Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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

court gave order to return payment of £68k for arrears and to repossess property


waitabit
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4145 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

panic!

 

no

 

far too little info for anyone

to be able to even begin to help you.

 

tell us the FULL story

 

and name names if you want too. [mortgages companies/solicitors/dca's etc etc]

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Full Story, a long fight, please read all

 

My Name is

I have property in shoreditch london which i place in trust in 2003 and consist 6 floor 7 flats, bar restaurant club

 

In 2005 Commercial first business limited gave a refurbishment loan for the sum £877,000 to foster property services and i was the grantee to loan

 

After my builder did not keep to is agreement of paying the monthly loan payment the account got in arrears

 

On the 03 June 2008 in the clerkenwell shoreditch county court made on order to £3000 extra per month to Commercial first business limited and once the payment is made in full the order cannot be enforce.

 

In July 2011 i have conjoined commercial first business limited with land registry in the high court to interpret section 23 and 34 of the land registry 2002 act

 

Reason

 

1) Commercial first business limited charge my property under first registration (cannot be done under the 2002 act

2) Commercial first business limited is not regulated to give mortgage

3) agreement with Commercial first business limited is for £1000. commitment fee

4)Commercial first business limited has not got the capital from there report to given loan

and to charging property for money they never lent is fraud

5) i did not sign any agreement with Commercial first mortgage limited

This case is of public interest and it still waiting to heard by the civil appeal

 

 

The story will continue

 

 

I was petitioned for bankruptcy by Davenport Lyons solicitor in June 2011 for a court order payment of £17,063.

while making of payment £50 per week ,

the case .....came to court on the 03 10 2011 be fore district judge hart,

on the day the hearing was adjourned until the 14 of November 2011 for Davenport Lyons solicitor to amend the statuary demand and petition and re serve

 

On the 11 October 2011 Davenport Lyons solicitor re serve statuary demand and petition together with amending statuary demand.

I appeal to the appeal court on 13 October 2011 appeal number----------- on the grounds

1) defective statuary demand company on the petition does not ex sis

2) never got 21 days been statuary demand and petition

3) was refuse cost

4) asking the high court to to stop the ..... until the out come of the appeal

 

On the 10 November 2011 i wrote to district judge hart asking her to adjourned the hearing on the 14 November 2011

i had urgent appointment with my doctor on the 14 of November also can the court wait for the out come of the appeal.

District judge hart reply she will make the decide on the day.

 

on the 14 of November at 12,15 while i was been treated for diabetes i was bankruptcy by district judge hart

 

secretary of state was appointment was made on 18 November for Rob Horton of Leonard Curtis recovery as trustee

 

on the `18 November 2011 i made on application notice .......in he high court to set aside the order on the 14 November 2011 with my doctor report and detail of the appeal for the 03 of October 2011

 

official receiver Sean Dempsey state that commercial first business is secure and his not in the bankruptcy

 

Rob Horton trustee closed the bar club restaurant which is out many limited which is not in the bankruptcy

also foster property projects limited also not in the bankruptcy

 

taking from bar club restaurant about £28,000 per month

flats about £14000, per months

 

Rob Horton trustee wrote all tenants not pay foster property projects limited

 

justice Roth on the 13 December 2011 stayed the appeal on the 03 October and the Application notice for 14 November 2011 to be heard on the 10 02 2012

 

on the 22 December 2011 Rob Horton trustee applied to the high court with out notice to remove the stay of the application notice as appeal of bankruptcy and to transfer ......to the high court

 

The order was granted by justice Richard

I appeal this order to civil appeal case number .....

 

on the 17 January 2012 Rob Horton trustee made application to high court under formerly .......to added foster property projects limited out of many limited Lawrence Campbell

my daughter and grand son which is 4 years old to join to the bankruptcy injunction on all not to take rent, not go to the property are to communicate to any one in the property

and for date get summery judgement

This order has been appeal to civil appeal

 

on the 10 of Feb 2012 justice sitting appeal judge find the appeal for the 03 October 2011 with out merit

and the application notice for 14 November 2011 refuse as an appeal

i appeal the order for 14 November 2011 to civil appeal

the master reply that i could not appeal on appeal, i must go back to judge.

after written to justice Roth , he reply he sort it was appeal and i should appeal on pro regularly

I appeal to civil appeal .......

 

Commercial has now been paid up to feb 2012

march commercial first business limited seeks eviction

trustee wrote to the tenants letting them that bank is enforcing it charge

 

on the 31 may at the summery judgement hearing iin front judge pelling

because of my deeds of trust the case had to go to trail on the 12 12 12

 

application was made to conjoined trustee and commercial first business limited because the both wanted the property

justice vos refuse to conjoined

this order was appeal to civil appeal

 

commercial first business limited apply to the clerkenwell & shoreditch county court to amend his from june 2008

this application was granted to enforce eviction

 

Rob Horton trustee step down September 8 2012 with out notice

Neil benett of Leon curtis recovery was on record on the insolvency record on the 13 October as appointed of ......

 

I made application notice to the high court for 49 hour notice for cost and damage and to re move the injunction

we had to re apply given 72 hour notice

While here the application on the 1 of November 2012 were given the order of block transfer in bankruptcy which Neil Benett was appointed trustee of .....( not my case)

 

Commercial first business limited service his eviction notice on the 18 October 2021 also giving us the option to make payment

on the 27 November 2012 a payment of £68,000 was paid to commercial first clearing all arrears

 

The trustee has written on the 20 10 2012 stating because commercial first business limited is enforcing is charge the court has vacated the trail for 12 12 12

 

All appeal has been conjoined

lord justice lewson refuse all appeal stating has no merit to each one

the conjoined appeal been commercial first business limited and the trustee, they should not be joined.

and i have no more domestics remedy

 

on the 12 12 12 in the queen bench high court, commercial first business limited use the alleged trustee solicitor witness statement with out proof to sway the judge to refusing payment and validating the trustee allegation

 

 

bit of mouth full

all documents r available

 

thanks guys look forward to here from you

 

edited

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...