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

Have I opened a can of worms?????


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1872 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 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

To quote someone else's post somewhere on these forums:

 

They charge interest on Sundays and Bank Holidays - so do we

 

or summat like that!

If you found this post useful, please click on the "scales" icon in the bottom left of my post and say so!

 

The opinions of this post are those of monkey_uk and do not constitute sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

--

 

Halifax Unlawful Bank Charges: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent 28/02/07 - CC Statement's rcv'd 18/04/07 Bank a/c statements rcv'd 19/04/07

 

 

 

First Direct Unlawful Bank Charges: Settled in Full 12/05/06 | £2235.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, yes Bank Holidays count in the 14 days - my A&L claim was deeemed to be served on 5th April, and the court say they have until 19th April to reply - puts us nicely over the Easter weekend :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

HA HA.

 

Just realised that 3 of my county court claims also have this extra IRONIC twist to the timings!

 

Fantastic!

 

Baz

Halifax - Won £425.00

American Express - Won £90.00

Woolwich Bank - Won £2280.00

Barclaycard - Won £558.00

Woolwich Bank - New claim for £723.00 entered.

Barclaycard - New claim for £236.00 entered

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules will give you your answer. Bank holidays are only excluded from part of any time limit if the original time limit is 5 days or less and one of those days is a bank holiday - the bank holiday is excluded in this circumstance.

 

Also if the last day for complying with a time period is a day when the court is closed the period will be deemed to have been complied with if the relevant action to comply with the time limit is done on the next day that the court is open - so if the last day of the 14 days is a bank holiday or a weekend day (the court is always closed on these days) then filing the defence on the next day that the court is open would be sufficient.

 

Take a look at http://www.greenbook.co.uk for all the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Hope this helps :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Today received notification that Natwest have acknowledged our claim on 20th April and that they have 28 days to submit a defence...so is this 28 days from the 20th April or when the claim was deemed to have been served (ie 15th April)?

 

I also have a problem in following the progress of the claim as I have forgotten the password and although I requested a new one to be sent, the email has never reached the email address I gave...so they have logged it with their technical guys. As there seems to be a delay in getting replies to emails is it worth risking an arguement with hubby (don't ask!) and getting him to ring up so that it can be reset or is this a problem that can easily be solved ? (Thinking of Natwest submitting a defence and us not knowing etc!)

 

Also is there a pattern of Natwest's actions as some people seem to be getting their money refunded on the 1st letter and others going the whole hog and havng to go throught the court system.

 

editsign.gifCAN YOU PLS STOP STARTING NEW THREADS EVERY TIME YOU HAVE AN UPDATE? IT'S TAKEN 15 MNS JUST TO PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER, IMAGINE IF ANYONE WANTS TO FOLLOW YOUR STORY!!! THANK YOU. THREADS NOW JOINED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....so is this 28 days from the 20th April or when the claim was deemed to have been served .....

 

From the date served.

 

...so they have logged it with their technical guys. As there seems to be a delay in getting replies to emails is it worth risking an arguement with hubby (don't ask!) and getting him to ring up so that it can be reset or is this a problem that can easily be solved ?....

 

Perhaps just give them a little linger to resolve it for you. In the unlikely event that they DO actually submit a defence, you will receive written notification, and more forms to fill in.

 

We can cross that bridge later, if needed.

 

Best of luck - not long now!!!

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

she says peering into the cyber-claiming back charges equivalent of a pregnancy testing kit, lol!

 

Claim was deemed to have been served on 15th April 2006.

Natwest acknowledged said papers so they get 28 days from when served (ie 15th April 2006) to submit a defence.....so they have until 13th May 2006 right?

 

So unless they submit a defence by next Saturday we will have won by default - correct?

 

If so this is going to be the longest 7 days of my life.

 

Also as we seem STILL to have on-going problems with the moneyclaim on line website can we apply for said judgement by default (assuming they don't submit a defence!) over the telephone?

 

Again many thanks.

 

editsign.gifTHIS IS THE LAST TIME YOUR THREAD GETS MOVED, NEXT TIME, IT WILL GET CLOSED. PLEASE DO NOT START NEW THREADS FOR SAME CLAIM!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

editsign.gifTHIS IS THE LAST TIME YOUR THREAD GETS MOVED, NEXT TIME, IT WILL GET CLOSED. PLEASE DO NOT START NEW THREADS FOR SAME CLAIM!!!

 

Sorry I didn't realise that I should post in the same thread......honest!

 

Hopefully the next time I post it will be to say that Natwest have coughed up £2K+, lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have until 15th. As the court is closed on 13th May they are allowed to file on the next day that the court is open - i.e. 15th so you probably wont be able to enter a default judgment until 16th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have faith!!! They will most liekely settle out of court a few days before - seems to be their common procedure.

Do you have a website? Add the following code to add a link to The Consumer Action Group:

 

<a href="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk"><b><font color="#FF0000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Consumer Action Group</font></b></a> - <font color="#FF9900" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reclaim your rights as a consumer and reclaim your unfair bank charges! Free site with letter templates and helpful forum.</font>

 

_____________________________________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its now getting scary.

 

Have come home from a night on the tiles to find a letter from Cobbetts Solicitors in Manchester who have been appointed by RBS to act on their defence, complete with a defence.

 

They have also asked for further information and clarification on a number of points - the first two are easy enough as they ask for account details together with specific details about the chrges (like how much, when applied etc) - but the third question is stumping me. It states:

 

In your claim you state that the charges are " invalid under the Unfair (contracts) terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 para 8 and sch.2 (1)(e)" and "unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15

 

Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in supoport of the contentions in the above paragraph.

 

 

Any help would be gratefully recieved ......and what is the likely next step....is this likely to go all the way to court guys and gals?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a sneeky feeling Natwest were about to start using another solicitor (http://www.cobbetts.co.uk) noticed that they copied emails to someone there when they reply to emails....

 

surely "invalid under the Unfair (contracts) terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 para 8 and sch.2 (1)(e)" and "unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15" is explanation in itself??!??

 

I assume that you know need to complete the court documents to proceed (Court Allocation Questionnaire ). Check in the FAQ for details.

Do you have a website? Add the following code to add a link to The Consumer Action Group:

 

<a href="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk"><b><font color="#FF0000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Consumer Action Group</font></b></a> - <font color="#FF9900" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reclaim your rights as a consumer and reclaim your unfair bank charges! Free site with letter templates and helpful forum.</font>

 

_____________________________________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

of where this is leading.

 

So basically under the Unfair Terms of Consumer Contracts regulations 1999 Section 2 states that the charges are considered unfair as they are dispportionately high in comparison with the amount of work involved in bouncing a dd etc.

 

Under the Supply of goods and services 1982 the charges are above what is considered reasonable so illegal.

 

But what does section 4 of the unfair (contracts) terms act 1977 state....have searched the internet but must be missing the blindingly obvious!

 

I'm hoping that when they get details of hubby's account that they simply check the dates of the charges and cough up....well I can hope can't I????? As yet have received no forms through the post but as the defence letter is only dated 12/05/06 I'm guessing that the courts paperwork is still in the process of coming to us.

 

Now that they have put in a defence (although they have asked for this further info) can they - and do you think they will - settle before it gets to court????

 

What I still fail to understand is why they are making some people jump through hoops and simply paying up for others. Whilst I appreciate it might have something to do with the amounts involved, surely if one person's charges are illegal then it stands to reason that another person's charges are also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can and will settle before it gets to court... They are trying to intimidate you...

 

 

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred bythe other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question--

 

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

 

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.

 

Basically you are saying (amongst other things) that the clauses in question ask you to indemnify them for any loss caused by your breach of the contract (ie going over limit/requesting dd when no funds in a/c etc) This clause is unfair because it specifies an amount that bears no relation to the actual cost of the breach.

 

To try to ensure your mind is at ease with dealing with these solicitors... In essence as a general rule (I think) people are asking for charges back on 3 possible premises...

 

i) It is an unfair clause (statutory - UCTA/UTCR) or in alternative

ii) A penalty clause (common-law) or

iii) A disproportionate charge (if have to conced that it is a service) (Contravening SGS)

 

These solicitors know exactly what you are claiming... They are pushing you to know if you know what you are claiming and not just following the herd, trying to get you to back down... Stick with it ! :D Don't let them intimidate you.

  • Confused 1

If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.:D

 

DO YOU HAVE A WEBSITE AND WANT TO PROVIDE A VALUABLE LINK TO THIS FORUM ? Go to this thread:-http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=52854

 

As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment.

Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received the same defence paperwork from the solicitors. They state "without prejudice" on a lot of the forms... doesn't everything have to be done through the courts with full transparency?

  • Confused 1

If you find this post useful, please click the Scales of 'Justice' in the top right corner. Thanks ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received the same defence paperwork from the solicitors. They state "without prejudice" on a lot of the forms... doesn't everything have to be done through the courts with full transparency?

 

"Without prejudice" communication is theoretically designed to be excluded from court proceedings as a means of trying to come to an ex-judicial resolution to a dispute.

 

(For those that are more interested or for further information if neecessary heres the complicated law stuff !!!;) )

However... Following Cutts v Head (1984 case) any negotiations genuinely aimed at a settlement of a dispute, whether oral or in writing, are not admissible in evidence. Whilst Buckinghamshire CC v Moran (1989) shows that labelling documents "without prejudice" does not automatically rule those documents as inadmissable.

If you have found this post (or any other post) useful ensure you click on the scales in the top right of that post to give credit where credit is due.:D

 

DO YOU HAVE A WEBSITE AND WANT TO PROVIDE A VALUABLE LINK TO THIS FORUM ? Go to this thread:-http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=52854

 

As ever, with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment.

Seek advice of a qualified, insured, professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1872 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...