitals... Twelve. Admittedly, it had a decent military presence with VA hospitals and such and it did have a decent catchment area, but even other regions it drew from had their own smaller hospitals. The medical community was larger than most, as well. But... we had twelve.

Where I am now, we have two within a few miles of each other and this isn't exactly a large town. That doesn't count the other hospitals nearby as well as those attached to universities.

The US is pretty big and there are surely many regions where there aren't hospitals close by. But, that's 'cause there ain't crap else "close by" either. In the UK... Well, it'd be nothing to just drive across the whole country in a couple of hours or so.

Even so, there should at least be a clinic or competent ER facility within a few minutes of just about anywhere.

There's a new "Emergency Room" stand-alone facility opening up down the street from me. It can handle any emergency situation up to and including emergency surgery. That is all it does, though. It can stabilize patient for transport, elsewhere, of course.

Why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They're opening it up so they can get more business for patients that require "immediate transport" to the nearest emergency facility. They're doing it to undercut the competition by having an Emergency Room closer to where the accidents occur than the competition... It's all about money.

Morkonan wrote:
"A decent first-response team... ?"

You don't have one of those already? I admit, I'm ignorant in all the "Ways of UK" stuff, for the most part, but what happens if someone gets in a car accident or has a heart-attack? They have to go 25 miles to a hospital? That's like... almost all the way across the whole island, right?

Not in all areas of specialty, but the idea is supposed to be that the central hospital rotates teams around the county, so we would have decent teams. As it is though we have people who've been doing the same job for 20-30 years, and weren't very good to start with.

I know, some of them used to work for me. It was a real shock for me when I started working there, I had no idea that nurses could be so bad at their jobs and still be on a trauma ward. I didn't stay long.

They already rotate certain teams, but not the ones that would operate the walk in clinics that would act as triage centres.

And when people have heart attacks they do take them straight to the main city hospital, because frankly they have a better chance of survival if they stay in the ambulance then get treated by decent medical teams.

That's what they did to me when I had my brain injury.

The worst period of care I got was when I was transferred back to the hospital in my home town for a few weeks before I went back to the city hospital and it's excellent rehab centre.

mrbadger wrote: And when people have heart attacks they do take them straight to the main city hospital, because frankly they have a better chance of survival if they stay in the ambulance then get treated by decent medical teams.

Case in point: my mother had a mild heart attack this year. She lives in a small village miles from the nearest hospital, so the ambulance guys had her flown via air ambulance 40-odd miles to St. James' hospital in Sunderland. Darlington would have been closer, but they couldn't offer the same range of services, so they decided that the extra few minutes was the better option.

mrbadger wrote:...They already rotate certain teams, but not the ones that would operate the walk in clinics that would act as triage centres.

And when people have heart attacks they do take them straight to the main city hospital, because frankly they have a better chance of survival if they stay in the ambulance then get treated by decent medical teams.

That's what they did to me when I had my brain injury.

The worst period of care I got was when I was transferred back to the hospital in my home town for a few weeks before I went back to the city hospital and it's excellent rehab centre.

Ya know...

Maybe the NHS should hire a group of rabid X3 players to help them work out their logistical problems with services and quality issues?

XPLayer1: "OK, I think we set up a central station hospital complex, here, and cover several regions fairly adequately."

XPlayer2: "That's a good idea. We're also going to have to set up a CLS training flight, though, to increase our local presence across all these towns and, perhaps, promote some T3s to UT to run mobile services to handle region further than three zones. That'd be pretty efficient and we could expect fairly rapid response."

XPlayer3: "We could also use the trade-station dockspace plan to set up depots for emergency services and to reduce response time in remote areas by having supplies and equipment readily available with minimum overhead."

NHS: "Wat?"

It's not unusual for patients to get transported to "better facilities", or at least specialized ones, after they've been stabilized. But, to get transported twice, back and forth, is... kinda inefficient and, IMO, not good for the patient. I can understand, however, that unique cases certainly exist and no diagnosis or treatment is ever perfect.

I figured I'd revive this thread as opposed to creating a new random rant one:

Long Story:

I finally got myself a... 'terribly-paid-but-decent-if-you-put-in-six-days-a-week job,' after a few terrible, terrible years of scratching to get by, and I had a surprising figure in the bank, so I figured I'll treat myself to a holiday this summer to Las Venturas... Errr, Sin City.... Las Vegas! I went a decade ago (Literally! (Well, it will be, my old passport was stamped June 2007)), indeed, I mentioned it in a thread way back when... (Ye gads I feel old... Hell, this place feels old). I have well more than enough saved now to pay for it, emergencies, etc, etc (Just in case someone wants to rant about poor people sneaking out of their holes)...

So, holiday to Vegas, blah, blah.

My passport was a couple of years out of date so I thought (being vaguely sensible on occasion) I'd have a nose at prices a couple of months back... Hey! Those prices look alright, I'll sort my passport out and live it up this year...

Fast forward to yesterday morning... I know my passport is in the post. I look up prices... It's gone up £300! since just a couple of months back! Bloody ridiculous! I go to bed (working nights). I check again, before work (same evening) ... They've gone down £100 for the same flights, the same hotel!

- Next day I receive my new passport nine (9! Only! I was semi shocked!) days after applying and... The price had gone down £50 for - You guessed it, same days, same flights, same hotel...


Long story short:

Places should set a price for a day and sodding well stick to it. <Grumble, mumble, rumble...>

Give me a sodding reasonable price and let me book, as opposed to playing roulette before I even get out there!

I'd forgotten the 'fun' which was booking a holiday yourself, as opposed to taking as gospel the travel agent price... Sure, you pay through the nose, but, GYARGHHHHH!!!!... I'll hunt the next few weeks, but regardless... It's BLOODY STUPID!!!!


...


Since starting this post a while back (and forgetting it) the prices have varies another chunk of change... Sodding well sort the price out!!!!! Hate! Hate!! HATE!!! ... (Well it's not real hate but it is incredibly annoying srring thr dame flights/hotel vary so often)... ARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Set a sodding price and stick to it! Let it be first come-first served at those prices! Don't just randomly vary the price by the 'phase of the moon in Jupiter'... ARGGHHHH!!!

I HATE making travel arrangements. Booking flights, hotel reservations, rentals, all that crap... And, price fluctuations are, I agree, ridiculous. (Make 'em early! :/ ) To me, if I pay a little bit extra for a travel agent to do everything, it's worth it. Not "100% markup" sort of worth it, but worth it if I get some bells&whistles along with it.

It's worth noting that casinos and such can have some good package deals, including airfare, lodging, meals, etc... (Not sure about overseas flights, but maybe?) It's in their interest to make it easier and more convenient for you to lose your money at their establishment.

Not a big fan of gambling and such. Maybe a friendly game of poker or something and that's about it. The excitement of the win vs risk just never got to me.

My own rant for the day:

The Watered Down World of Profound Thought - Welcome to the Internetz.

A five-year-old runs into the room and announces to their parents, "Howdy Doody just said something neat!" Then, they rush back out to finish watching "The Howdy Doody Show" and leave their parents in peace.



This living-nightmare made of wood was, at one time, a much-beloved source of entertainment for many 'Murican kids.

Most of the "social-media celebs" have little difference between themselves and a wooden doll on strings. Yet, for some strange reason, people think they're "important." Sometimes, people think they have something "profound" to say. In the bajillion years since Teh Interwebz was founded, I've never read or heard anything profound related by any social-media-other-crap person that hasn't already been said by someone who's even more profound, more well-respected, and should be more well-known.

I think people just don't bother with learning stuffs anymore. They want some vacuous moron to dribble out mouthings directly into their head instead of actually taking the trouble to "learn stuffs" by reading some of what truly great thinkers have to say on any given subject.

So, today I booted up the 'puter, opened up my Firefox, and saw the article suggestions listed there by Firefox's new "Pocket" recommendations for the day. Stupid fookin' "Must Reads" like "A list of stuff that truly effective leaders do" which is stupid, since effective leaders start their day by not reading about drivel that some ineffective self-proclaimed expert-leader has to say. If you're reading that article, you're either looking for confirmation that you're a leader, which really means you aren't already one, or you're looking how to be a leader, which means you're not one. SO WHY THE F ARE YOU READING IT???

Then, there's "self-help" garbage like "Here's how not to procrastinate" that says, in summation "Do stuff you need to do." ... NO !$T%$$@@ @$%@$%! Horry Clap, a revelation! MY LIFE IS SAVED! Fookin' nitwits. (I would have finished reading it, but then something else came up...)

Then, there's a bunch of psychologists rambling on "Why people don't like stuff." And, they end up with profundity like "People don't like things because they don't like them" or "Few people like liking things that they don't really like." Holy crap, pure genius you guys! The best stuff is "How to like something" articles that tell you to "Find something to like about it." I want to buy an internet-bat.

I was especially amused by a few social-media-heads that I happened to come across who, for no discernible reason, think they are relevant. I don't mean that they didn't say relevant things, I mean that they thought, for some unfounded reason, that what they said was important merely because they were saying it...

"The sky is blue, you guys. Therefore, I invented the sky by telling you it was blue."

How about just go shove yourself up your own ___. All of it, legs and all, right up there. Go ahead. Do it and I'll contribute to your Patreon.

The crazy thing is that most of these basement-dwellers don't even realize they're just saying the same thing people like Locke or Hobbes or Paine or any number of political talking-heads have said hundreds of years ago. I'm not even going to credit them with parallel evolution of ideas since if they were really some sort of authority they'd have already read something by someone who was already acknowledged as being smarter and more profound than they are...

People often say that the Internet is the most amazing, most beneficial, most wonderfullest contribution to humanity since air. I'm quickly starting to think that it's the opposite, no matter how many great things there are to be had from it.

The problem is that most of the Internet Surfers don't bother with availing themselves of all the "Good Things" it has to offer, especially when it comes down to "learning things." Instead, they take the path of least resistance and jump into their Echo Chambers or gravitate towards social-media personalities that are more ignorant than they, themselves, are. Then, when they think they've found something "profound" they run around like a five-year-old, interrupting the valuable time of other people with inane crap.

After all, it's on Teh Interwebz and it has five-bajillion subscribers and likes and happy-smiley-@$% faces on it, so it must be true and good and right...


Edit-add: Like this wingnut..NYT: The Misguided Drive to Measure ‘Learning Outcomes’

Ah, OK, cool, let's go!

"...Blah blah blah has a problem blah blah blah and fifty-hundred years ago blah blah blah with the invention of sand blah blah blah and then goat fornication conflicts blah blah.."

So, wtf are you trying to write about?

"Blah blah blah I teach intellectual history blah blah."

No @$%%...

"blah blah blah measure blah blah blah useful or not blah blah blah"

And then..

"blah blah measuring for suitability for work blah blah blah"

...Producing thoughtful, talented graduates is not a matter of focusing on market-ready skills. It’s about giving students an opportunity that most of them will never have again in their lives: the chance for serious exploration of complicated intellectual problems, the gift of time in an institution where curiosity and discovery are the source of meaning.

That’s how we produce the critical thinkers American employers want to hire. And there’s just no app for that.

WTF?

Businesses wanted to figure out how to measure whether or not a student "learned sufficient stuffs" to be of used to them. If I'm running a fookin' hospital, I want to know if the Brain Surgeon applicant can fookin' brain surgeon, not whether or not he had an opportunity to "explore complicated intellectual problems" or found meaning in "curiosity and discovery."

And, she got paid to write that article. Even if it has a lot of source material, in the end it says nothing. Here, I'll rewrite it:

"Businesses want to know what the knowledge level is of their applicants. Institutions not only have to measure their success at teaching, but they must also help to enrich the intellectual lives of their students. It is in such institutions of higher learning that students can gain truly desirable intellectual abilities and rewarding fascination with learning and exploring new things and difficult concepts. These are important to employers as well and contribute towards providing them with effective and valuable employees. We must approach teaching these things to students with just as much of the energy and enthusiasm that we devote towards teaching them basic skills in their chosen subjects of study if we are to succeed in our assigned task."

But, I guess I wouldn't have been paid as much as she was, since I used less words... (Go figure, I used less words than someone else to write stuffs!) She's writing for the NYT and I'm posting here, so I guess she's got that going for her.

Updated Feb 28:

I don't even... Why is this? Wat?

Plan a better meeting with Design Thinking Plan

...Start by putting your own expertise and agenda aside and thinking about the people who will be affected by your meeting. Develop empathy for them by asking ....

Uh, wait. What -

..Next, set a frame for the meeting. Once you’ve attentively listened and observed, you’ll want to suggest an overarching purpose for the meeting and articulate clear outcomes that will connect to achieving it...

Wut?

If you're going to go to all the trouble to "have a meeting" shouldn't you have @$^W^$@ DECIDED WHY YOU NEEDED TO HAVE A @$^@%^@%^#@%^ MEETING?

Maya Bernstein is an independent consultant working ...

Couldn't get a real job, could you?

Rae Ringel is the president of The Ringel Group, a leadership development consultancy specializing in...

Same boat as Maya, huh?

This is the sort of stuff that just boggles my noggin, not as if it takes much to do that... But, honestly, why? WTF? Are these websites or even the people who'd actually pay real money to host these consultants actually so very desperate for someone to create content for them or solve their problems for them that they will... allow this crap to pass as "knowledge" of some sort?

1st, I own a property. It won't get much sympathy for being in such a position with some.
2nd, it's an apartment and it has service charges/ground rent to pay each year.

I've paid the service charge to one company on time, every year.
I've just received a letter threatening court with regards to the ground rent.

So I bought the property where I used to live, want to live, will live. But work has me 100 miles away, so it's rented out. Only when a registered letter arrived did the front desk contact me to say "we've got a letter". I've no knowledge of any letters.

So this letter says they've written to me numerous times, also to "The Occupier". Again, never received anything - but I don't live there and trusted I'd be told if anything for me did arrive.

So I don't disupte I owe £450 in ground rent for 2016/2017/2018!) - which is £150 a year.

What is shocking are the additions:

Interest - £160.85
Notice of Transfer fee? - £162.00
Arrears fees? - £468.00
Solicitor fee - £480.00

Total £1,720.85

Currently searching for the lease hold agreement ot even see what "arrears fee's" are - as if they're NOT in the leasehold, they can bugger off. What, also, is "notice of transfer"; think it's "transfer of lease" - as in changing from previous to new.

Yes, it should have been paid, yes it's my own fault, but some of these charges are... bonkers. Not helped by I read other people online having similar issues - they've got fees of £70 admin, and perhaps similar solicitor fees... I've got £790 for "charges" alone. Mental.

Fairly sure the interest is BS to start; 15% - that doesn't come to £160?

There's been a lot about the excessive increases in ground rent (which is archaic to put it politely, think mine is actually owned by a teachers pension company or something), but some of the charges if unpaid seem mental too!

(this should have been in the rant thread, whoops - can it be merged?) <Done. Alan Phipps>

[Okay - I'm responding to a rant with advice; if it's not what you want then feel free to ignore, I won't be offended]

The interest is wrong - should be 8% per year (that's a standard legal thing) so about £15 per year, or £45 total. The notice fee and arrears* fee must be in the terms (there's no legal basis for them) and must still be 'reasonable' - ask them to justify them. The solicitor/legal fee is reasonable if they've taken reasonable steps to collect. Here you could have difficulty as they've written to you at the address you'd given them - check if you've ever given them an alternative address or telephone contact that they haven't used.

I'd suggest writing to them to dispute the excessive charges, but make sure you pay what you actually owe ASAP. As a general legal principle, you can't withhold what you owe simply because someone is treating you badly. So, pay the ground rent and a reasonable interest as soon as you can (if you can't pay, then be honest about that but admit what you owe and your intention to pay). Dispute the additional charges and ask for further evidence of the legitimacy of the other charges, including the different ways they tried to contact you (other than sending lots of letters to one address).


*Is this just the amount of arrears - it's close to 3*£150?

Cheers, i've calculated their specified interest in the leasehold, and they've way over calculated. It's a total of £79 for all 3 payments for the duration of each individual outstanding one (i.e. 1 for 793 days, one for 427 days, 1 for 62).

Checking the leasehold (its about a billion pages long!) for any mention of transfer fees, can't see anything so far. Checking leasehold, only says "reasonable costs" and since they've not had to enter property or anything else (and legally they can't as original isn't approaching point where court could rescind leasehold), the amounts are excessive. Their costs are sending a few letters by the looks of it.

The lawyers as far as I can make it, have sent 1 letter with a few photocopies of documents attached for their £480.

There's a form to contest and state what you think you should pay. I'm going to phone offering the full ground rent, the correct interest, and outline my points about the rest. I'm more than happy to go to tribunal to judge whether their costs are "reasonable".

Also (forgot to add earlier) try to make sure they've not passed anything to any credit reference agencies - and if they have, demand that they get it removed. That could be the worst thing of all in the long run.

According to the leasehold agreement, any proceedings around late payment/outstanding payments - then I pay for their legal bills.

Literally - if I fight anything, even if I am right and win about unfair costs being tacked on to otherwise legitimate bill, I have to pay for their legal representation.

Searched and found people being taken to court to pay for legal cost bill up to £14,000 in similar circumstances. I've given up, I will pay, the risk is greater than any possible reward.

They could literally make things up knowing that if I won I would still be financially worse off than just paying. It is not worth the potential pitfall. I will be paying claiming I do not agree to the debt though, just incase retrospectively I find out I wasn't liable in the first place (i.e. they had correct address (home) to send it to, instead of apartment, and therefore they served the notices wrong from the start).

I presume that they have to justify those "legal expenses" and that those expenses have to be "fair and reasonable."

In the US, one can't claim their legal expenses in such a situation are extravagantly high. It's about what is standard for the sort of work required, not "how much were they charged by counsel."

Also, while you may be "at fault", it sounds as if they're running pretty close to "usury" when it comes down to these fines and fees. I don't know the law in the UK, but if what they are asking in their contract is illegal, as in illegally exorbitant fees, then the whole contract becomes a bit suspect.

It could be that they wouldn't want to go to court because a judge would look at them and say "Shame on you" after reading how high those fines and fees are and slap them with a criminal charge.

Up to you, though. It's your neck and you're the only one in charge of whether or not you should risk it. As always - Seeking the advice of legal counsel would probably be a good idea. If you can afford the fines you've listed, I would assume you could afford a one-time consulting fee for a half-an-hour consult with a qualified attorney that specializes in these matters.

Morkonan wrote:I presume that they have to justify those "legal expenses" and that those expenses have to be "fair and reasonable."

Yep, their charges all have to be "reasonable". However, asking for a breakdown = paying about £50 for that. If I contest it, it's a day in court charge of their lawyer... which at £480 for whatever work they've done already will pail into insignificance with actual court or tribunal appearance fees.

They don't throw away the supposed costs if "unreasonable", they'd just moderate it to something acceptable. So it'd never vanish, it just may reduce (in a tribunal).

Fighting to be proven right / correct can, and will, cost more than I'm already charged - because it won't remove all charges, just reduce perhaps the arrears fee and possibly the transfer charge fee because they're legally entitled to charge those reasonable fees. So unreasonable -> reasonable is still a fee. It may, for example, reduce the arrears by 2/3, it may reduce transfer fee. But it may add a lawyers court/tribunal appearance fee.

So I'll still pay some charges. Only if they'd made a fundamental mistake would i not be liable for the charges. However, I would still liable to pay for the lawyers fee (and the ground rent, no matter what, that + interest is owed).

It's a wonderful system :/ I've combed through several sections of relevant laws and contact several agencies about it. I have the original conveyancing solicitor who is digging out what they did to ensure this is all legit to start...