Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
    • I would say You should accept it - I HIGHLY doubt you will  be able to claim for letters at trial ans they’re offering you that, which is higher monetary value than interest.   Also they raise a good point, getting interest at anything above 4% is lucky these days, yes judges give it, but rarily above 4%   Also you might find depending on the judge  you don’t get some costs if you take it all the way over £7.40 when court woukdnt award letters costs and thus meaning their award would be less than evris offer which was made    Up to you though but the wait will be 3-4mo for a trial date at least
    • Hi Folks, Been 162 days! Just by way of update. Today I received a text from Opos Ltd so no doubt Capquest are renting the debt out to anybody who fancies a nibble. Safe to say I will not be responding.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Rogue company Parking Control Management


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4123 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, said that a member of staff would be visiting PCM to check that it was complying with the code. He said the BPA preferred to work with member companies and give them the chance to change their practices rather than fining or expelling them.

 

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King said that motorists ticketed or clamped on private land should have the same right of appeal to an independent body as drivers who were fined for parking offences on public roads.

 

King's missing the point entirely. How can there be an appeals process? It would mean overturning centuries of contract law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King's organisation is an insurance company-sponsored former 'motoring' organisation with no members. That said, it is interesting that they are only commenting on those situations where you are a victim of extortion - you don't get YOUR property back unless you pay money to the people who took your vehicle.

 

Since clamping in Scotland was outlawed on the basis of it 'depriving the car owner of the full enjoyment of his purchase', this has the added benefit of stopping firms lifting vehicles from private property, as the same situation occurs. This just leaves Scottish drivers with the prospect of private tickets, and we all know how to deal with those. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

hi there, I dont know if this threads a wee bit old now but I am about to have a legal tussle with these lot!

 

Funny though because PCM ltd went under a few years ago and miraculously PCM UK Ltd appeared. The latter has also now in liquidation but still trading in the same manner.

 

Coincidence or just a jinxed company name maybe?

 

They will be my little warm up court case before i tackle far bigger banks ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me how you know they have gone under? I ask as their website has now gone down and I'm trying to pursue them for a fine settlement. Cheers:grin:

 

Companies house website contain details of insolvent companies and those in a Company Voluntary Arrangement, but be totally sure you look for the correct company. Often a company goes under with big debts then reopens under a near identical name and carries on again:mad: Also the insolvency service might have a record too.

 

Just for the record:

Parking control management limited is insolvent and shouldnt be trading at all.

Parking control management uk limited is in a CVA and still trading

 

pcm-uk.co.uk is live but empty, but they are hiding their address which is a breach of the law i believe (but dont ask me which one off the top of my head)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aha, Lamma thats the one.

 

Interestingly its an offence to make the company address invisble like this punishable by a level 3 fine.

 

Im sure they have been trading for at least a couple of years so the fact the website is still under construction suggests they have committed the offence under S7(2)© for years on end :eek:

 

Curiously under S9 they must reveal their address if you write to them.... err but to what address does one write to?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

 

In short BPAs business model is licencing out their logo. nothing more.

 

Intrisically voluntary 'regulators' cant work because they cant punish their 'customers' who pay to licence their logo who would just threaten un-join their membership. They are also often set up by industry insiders to pretend legitimacy to their conduct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have a fully functioning website a few weeks back which made them look like an A1 firm. ISO badges, BPA logos, plus others. Does anyone know when they entered a CVA?

 

I cant remember off the top of my head, but it may be a year or so ago- companies house website Im sure says if you hunt around. The firm overseeing their CVA is the same firm who was the administrator of the predecessor company would you believe.

 

Looking at the BPA website I do wonder what the link between the two are as it maybe more than just association and member relationship....but who knows for now :rolleyes:

 

Has anyone ever corresponding with PCM UK and how did they respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I got nowhere with them, and now that they're in a CVA there does not seem much point taking them to the small claims court, chances of a refund, nill...

 

Never use private car parks, lesson learnt! especially those operated by this firm, although they'll probably be changing their name again at some point soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

This company behave like hooligans, I have seen them clamping aggressively in the past, now clamping is being outlawed their revenue is diminished and they are under financial pressure.

I hope Mr Ian Cordingley has to find employment in a proper job

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...