Ok, who was it

[vetran]

Crud testing as well, they should have used Mich, he would!

One particular paragraph, numbered 2.20, which is suposed to produce totals, fails to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier on, producing a simple mathematical error. If a party had significant debts or liabilities, they were not recognised or recorded on the electronic form, potentially inflating their true worth. Distorted net figures of applicants’ assets were therefore being produced.

ffs

[BolshieBastard]

I heard MrMarkyMark was responsible for the development and testing. Oh dear.

[EternalOptimist]

I vastly over estimated my first wifes assets, then I found out she had been stuffing tissues into her bra.

She wasn't laughing so much when she found that sock in me undies

[BrilloPad]

Matheson-Durrant is not a legally qualified solicitor or barrister, but is a McKenzie Friend, a lay expert who helps litigants. "

Proves how cr4p lawyers are.

[BrilloPad]

So we are looking for a contractor who knows about divorce?

No-one round here then...

[Zero Liability]

Donald J Trump for one.

I think in that case, it's the MSM that is the sucker.

[LucidDementia]

Who would be so stupid as to inflate their financial worth.....?

Donald J Trump for one.

[centurian]

Who would be so stupid as to inflate their financial worth.....?

I think it's the background calculations are making someone appear as if they are richer than they really are.

So either they are having to cough up more than they really should (if they are the richer spouse)
Or they did not receive enough (if they are the poorer spouse - and the error did not affect the other spouse).

[AtW]

Who would be so stupid as to inflate their financial worth.....?

Nobody, so they (husband) inflated their debts but ze komputer failed to take those into account properly it appears...

[DimPrawn]

...which have the potential to inflate the financial worth of a wife or husband

Who would be so stupid as to inflate their financial worth.....?

[AtW]

Revealed: divorce software error to hit thousands of settlements

Tens of thousands of couples who have settled their divorces in the last 20 months may have to re-open negotiations because a critical fault has been found in software used to calculate financial terms.

The Ministry of Justice was urgently investigating the extent of the errors of “Form E” on its website which have the potential to inflate the financial worth of a wife or husband. It has published an email address – formE@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk – asking anyone who believes they have been affected to contact the department.

The fact the software had been miscalculating assets since April 2014 was only spotted earlier this month by a family law specialist, Nicola Matheson-Durrant of the Family Law Clinic in Ascot, Berkshire. The MoJ only publicly admitted the problem on Thursday.

Matheson-Durrant told the Guardian: “Having discovered the fault and advised the MoJ, it became apparent that not a single solicitor, barrister or judge in the whole of the UK had noticed this error. It is such a critical fault. This form has been used in training so it will also have been seen by paralegals, university law departments and the Law Society.”

Matheson-Durrant is not a legally qualified solicitor or barrister, but is a McKenzie Friend, a lay expert who helps litigants. "

More from the source: Revealed: divorce software error to hit thousands of settlements | Law | The Guardian