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

Mint Card letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5249 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 there,

 

Bit of a panic, I have received a letter from Mint saying that I am in breach of my agreement as I'm in arrears, I can remedy the situation by paying the arrears of £389.00 within 17 days of the notice but I don't have that kind of money as I'm self employed and struggling to pay myself. I'm just about earning enough for shopping and mortgage.

 

Any ideas on what I can do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bearing

I would write to them first and explain your situation and then make them an offer of payment what every you can afford to pay each month even if its a token payment of £1.

Then i would send them a cca request to make sure they hold a valid agreement.

You can find templates for both of these letters in the template section.

Good luck. ( ;

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just in the process of writing them a letter with a token payment after speaking to CCCS yesterday, I'm not so panicked now as the advisor commented that they can't get out of you what you haven't got.

 

I shall also send off the request for the CCA.

 

Thanks for the good luck wishes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

After sending the letter explaining my situation including my being in contact with the CCCS, I have today received a termination of Account letter.

 

Any ideas what I can do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed in the DN that the parts BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN are not in bold font when compared to the font around it, I was under the impression that this needed to be prominent in Bold lettering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also they gave me 17 days after the date of the notice to credit my account to remedy the situation, at the top the Date of default notice is 25th June 2009.

 

Assuming thy sent the notice by first class post this gives the following.

 

25/06/2009 Thursday - Date of Default Notice (and probable posting day)

 

26/06/2009 Friday - 1st Working Day after Postage

27/06/2009 Saturday - WEEKEND

28/06/2009 Sunday - WEEKEND

29/06/2009 Monday - 2nd Working Day after Postage and date of Service as defined here

 

 

30/06/2009 Tuesday - 1st Clear Day

1/07/2009 Wednesday - 2nd Clear Day

2/07/2009 Thursday - 3rd Clear Day

3/07/2009 Friday - 4th Clear Day

4/07/2009 Saturday - 5th Clear Day

5/07/2009 Sunday - 6th Clear Day

6/07/2009 Monday - 7th Clear Day

7/07/2009 Tuesday - 8th Clear Day

8/07/2009 Wednesday - 9th Clear Day

9/07/2009 Thursday - 10th Clear Day

10/07/2009 Friday - 11th Clear Day

11/07/2009 Saturday - 12th Clear Day - Mint Deadline

12/07/2009 Sunday - 13th Clear Day

13/07/2009 Monday - 14th Clear Day - Statutory Deadline

14/07/2009 Tuesday - 15th Clear Day

15/07/2009 Wednesday - 16th Clear Day

16/07/2009 Thursday - 17th Clear Day - Mint Deadline by my reckoning (using 17 days)

Edited by bearing
Link to post
Share on other sites

25th June was a thursday so the DN is deemed served on monday 29t h- the second working day. 14 days after that is sunday 12th which is also 17 days after 25 June. So I think the DN is OK from that point of view

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bearing

 

The 17 days situation is debatable anyway, although even if it is acceptable I believe your calculations are correct. Even if you count the 17th day it would be Sunday as Steven states but that is still 1 day short.

 

However, the notice states before the date shown which would be Sat 11th which adds further confusion.

 

To sum up I believe the DN is defective because it does not allow enough time and the termination is therefore 'unlawful' and there could be other issues. I am sure others will be along now you have put the link on the Dodgy DN thread but in the meantime you need to read through that thread.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming this would be relevant even if they stated "17 days".. the regs say there MUST be a specific date. Was your DN posted 1st or 2nd class post.

 

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

 

3

A specification of:--

 

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

 

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

 

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

 

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

I think that is pretty conclusive that the Regs require a date not the words "fourteen days"

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It came first class.

 

 

Then it is at least one day short according to my calculation you should have been given until Mon 13th.

 

However, steven's post is very relevent and I do not believe that 17 days is an acceptable statement and I have posted my reasons somewhere but don't ask me where.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it is at least one day short according to my calculation you should have been given until Mon 13th.

 

However, steven's post is very relevent and I do not believe that 17 days is an acceptable statement and I have posted my reasons somewhere but don't ask me where.

 

Thanks, I'll do a search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is good case law that says that if the statutory period is not given (ie 14 clear days from the date of service) then the DN is invalid. However, I do not know of any case law which says that giving a number of days rather than a date also makes the DN invalid. Therefore you would be even more at the whim of the DJ if you relied on this fact in court IMHO

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is good case law that says that if the statutory period is not given (ie 14 clear days from the date of service) then the DN is invalid. However, I do not know of any case law which says that giving a number of days rather than a date also makes the DN invalid. Therefore you would be even more at the whim of the DJ if you relied on this fact in court IMHO

 

I was not sure if anyone had tested that theory yet but it appears not. Therefore the DN is 1 day short according to my calculations and should be a useful defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi steven

I am sure that the way the days are calculated are as bearing has done in post 8 with the exception of the mistake referring to 16 July.

 

That means the Statutory Deadline is Monday.

 

But the wording which must be used and has in fact been used is 'BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN' so that would make the mint deadline saturday in effect although it is not too important if I am correct in my Monday calculation.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'no later than' suggests that before does mean 'on' or 'before'.

 

Before means before. That is the word stated by the regulations.

 

This is one reason why I believe that the DN is defective. It should state a 'specified date' and it is almost impossible for 3 intelligent people to be sure what the date actually is. So let us assume that the 'date specified' is sunday 12th the deadline is saturday 11th by statute regardlesss of what mint say.

 

But steven has a valid point in that there is no case law to support this so it is a risky defence. But I do believe even so that it is 1 day short based on the table you have posted in post 8 which I believe is the correct calculation.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I Have a similar DN from rbs

Mine to says 17 days from the date on the notice.

With advice from another Cagger my argument will be that they have not specified a date.

There is a discussion going on at the moment about Dn which is very interesting

Check it out http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/196312-invalid-default-notices.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...