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

Driving to a MOT station


Surfer01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3490 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

Yes. ANY vehicle that is being used or driven on the public road needs to be backed by a policy of insurance which covers at least third party risks.

 

Edit: with the new CIE rules, the second vehicle should already have a policy of its own.

 

Of course, the second vehicle must not belong to you or be hired to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your policy certificate says 'may drive other cars', that wont count either as the 'drive other cars' is only in effect if that car is already insured. You could drive the next door neighbours car (third party only) on your policy as long as he had it insured for himself to drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a vehicle have to be insured to drive it to a MOT station on a pre-arranged appointment? I have comprehensive cover on my own vehicle and third party cover if driving another vehicle.

 

It will depend on the wording of your insurance policy (might be covered in the T&C's). Some policies specify that if using the 'driving other vehicles' extension on a fully comp policy, that the 'other vehicle' must have its own insurance in place. However, most don't. But it's worth checking as if it is there, you'd be uninsured.

 

If it doesn't say that the other vehicle needs to be insured in its own right, then yes, you'd be able to drive it on your FC policy. Though allow extra time for your journey, as if you get 'pinged' by an ANPR equipped vehicle, they probably will be stopping you. Might also be worth taking your policy with you as well, so that they can see it (and check with your insurers), hence the reason you need to be sure of your policy wording. thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the wording on my policy as an example:

 

Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive. Mr Dragonfly may also drive with the owners permission a motor car that is not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their or their employer's business.

 

Driving other cars extension. Policy section 1. Cover only applies for the specific driver as shown on the Certificate of Motor Insurance. Cover is limited to third party only.

 

 

No mention of the other vehicle needing to have it's own policy of insurance. But you'd need to check your own policy, schedule & T&C's to be absolutely certain.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oThe car does have a valid SORN. Don't want to spend money on insurance if the car does not pass the MOT. Can you get temporary insurance for 48 hours?

It is a 2001 MGF and was last taxed in November 2012. It was collected and delivered by a garage using garage plates. They did check the vehicle to see if ti was okay in general, but did not do a MOT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oThe car does have a valid SORN. Don't want to spend money on insurance if the car does not pass the MOT. Can you get temporary insurance for 48 hours?

It is a 2001 MGF and was last taxed in November 2012. It was collected and delivered by a garage using garage plates. They did check the vehicle to see if ti was okay in general, but did not do a MOT.

 

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

 

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

 

Dayinsure (linked above) don't state that. In fact, they do specifically state that one of their 'temp policies' can be used to tax a vehicle, and MOT isn't mentioned at all. I suppose it might be worth an email to specifically check with them. Always better to be safe than sorry after all.

 

But as there's an exemption in law for driving a vehicle without an MOT or VEL (to or from a pre-booked MOT), I'd say you'd more than likely be ok.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

 

Thanks. Prices seem very reasonable, but need to check the small print.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my above... Here's the DayInsure blog which specifically deals with their policies and no MOT.

 

https://www.dayinsure.com/blog/one-day-car-insurance-the-basics/

 

In the comments section at the bottom.

 

Q. Hi, I have a car that I have had SORN’d and am now wanting to get it back on the road. Will your day insurance cover me for taking it to the garage for it’s MOT? Thanks.

 

A. Hi Kevin, Thanks for your query. Our insurance will cover you for taking your vehicle to the garage provided you have booked it in for its MOT prior to starting your journey.

Kind regards,

Support

 

 

So, you'll be OK with DayInsure at least thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unless declared SORN and a SORN certificate held, all cars must be insured continuously. ......

 

 

is it now an 'offence' then for someone else (who has TP re other cars) to take a sorn vehicle to mot (arranged) without the sorn vehicle being insured by the reg'd owner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it now an 'offence' then for someone else (who has TP re other cars) to take a sorn vehicle to mot (arranged) without the sorn vehicle being insured by the reg'd owner?

 

I'd say not. The vehicle either has to be SORN'ed or Insured (in its own right). So I'd say, for the purposes of an MOT, it'd be quite legal to drive a SORN'ed vehicle to/from an MOT using valid TP-OV cover.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, there are 'any car' policies.

 

 

What is being stated above is some, (not all like it used to be), certificates had a clause that said 'may drive another car not belonging to and not owned by the policy holder', but the policy said that was only in force if the car was already insured. It was to make sure there was not general driving of all and any car with just the one policy ie insure a Mini and drive around in a Bentley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

 

They can put that in if they want but requiring a car has a tax or an MOT are entirely un enforcable by an Insurer, if they try and decline a claim under this the Ombudsman would be all over them and they would be breaching FCA rules.

 

Note an Insure cannot require an MOT but if the car is unroadworthy and it being unroadworthy caused or significantly caused the accident and they had a wording to this effect they can enforce this (It's up to the Insurer to prove the car was unroadworthy and this caused the accident). But they cannot insist on Tax and / or an MOT.

 

It should also be noted that there are plenty of Insurers who do not require the vehicle being driven under driving other cars to hold it's own Insurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I phoned and check and they are happy for an untaxed car to be taken to a MOT using their insurance which is underwritten by Arriva. Car booked to go in for its MOT at the station we always use although it is not the closest as it is 12 miles away, but they are reliable and honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...