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

Income Protection Policies


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3726 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

I am currently browsing through a miriad of documents, received after a SAR request to a financial institution, re a mortgage loan to a close relative whereupon, I have found a doc relating to a Single Premium Disbursment Income Protection/Term Life.in the sum of close to £1000.

Is this doc relating to PPI or purely a life ins policy??

 

All information advice will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

ims21,

 

After reading through the files returned to me, re our Full SAR request, these paragraphs seem rather suspect to say the least and all advice for my response will be gratefully received.

 

We have enclosed all the personal data relating to the above account, which we hold about your client. This is held within a relevant filing system and we are obliged to disclose this under the Data Protection Act 1998. Information not held within a relevant filing system, has not been provided under this Subject Access Request. Your request for a copy of the underwriting sheet and commission figures is denied, as it does not specifically identify your client.

 

If there is any other information which you think we may hold about you and you require this information, please write to us with the following information to assist us in locating it.

..A brief description of the document.

.. The date of the document(if you have this)

 

We may then be in a better position to disclose this information to you.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re above post#4

 

Has anyone had this form of response as a result of a SAR request from any of the financial institutions etc.

All information advice will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

After doing a re-check of my docs, returned re our SAR request, out pops the "underwriting sheet" :shock: in all its glory, with the full partics re the Single Premium Disbursement Income Protection /Term Life Policy.

Time to crack on and send the Mis-sold letter off to them.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello All,

Have received a response from the company involved which is GE MONEY, stating that the claim is 35 days out of time??

 

Single premium disbursment income protection policies, are in principal the same as PPI. claims.

 

They surely are not time restricted,as time plays no factor in this complaint, but are activated when you realise that when they send info re your SAR letter, you become "aware" that you have been mis-sold the product.

 

Me thinks another letter to them requesting them to stop taking the P**S and cough up monies and interest due.

 

All info/advice will be gratefully received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So have they tried to pull the six year limitation bit?

 

If so write back to them and tell them that it does not apply for the reasons you have stated.

 

Did they by any chance say that you could forward to the fos if you don't agree?

 

GE are a tough nut to crack.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all,

Re my post#9

 

Received a letter from GE stating that they are unable to uphold my complaint due to.

 

1) The fact that the event of my complaint occurred over 6yrs ago and as such, are not required to investigate the matter further under the "Limitations Act 1980"". As 6yrs is a reasonable time to have logged a complaint following an event.

 

They do not mention, or reject the claim for any other reason, except the time factor, the totally incorrect assumption that the claim is out of time.

 

They have further advised me that the complaint is now closed and that if I do not agree with their final response to take it up with the CAB within 6 months.

 

Another little snippet is that my complaint falls "outside of the jurisdiction" of the FOS and that they the FOS, will not be able to investigate my concerns. This is contradicting a previous letter I received.

 

Surely The mere fact that the Data Protection Act 1998 clearly states that re "SAR," ALL info Must be Disclosed and surely it has absolutely no correlation to the "Limitation Act 1980" at all.

 

As usual all advice/info will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Edited by JGJ
Missing text
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that JGJ. My partner just left NatWest after working there for 20 years, and absolutely hates the PPI claim culture that's all over the TV/radio.

 

It seems to be a formality to get a refund, but she is confident that she never once sold a PPI policy to anyone who didn't need it.

 

Sounds like there's not much you can do about the 6-year limit though. I didn't know about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so check with fos first....give them a call and get their opinion as to whether they will take it on.

 

If not then court is still open to you but the onus of proof of mis-selling (civil burden on the balance of probability) will be on you as the claimant.

 

If going the court route then the six year fob-off is challenged using S32(1)© Limitations Act 1980.

 

benhunt - Welcome to CAG.

 

While your wife's experiences may be different, there is no doubt that banks systematically mis-sold products to customers (AKA victims) even to the extent of selling products which they knew were of no use whatsoever. This was done purely as a revenue and profit generating exercise. To achieve this they offered commissions and bonuses to sales staff and so the sales were driven by greed and not driven by taking the best interest of the customer into consideration.

 

It is now payback time for the banks and about time too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of anti-bank sentiment at the moment, for sure.

 

They do pay massive bonuses to the boy's club. But not every seller was mis-selling.

 

PPI feels like a way for the Government to spank the banks... but it has made no difference to the big boys. They still got their bonuses, while all NatWest's customer advisers effectively had theirs cut completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Time scale surely does not commence, until after "you realise" or "you discover" via a SAR request and info received from bank etc. that PPI has been unknown to yourself loaded into an agreement, up front or otherwise and has attracted unknown to yourself, premium and interest on a product, that would be of no use to yourself in the event of a claim and it is one of the elements of mis-selling that the banks etc are having to "acknowledge" that "millions" of policies were indeed mis-sold by the ruthless sales orientated, bonus led banking staff, with not an iota of fairness shown towards their customers, this mis-selling is fraud in any other area of business.

 

All comments/advice will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello all,

 

Well herein lies the response from the FOS after approx 2years awaiting,re our claim for mis-selling of a, "Single Premium Disbursement Income Protection Policy"

 

Dear Mr.

 

I write to you in respect of the above complaint.I am the adjudicator responsible for PPI mis-sale complaints that we have currently set up against Sterling Life Limited.

 

Before this service can consider a complaint we must ensure that it falls within our jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service is set out in the DISP section of the Financial Conduct Authority Handbook. These rules set out which complaints we can and cannot consider..

 

We have established that the seller of this policy- Midland and General Direct (now known as "GE Money")- was not covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service )or any of our predecessor schemes) at the time of the sale.

 

As I understand it, Mr and Mrs **** have complained that their single premium disbursement income protection and term life policies were mis-sold to them, in conjuction with a secured loan in May 2004. At that time, GE Money did not fall within our jurisdiction in other words, we have no power to take this complaint forward against that business.

 

As a potential alternative and last resort, we have been investigating whether we can take such complaints forward against any other firm within our jurisdiction, such as the Insurance companies that actually provided the cover, to see if they could be held legally responsible for the sale of this policy. We think this is the appropriate thing to do in the context of PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) because the regulator (Financial Conduct Authority) has already found systemic failings in the way such products were generally sold. It is not unknown for some policies to be described as income protection, while actually offering cover similar to PPI; for example covering monthly loan repayments for a limited period in the event of the insured's inability to work due to illness or unemployment. However, during the course of my enquiries, it has come to my attention that Mr and Mrs **** selected to take out life cover only.As such , it appears that income protection and PPI, was not sold alongside the loan. Whereas PPI is not individually underwritten based on the policyholders circumstances, life cover is tailored to take account of the applicant's specific risk factors- for example, their health, lifestyle and employment status. PPI is also a short term, renewable product; whereas life cover is a long term commitment by both insurer and insured.

 

Accordingly, I am sorry to say that we cannot progress this complaint any further as it does not relate to an insurance sale that was either regulated or covered by a predecessor scheme- and it does not concern the sale of income protection and/or PPI.

 

Therefore, I am writing to confirm that I will now close Mr and Mrs **** complaintand notify Sterling accordingly.

 

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

 

If you have any new information that you think means that the ombudsman service would look at this complaint, please let me know by 6th February 2014. Once Iv'e considered what you have said,I'll get in touch again to talk about the next steps. In every case,both the consumer and the business have the right to ask an ombudsman to make a final decision.

 

Otherwise, you don't need to do anything more. I'm very sorry not to help any further. But please let me know if you have any questions about what I've said.

 

Yours Sincerely,

**** ********

Adjudicator.

 

On contacting them by landline, my question to them was, if no one is apparently culpable, where has the upfront sum of just under £1000 gone to and for what reason was it taken. No policy or any docs whatsoever have ever been received from any company in regards to the claim.

 

All comments/Advice will of course be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you phoned them after you received the letter and asked this question

 

On contacting them by landline, my question to them was, if no one is apparently culpable, where has the upfront sum of just under £1000 gone to and for what reason was it taken. No policy or any docs whatsoever have ever been received from any company in regards to the claim.

 

What was their reply?

 

Was this actually a Life Insurance policy?

 

If it was and things were as the fos suggest, then there would surely have been an interview to get the details they mention about lifestyle, health etc. Did that happen?

 

I think that the only way forward on this now would be the court route for which I refer you to a post above but you need to find out whether this was actually a life insurance policy or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ims21,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

FOS reply was simply that as it falls outside of their jurisdiction they cannot take any action against GE Money.

 

I am having to re-check all the docs we received from the SAR request,unfortunately I do not have them to hand, as they are with my relatives from whom the complaint emanated.

 

I remember that the GE Money final response letter, stated that as the account started over six years ago and as such they were not required to investigate the matter further, quoting the Limitations Act 1980 and that the complaint falls outside of the FOS jurisdiction.

I will update as soon as I receive any further info.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...