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

Moorcroft chasing Lloyds loan now sold to 1st credit


intend
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1956 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

Hi Intend, Schemeing bunch,

 

To Nelson Guest

 

Ref: as on their letter.

 

Sirs,

 

I am in receipt of your most generous offfer of a discount on the alleged debt for £xxxxx , as you are well aware, presuming your ''client'' has informed you that this matter is in dispute as your client is in default of a lawful request made under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to produce a fully compliant copy of the regualted agreement pertaining to this account I am sure you are aware of the limitations this places on their actions.

 

I also notice that correspondence suggests that ''payments'' can be made by credit card encouraging alleged debtors to borrow further to meet the alleged debt, I sure you are aware of the OFTs take on this matter.

 

I cannot therefore acceed to your request to phone you or to agree to make any payment reagarding any alleged debt, for which I make no acknowledgment of liability.

 

RD intend let me know what happens.

 

Should read NO acknowledgement of liability.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Letter signed for today by Nelson Guest so await the response.

 

Daughter just phoned - letter from Wetcolth today stating they are investigating, as she said same as from other DCAs.

 

Hopefully they will now pass back to LTSB. Any bets on who the next DCA is likely to be???

 

Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other powerless circus outfit, nothing to get worried over, if LTSB wanted their money they would ask for it themselves, or use their in house clowns to do it.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers BB good to here from you again. Agree with your comments - never that worried as long as LTSB retain ownership of the debt. More I do and read on here the more I have come to believe what you have always said over the 2 years - DCAs are powerless.

 

Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very powerless, all they can do is to send out psychological harassment and deforestation, unless they actually own the debt and all the rights to it under the law of property act, then they are as much use as indicators on a submarine.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

intend

as bb says, where dca's only act on 'instruction' all they can do in the end is send the matter back to their client with their 'recommendation' which carries no real weight! unless an original creditor then instructs a dca's solicitor (not the dca itself) re legal action (unlikely, unless it is creds own sols as well), then can be ignored if so wish. ie orig cred is on notice re 'dispute'. orig cred would prob either send out again, or try and sell on, or legal action depend on circumstances. up to creditor.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

intend

as bb says, dca's only act on 'instruction' and all they can do in the end is send the matter back to their client with their 'recommendation' which carries no real weight! unless an original creditor then instructs a dca's solicitor (not the dca itself) re legal action (unlikely, unless it is creds own sols as well), then all can be ignored if so wish. ie orig cred is on notice re 'dispute'. orig cred would prob either send out again, or try and sell on.

 

It has to be remembered that many DCAs are in fact the collection arms of large debt purchase companies, so one should exercise care as their recommendation to the parent company will have weight.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be remembered that many DCAs are in fact the collection arms of large debt purchase companies, so one should exercise care as their recommendation to the parent company will have weight.

 

yes, if dca is the owner or a 'division' of it. my post there is re where dca doesn't own, as said before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently debt still with OC - LTSB - so not so worried. CC debt being collected by LTSB CDR deparment ie in house and as a result quite have to pay afforadable amount. Will need to see if they get greedy on either debt.

 

Again thanks for all the input.

 

Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update as on-line - no update - all gone quiet again - so await next DCA or development by LTSB. Will continue to read threads, learn and offer advice {limited compared to the experts) as and when I can. Every time I log on to CAG I feel more powerful in dealing with the situation.

 

Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picky!!!

 

Sorry Brig but as I read it "now make acknowledgement of the debt" stood out as possibly saying it was being acknowledged I did not intend to come across as picky but we all know that these barstewards will seize any opportunity.

Dont let the parasite dca's prosper

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update - couple of letters from LTSB re the loan. first think is a DN - as states required to contact as missed payments. Do note whole of loan is in arrears, with no default or interest being charged.

 

Second letter is a Statement of Account showing same balance as above and an Interest rate of 0%.

 

So nothing changed - and all quiet on the DCA front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brig - will attempt tonight, need to get printer out to send off a SAR for OH. Now we have daughters finances under our control rather than banks/dca, looking to clean up own situation.

 

Cheers

Sounds like good progress my friend!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an odd one not a DN nor is it a notice of intention to place a default imo.

 

I'll ask the team to take a llok.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

if is that section, no worries as such, just the required 'notice', now every 6 mths, even if on a plan, until otherwise. see the section. (shame that they have complied!)

is not a demand for payment as such eg pay up in x days or..., just the required 'notice' of the arrears with request to discuss.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

its lloyds version of the required

 

notice of sums in arrears

it is required every 6mts

 

under the new rules of a few years back

 

dx

 

 

dx

  • Confused 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

just got copy of CRA for the loan - Experian shows as a settlement date of 30/10/10, account status last updated 07/11/10 balance £0 with a status code0, whilst previous entry was for £7600 with a code of 6

 

Equifax shows current £6900, default sum £7215, default dtae 11/2010 Effective end date 03/11/2010.

 

More confused!!! no payment dates anywhere!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...