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 
        • 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

can a company close down and restart the following day to avoid being taken to court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2556 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

If you are self-employed and you are owed money from a company (construction) for an unpaid invoice and you start court proceeding's can they close the company down before it gets to the court date and if they can is their any way of stopping them doing this

 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are self-employed and you are owed money from a company (construction) for an unpaid invoice and you start court proceeding's can they close the company down before it gets to the court date and if they can is their any way of stopping them doing this

 

 

Thanks

 

Think Companies house have a process for this, where they stop the company being closed down in this way to avoid debts.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have started a legal action then you can inform CH that the company is liquidating to avoid its respionsibilities and that the assest the comapny have shoudl be ringfenced to protect the rights of existing creditors and other interested parties such as yourself. If this is agreed then the director of the company become individually liable so their personal assets may be considereddf to settle any debts.

However, it is bloody difficult to enforce the debt is they do a runner and put everything n the mother's name. You have to be very presistent and these people know all the wrangles so will stretch the matter out and make it too expensive to pursue.

3 decades ago commercial debt was collected in a rather different way that involved cars full of large people and as this is not an acceptable option these days the chancers will continue their games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply's its not for me I belong to a FB page for construction workers and it would appear this company is starting to get well known for not paying there are 4/5 on this site alone that are owed money one person being owed 11k

 

 

I have pointed them to this site as they seem to think its going cost about 5k to take him to court (using a solicitor) and they think their is no point because they will just shut down and start again hopefully they will take my advice and Join here

Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens everyday.

Open a ltd company, pile up thousand of pounds in debt, then close the company down and reopen next day with a different name.

To prevent closure of a ltd company, the creditor should know that they're closing down and check with companies house, but usually when they get around to do it, the 90 days have passed and the company is defunct.

There are directors who have been doing this for 20/30 years and still get away with it.

Used car dealers are the most prolific.

Link to post
Share on other sites

before these lads throw good money after bad would anyone be able to read and explain this floating charge to me I have the charge no registered at company's house

 

Thanks

 

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-107-5773?__lrTS=20170419145345838&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

 

Seems to be a legal way of avoiding assets being taken.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something like that on another site and that's what I thought but you would think there would be something in the agreement that they must keep their company sound and debt free I did read the agreement but didn't understand it

 

they were know for trying/not paying subbies occasionally before this floating agreement but it looks like in last 2 yrs they just don't give one word is getting around and I believe they are finding it hard to get subbies to do the work but that doesn't help the 5 blokes(the ones that I know of) they shafted or the blokes that don't know its a toss up if they pay you or not

 

Its not as if its a few ££££ 1 bloke owed 11k and another owed 8k so taking a bit hit for these blokes I cant believe they can legally get away with this its shocked me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is shocking.

As a rule of thumb, I only deal with tradesmen without a ltd company and before handing money over I check on the land registry that they are homeowners (£3 cost).

This doesn't give me a cast iron guarantee that they will not run away, but at least if they do I could put a charge on their property via the courts.

With a ltd company you are literally giving money to a ghost entity that can disappear next day and nobody would be responsible for debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is shocking.

As a rule of thumb, I only deal with tradesmen without a ltd company and before handing money over I check on the land registry that they are homeowners (£3 cost).

This doesn't give me a cast iron guarantee that they will not run away, but at least if they do I could put a charge on their property via the courts.

With a ltd company you are literally giving money to a ghost entity that can disappear next day and nobody would be responsible for debts.

 

I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.

 

All well and good, but the contractors still didn't get their money because these directors are very careful to have no assets in their name.

Who cares that they are convicted?

They still have the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.

 

when another bloke posted last night saying that they owe a bloke working beside him 8k I wondered if it was fraud as their seems to be a pattern forming here they all seem to be owing about 8k (one claiming 11k)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...