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 
      • 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

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4606 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

So what was the intention of the original 1974 act when it said (paraphrasing) 'You cannot enforce if you are in breach of s78'.

 

Clearly it wasn't so a Judge could say "only I can enforce, so the claimant can do whatever he likes", which simply renders this portion of the Act meaningless.

 

The Act must have had it in mind to prevent the lender / credit giver from doing something if he was in breach of s78.

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Why would an act of parliament state that a "creditor" cannot "enforce" if he is in breach of a certain section, when only a judge could ever enforce in the first place?

 

In other words, if a judge is the only one able to enforce, then the creditor loses nothing by being in breach!

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What level of court did Judge Flaux give this decision in (saying starting court action was only a "step toward enforcement", anyone know?

 

Has Carey done for this argument, or was Carey purely concerned with whether a s78 breach made an agreement terminally unenforceable? To me (total layman) that seems a very optimistic approach, did they really expect that to succeed?

 

Would it not have been better to argue that the creditor did not have the right to start court action until he complied with the s77/78/79 request - focusing on preventing enforcement, which after all is what the Act says.

 

Apologies if this is out of the loop, I haven't read all 118 pages of this thread and I must admit I'm not sure I fully understand Carey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly.

 

Why would an act of parliament state that a "creditor" cannot "enforce" if he is in breach of a certain section, when only a judge could ever enforce in the first place?

 

In other words, if a judge is the only one able to enforce, then the creditor loses nothing by being in breach!

 

 

Jeff.

 

A creditor can not enforce whilst in default of a s.78 request. If they applied to the court for an order granting enforcement ie a ccj the debtor need only point out to the judge the creditors failure to comply with the s78 request and the judge is not able to grant enforcement. The same applies to a beach of s61 ie prescribed terms missing and s127(3). Although the s.78 breach is capable of rectification by virtue of the creditor complying with s.78.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can never see any rational thinking behind that one, but Judges sometimes live in a world with Tangerine Trees and Marmalade Sky's.

 

If you go to court, you are intending to enforce. No arguments.

 

fully agree

 

not only that- taking an action to court with no intention of proceeding with the case beyond issuing the claim is IMO a deliberate attempt to abuse the system

Link to post
Share on other sites

fully agree

not only that- taking an action to court with no intention of proceeding with the case beyond issuing the claim is IMO a deliberate attempt to abuse the system

 

Too right. These judges are just trying to earn fees for the courts :D, by encouraging claimants who have no prospect of winning to take their chances.

 

Well actually, I guess they do have a chance of winning, as long as the defendant doesn't know their rights, isn't a Caggite etc...

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a lengthy personalised letter from MBNA. Basically I s.78'd them in July last year and have had nothing - like pulling teeth. In response to a question about why I've not had a response they write:

 

'I would clarify in respect of the accounts that you have not had a response under s78; we would refer you to the High Court judgment of McGuffick v RBS in which Flaux held that the following are not enforcement: i) demanding payment, ii) issuing a DN, iii) threatening legal action, iv) instructing a DCA and v) bringing proceedings. As such even where a S78 request has not been complied with these activities can be properly undertaken.'

 

Accepted. The bit I don't get is why, after 9 1/2 months I have had no reply to my s.78 request? No original CCA with signature. No BS reconstruction. Just 2 fingers up firmly to the CCA 1974 and bugger all else. What game are they up to? I have two accounts, one from 1989 and one from 1994. Both originally with Building Societies that became banks and were taken over by MBNA. Clearly my hope is that they have no paperwork but why don't they do what everyone else does and create it?

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

'I would clarify in respect of the accounts that you have not had a response under s78; we would refer you to the High Court judgment of McGuffick v RBS in which Flaux held that the following are not enforcement: i) demanding payment, ii) issuing a DN, iii) threatening legal action, iv) instructing a DCA and v) bringing proceedings. As such even where a S78 request has not been complied with these activities can be properly undertaken.'

 

If true then a s78 request is meaningless, it can be ignored without consequence. Technically I suppose the Judge cannot enforce if the creditor is still in breach once the case comes before court, but it seems a high percentage of DJ's are determined to side with the creditor whatever the circumstances.

 

If you want the letter of the law applied more evenly you need to go to appeal, which is £10k minimum.

 

As for why MBNA won't recreate your agreement - do you know if its a decision on your case alone, or generally do they not supply agreements? It may just be policy. Given that they are going with the Flaux they may feel the only time they are obliged to produce your agreement (recon or otherwise) is in court.

 

I know that flouts OFT guidelines and whatever else but that doesn't seem to bother creditors or judges as much as it should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If true then a s78 request is meaningless, it can be ignored without consequence. Technically I suppose the Judge cannot enforce if the creditor is still in breach once the case comes before court, but it seems a high percentage of DJ's are determined to side with the creditor whatever the circumstances.

 

If you want the letter of the law applied more evenly you need to go to appeal, which is £10k minimum.

 

As for why MBNA won't recreate your agreement - do you know if its a decision on your case alone, or generally do they not supply agreements? It may just be policy. Given that they are going with the Flaux they may feel the only time they are obliged to produce your agreement (recon or otherwise) is in court.

 

I know that flouts OFT guidelines and whatever else but that doesn't seem to bother creditors or judges as much as it should.

 

No idea what MBNA are up to generally. Of all my creditors they are the only ones who have produced nothing. Although they did admit on one of my accounts (in response to a SAR) that they could not provide a copy of the agreement and blamed the original building society. Surely a lender would not be stupid enough to go through all this c**p, including taking you to court, if the whole dispute could have been resolved very easily by them producing either a signed agreement or some response to a s78 request. But as my experience grows it seems anything is possible!

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good reason why debtors should use CPR!

 

At what point would you use CPR? After your creditor issues or as a pre-emptive (is it under 31.16 I get confused with all the numbers) prior to issuing proceedings.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point would you use CPR? After your creditor issues or as a pre-emptive (is it under 31.16 I get confused with all the numbers) prior to issuing proceedings.

 

Once the creditor raises the possibility of legal proceedings you can use the CPR. There is a very good thread here -http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913

 

What I'm not sure about is how robust the CPR are when it comes to court action, i.e. whether a creditor breaching them is likely to influence a Judge very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure of the CPR part lol, but it would be as a direct reaction to threatened or the percieved threat of litigation for which the account holder MUST keep any paperwork to back up this course of action. best really if the account holder requested advice here first :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the creditor raises the possibility of legal proceedings you can use the CPR. There is a very good thread here -http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html#post1868913

 

What I'm not sure about is how robust the CPR are when it comes to court action, i.e. whether a creditor breaching them is likely to influence a Judge very much.

 

The judge doesn't have a choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point would you use CPR? After your creditor issues or as a pre-emptive (is it under 31.16 I get confused with all the numbers) prior to issuing proceedings.

Hi Brooce

 

Have a look at this excellent thread on the subject.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a lengthy personalised letter from MBNA. Basically I s.78'd them in July last year and have had nothing - like pulling teeth. In response to a question about why I've not had a response they write:

 

'I would clarify in respect of the accounts that you have not had a response under s78; we would refer you to the High Court judgment of McGuffick v RBS in which Flaux held that the following are not enforcement: i) demanding payment, ii) issuing a DN, iii) threatening legal action, iv) instructing a DCA and v) bringing proceedings. As such even where a S78 request has not been complied with these activities can be properly undertaken.'

 

Accepted. The bit I don't get is why, after 9 1/2 months I have had no reply to my s.78 request? No original CCA with signature. No BS reconstruction. Just 2 fingers up firmly to the CCA 1974 and bugger all else. What game are they up to? I have two accounts, one from 1989 and one from 1994. Both originally with Building Societies that became banks and were taken over by MBNA. Clearly my hope is that they have no paperwork but why don't they do what everyone else does and create it?

 

This is where the OFT's guidelines and other protections within the CCA 1974 should be raised. If an OC cannot or refuses to validate the debt, there are limits to what they can do! Whilst in the strict legal sense, all the actions listed above may not constitute 'enforcement', they do constitute harrasment, violations of human rights etc. Look here for some ideas:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/243236-account-too-old-cca.html

 

They can't just keep banging on at you whilst their breach remains, especially if the account is pre-April 2007.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brooce

 

Have a look at this excellent thread on the subject.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their.html

 

Thanks for that. You're right, excellent thread!

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh! It was simpler before the CPUTR :(

 

English?

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

English?

 

It was easier before the Consumer Protection against Unfair Trading Regulations - Came into force on 1 April 2008 I believe.

 

Beau

Please note: I am not a lawyer and as such any advice I give is purely from a laymans point of view;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the CPUTR CCA timescales were 12 + 2 (at which point the account enters a dispute situation as it does now) PLUS a further 30 days. If the DCA/OC failed to furnish they were commiting a criminal offence. This was repealed by the CPUTR 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the CPUTR CCA timescales were 12 + 2 (at which point the account enters a dispute situation as it does now) PLUS a further 30 days. If the DCA/OC failed to furnish they were commiting a criminal offence. This was repealed by the CPUTR 2008.

 

Thanks for that! There are so many abbreviations flying about CPUTR, CPR, CCA. Just a bit confused about what to do with MBNA - I want to reply to their letter because there are other issues in it but not entirely sure what to say about their continued failure (9 1/2 months) to provide my s78 stuff.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the CPUTR CCA timescales were 12 + 2 (at which point the account enters a dispute situation as it does now) PLUS a further 30 days. If the DCA/OC failed to furnish they were commiting a criminal offence. This was repealed by the CPUTR 2008.

No longer a criminal offence but it's still a breach of the Act and gives rise to unenforceability doesn't it?

 

When you say it's not retrospective, do you mean that for agreements entered into prior to April 2007, where the lender fails to furnish within the 12+2+30 (=44) day timescale IT IS still a criminal offence?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No longer a criminal offence but it's still a breach of the Act and gives rise to unenforceability doesn't it?

 

When you say it's not retrospective, do you mean that for agreements entered into prior to April 2007, where the lender fails to furnish within the 12+2+30 (=44) day timescale IT IS still a criminal offence?

 

I mean that the CPUTR got rid of the crimminal offence for good. It cannot be applied now to any case of non compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...