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

Santander - Irresponsible lending


Matthew31
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2383 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

I'm just wondering if this is in breach of responsible lending rules and if I could do anything about it.

 

Years ago I realised I had a bit of a gambling problem and when having a slip what would happen is I would lose all of my money, then keep extending my overdraft to the maximum chasing the loss until everything had gone.

 

Around 2 or 3 years ago I told Santander about this gambling problem and made it clear to them I wanted no overdraft facility on my account whatsoever. At the time they told me that overdraft facility had been removed from my account. I tried to create a £50 overdraft in my online banking and sure enough I couldn't.

 

Several months later I had a huge gambling slip and when I emptied my bank, I tried to see if I could create an overdraft in my online banking account and sure enough, I created a £500 overdraft and lost the lot.

 

I made requests several times again to stop any overdraft facility on my account, but they never helped with this.

 

Last year was horrid. In January they let me extend my overdraft to £2000 (Which was ridiculous considering I was only earning £420 a month carers allowance and income support). I had a huge slip when mum died and lost everything in my bank and the entire £2000 of my overdraft.

 

Towards the end of last year and start of this year, 2 more slips where I was allowed to create overdraft amounts of around £1000 where I had to sell my Santander shares to clear the overdraft.

 

 

Then this year. I made a complaint with them about this, yet it was vastly ignored. I got a complaint response in a letter but again they said nothing apart from every few months they review overdraft facilities on peoples accounts and set the maximum overdraft limit.

 

2 months ago after doing so well I had another slip, I was allowed to extend my overdraft to £600 and again lost the lot gambling.

 

Then now in the last 2 weeks, just as I managed to clear my overdraft (After paying £1 a day in charges for the last 2 months), I had a slip. I only had about £80 in my bank, but Santander allowed me to extend my overdraft to £700 and I lost the lot trying to chase back that £80 I lost.

 

 

The thing is, Santander have been fully aware of my gambling problem. I can safeguard myself by leaving minimal money in my bank (withdrawing as much as possible to store at home), but the overdraft facility is something they won't stop for good on my account.

 

In fact, every single time I have increased my overdraft limit or created an overdraft, it has been lost gambling online right after. I have never once increased or created an overdraft for any other purpose.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I can't edit, I will post something else I had to add.

 

Now in no way am I blaming the bank for my own actions of what I did. The complaint about them really is more to do with them being fully aware of my gambling problems, how during a slip I end up creating/extending my overdraft, losing the lot and putting myself in debt (as well as incurring £1 a day in bank charges), yet they will not remove the authorised overdraft facility permanently from my account.

 

Furthermore they have allowed me in February 2016 to extend my overdraft to £2000 (which seems like an irresponsible amount to allow me to access, based on my income at that time as well as knowing about my problems with gambling and wanting the overdraft facility removed prior to that).

 

Looking at the secure message inbox I first contacted them in 2011 and told them about my gambling problem. At that time I wanted my debit card downgraded to a cash only card. Their staff were useless with 1 telling me they have removed the ability for my debit card to make online transactions (I tested this by making a low value purchase online which went through) and finally, another telling me they need to cancel the card and assign me with a cash only card.

 

I then contacted them many times including in 2014 and the start of this year specifically about getting the authorised overdraft facility removed from my account permanently because I realised at some casinos I could pay by PayPal (could do a direct transfer to my paypal account from online banking page and deposit that way). Which resulted in being told it's been removed (when it wasn't), that they review the facility every few months or I can remove it myself by setting overdraft amount to 0 (Which doesn't remove the facility as I can extend my overdraft again right after)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...