Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Wife caught with my gold card smart card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2595 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

I hope i can get some advise from you people in the know.

 

I have recently gone part time in my job plus house husband (health issues) and my wife has gone back to full time work.

 

My work pay for my gold card and i pay it back weekly out of my wages.

 

The only way we can afford to do this change was sharing my gold card. (last 2 month)

 

Today my wife got caught with my gold card and was read her rights.

 

She said that she picked up the wrong smart card (even though she hasn't got one).

 

They phoned to check and said they would check again at he office.

 

They also took my smart card away.

 

We are both really scared what is now going to happen!

 

Any ideas what will happen to us and my smart card that still has 9 months left on it?

 

I know we did a stupid thing but it was the only way we could afford to manage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my ignorance, but what does the smartcard/gold card do? Do you both work for the same company?

 

Whatever it is, is there anything outstanding on it at the moment? Also, I think I would confront the situation and write to the company explaining exactly the situation and why it was used and how there was no dishonesty, nothing is affected and the balance are still paid off every week as usual. You should probably also apologise and say that it was only use that way as a matter of convenience, not for financial gain but you realise that you should have informed them as to what was happening

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may have misunderstood (unless I have!)

 

I think the OP had an annual rail season ticket / Travelcard on a smart card.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46573.aspx

 

This is a non-transferable ticket, so the OP's wife will not have paid HER fare.

It will be hard for them to claim no dishonesty, and no loss to the rail company.

 

OCJ (an industry expert, which I'm not!) has posted of the case of Browning v Floyd where it was established that Person A being in possession of Person B's season ticket is Person A not having paid their fare.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470817-TFL-Fare-Evasion-Formal-Warning&p=5003514

 

The OP should expect the TOC (Train Operating Company) to write to his wife stating they are considering prosecution and asking for her explanation of events.

 

The TOC will then match this up with the statement taken by the member of staff.

 

If the OP's wife mentioned having picked up the wrong card and then reiterated this in her explanation giving details of her card :

I'd expect the TOC to accept this & take no further action or ask for an amount for an administrative settlement.

 

If she is unable to show that she did have her own card & that she picked up the wrong one in error (as she stated when caught) : that would be a fair indicator of intent to avoid her fare!.

 

She can ask for an administrative settlement but a prosecution is a distinct possibility.

 

The Op can ask for their card to be reissued but faces "a cleft stick":

 

1) They can ask for a replacement but not say why : which would invite the TOC asking "why?"

 

2) They can admit they let their wife use the card (but this risks the TOC declining the reissue and / or prosecuting the OP for the separate offence of allowing the card to be used by someone else)

 

3) They can say their wife took the card without permission : they'll likely get the card reissued but it may make prosecution of the wife more likely.

 

OP; when the letter from the TOC arrives can you post up (personal details redacted) what it says, and in particular if it mentions any Acts / Bylaws (RofRRA 1889 +/- Byelaw 18) ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies, sorry I wasn't clearer.

 

Yes it an annual season ticket on a smart card, in my name.

 

I'll let you know what the letter states when we get it.

 

My wife is normally a goody two shoes so she has never been in trouble before. I feel bad as it was my idea in the first place. Do you think the fine will be more if I hold my hands up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit it : there are potentially 2 offences: the fare evasion (or ticketless travel) by your wife, and the transfer of the ticket (Byelaw 22) by you.

 

I don't know how frequent Byelaw 22 prosecutions are (and if OCJ looks in, they might be able to give us an idea!)

 

I'd "let sleeping dogs lie". If they don't ask, don't tell them.

If they ask, tell the truth (but only answer what they are asking!).

The aim is to not open yourself up for prosecution but (at the same time!) ensure neither of you gets caught in a lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and obviously this is the ONLY time this has happened?

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

Okay. I had misunderstood.

 

In that case I suggest that you level with absolutely everybody. Write to your employers. Tell them what happened and why and that there was no intention to cause them any loss. Apologise and acknowledge that you were completely misguided in your action.

 

I would also do exactly the same with whoever it is has caught you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah she has been using 2 months. Trouble is smart card shows when and we're it's been used.

 

I shouldn't have to tell work I hope as the full season ticket was paid for from a loan from work and I just pay the back weekly out of my wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Okay. I had misunderstood.

 

In that case I suggest that you level with absolutely everybody. Write to your employers. Tell them what happened and why and that there was no intention to cause them any loss. Apologise and acknowledge that you were completely misguided in your action.

 

I would also do exactly the same with whoever it is has caught you.

 

Employer doesn't need to know.

They effectively only offer an interest free loan then repaid weekly or monthly before tax via payslip.

Quite common in London.

They have nothing to do with the ticket and the toc won't know that employer has lent the money to the op to purchase the ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd be awaiting their letter first before you do anything

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

there have been examples here whereby a grovelling letter has worked

even on multiple 'offences'

 

 

read a few thread here

you'll see

one I linked in post 11

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

As others have said, your wife is best advised to wait for the letter from TfL prosecutions office before she does anything.

 

She will then know what charges are being considered and she will be able to formulate an accurate reply to the allegation

 

The very best thing that she can do is to be truthful, without waffling and without resorting to what many prosecutors will read as 'emotional blackmail' in over emphasising personal difficulties.

 

When your wife receives the letter, redact all personal details and let us know what it says, then we can give case specific suggestions of how to respond

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...