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

DEFAULT NOTICES - IMPORTANT Post 19th December 2006


42man
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5500 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

The legislation change which ordered creditors to change default notices from allowing 7 days to allowing 14 days is from 19th December 2006. Remember that any default notice issued AFTER that date should give 14 clear days, if it 14 days from the date of the letter to the date of remedy (and no more than 14) remember that this can be seen as a defective Default Notice as unless they served the letter on you the day they typed the letter then they will no thave given 14 days clear notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no because it was posted!, i think your confusion is the word served, it does not have to mean face to face, in this case.

 

dx

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

Gees 53, for service they have to allow 2 WORKING days for 1st class or 4 WORKING days for 2nd... if they havent then the DN is invalid.

 

This is in addition to the stat 14 days requirement

PmW

Edited by pmw1971
Added the key word WORKING :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies guys.... ok so then pmw can i ask you seeing that they never allowed days for postage on the default notice and assuming it was first class.. do you feel that is a valid reason for me to bring out in court cos if i can prove their default notice was invalid then they have a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, answers my question on my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191166-dn-compliant.html

 

So, DN dated 21st (Saturday), received 25th, gives me till 4th April (Saturday) to comply.

 

Incorrect, yes??

Six Nations Champions 2009

Triple Crown 2009

Grand Slam 2009

:cool::-D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, answers my question on my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191166-dn-compliant.html

 

So, DN dated 21st (Saturday), received 25th, gives me till 4th April (Saturday) to comply.

 

Incorrect, yes??

 

Yes, 2 working days for postage should take you to the 7th april

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies guys.... ok so then pmw can i ask you seeing that they never allowed days for postage on the default notice and assuming it was first class.. do you feel that is a valid reason for me to bring out in court cos if i can prove their default notice was invalid then they have a problem.

 

Yes, relevant bit of legislation is below :-

 

1. Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7

 

This states:-

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many working days can be allowed for service where a creditor uses the likes of TNT Post or UK Mail?

The advice I give in relation to benefits should be viewed as general advice and not specific to your individual claim circumstances. I cannot give specific advice on your claim as I cannot access the claim.

 

If you find the advice useful please click on my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many working days can be allowed for service where a creditor uses the likes of TNT Post or UK Mail?

 

Theyre not included in the act as they werent around when it was written, it only refers to 1st or 2nd class post, UKMail letters have a code on the letter which you can use to establish which service it was served under.. i.e. they have a 3day delivery which is a cheap option. If you phone and give the number on the envelope they should be able to tell you which service the OC sent the letter out on thus giving you the "served" date.

 

No idea about tnt post sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the information kindly given by pmw1971 given above at post #8 , similar info is also included in the Civil Procedure Rules. I just posted this elsewhere but I thought it might fit in here nicely also.

 

In CPR, for deemed service see part 6.26;

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...6.htm#IDAXLC1B

 

and refer to 6.2 for interpretation of business days etc.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...06.htm#IDAPLIR

 

Thanks to Vulture_Bank who originally nudged me in that direction many moons ago.

 

Cheers

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi pmw sorry to be a pest but i have to serve documents on tues and i am a little confused..is the act you refer to part of the credit consumer act? tks again

 

hi gees, no probs...

 

The act I was referring to was "The Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7"

 

Although I know a case where a DJ wasnt aware of the importance of this act so it may be better to quote the section robcag put up, this is CPR 6.26

and will be recognised by the DG as the CPR rules are the court rules.

 

This link will take you there, afraid the table doesnt cut&paste well on here but would into a word document:).

 

PmW

Link to post
Share on other sites

subbing .......

-

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, my comments are based on information learnt or

obtained and from my own experiences.

-

Case 1 - C L Finance - Court Case 'Stayed' :-). Stay Lifted - N149 AQ Received & Filed. Case Struck Out :grin:

-

Case 2 - C L Finance - Defence Filed. N150 AQ Received & Filed. Case 'Settled by Consent' :)

-

Case 3 - EOS Solutions - No Agreement - Account Closed ~£3500. :grin:

-

Advice & opinions offered freely but informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment and seek advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an anomaly for DNs served in the period between 1 October 2006 and 19 December 2006.

 

The prescribed form in the Regs had not been changed but the requirement in section 88 had been changed.

 

A DN allowing 7-13 days for remedy served in this anomalous period might well still be invalid for failure to comply with section 88.

 

I think that I have seen something about this before, which I will try to dig up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...