Thousands of divorced couples could be forced to return to court to renegotiate the terms of their separation after it emerged that a Government software glitch could have distorted the value of their assets.
Up to 20,000 couples involved in often complex divorce cases are thought to have used an online form which potentially over-inflated the value of their property by failing to subtract debts and other liabilities from the total figure.

Calculating gross assets not net.

Jeepers wept. And these are the people who tell us they’re trying to run the country for us?

9 thoughts on “Sigh”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Calculating gross assets not net.

    Also invariably calculating the gross assets of the former husband. So this is not all bad news.

    The emerging reality seems to be that it ain’t over until it is over. With wives being allowed to go back for seconds if they really want. So I expect any sensible person would expect this. He would just be surprised if the Courts gave him some money back.

    Who thinks there are any number of feminist lawyers thinking up good reasons why the husbands should not be reimbursed for the cash they have handed over already?

  2. The LHTD has just posted a blog saying “I believe that government can do things”.

    Yes, yes government can do things. It doesn’t necessarily follow that one of the things *isn’t* “fucking up”

  3. It isn’t _necessary_ for the government (any govt) to be involved for any system or service to be fucked up but it is _sufficient_.

  4. It is striking that (i) the Tel describes the discoverer of this cock-up as not being a lawyer, and (ii) refrains from telling us what her occupation is. (i) is a hoot; (ii) is odd.

  5. I doubt whether many – or indeed any – solicitors are affected by this. At the initial interview most record basic information with some form of questionnaire, on which assets and liabilities are recorded. And most use a paper version of Form E which the client completes and is then checked and queried where necessary. The problems seems to apply to people acting person and completing the form on line.

  6. @ dearieme
    In the Telegraph article it states that Ms Matheson-Durrant is an expert in court processes who helps litigants. The person who discovered the error was an anonymous client of hers. After the client had discovered the error Ms Matheson-Durrant checked five other Form Es (which she presumably hadn’t checked when she received them).

  7. This is mere anecdata, but the lawyers used during my dad’s divorce – on both sides – made Ritchie look competent. They couldn’t even spell words correctly in the letters they charged hundreds for.

  8. @ Tim Newman
    They didn’t actually write the letters, they just signed them – the letters were written by legal secretaries.

Leave a Reply

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