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 
        • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3594 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

Some questions:

 

RLP do make reference to the infamous database of apprehended shoplifters (or attempted shoplifters) which they claim to pass on to employers.

 

This is presumably a scare tactic to frighten those into paying the speculative invoice and thus removing their name from this database.

 

Whilst I know due to the DPA the individual must grant authority for a third party to gain access

I wanted to query whether this does in fact happen.

 

I know that in certain professions when applying for a job or even to register with recruitment consultants

they will ask/mention they will check your details against certain databases

for any criminal/cival convictions, ongoing disputes, bankruptcy and a myriad of other situations.

 

Often the prospective employee will have little choice but to grant access (otherwise arouse greater suspicion)

or in some cases its implied in terms and conditions and condition is granted by way of exception.

 

So - how possible is it that the RLP database could be accessed and would in fact harm the individuals prospects.

 

My belief is that RLP are an immoral organisation and I am truly glad these forums exist to arm those

caught up in their web with as much defence as possible.

 

However it does need to be clear to the individuals any risks involved

- great or small and for now or in their futures

- to the "ignore or one-line-denial" approach.

 

Second question

- is an apprehended individual obliged to give their name and/or show ID to store security.

 

What would happen if they refused - police called I'm sure - but would that increase risk of criminal proceedings from the store themselves (I doubt).

 

But would the police be required to pass on ID to the store

- or has the individual the right to ask the police not to tell the store

- unless they formally request to press charges.

 

Thank you all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlp cant do anything. Read this forum and understand the mentality of the woman who owns the company.

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

Now,

RLP's database is not something anyone can legally search so employment agencies wouldnt be poking around there in the first place.

 

Look back at the infamous construction industry blacklist and the fines EVENTUALLY handed out for that.

I doubt if any agency or employer wants to hauled up before the beak

so whatevr they say it isnt a useful tool for anyone and they certainly cant give it to a prospective employer.

 

Second point,

no, you are not obliged to show ID to anyone in this country, not even the police.

 

You are obliged to give them your name and address but dont have to give any evidence of it at the time,

there are sanctions for telling untruths when that is requested.

 

As for the police passing on the information

- well, if they arent goig to prosecute then the DPA means that the store doesnt have the right to be given it but can request it ,

same as you can request details of the person who bashes into your parked car and drives off.

 

Normally the police will get into a bit of confusion over this so a store security person asking plod for the details

should be given the brush-off and a company will have to make a formal request.

 

What happens at a individual level is always to predict as when judisprudence crosses over with civil law is always a minefield.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RLP can only allow other companies or people to access it if the person they hold info on gives them explicit permission. if they dont give permission and RLP share the info anyway, then RLP would be breaking the law.

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

Yep I've read a lot on this forum and I know more than most about JL.

 

But is there not a risk (however minimal) that when employees are faced with an application form

that asks for permission to various checks and databases they will tick the box and allow this

- after all by not allowing you make yourself look more guilty.

 

I wanted to see if there was any risk an individual could have provided authority for RLP to release the information

by signing anything in the store or by entering into correspondence.

And do recruitment consultants not use a varity of agencies and research companies to do detailed background checks on prospective candidates.

 

Could these checks not include the dreaded Lamberts List?

 

Finally

- as to whether RLP always act in accordance of the law; who knows!

We know civil law can be a minefield and there is ambiguity.

How clear-cut is the current DPA/minor issue thats being discussed on another forum on this site.

 

Thanks to all for the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No reputable company would ask you to fill in an acceptance form to check RLP's silly database. Thats where people get confused. jackies list is for her companies use only, but she tries to get people to give her permission to do what she likes with it. The database has no legal standing or really any basis in reality. All it essentially is is a company database which lists the people she's tried to get money from and if they have allowed her to give their info out or not.

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

there no evidence that even if the database 'did' exist

that anyone, let alone employers ever sees it.

 

never seen any proof of anything untoward being reported

to do with this 'secret' list of undesirables.

 

I would hedge a bet that if this had happen even once

it would have broken by now.

 

dx

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

This is reassuring and I guess we hope that RLP doesn't continue to grow, gaining power and respect from the business community to such an extent that employers would actively (ask permission from candidates) and request access to the list.

 

As you say, I'd also hedge a bet this doesn't happen.

 

Continue to fight the good fight against RLP and their, frankly, silly demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, RLP are dwindling out, and jackie is trying to save it any way she can. A lot of stores have stopped dealing with her, and she doesnt even go near a court room anymore. She also only enlists the help of scotcall. A DCA who only ever deals in bogus or non existent debts. She's basically desperate in the extreme.

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

But I would hazard a guess still earning more than me a year through her enterprise.

 

Until there's one of those BBC investigative documentaries on this practice or greater publicity on the fragility of their 'speculative invoices' I can't see it disappearing sadly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if adding to the one line "No debt is acknowledged or owed to your company" could be extended to include

"All permission implied or otherwise to process my data is hereby withdrawn, revoked and/or denied. please comply within 14 days stating that you have removed all data referring to myself and address from your records" Or something akin to section 10 notice DPA IF you can legally do this and they pass it onto their pet DCA then you might have a breach to throw at them.

 

Anyhow just a thought experiment. Comments?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No need sabre. She cant use it without you actually giving her express permission.

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

Handing info to DCA's is permitted by the DPA and doesnt count as a breach. If you tell the DCA that there is no debt and they keep on trying to contact you by differing means there are snactions available. Unfortunately, you dont see companies hauled up before the authorities often enough and no director has been gaoled for their wrongdoing other than by use of the companies act rather than for fraud, theft, harassment etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've employed three people in the last 12 months, hardly earth shattering I know but the ONLY sources of information that I'm aware of that a prospective employer is likely to be interested in are:

 

DBS / PVG Criminal Record Checks

Previous employer references

Credit ratings (in financial services)

Background / Vetting (in terms of MOD / Restricted types of work)

 

I certainly wouldn't be interested in anything that wasn't regulatory as a third party 'opinion' particularly as the holder is likely to charge for the privilege of checking their virtual 'naughty step'.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the rather amateurish Cireco website, you will see that what is offered is essentially a check of other databases, some of them rather bizarre. As far as the 'database of offenders' is concerned, it strikes me that this, if it really exists, is similar to the construction trades blacklist that was a scandal a few years ago. Quite how Cireco could justify putting someone on a database of offenders when they have not been convicted of any offence is beyond me - and if they had been convicted, it would show on a DBS check.

 

I note that whilst La Lambert purports to be involved in deterring crime, her Cireco website is in breach of the Companies Act 2006 as it does not disclose the company registration number or registered office address. Nor is Cireco listed in the ICO database as registered to process data, and Cireco is not listed as a trading name on RLP's registration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RLP seem to attempt to rely on the small print in their notices given to 'offenders' regarding the sharing of personal data. I very much doubt that it would stand up to scrutiny and the part highlighted in bold seems to be making claims that are downright menacing

 

"You are notified that the personal information held about you may be passed to the police for criminal proceedings and to Retail Loss Prevention Limited for civil recovery proceedings. Your personal data may be stored and used to make employment decisions, decisions regarding the provision of credit and for the purpose of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies. the use of this data will at all times be in compliance with the data Protection Act 1998"

 

nb - this may not be the most recent version as it was given to me some time ago, but it illustrates the thinking behind their practices

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really. I dont think so either. There is nothing there implying or outright agreeing to give permission to process data

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
RLP seem to attempt to rely on the small print in their notices given to 'offenders' regarding the sharing of personal data. I very much doubt that it would stand up to scrutiny and the part highlighted in bold seems to be making claims that are downright menacing

 

"You are notified that the personal information held about you may be passed to the police for criminal proceedings and to Retail Loss Prevention Limited for civil recovery proceedings. Your personal data may be stored and used to make employment decisions, decisions regarding the provision of credit and for the purpose of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies. the use of this data will at all times be in compliance with the data Protection Act 1998"

 

nb - this may not be the most recent version as it was given to me some time ago, but it illustrates the thinking behind their practices

 

Sidewinder, has anyone presented that notice to the Information Commissioner for their opinion ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends who would have access to this and how respectable and trustworthy the source is deemed to be. In a lot of cases small print gets missed, some employee who may be a few fries short of a happy meal will ignore anyway and an individual left open to have this information shared (perhaps even in public domain). However, what is the betting that even if you shell out to Judge Jackie your details would be removed from this database.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidewinder, has anyone presented that notice to the Information Commissioner for their opinion ?

 

Not as far as I am aware. I would be reluctant as it may well have changed in the interim - I would need to see an up to date notice to be sure

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sidewinder, I will have a check and see if anyone has posted a recent notice :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends who would have access to this and how respectable and trustworthy the source is deemed to be. In a lot of cases small print gets missed, some employee who may be a few fries short of a happy meal will ignore anyway and an individual left open to have this information shared (perhaps even in public domain). However, what is the betting that even if you shell out to Judge Jackie your details would be removed from this database.

Surely paying the "fine" is agreement that it is ok to store your details in their nasty little database?

 

I would have thought that the way to stay out of it would be to deny any liability ... (and maybe any wrong-doing and leave it up to the judge herself to decide how wrong you were)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deny liability, do not sign or pay anything, and jackie is out of luck.

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...

renegadeimp is right. I have shoplifted and I'm NOT proud of myself and she has given me 2 letters now and I'm doing nowt in replying! Let her waste her time and money...

 

Jackie jog on love... jog on....! lol

RLP are a con PLEASE DON'T PAY THEM TO DO MORE! IGNORE ALL LETTERS AND CALLS! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...