Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless... "A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." My question there is really what might constitute proof? Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.
    • I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee.  However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest.  It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases.  I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway
    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
    • The sign says "Parking conditions apply 24/7". Mind you, that's after a huge wall of text. The whole thing is massively confusing.  Goodness knows what you're meant to do if you spend only a fiver in Iceland or you stay a few minutes over the hour there.
  • 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 
        • 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 2194 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...