Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

National Railway Byelaws updated 2024 - Ticketing.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4662 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

what agood idea

 

then this thread can be used for discussions rather than on live threads where users need help

 

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

Thank you dx100uk,

 

I specifically posted this because it is clear that some people are very confused in respect of the difference between prosecution and penalty fare legislation.

 

In fact, the Byelaws make the distinction abundantly clear.

 

Byelaw 17 relates to Compulsory Ticket Areas, which must exist in order to impose a penalty fare and is separate from Byelaw 18, which covers all other areas of the railway.

 

The penalty for breach of Byelaw 17 is a penalty fare, or prosecution under S.5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

 

The penalty for breach of Byelaw 18 is a fine of up to £1000, which may be imposed upon conviction by a Magistrates Court.

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OldcodJA, fraid I have to disagree with you regarding byelaw 17 having to exist to charge penalty fares.

My understanding is that a byelaw is not required as the Penalty Fare Rules 1994 provide that for penalty fare to be charged a 'scheme' must be in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor misunderstanding SRPO, I think it's probably in the reading of it and I can see how you might think that's what I meant

 

What I actually meant was that a compulsory ticket area (CTA) has to exist.

 

The TOC who has applied for and got a scheme in place needs to have the signs in place to warn a traveller that a PF may be applied before an authorised person can issue one.

 

Byelaw 17 just refers to the liability in respect of a CTA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I know what you are getting at, but it may be confusing to people who will think that a CTA has to exist for them to be charged a PF.

For example, London Bridge isnt a CTA but you can be charged a PF if you travel from there without buying a ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are a few such places. Birmingham New Street being a case in point.

 

Are you suggesting CTA's are the norm for Penalty Fare Schemes? According to the Strategic Rail Authority's Penalty Fares Policy (the bulk of which has been pasted in sticky thread 309653), the norm should simply by for the TOC to nominate penalty fares trains and stations, with CTA's reserved for "larger and busier stations":

4.7 CTAs increase the risk to honest passengers because people who have not travelled, or who do

not intend to travel, may also be charged a penalty fare if they do not have a platform ticket or

other authority allowing them to enter the CTA. This could include people who are meeting

passengers or seeing passengers off, or people who are simply using the station facilities.

Operators do not need to create a CTA to charge penalty fares to passengers who have got off

a train. Penalty fares may be charged to someone leaving a train, and the rules make it clear

that ‘a person leaving a train’ includes someone who is present at or leaving a station having

left a train arriving at that station. CTAs are only necessary at larger and busier stations, where

revenue protection can only be carried out effectively if it is no longer necessary for

authorised collectors to prove who has and has not got off a train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you saying Birmingham New Street does or does not have a CTA?

 

My understanding is CTAs are something which can (only) be created by Penalty Fare Schemes (but Penalty Fare Schemes don't need to create CTAs, and generally don't). Thus it's wrong to say:

... Compulsory Ticket Areas, which must exist in order to impose a penalty fare

But it would be correct to say it the other way round:

In order for a Compulsory Ticket Area to exist, it must have been created by a Penalty Fares Scheme (and so you could be liable to pay a penalty fare if within it without a valid ticket).

Thus the references to CTAs in byelaw 17 are creating a criminal offence relating to CTAs, which were it not for this byelaw would only be subject to the civil action of a penalty fare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the penalties, it may seem like nitpicking, but the penalty for breaching byelaw 17 can't be prosecution under some other law. The penalties for breaching the byelaws are laid out in Schdeule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 (the Byelaws being made under section 219 of that act):

 

2 Bye-laws may provide that any person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding—

(a)level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b)such lower amount as is specified in the bye-laws,

for each offence.

 

And Then Byelaw 24 states:

24. Enforcement

(1) Offence and level of fines

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

So there is a fine of up to £1000 for all the byelaws, except for byelaw 17 where there is no fine.

 

Behaviour which breached byelaws 17 or 18 could separately lead to prosecution under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 if there was intent to avoid the fare. However, as s5 RRA only refers to passengers and makes no mention of CTAs (they won't exist for 100 years yet!) it could not be used in the subset of byelaw 17 cases in which a CTA is used to prosecute people who merely enter the part of a station covered by the CTA but make no attempt to travel (e.g. someone saying goodbye to a friend on a platform without the required platform ticket).

 

Similarly, behaviour which breaches either byelaw 17 or 18 could separately lead to a penalty fare (if there is a penalty fare scheme in place) on the basis of the Penalty Fare Rules. It is important to note that section 10 of The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 1994 sets out an exclusion of double liability, so if a prosecution is brought (under the byelaws or s5 RRA) a penalty fare cannot be charged (or must be refunded).

 

So in summary, there are 3 distinct pieces of legislation relating to travel without a valid ticket:

 

  1. The most serious is section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, criminal, requires intent to avoid fare, fine up to level 3 (£1000), or for second or subsequent offence can at discretion of court lead to imprisonment up to 3 months.
  2. Railway byelaws (both sections 17 and 18), criminal, strict liability (no intent needed), fine up to level 3 (£1000) except byelaw 17
  3. Penalty Fares (where such a scheme exists), civil matter, cannot be used in conjunction with either of the criminal prosecutions above.

Hopefully that's all clear and correct :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, no, Birmingham New Street is not a CTA and your explanation relating to CTAs is entirely correct.

 

Secondly, your explanation and direct quotes fron the legislation are entirely right of course.

 

My reference to potential prosecution in relation to behaviour that would be contrary to Byelaw 17 is to say what could (and does) happen if the Penalty Fare Notice (PFN) is not resolved.

 

This isn't determined as the penalty by any legislation, but is offered as an explanation of the practical process that has been followed by BR from 1989 and the TOCS since 1996.

 

If a PFN is issued and not either paid, or successfully appealed in due time, the TOC may cancel the PFN and issue a Summons alleging that the traveller's original intent was 'intent to avoid a fare' as determined by Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889). Many thousands of these cases have been dealt with by the courts over the last 15 years.

 

It was simply an explanation of what can and does happen, not always and some may not be processed further..

 

In simple terms, if a PFN is issued and not resolved, or not paid, it doesn't always just go away.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread now stuck..

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to National Railway Byelaws updated 2024 - Ticketing.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...