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

Medway cctv car attendant gets stroppy.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4999 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

It makes you laugh don't it.

 

When you watch those programs about car chases and people committing offences and the defendent tells the camera man and the police to stop filming, they always state, 'He's allowed to film, he's in a public place'

 

Must have been late for his Horlicks break.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he'd walked back to the car, glanced at the camera, and got in, that would have been an end of it.

 

There's always one, though, isn't there, and the "Civil Service" seem to have a lot more "one's" than most!

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

While filming in a public place is not illegal, If I had someone follow me around while I got on with my job, I would feel a bit annoyed.

 

It was probably a mistake for the CCTV guy to get into a strop. It guaranteed that the footage would be distributed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet he is still waiting for the cops to turn up:D

regards

 

For your eyes only. Police may have arrived but 10 minutes after the first video he was still talking to the police !!!

 

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One law for them another for us !!!

 

The law is the same for everyone unless you are suggesting the person filmed was arrested? Shock horror council employee gets cross at being harrased by idiot with a camera, its not exactly front page news is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

by Julia Roberts A former Medway council officer who downloaded child porn told police that "pretty girls are pretty girls", a court heard today.

Married father-of-two Andrew Shea said he found the pictures "attractive in an artistic sense" and viewed them out of curiosity.

Maidstone Crown Court heard the 42-year-old added he had been viewing adult porn since his late teens but his "problem" became worse following the death of his father.

A total of 212 images ranging across all levels of seriousness were found on his computer and laptop at his home in Tavistock Close, Rainham, in October last year.

Shea, who lived at the address with his wife Lucy and children, then aged four years old and six weeks, also had 31 extreme pornographic images.

He was suspended from his job within the council's leisure services department after the police investigation.

Shea admitted 10 offences of making indecent photographs of children between April 2008 and October last year.

He also pleaded guilty to three charges of possessing extreme pornographic images between January and October last year.

Imposing six months' imprisonment suspended for two years, Judge Martin Joy said Shea must attend the Home Office accredited Sex Offenders' Treatment Programme.

He also made Shea subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order banning him from using the internet for any purpose other than seeking employment, study, work, lawful recreation or purchasing of goods and services for five years.

 

 

Original story here : Medway dad admits downloading child porn

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is the same for everyone unless you are suggesting the person filmed was arrested? Shock horror council employee gets cross at being harrased by idiot with a camera, its not exactly front page news is it?

 

G&M we are filmed almost anywhere we go now by Big Brother, particularly by councils when they think they can make some money out of us. Why do you describe the cameraman as an "idiot" just because he chooses to film where a council employee is chalking up another victim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you describe the cameraman as an "idiot" just because he chooses to film where a council employee is chalking up another victim?

 

Because he/she has nothing better to do with their tiime, filming a CEO issuing a PCN is not exactly going to win a Pulitzer prize is it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to send the clip to the council with a view to helping them ensure they train their staff effectively.

 

I'm aware of a case where a granny-wagon ambulance driver did a similar 'you can't film me without permission' performance, for which he was subsequently disciplined by the ambulance service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for filming public employees, performing their duties in public. After all, councils are quite happy to install CCTV to watch us, under various guises, so it seems fair that we make sure that they are doing their jobs correctly.

 

And if anyone says we have no right - yes we do. As council tax payers we should be able to monitor the performance of those that we ultimately employ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. If you want a council job then you should be prepared to be watched by those who pay your wages.

 

I don't think I would hold in with this.

 

Its tantamount to saying that one is owned by whoever pays one's wages. Why not extend it and say "If you want a council job, then you should be prepared to receive a kicking from those who pay your wages."

 

I am sure that "being chased by members of the public with camcorders" is not listed on the job description.

 

In the same sense, someone who works in a shop should expect to be recorded by customers... since, ultimately, they pay the staffs wages.

 

Or demanding to enter the flight deck of an aircraft so we can 'watch' the pilots; we bought our tickets and so we pay their wages and therefore have a right to watch!

 

While I maintain my original position, (that the council guy should have handled the situation better) I still do not blame him for getting a tad annoyed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

In the same sense, someone who works in a shop should expect to be recorded by customers... since, ultimately, they pay the staffs wages.

 

 

No need. If you work in a supermarket, almost all your working day is on CCTV. Many factories also have cameras on production areas.

Why should public sector workers be treated any differently.

 

If Traffic Wardens have nothing to hide, why should they object to being filmed.Everyone else walking the same street is on at least one CCTV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was another knowledgable pillar of the society in a uniform, who knew they were right and the film maker was wrong. Only problem is he wqs right and they were wrong.

 

Watch this video and pay particular attention to the WPC and how certain she is that it is an offence and how determined she is to make something out of nothing.

 

I would get the right hump if I appeared on road wars or police interceptors, just so they can become TV stars using the old 'he is filming in a public place' excuse, so I have zero sympathy for any police or council employee when they are then filmed in a public place.

 

This is one of my favourite videos ever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hold with the public having a duty to ensure that public servants perform their jobs lawfully and correctly. In a land where the state films you about 300 times a day on average making your own records in a public place is only equitable and fair. And some would say necessary. if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...