Jump to content

okaycuckoo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About okaycuckoo

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This isn't about different types of offences: I got stuck for £78 for driving the car while unlicensed at 10:45 and again at 11:50 on the same day in the same town on the same journey. Foolish enough to leave taxing a new car for a few days. Got pulled over by police (top of the range beamer next to my second hand Honda!), the garage guy was called out with his lifting truck, I shelled out £260 and garage guy goes away with £100 of that to line his pocket. Nice work if you can get, although a bit sickening to see him and the police so chummy about this highly paid piece of non-work. I paid tax of £190 the next day and reclaimed the £160. Ten days later the out of court settlement offer was made in respect of the police sighting at 11:50 - I paid over the phone and received a letter stating: "We have received a payment of £78 made by debit card concerning the report that on [date - time not specified] motor vehicle reg [number] had been seen unlicensed. No further action will be taken on this case." At last, free and clear of the bureaucrats. Except ... Six weeks later another out of court settlement offer is made - letter has same reference number as the first one - in respect of a sighting made at 10:45. Another £78! I rang up to say I'd already paid, and was told that they are separate offences and would have to pay. The girl on the phone got an earful about gouging for funds to pay their ridiculous pensions! But in the end I thanked her for her time and went off to brood on the matter. Anyone have views on this? Seems to me like an ongoing offence that should attract only one punishment. In practice they can fine me for every sighting made that day. And I guess in theory they can fine me infinitely. How very New Labour.
  2. Thanks. Tickets bought on board are priced at the standard return fare. So the guard has a discretion? And that standard return fare is at a discount? As for the station guard, seems that giving the option of single/penalty fare was unjustified.
  3. Here's the deal: I got to my station at 11.10 for an 11.30 train intending to buy a return ticket, and noticed a train was due at 11.13 that would take me to my connecting station, Southampton. The 11.13 pulled in, the guard got out, and I asked him if I could buy a ticket on board. He said yes, so I got on. When he got round to me, it turned out his credit card machine was on the blink - he tried it twice - and I hadn't enough cash, so he told me to buy the ticket at Southampton. I asked him if it would cause problems, and he said, "Why would it?" Fair enough. Got off at Southampton and went to the barriers to buy the ticket. The station guard said ok, and asked if my originating station had been open. I said yes, and explained the situation as above. He said he wasn't "party to" the conversation with the train guard, and gave me an option: buy a single ticket or suffer a penalty fare. "So I have to pay for two singles, out and in?" "Yes." "But ..." "Unless you want the penalty fare." I ended up paying £32 for a 100 mile round trip, and I want half that money back. As I understand it, the train guard gave me permission to travel without a valid ticket and the station guard therefore had no right to penalise me. Am I in the right or the wrong? And what do I do about it? I have the SWT complaint form, but wonder if I should just go straight to the regulator and cut out the waffle.
  4. Thanks for the reply! What's the golden 8 weeks? I reckon that time will have run out by now, dating it from the time of my original query to them.
  5. Hi, first post here. [Actually didn't get reply to first post, so reposting!] I've read some of the other threads before posting, and my complaint is very small (just over £123.97) compared to the outrageous sums others have had to pay. But there are three points in my circumstances that may be of interest. Last autumn I scanned my vanquis cc statement and saw a small charge for PPI. Picked up the phone straight away to inquire, because it simply is not the sort of thing I would buy. Must be a mistake, I thought. The girl on the other end told me, No - you've been paying PPI for the past two years. What! I checked my statements and found she was correct - not very clever of me, but my monthly use of the card is quite constant, so if it's in a particular range I don't go through the details. On top of that, I didn't carry a balance for a while after that, so no PPI was charged - in fact, the item didn't even appear on the statements again until a few months later, when I carried a balance again. When I thought about it I recalled that in 2006 I'd found PPI on my statement and phoned then to have it taken off. So I told the girl about this, and she asked me for any phone numbers I might have used so they could check their records. A month later I got a letter saying they hadn't been able to locate a record of the call, although they did assert that I had rung on a particular date in 2006 actually requesting the cover. The letter went on to say that in my latest call, when I rang in the autumn to complain, I had admitted that I'd requested the cover! Entirely the opposite of what I had said - a back-to-front misrepresentation. So I rang again, got on to the original girl, referred her to the letter - and she agreed that the letter completely misrepresented what I had said when making the complaint. They'd look at it again, with more possible phone numbers I supplied in order to track down the call. In the meantime, I located a vanquis letter dated after my original "alleged" call asking for PPI cover, which thanked me for my inquiry about PPI and offered me the option of taking up the cover. I gave them the reference of this letter, and within a few days they wrote saying they'd give a full refund on to my card. They still hadn't located the record of the original call. Three points: 1. PPI was placed on my card without my permission, and kept on when I'd asked for it to be taken off. 2. The fob-off letter twisted my words. 3. I'm not going to use the card again, so I want the refund in my hand. Finally, is it worth going to the ombudsman with this? Thanks.
  6. Hi, first post here. I've read some of the other threads before posting, and my complaint is very small (just over £123.97) compared to the outrageous sums others have had to pay. But there are three points in my circumstances that may be of interest. Last autumn I scanned my vanquis cc statement and saw a small charge for PPI. Picked up the phone straight away to inquire, because it simply is not the sort of thing I would buy. Must be a mistake, I thought. The girl on the other end told me, No - you've been paying PPI for the past two years. What! I checked my statements and found she was correct - not very clever of me, but my monthly use of the card is quite constant, so if it's in a particular range I don't go through the details. On top of that, I didn't carry a balance for a while after that, so no PPI was charged - in fact, the item didn't even appear on the statements again until a few months later, when I carried a balance again. When I thought about it I recalled that in 2006 I'd found PPI on my statement and phoned then to have it taken off. So I told the girl about this, and she asked me for any phone numbers I might have used so they could check their records. A month later I got a letter saying they hadn't been able to locate a record of the call, although they did assert that I had rung on a particular date in 2006 actually requesting the cover. The letter went on to say that in my latest call, when I rang in the autumn to complain, I had admitted that I'd requested the cover! Entirely the opposite of what I had said - a back-to-front misrepresentation. So I rang again, got on to the original girl, referred her to the letter - and she agreed that the letter completely misrepresented what I had said when making the complaint. They'd look at it again, with more possible phone numbers I supplied in order to track down the call. In the meantime, I located a vanquis letter dated after my original "alleged" call asking for PPI cover, which thanked me for my inquiry about PPI and offered me the option of taking up the cover. I gave them the reference of this letter, and within a few days they wrote saying they'd give a full refund on to my card. They still hadn't located the record of the original call. Three points: 1. PPI was placed on my card without my permission, and kept on when I'd asked for it to be taken off. 2. The fob-off letter twisted my words. 3. I'm not going to use the card again, so I want the refund in my hand. Finally, is it worth going to the ombudsman with this? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...