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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1688 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

tough luck on them then..

its only the judge that can force you to pay..and IMHO the whole debacle has not been addressed.

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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

DX - are you including charges applied to previous loans that are not part of the current chain? I mean, anything pre-February 2006? This being the date that one loan was settled, then a break of eight months was had before a brand new loan was taken out, and subsequently culminated in becoming the first link of the chain that the current agreement.

 

The charges and interest from the October 2006 loan onwards wouldn't amount to the full balance. You most likely know all Cruz's loans better than me, so I'd like to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you still that google drive link?

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

it was settled via a re-write with welcome.

 

more soon

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

sadly i'd lost the train of this..

no ..no link in a chain.

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

Loan 1 11/10/2001 For £7369.39 which had £1473.22 PPI and £130.00 Medicare added to it

 

Loan 2 rewrite on 10/06/2003 for £9809.68 and £1804.68 PPI.

 

Loan 3 rewrite on 31/03/2005 for £11423.67 and £1108.79 MIF. 17.80%@ £171.92 x 120 months

 

Loan 4 rewrite On 14/07/2005 for £13886.71 and £1352.87 MIF. 27% @ £272.06 x 120 months

 

Loan 5 rewrite on 29/12/2005 for £14792.00 and £1442.59 MIF 16.8% @ £189.11 x 180 months fully paid off in Feb 2006

 

New Loan no 6 taken out on 31/10/2006 for £8019.62 which had £1485.75 PPI, £180 life-care and £125 homecare with £2768.59 interest added to it.

26.5% @ £170.25 x 120 months

 

Loan 7 rewrite on 03/04/2007 for £14602.15 which had £2425.15 PPI and £175 personal accident plan with £3339.03 interest added.

22% @ £277.95 x 120 months

 

Loan 8 rewrite on 05/10/2007 for £26741.20 which had £4506.20 PPI and £10342.54 in interest added to it.

22% @£489.53 x 120 months

 

Loan 9 rewrite on 30/08/2008 for £30514.32 8.2% @ x £231.49 x 300 months. This is still running

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other chain that was mentioned before was that they didn’t provide that linking loan in court which was

 

Loan no 7.

 

They provided info on loans 6, loan 8 and 9.

But they didn’t provide 7 for some strange reason in all their exhibits. Seems a bit bizzare especially as they tried to show an application for further advance but missed the linking one 6 into 7, 7 to 8 then 8 into 9!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what their reasoning was, but I recall the charges that were applied to that particular loan being the worst of all.

Maybe that was the reason for them excluding it, or maybe it was just an oversight.

It's not relevant now anyway.

 

As I see it, let's just agree which charges and fees can be legitimately offset against this balance, then hit them with the revised balance and tell them they'll not be receiving a Penny more.

 

Furthermore, tell them that as they've chosen to ignore your constant complaints on this specific matter, that you have no other option but to advise them of your position and that they are welcome (pardon the pun) to, finally, engage with you on the matter.

 

The side issue is the monthly repayment amount. I'd like Andy's view on this.

 

DX - do you have a view on what Cruz should be paying each month, assuming there is a balance after fees and interest have been removed?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Loan no 8 the fees and interest were the worse.

 

Sorry...I mean in terms of the size of them and number relative to the short term. I recall it only lasted a few months before the next rewrite, but they blasted you with charges in that time. The cumulative total of charges on other loans were probably higher, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dx in middle of composing a letter with shams help.

 

The basis of the letter is deducting all fees but what we need to be sure of is wether I start from first loan in 2003 right the way through 8 loans. Or start at Oct 2006 onwards to last loan 2008 (4 loans) as there was a break of 6 months without a direct rewrite from Feb 2006 to Oct 2006.

 

As you can imagine There is quite a bit of difference between putting all the loans in. But I can’t go after welcome for the 1st 4 pre 2006. Due to the scheme. But as you know from your calculations there is sums outstanding there.

 

We are working out the balance and need to get this correct. As I don’t want to be in **** if it goes back to court. However I understand it’s prime who would have the prove the link/ no link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check in later

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

working on getting lots of newer email stuff over to the google drive

i'll get there.

 

might give us a better idea when done..

 

in all the stuff.. is there clear proof the last loan before the gap and this chain resulting in this litigated loan number WAS paid off by was it a mortgage or something...??

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

:thumb::thumb:

 

clear break then

thought id not lost the plot that much.

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

On all the ones before 2006 a new legal charge was applied each loan with the previous ones being removed . The land reg doc new charges were Changed to date of charge being exactly the same as dates of newer rewrite

 

But from Oct 2006 charge applied on that date but the further loans/charges were not amended date wise on Lr. So in 2007 2006 Charge should have come off and registered charge should then have been April 2007 then Oct 2007 then Aug 2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

think that tallies with the changes around that time

and I think andyorch has previously related to this if not here elsewhere.

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

I know that too. But just seems strange welcome didn’t do what they done on the last 4 that they consistently done on the first lot.

 

last loan legal charge was not witnessed and not signed in the presence of anyone it was left blank. Plus the signature on that one is well dodgy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun and games with these again. I’ve recieved 2 arrears letter 10 days apart.... so that means I’m 2 monthly payments of 231.49 in arrears in less than 2 weeks.

 

Loan agreement states money is due a month after agreement date and every month after that. Agreement date is 28th of the month. So I’m presuming they were closed for 2 weeks over Xmas hence the date 4th of jan instead of 28th of Dec.

 

But how on earth can there be another month of arrears on 13th jan? When payment not due till 28th jan? I can count shame this muppets can’t..

 

Plus on the back of their letter they list their fees which are £51.60. But there’s £61.60 on these arrrears statment so extra £10 a time going on there 😂💦

 

Even in court the last judge said I’m paid up to July 2019 on 231

 

Prime are saying

Nov arrears 74.83

Dec arrears 231.49

Jan arrears 231.49

 

Total arrears £599.41

Prime 4 +13th Jan .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...