Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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

Byelaw 17(1) Wrongful Prosecution & RPI Complaint


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2193 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

Evening All,

 

I've scoured through many threads and posts on here and google and thought the only way to get esteemed advice was to put up this thread.

I thank you all for your time and advice in advance.

 

December last year I was summoned to court for a July offence for 'compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket' contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of Transport for London Railway Byelaws etc.

 

That evening I travelled from Canada Water to Norwood Junction,

on attempting to exit the barriers I tapped my Oyster and it wouldn't allow me to leave

 

I called the female attendant who informed me the oyster wasn't validated at the start of my journey.

She checked the oyster and saw that I had a monthly travel card (Z2 and 3) and PAYG balance to cover my journey.

 

She suggested to be careful mixing bank cards with the oyster; then an RPI rudely intervened, taking the oyster card from the attendant and checked it on his portable device. He also stated that my journey wasn't validated from the start, asked if the oyster was the card I travelled with from the start of the journey

- I said yes.

 

He then proceeded to get very rude and aggressive.

Initially he said he'll give me an £80 fine then as the exchange went on he said I will be prosecuted and summoned to court amongst other unsavoury comments, while I duly complied and kept my calm.

I was not given a caution re PACE.

 

I waited for the letter.

Unfortunately, I forgot this was sent to my mother's address

 

I received the Single Justice Procedure Notice (sent on 27 Nov) too late to make an appeal or an out of time appeal

- it was received 5 days before the hearing.

 

I was prepared to go to court either way but upon asking for CCTV and Travel History from TFL due to the time lapse, they were only able to provide my product history confirming I had a valid travelcard and balance on my oyster for the July offence. Furthermore, the Witness statement from the RPI repeated a snippet of our conversation convenient to prosecution (remember I had no caution re PACE) and there was no mention of the valid travelcard I had.

I called the court and they advised me the hearing will still go ahead on the set date.

 

Low and behold the day before the hearing, I received the Notice of Fine and Collection order for £473.

Again I called the court and they said as I was found guilty in absence (recall I was out of time to send an appeal) and the only way forward was to accept the fine and pay.

 

I have paid the fine in full just to avoid it affecting my record etc but I am ready to address this matter in a complaint against the RPI as it was due to his incompetence that I received the fine. But don't know where to start

- your help and advise are much appreciated?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of other inconsistencies in the Op's post, too.

 

What happened with the Prosecutions team writing to the OP, and the OP's reply?, which would be usual practice.

 

Why does the OP think they could defend a 17(1) charge using CCTV and their travel history?. If their Oyster wasn't swiped in, it wasn't a valid ticket as far as for a 17(1) prosecution, and if they didn't have one of the statutory defences, they were bound to be found guilty if they didn't persuade the Prosecutions team to offer an administrative settlement as an alternative to prosecution.

 

If they got a SJP notice, they can ask for a full hearing... so where does "appeal' come into it at that stage?

 

"I have paid the fine in full just to avoid it affecting my record" seems (again) odd. If found guilty the OP has a criminal record. Paying a court imposed fine just stops the fine collection being escalated to (what used to be known as) bailiffs, and doesn't prevent the criminal record.....

 

The OP was entirely calm and co-operative when stopped, but the RPI was an incandescent ball of uncontrolled rage?

So, the RPI should be found at fault for a 'wrongful prosecution'???? That somehow ignores the role of the Prosecutions team in deciding to persue this to court, and of the court (how can it be wrongful prosecution if a court found a guilty verdict ...... the OP would have to get the case re-opened / re-heard and the verdict reversed for it to stand a chance of being 'wrongful prosecution').

 

For a start we only have the OP's side of things here to go on, but even so ..... too many inconsistencies. If the OP actually has a reasonable case, they are going to have to do a better job of presenting it, otherwise it just looks like a case of 'I got stopped without having swiped in my Oyster, I didn't prevent the situation escalating, to the point it got heard in my absence, and now I'm trying to complain about the RPI out of "sour grapes"', which is a complaint that will be going nowhere, as TfL will just point to the court's verdict, and stress this wasn't just to the civil standard of proof ('balance of probabilities'), but the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...