Jump to content

cletus1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cletus1

  1. Well in reality nothing will stop them applying for a summons, however this would need to be backed up with the paperwork you have asked for, the court would not accept an end figure, they would need to prove that you this sum. When did you submit the SAR request, did you send it recorded delivery and have they acknowledged receipt?
  2. Apply this to theft form a shop … You turn round to Tesco’s and say I’m sorry I tried to pinch that bottle of scotch it’s the first time it has ever happened. It will never happen again! How about I give you £500 to forget about it … Mens rea The guilty mind
  3. Any decent council would have a field day in court … The person appears before you today not because of their actions but their inability to pay a levy to the claimant
  4. The answer is simple because it becomes a two-tier justice system for those that can pay and those that cannot And for a public body such as tfl to behave in such a way and be complicate to it is both immoral and illegal The TOC would be estopped form denying that it would have dropped the charges if the person was able to pay
  5. A penalty fare is exactly that, irregular travel is something completely different a penalty fare should never be applied if you are caught using someone else’s card, or if you have printed your own ticket on your computer, or double gate, or travel and touch in half way through your journey to pay a lower fare.
  6. If the same practice were adapted to all criminal offences then the justice system would be in disarray You cannot allow someone to buy them self out of being prosecuted if there is a case then there will be a summons if there is no case then there will not If as you say some TOCS are extorting money out of people, because that is exactly what it is then this is disgraceful
  7. The decision if a case should be prosecuted within LUL is made by the revenue investigations manager or one of the duty revenue managers the decision is not driven by a “compromise agreement”
  8. The criteria that is used is simple, if you evade your fare and you are caught by one of the revenue inspectors you will be prosecuted on most occasions If you inadvertently picked up your partners pass and used it that day then the likely outcome will be an advise notice, if you have been doing it for weeks and you lied to the inspector and this is identified during the investigation then you will be visiting the magistrates does that sound fare ?
  9. Allowing people to buy there way out of potential prosecution would set all sorts of legal precedents The decision is not based on any payment
  10. The only reason a prosecution would not be progressed is if there was a lack of evidence Thank you for pointing out my typo!
  11. There needs to be a level of acceptance … If you have done what you are being accused of I doubt very much if the prosecutions office will accept what is in effect a bribe to pervert the course of justice This would create a two tier system for fraudulent travel those that have cash and can pay their way out and those that cannot! I doubt very much if your offer will be accepted
  12. The point of this being if you end up with an unresolved journey (not touching both in and out) this could have cost you more than the fare... and would support your case that it was an error However the TOC may claim you may have travelled further than you say you had! And if you normally travel every day from station "b" to station "y" which is on the same line but right down the other end .. this will not help your case !
  13. So when you normally enter from station "b" where do you exit? Is it station "a"? On the day in question did you touch out at station "B" I understand you did not touch in at station "a" this will still result in an unresolved journey
  14. The history of your oyster card usage can be checked... with or without the actual card Undoubtedly they will be looking to see if you do this regularly comparing this with the statement you gave to the inspector This could result in appearance at the magistrate's court and a criminal record
  15. I am a little confused you enter station "A" a nation rail station and fail to touch in on arrival at station "b" an underground station you touch out so at this point you have been charged £10 on your oyster and have an unresolved journey Or did you try to get out at station "b" without touching out ? Is the interface between the Underground and network rail gated ? IE do you have to go out of a set of gates for NR and then back in a set of gates to the underground Does the history on your oyster show you normally touch in at your home station, and is this the same station
  16. You have travelled fraudulently, right now they will be looking on OCTA at the usage history looking at the history of the ticket you claim to have comparing this with CCTV and preparing a file for court (magistrates)
  17. There is only one way to get the default removed and that is to get the bank/credit company to agree to remove it! Speak to them and offer to pay the balance or a large amount of it if they agree to remove the default, all they are interested in is their cash, you will have to give them a good reason why you failed to pay them in the first place … wife/husband run off with the milkman lost you job Ect. If they agree tell them you will pay them on receipt of a letter confirming what they agreed But as in the above post if the default is the result of disputed charges then this pu
  18. I hope I have posted this in the right place; I am trying to get any information about defective tamper evident cash bags, the type you put your takings in for the security company to collect The specific information I am looking for is bags that do not seal properly or reopen after sealing owing to defective glue on the security strip If any of you have any info on this it would be appreciated Thanks!
  19. The company’s reason for dismissal was based on one of the three whiteness statements and the reasons for not accepting the remaining two which back up my version of events was they preferred the latter So on the balance of probability I did it
  20. The reasons for dismissal on the disciplinary charge sheet where "entering in to a physical confrontation with a member of the public resulting in you being charged with assault" contrary to the company’s code of conduct
  21. Sorry, I got the last bit wrong... I was acquitted on all charges i.e. not guilty by the magistrates on all charges and I advised my former employers of the same during the disciplinary hearing
×
×
  • Create New...