Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.              
    • 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...
  • 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

BOS/Halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5136 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

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Can anyone confirm if I they do have the right to take from my account, if I was an additional card holder?

 

If you have a copy of the T&C's sent with your 'agreement' it may say as such on there..

 

I will have a research in my stuff later if you haven't found out in a while.

 

Spam. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joemay!

 

Can anyone confirm if I they do have the right to take from my account, if I was an additional card holder?

 

No idea, I regret. But worry about that after you have the funds moved somewhere safer, and any payments linked to those accounts moved too, so that they can't rock the boat for you.

 

The banks are not to be trusted, full stop.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Joemay!

 

 

 

No idea, I regret. But worry about that after you have the funds moved somewhere safer, and any payments linked to those accounts moved too, so that they can't rock the boat for you.

 

The banks are not to be trusted, full stop.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

You can say that again. Have applied for co-op its going to take 4 days:eek:

Being trying to get confirmation from the FSA regarding this, but as usual this is a useless org.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say that again. Have applied for co-op its going to take 4 days:eek:

Being trying to get confirmation from the FSA regarding this, but as usual this is a useless org.

 

Did you apply for Cashminder or Basic at the Co-op? I got refused the basic account..:( after they'd done the credit checks

 

but I was accepted immediately on the cashminder.. just had to wait for my account number and what not...

 

Good luck any way.

 

Spam. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I called the FOS. I was shocked to hear the guy tell me that it's could be possible for this to happen. I asked how that could be as I don't have an agreement with them, never signed anything, he reckons that the banks can link you financially. He told me to seek further advise from the FSA. Called them and no-one is available to spk to me, they could arrange a call back but it might not be 'til thursday:eek:

 

So everyone take heed and as BRW has pointed out its so important to have a parachute account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you apply for Cashminder or Basic at the Co-op? I got refused the basic account..:( after they'd done the credit checks

 

but I was accepted immediately on the cashminder.. just had to wait for my account number and what not...

 

Good luck any way.

 

Spam. :)

 

she did the application with a savings account attached, probably not the best move, refused. I'm going for the cashminder & savings so I suppose that's why its been referred:roll: Should have read BRW before applying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BRW & DD - I will sort out today.

 

Yes DD I was an additional cardholder, but never signed anything. I don't honestly believe that they would have any legal right to take money from my account, but I don't think I want to take the chance.

 

Like everyone else, so long as your not having difficulties banks seem to be ok, but as soon as you run into financial troubles they most definately are not to be trusted.

 

Thanks again:)

 

might be worth just checking through the T * C's since if you used the card you might have difficulty proving anything else

 

never used a card as joint cards so not too sure if there is a term in the agreement re liability

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at the t&c's they sent with copy of application form. It reads as if the cardholder is responsible for the additional card holder. Can't even see the section where is says they have contractual rights to take money from an account. I'll study it harder later i've only just skimmed over it.

 

The point is thou' that as I never signed anything & I'm not on the original application form, I really can't see how they could do such a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joemay,

 

I think you'll find that with banks, what they are 'allowed' to do and what they 'actually' do are two entirely different things.

They rely on Mr and Mrs Public not to challenge them and that is how they make a lot of their money.

For instance... they jack up the APR on loans by a miniscule amount... barely noticeable... you end up paying a couple of quid extra per month, times that by a few million people and there you go...easy money:rolleyes:.. Have you checked the APR on any loans you've had or have you just accepted it? I know I never bothered checking.... until now!!

 

Sorry to rant on But I'm just saying they will TRY anything ,believing that you will accept that they can do that and that you won't challenge them.

 

So get your money out of there.. stuff it under your matress and don't let them get their greedy hands on it!!

 

Spam. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Halifac CC T&C's:

14. Additional cardholders

You must pay for all transactions made by any additional cardholder.

You'll probably be OK here Joemay...but I'd still do the parachute account..I wouldn't trust em as far as I could throw em..which isn't far!

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at the t&c's they sent with copy of application form. It reads as if the cardholder is responsible for the additional card holder. Can't even see the section where is says they have contractual rights to take money from an account. I'll study it harder later i've only just skimmed over it.

 

The point is thou' that as I never signed anything & I'm not on the original application form, I really can't see how they could do such a thing.

 

that looks ok then

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Totally agree Spammie :D

Glad you got yours sorted out. Another [problem] thats being looked at now is the difference between the advertised online loan application APR and the one you actually end up with. They "turn down" the online app so that you ring..then make a big thing about trying really hard for you.."I'll ring our underwriters..." and come back and say yes we CAN give you one...(very quickly and quietly.."but the APR is higher..." LOUDER "But its the best your going to get in YOUR circumstances... (Huh!!)

Reminds me of doorstep double glazing sales techniques!!

No more credit for me, I'm allergic to it.

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks guys. I've looked over the t&cs and states what elsa kindly posted. Interesting thing is though, nowhere does it state in t&c that they have the contractual right to withdraw funds from other accounts. Now if they have this right then why the hell can't I see that written in their current t&cs.:mad:

 

Hope to have parachute sorted by next week. I really should have done this ages ago, (so niave, am I) but I'm learning they really are a whole load of bankers.

 

Spam don't want it under my mattress I've got 2 kids who are desperate to become consumers:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Update - Complaint letter was sent to Helifax and a response has been received. I have a few questions and would be grateful for advise.

 

They mention they have noted the comment revolking license under english common law not to visit OH, but state this complaint is declined as this law doesn't apply to recovery of debt?? Can someone please confirm if this is the case or not.

 

They also state that as it's a "Joint Account" they are entitled to contact either party. This isn't a joint account, there is a mere application form with OH details and signature, I was added later as additional card holder, don't remember signing any agreement, awaiting SAR to see if it throws up anything, but my understanding is that OH is totaly responsible for the debt, and therefore they are not entitled to contact me, am I right in thinking this or can they chase me for the debt??

 

They are of the impression that OH has a payment agreement in place with Bloody Orrible & Snotty, but he has never agreed anything with them, he was paying Helifax £1 pm token payment, but this has now been stopped due to the fact that OH rec'd letter from Helifax stating that agreement had ended therefore rescindering the agreement.

 

And finally, in the complaint letter from OH it was mentioned that the agreement has been rescindered and they responded by stating they have checked the file and they can't find any record/confirmation that the debt has been rescinded, they want OH to send a copy of the letter which states this?

 

They say they're keen to resolve OHs concerns and if they don't hear from OH within 8 weeks, they assume he is satisfied. Obviously he's not satisfied and neither am I as they are trying to make this a joint account - they been sending text messages to both of us, which they say is reasonable, but considering OH health issues its not.

 

Can all you knowledgable caggers please comment on this, as I hope this letter is really just trying to get OH to panic and pay, or is there any truth in what they are stating.

 

I look forward to your responses.

Joemay

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm pretty sure that an "additional card holder" is not regarded in law as jointly or severally liable for the account.

 

the company would have had to have done due dillegence on the "additional card holder" or else how can they satisfy themselves that he is a responsible borrower ?

 

many companies have credit card accounts and employees are issued cards as additional card holders and can use the facilities of the company card but they are not personally liable for the account

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi joemay

 

I agree with diddy, I am of the opinion that you are an additional card holder on the main account not a joint cardholder. The main cardholder is responsible for the debt and the statement comes in one name only.

 

But that is just one issue. You now have quite a few issues to deal with after your correspondence with Halifax. Personally, I would not play their game and I believe that you are falling into their trap.

 

They are talking a load of rubbish and you want advice on how to answer the individual points. It will not work and they will see that you are both weak and that will get you nowhere at all. The people you are dealing with are worried. Not about you, they care not, they are worried about their own jobs and rightly so.

 

So here is my advice, you asked for advice and it is for you to decide if this is the right way to deal with them.

 

To begin with they do not care about common law or any law. So why do you care if they text you or write or phone or whatever. They very rarely visit you and if they did you just hand them the letter that is available on the forum.

 

I have not been through the thread again but if I recall correctly you have an agreement which is debateable, a DN which is invalid and they terminated the account in April or May and sent a letter to confirm it. Please correct me if I am mistaken on any points.

 

Unless there is a reason you cannot do it I would get a new number for your OH mobile. If they speak to you on the phone I would tell them it is not your account and you are recording the call. I would make a note of all calls and texts.

 

I would not write to them regarding the termination letter, or any other matter unless they get really annoying to your OH. Then I would write and confirm the health issues and say that you have taken advice (which you have) and that they do not have a case. If they continue to persecute a sick person you will take the matter much further and will expect considerable compensation.

 

Finally, the only thing that they are keen to resolve is you not paying and their comments are to show that they are complying with the complaints procedure.

 

Why don't you both just chill and wait and see what they do next.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update - Complaint letter was sent to Helifax and a response has been received. I have a few questions and would be grateful for advise.

 

They mention they have noted the comment revolking license under english common law not to visit OH, but state this complaint is declined as this law doesn't apply to recovery of debt?? Can someone please confirm if this is the case or not.

 

Total male cows poo. It applies to everyone, excepting the police and emergency service etc.

 

They also state that as it's a "Joint Account" they are entitled to contact either party. This isn't a joint account, there is a mere application form with OH details and signature, I was added later as additional card holder, don't remember signing any agreement, awaiting SAR to see if it throws up anything, but my understanding is that OH is totaly responsible for the debt, and therefore they are not entitled to contact me, am I right in thinking this or can they chase me for the debt??

 

Additional cardholders are not liable for the debt. If it says additional cardholder, then that is that. Who do they address the statements to?

 

They are of the impression that OH has a payment agreement in place with Bloody Orrible & Snotty, but he has never agreed anything with them, he was paying Helifax £1 pm token payment, but this has now been stopped due to the fact that OH rec'd letter from Helifax stating that agreement had ended therefore rescindering the agreement.

 

BOS are just Halifax in disguise. Ignore or rebutt this.

 

And finally, in the complaint letter from OH it was mentioned that the agreement has been rescindered and they responded by stating they have checked the file and they can't find any record/confirmation that the debt has been rescinded, they want OH to send a copy of the letter which states this?

 

Do not send a copy of the letter. If they do not have a copy, which they don't, tough on them. Just tell them the date of the TN and who sent it. They have tried the same with me.

 

They say they're keen to resolve OHs concerns and if they don't hear from OH within 8 weeks, they assume he is satisfied. Obviously he's not satisfied and neither am I as they are trying to make this a joint account - they been sending text messages to both of us, which they say is reasonable, but considering OH health issues its not.

 

Check your agreement and statements plus other communications. See who they are addressed to. This lot will try anything, so you need to confirm to them that this is not a joint account. I don't think that I have ever heard of a joint account for crediit cards.

 

Can all you knowledgable caggers please comment on this, as I hope this letter is really just trying to get OH to panic and pay, or is there any truth in what they are stating.

 

I look forward to your responses.

Joemay

:evil::evil::evil::evil:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for your response. TBH when I saw the letter I did think they were talking out of their rear end.

 

One thing that does concern me is when or if this goes to court will a judge not say why didn't you respond to the letter in order to try and resolve the issues, is OH not obliged to respond??

 

Thanks

Joemay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for your response. TBH when I saw the letter I did think they were talking out of their rear end.

 

One thing that does concern me is when or if this goes to court will a judge not say why didn't you respond to the letter in order to try and resolve the issues, is OH not obliged to respond??

 

Thanks

Joemay

 

It will not make a difference., if it does go to court. If the question arose you would say that you tried writing to them and they ignored the contents of the letter and misled you with the response.

 

You were therefore advised to stop writing as it was just encouraging the Halifax to put more pressure on your sick OH.

 

Just let us know what they do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joemay...

 

Just to add as I totally agree with Pedross here...

 

Hang on to that letter as it also shows that Halifax are trying to mislead you and also appear to be 'Misrepresenting' the facts stating that it's a joint account when it isn't.

 

Give them enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves..:p

 

Concentrate on yourself and the OH. Ignore the Haliprats.

 

Spam. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pedross & Spam,

 

I agree just leave it be, see what they start throwing at OH and hopefully they'll hang themselves, doubt that they would need any assistance from us:p

 

I'll keep you posted 'cos no doubt we'll be hearing from them soon;)

 

Spam I noticed you changed your avatar back:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...