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

Freeedoms Bill - A lot of questions answered here.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4006 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

But remember...........this is from the BPA !

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but like Martin rightly pointed out, this from the BPA.

 

I might have to go out and test the water on a few issues, which I'll update here..

 

I'm good thank you, I've not been anywhere, just not as prominent these days, and

no battles to fight like in the good old days, hope you're ok too! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How will the Independant Appeals Service differentiate when a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver in Scotland where the Freedoms Act wiil not apply?

 

Each operator will be required to have processes in place to differentiate the origin of the parking ticket. If a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver under the terms of PoFA, it will not be lawful. However that driver will also not have the privilege of using the independent appeals service.

 

I like the words in bold, shame i wont be able to use the independant appeals for an unlawful notice to keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
the freedoms bill sounds scary saying that keepers can be chased for charges that is so unfair! has anyone got any experience on this issue? i have been sent an £85 charge for parking in morrisons in stratford

 

Can they really chase the Keeper though? They have no proof the keeper ever entered a contract and the contract which was agreed to by an unknown entity should have no power over any 3rd party to whome never agreed to the implied contract. Is this right? Surely they can't use the freedoms act to unwilfully force you into a CONtract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days... this also means if you rent a car and get a parking ticket, which the company pass onto you and you refuse to pay the hire cars owners will be charged, and if the hire company just pays they have valid legal reasons to claim the money off you.

 

If that's true I may start my own car hire company, then stalk the hirer until he/she parks and give them a £1000 ticket and if they refuse to pay after 28 days. After paying the money into my own account, Say that I the hire company paid for the ticket and you have a solid signed and dated contract to hold the hirer responsible for the damages. This really shouldn't exsist :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days...

 

No, once the PPC has been informed of the name and address of the driver, the RK has no further liability and the PPC can then only chase the named driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found something in the POFA, it says that

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 (claiming unpaid charges from the keeper)

( Paragraph 5) (1) The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

 

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

After 28 days however section 1b ceases to apply, but they would still need a court case to enforce this charge (If you never named the driver and/or never turned up to court they could win by default, I assume?).

 

I assume that's what it means, Unless somewhere in the document they have something to invalidate that as well, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

 

Wrong, If they know the name and address of the driver, the RK no longer has any liability and the PPC can only chase/issue a court claim to that named driver They can only chase/ issue a court claim to the RK where either the RK admits to being the driver or refuses to give name and address of the driver.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Here is an interesting question.

 

Bailiff clamps a car that does not belong to a debtor.

It is on a private drive.

the car has no parking tickets issued against it.

the owner is not a debtor of any kind. (debt is someone elses)

Did he have "legal authority" to clamp.

If not, is he in breach of POFA (54)

 

I would be interested to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
the link on BPA's site has been removed - what a shame as I hoped to read it.... perhaps they're looking for another vague law to use instead :razz:

 

Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

 

Any chance you could give more info on that?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has any one else noted that the Protection of freedoms Act that came into force in October 2012 also amended the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

It expanded the definition of road (highway maintained at public expense) to include "or other land".

 

The Secretary of State for Transport ( DVLA) can then by regulation (SI introduced by the DVLA) delegate the powers of the local council to the parking management companies of the BPA.

 

That will mean that a single MP ( Mike Penning ?) will have the power to reverse the Protection of Freedoms Act and legalize the the clamping and towing away from private land.The Rogue Clampers will then be legalized.

 

Keep checking the Draft SI's to see when that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle and very few Keepers can actually prove that they own the vehicle. The registered keeper does not necessarily need a driving license so making your aged aunt who is registered blind the registered keeper solves a lot of problems.

The vehicle owner (who is not registered by the DVLA and cannot be located by the DVLA) can permit any licensed driver who has his own "Any other vehicle" insurance policy to drive that vehicle without the knowledge of the registered keeper. Thus limiting the powers of the BPA to practically nil.

 

Unless of course the DVLA extend another SI to those Rogue Clampers and that states " References to the owner are to the person who is the keeper of the vehicle at that time"

 

In recording a date, time and place of all vehicles, is the parking management company actually invading the privacy of the drivers of the other cars, not the ones who overstay, which might make the ANPR cameras unlawful .

 

Food for thought?

Edited by Big Bill
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

 

I had a invoice from TCP asking for £70 under the new bill for an alleged contravention in asda (Free fo 3 Hours) It was night time, left the car running in a disabled bay while using the ATM, no one else about, didnt even get a PCN. I argued that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner.

 

Result..... Appology from TCP

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

Edited by Dan6470
extra details
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

 

Mouse over the word IGNORE in this reply and follow the info

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4006 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...