Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this   Regards
    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

pova investigation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5186 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

My wife works for a company who looks after adults with learning difficulties who live in their own shared homes. last month she was suspended for an incident that ocurred while she was on her own with one of the clients, and told that she was under a pova investigation. for obvious reaons i can not say what hapened in a public place, but can IM the facts if anyone needs them to answer my query.Anyway, she had an interview with the police, who stated that in their eyes, she had done nothing wrong and had in fact followed the guidelines laid out in this persons notes.

She has been abused by the clients by them grabbing her hair and pulling out chunks, and nothing was done as the company said that that the clients must know that they are stronger than staff, so they can basically do what they want to you and you can not stop them or will be charged with abuse. The police however told her that she has the right to feel safe in her workplace, which she doesn't as she is now in fear of being attacked and the company ignoring it. During the incident under investigation, she was pulled to the floor by the client,and again, that is of no concern to the company.

the company has since, stated that there will always be 2 staff on duty at any time, which at the time of the incident, the other staff were out with the other 2 clients,so she was qalone in the house with the other.

She has to go to a meeting nest week at the office and is only allowed to take a work colleague(there is nobody she can trust not to be biased) or a union rep (she is not in a union), so i am worried that they might use her as an example and sack her. here comes another problem. She is an american citizen with permanent residency, and we are saving up for her to become a british citizen. The american way of talking is obviously different to ours, and she often uses wording that can be misunderstood as it was in her report on this matter, and if she is sacked she may be banned from ever working in the industry again. Could anyone please give me some advice on this matter if possible.I forgot to add that this happened because she wrote up a report of the incident, but noi member of staff or the client made the accusation and being an american, i believe it was the way she worded it that caused a little confusion, and that is why the police said she did nothing wrong when she explained her wordingto them. I shall be happy to give the ful account in a private message if anyone needs it to give me any advice

 

many thanks.

 

seapring

Edited by seapring
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

My wife works for a company who looks after adults with learning difficulties who live in their own shared homes. last month she was suspended for an incident that ocurred while she was on her own with one of the clients, and told that she was under a pova investigation. for obvious reaons i can not say what hapened in a public place, but can IM the facts if anyone needs them to answer my query.Anyway, she had an interview with the police, who stated that in their eyes, she had done nothing wrong and had in fact followed the guidelines laid out in this persons notes.

She has been abused by the clients by them grabbing her hair and pulling out chunks, and nothing was done as the company said that that the clients must know that they are stronger than staff, so they can basically do what they want to you and you can not stop them or will be charged with abuse. The police however told her that she has the right to feel safe in her workplace, which she doesn't as she is now in fear of being attacked and the company ignoring it. During the incident under investigation, she was pulled to the floor by the client,and again, that is of no concern to the company.

the company has since, stated that there will always be 2 staff on duty at any time, which at the time of the incident, the other staff were out with the other 2 clients,so she was qalone in the house with the other.

She has to go to a meeting nest week at the office and is only allowed to take a work colleague(there is nobody she can trust not to be biased) or a union rep (she is not in a union), so i am worried that they might use her as an example and sack her. here comes another problem. She is an american citizen with permanent residency, and we are saving up for her to become a british citizen. The american way of talking is obviously different to ours, and she often uses wording that can be misunderstood as it was in her report on this matter, and if she is sacked she may be banned from ever working in the industry again. Could anyone please give me some advice on this matter if possible.

 

many thanks.

 

seapring

 

Sorry to hear about your problems and i hope you get things resolved.

 

Ive experinced similar POVA incidents a number of years ago, they are the to protect the client, but in turn the carer suffers and i feel makes the carer more vunrable to allegations.

 

What part of the country do you live in ? after reading your thread it sounds like a company ive heard about !

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply big boss man.I live in the north east and as i can not mention the company name on here in public for obvious reasons,it is a word used when describing sizes of things

 

Im sorry i can not provide you with more in depth advice, im sure other people will help you in due course.

 

There is specific guidlines that care providers have to follow, these are very indepth and are there to protect the carer as well as the client ! by the sounds of your description, i feel the company has not followed guidlines and failed to protect the carer.

 

Is there any chance you narrow North East down ? I am extremely interested in the name of this company, i understand you can not name them at this time, if and when the time permits please let me know.

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

KIrrespective of POVA, your wife is entitled to a duty of care from her employers, and be provided with a safe place of work.

 

Can I suggest she raises a grievance.

 

Also I cannot understand this thing about saving up to become British citizen - I didnt think it cost.

 

Anyway we wont hold her american status against her (except for giving Hannah Montanna to the world!)

I am not a lawyer, so all my advice is provided on the basis that you will check them with a trained legal professional with legal insurance.:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply monkeychicken.We will definately consider raising a grievance. Yes, once you pas the citizenship exam, you have to pay the government £720 for the privelidge of obtaining a piece of paper and then £60 odd on top to attend the ceremony which is compulsory.Thats after paying about £3500 for various visas giving permission to reside here over the 5 years before you can take the exam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a sad fact that Americans working here in the UK are quite often subjected to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of their national origin.

Perhaps it's overlooked as we (kinda) speak the same language and many of them are racially European. They tend to be, in my experience (I lived there for a year), particularly polite, decent people themselves.

My ex-wife worked here for the best part of a year and was frequently very upset by 'comments' made by her co-workers, which they clearly thought were innocuous. They wouldn't have dared make an equivalant 'joke' towards someone who was, say, African-Caribbean or Asian.

 

Clearly, sometimes there is a language barrier. Your wife needs to be forthright about this, and make sure that her employers take her use of language as an American into account. Although it may not be apparent to them, they're guilty of unlawful discrimination if they don't make reasonable adjustments for her use of language.

 

B*gger me, I'm dying for a fag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A quick update and advise if anyone knows of any suitable.My wife has at last received a date for her disciplinary hearing. She was told at her first meeting last year that she would get a copy of the notes taken at that meeting for her to check and sign as being true(notes requested to be verbatim and were not), and that she would hear from them within a week. She obviously did not hear within the week, and the copy of the notes taken were not sent to her, and have been written in their report in a way that favors the company(missing some of the meeting out). Also the company states that there is absolutely no difference between the American and English language, which there obviously is.Everything she has said during this investigation has been twisted around to make her look bad.It also mentions the fact that she asked to be allowed to show exactly what she did, and was not allowed to do so, which would have given insight to what she was really trying to say, but again was taken in the wrong context.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

many thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under current legislation care homes are required to make a POVA referral if they reasonably believe that a care worker is guilty of misconduct which has harmed, or has placed at risk of harm, a vulnerable person in their care...

 

Minutes of a meeting are rarely 'verbatim', unless as transcript of recordings... Nevertheless, I would suggest that your wife raises a grievance as per the content of those minutes, once in her possession, in relation to the substance. She may decline to sign them as true...

Edited by Bigredbus

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

n written in their report in a way that favors the company(missing some of the meeting out). Also the company states that there is absolutely no difference between the American and English language,

 

Mmmm, obviously they haven't read this yet. TravelFurther - British-American Dictionary

 

Just click the letters of the alphabet on the left. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...