Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Tfl, charged under s.17(1) TFL bye law - HELP !


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2716 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

Honey bee - Yes I probably am but I thought the notes actually WERE the witness statement? The witness statement is nothing more than a typed up version of our verbal conversation at the station. Wasn't I supposed to be offered to sign his notes or something ? Otherwise he could just write anything he wants AND in fact that is just what he DID do !

 

Whatever he wrote is irrelevant.

The undisputed fact is that you were in a compulsory ticket area without a ticket.

Unless you can prove that:

1. You had a valid ticket

Or

2. You were not in a compulsory ticket area

 

There is not much you can do apart from accepting their out of court offer and count yourself lucky of having avoided a criminal record.

Sometimes life is unfair and you need to accept a half way resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying Old Codja. However will you please consider this and by the way thank you for replying.

 

I see that the offence is a strict liabilty one which cannot be denied. BUT, it is not enough surely for TFL to ignore its own Policies when it comes to deciding to pursue someone? Otherwise that would be stupid.

 

In my case, TFL failed to abide by its own Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy as well as the Home Office Guidelines on the deterrence of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system. In particular, TFL failed to apply its policy on how to deal with "youths" (implying school age or young people) and the decision whether or not to prosecute. I am 18 and at the time of the alleged offence I was of compulsory school age (which was raised to 18 last year FYI). I was effectively a minor (up until July this year) and I still had to wait outside a corner shop if I'm wearing my school uniform as the shop owner only lets two in at a time (crazy I know) - otherwise there's a lot of adults wearing school uniforms around.

 

But that isn't even my biggest point. s8(2)(e) is as going through the barriers was unavoidable in the circumstances not to mention that my eyes were diverted from the small compulsory ticket signage by a massive McDonalds burger ad immediately, yes immediately at eye level as it was placed directly on the ticket barrier averting your eyes to it. You are right also, it is about principle. It would also not be in the public interest to pursue me because of all the above. Don't you agree ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

 

It would help if you hit Reply with Quote please, DDI, it will help us know which post you're replying to.

 

We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

 

I wish you luck with this, because unless OC or one of the other knowledgeable people can come up with answers for you, I see this going to court.

 

I know you don't like reading, but I'm going to find you another thread where someone tried to fight TfL against advice here and you can see what happened to him.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go. Apologies to anyone who was trying to forget iambilly, here's his complete thread. He decided to plead guilty [i know his was a Freedom Pass case, you might be grateful that yours is only a byelaw one] and you'll see what happened.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354702-Caught-using-someone-else-s-Freedom-pass-convicted-leave-to-appeal-granted/page7

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honey bee - Yes I probably am but I thought the notes actually WERE the witness statement? The witness statement is nothing more than a typed up version of our verbal conversation at the station. Wasn't I supposed to be offered to sign his notes or something ? Otherwise he could just write anything he wants AND in fact that is just what he DID do !

 

That MIGHT be relevant if they were going for the more serious "intent to avoid your fare" charge.

 

 

You could then dispute the RI's version of events if you were claiming you had no intent to avoid your fare.

 

However, little point in doing so for the strict liablity offence, as, as has been pointed out to you a number of times already, the Magistrates will only be called upon look at if you:

a) were in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket, (and it appears you were), and

b) if so, do you have any of the statutory defences (and it appears you don't!).

 

If you wanted to dispute the RI's witness statement, you'd have to be aiming to dispute that you weren't in a compulsory ticket area, without a valid ticket and without one of the defences .... and that doesn't appear to be the case!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying Old Codja. However will you please consider this and by the way thank you for replying.

 

I see that the offence is a strict liabilty one which cannot be denied. BUT, it is not enough surely for TFL to ignore its own Policies when it comes to deciding to pursue someone? Otherwise that would be stupid.

 

In my case, TFL failed to abide by its own Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy as well as the Home Office Guidelines on the deterrence of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system. In particular, TFL failed to apply its policy on how to deal with "youths" (implying school age or young people) and the decision whether or not to prosecute. I am 18 and at the time of the alleged offence I was of compulsory school age (which was raised to 18 last year FYI). I was effectively a minor (up until July this year) and I still had to wait outside a corner shop if I'm wearing my school uniform as the shop owner only lets two in at a time (crazy I know) - otherwise there's a lot of adults wearing school uniforms around.

 

But that isn't even my biggest point. s8(2)(e) is as going through the barriers was unavoidable in the circumstances not to mention that my eyes were diverted from the small compulsory ticket signage by a massive McDonalds burger ad immediately, yes immediately at eye level as it was placed directly on the ticket barrier averting your eyes to it. You are right also, it is about principle. It would also not be in the public interest to pursue me because of all the above. Don't you agree ?

 

 

DDI, if you wish to do so you are of course completely at liberty to ignore all of the suggestions that have been given freely by experienced people who are aiming to help you.

 

Your perception of what amounts to 'young people' is not the same as the practical situation. A person who is 18 years of age on the day that a plea is required by the Court is factually an adult. ( in a commonly applied test by the average man in the street, one who is old enough to accept responsibility and vote )

 

The guidance in these matters given by the Ministry of Justice to Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecutors is that, because fare evasion is commonplace, prosecution is in the public interest.

 

That is not to say it is always necessary and from my reading of your posts an alternative disposal seems to have been offered to you, but you rejected that opportunity. That means it is effectively your choice to be prosecuted and fight your corner based on a matter of principle as you see it and a flawed logic.

 

There is a hoary old saying that goes around in legal circles that says 'an untrained man who defends himself in a Court of law has a fool for a client.' Now I accept that this may sometimes be seen as the profession's way of trying to protect their own interests, but arguing on a point of principle in a strict liability matter such as this without benefit of one of the statutory defences would be unwise when an alternative to avoid court action has been offered and rejected.

 

I really don't think that I can help you further

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, don't be a plonker. You can't win this one and if you go ahead with this lazy (can't be bothered to read suggested helpful articles), arrogant (wishing to countersue, ha ha), attitude then you deserve the far higher fine you'll end up with.

 

You can argue all you like about your principles and all this "Hell No to TfL Bro" rubbish, but the facts are the facts. Don't be a naive kid all your life, time to grow up and accept you did NOT have a correct ticket. You ignored the signs. You argued back (and seems like you still are).

 

You were wrong mate. You say by accident but TfL have heard it all before. Freedom passes in the same wallet as an Oyster PAYG - ha, what a joke. No-one is going to believe you didn't know what you were doing. TfL take Freedom abuse very seriously and with suckers like you who try to fight back, it just shows that you were probably guilty anyway, but regardless, they'll throw the book at you for being so argumentative all the time when YOU WERE WRONG!

 

Pay up, accept it and move on. Live by the rules and don't argue back when you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

And perhaps be more grateful for those trying to help you.....

 

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi didntdoit,

 

Not a great deal to add here,

 

just that being a Byelaw offence that's being charged,

this suggests that they only have evidence for this rather than that of fare evasion (contrary to more serious legislation),

therefore it unfortunately doesn't matter whether this was an honest mistake or not.

 

I suspect the RPI's suspicion was that it was deliberate, that's why he reported you.

However there's more than likely only evidence to prove the Byelaw offence which, as has been said, requires only proof that you didn't have a valid ticket etc. Which you didn't, otherwise you'd not have been spoken to.

I suspect if he believed it was an honest mistake, he'd have given you a Penalty Fare Notice.

 

What you have to bear in mind here is that TfL take Freedom Pass fraud extremely seriously as these passes often get abused.

 

I'm sure you would expect this, given your Grandfather has a Freedom Pass, which after all is a scheme that can be removed on a whim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Oh come on, don't be a plonker. You can't win this one and if you go ahead with this lazy (can't be bothered to read suggested helpful articles), arrogant (wishing to countersue, ha ha), attitude then you deserve the far higher fine you'll end up with.

 

You can argue all you like about your principles and all this "Hell No to TfL Bro" rubbish, but the facts are the facts. Don't be a naive kid all your life, time to grow up and accept you did NOT have a correct ticket. You ignored the signs. You argued back (and seems like you still are).

 

You were wrong mate. You say by accident but TfL have heard it all before. Freedom passes in the same wallet as an Oyster PAYG - ha, what a joke. No-one is going to believe you didn't know what you were doing. TfL take Freedom abuse very seriously and with suckers like you who try to fight back, it just shows that you were probably guilty anyway, but regardless, they'll throw the book at you for being so argumentative all the time when YOU WERE WRONG!

 

Pay up, accept it and move on. Live by the rules and don't argue back when you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

And perhaps be more grateful for those trying to help you.....

 

 

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

 

Are you sure that's the way it went???

Never heard of magistrate court letting someone off on those basis, especially under bylaw offences.

Did you actually go into the court and discuss your case in front of magistrates or just had a chat with prosecutor before entering court?

Anyhow, people on this forum dedicate their time for free to help others.

No bullying here that I can see, just a "wake up to reality" call.

I have my doubts that any magistrate ruled in this unprecedented fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if DDI came back and told us how it went in court, firstly as a thank you to people who took the time to give advice. And secondly, if we know what happened it will help us to advise people in the future and the thread will also help others in the same situation.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

You're welcome, by the way...

 

Oh, and I've taken it upon myself to correct your post to reflect what actually happened...

 

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I have been prosecuted. It was deemed in the public interest and I was told by the Magistrates to dry my eyes and stop being a plonker.....or words to that effect.
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...