Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

Rail prosecution letter - advice please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4920 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

On 27th August, my son aged 17 and some friends travelled to Brighton for a concert gig. They got on at Upminster and he paid on his Oyster to London Bridge and then a seperate ticket to Brighton. The concert over ran and they missed the last train home that night. Not wanting to be stuck in Brighton for nearly 6 hours with no where to stay, they were told by the bus driver that they could get a bus to one of the London airports then wait for the next train to run and go back on several trains. This meant he had to buy a bus fare back to London (which took all his money) and then use what he had left on his Oyster to get home. The trouble is he had to get to Laindon which is out of the Zones and his Oyster had covered him to West Ham. Eventually at abour 6:45 the next day he called me to pick him up after travelling nearly 6 hours to get home.

 

An inspector stopped and asked for his ticket for which he explained what had happened and that he had paid all the way to West Ham but ran out of money to get the last leg of the journey as he had to pay for the bus. My son showed him the ticket for the previous part of the journey to prove his story. He took his details and statement.

 

Today 8th October, I get a letter saying that" he was travelling between the two stations without paying the correct fare. That Non payment ofrail fares is an ofence which may be prosecuted in a Youh Court. In order that I may close the report from our inspector, I request that the fare of £6.40 and an administrative fee should now be paid.

 

Payment should be for £51.40 which represents a £45.00 administration fee and £6.40 for the outstandign fare".

 

I acknowledge that this statement is correct in that he did not have a fare for the last part of the journey. Could someone please advise me if they are obliged to supply a copy of their report? This seems excessive considering the fare. Do I have any rights to challenge this?

 

Any help please much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was summonsed to court you/he would have seen a copy of the statement I believe, as this is staying out of court, I don't believe the Train Operating Company has to provide a copy of the statement. This is the best and most cost effective way to settle the matter unfortunately. Going to a youth court is a rarity for any train company, so these might be scare tactics. In my experience the only time a TOC goes to a youth court is if the offender is persistant. If your son is nearer 18 than 17 then I believe it's acceptable to go to a Magistrate's Court so long as he is 18 when the appearance is held.

 

Although it may seem harsh to you, your son didn't have a valid ticket for his journey, and had no money to pay for one. At best he's got some mitigating circumstances I'd imagine, should the matter end up in court. If he was 18-years of age he could have been charged with 5.3(a) Regulation of Railways Act, which is a Recordable offence. I'm sure you appreciate that RPI's hear alot of different stories as to how people have become stranded etc, but the fact remains that the ticket your son had was valid on the day of purchase only I'm afraid.

 

I recomend calling the TOC, probably Southern, unless your son was caught further up the line!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for your reply, You say it is not going to court but as mentioned above, their letter suggests it may.

 

Whilst I agree completely with what you say about him not having a ticket for that part of the journey, I am confused as there is no mention of a penalty in the letter. So whilst the fare mentioned is fair enough, how can they charge this for an administration fee?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The admin costs will be broken down into things such as the Inspectors time on the day and time to write report etc,

the prosecutors time etc etc

Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have read this right, the part of the journey in dispute is from London to Laindon, which is on the c2c route.

 

It seems true that prosecution in Youth Courts for this type of offence is 'rare', but not unknown. Railways are not obliged to get 'stranded' people home, and there are arrangements through which they could, and should, have got a ticket before boarding the train.

 

The cheapest way to make this matter 'go away' is for him/you to pay the admin fee & fare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for your reply, You say it is not going to court but as mentioned above, their letter suggests it may.

 

Whilst I agree completely with what you say about him not having a ticket for that part of the journey, I am confused as there is no mention of a penalty in the letter. So whilst the fare mentioned is fair enough, how can they charge this for an administration fee?

There was a reletive threat about court, not a letter staing their intention to prosecute your son, therefore, at this stage there's no need to see the statement. Hope that makes sense! Who mentioned a penalty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...