Jump to content


Registered Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BazzaS last won the day on February 18

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,246 Excellent

About BazzaS

  • Rank
    Platinum Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. First class with (free) proof of posting. it means a trip to the Post Office, but means they can’t claim you never sent it, and that is all a court requires, if it came to court. signed for proves they received it, IF they sign for it. If it doesn’t get there or they won’t sign for it, you are no better off. so it depends what you want most: what a court would require (not signed for, but proof of posting) against reassurance they've received it, but the downside of having to send it again if you don’t have that proof.
  2. I don’t believe that “criminal = stupid / cant understand posts”, nor do I believe the OP set out to commit a criminal act (hence why they should try to persuade TFL not to prosecute, by “I was naive, not deliberately criminal”). I can’t do anything about your recurrent ability to misunderstand posts, and all I can do when you post poor advice or out and out rubbish, is to try to correct it so OP’s only worry about what they need to be concerned of.
  3. Be brave. Point out where my post #41 is open to misinterpretation. Let people decide if I’ve been open to misinterpretation or you just can’t interpret, if you are still saying it was unclear. Saying “ohh, post 41” isn’t being clear as to how I could have left it open to misinterpretation. Be brave. Commit, instead of further obfuscation.
  4. So, where did I say it’s OK to commit an offence and run away? Or where could I have been misunderstood to have said that. Quote where, if you believe that’s what I said. since I didn’t, why are you repeating it? More deflection tactics from your error(s), even though you say you’ll ‘fess up when wrong. BTP have more pressing matters than going round to the home of an (isolated case) possible fare evader whose details TFL believe they have found. That’s why TFL send out the letter they do, and why BTP won’t be pitching up at the OP’s address. It isn’t a case of “won’t be going round now”, but “never were going to”!
  5. You’ll note that I never said it is OK to commit an offence and run away, so cease & desist from putting words in my mouth to try & distract people from your errors and trying to tell people “the police will come round and arrest you” when they won’t. The police might come round if the person’s ID was still in doubt, (but that isn’t the case here). The police might arrest someone if offence(s) still needing investigating : but that isn’t the case here, either. Stop trying to dress up your “arrestable offence“ mistake (and trying to scare the OP) as “its not OK to commit an offence and run away”. Clearly it isn’t ok to do that, but the OP says that’s not what happened, and no one is going to come round & arrest them.
  6. What, (since 2006) is the difference between an arrestable and non-arrestable offence? (Hint: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/part/3/crossheading/powers-of-arrest ) so, TFL send the police around, and they turn up (let us engage in your fantasy world, and put aside the obvious question of "how are they going to do that if they don't know where you live?" : and "if they have found out where you live, why would they send the police around"?) You give the police your (verifiable) name and address. How are they going to arrest you and remain compliant (at least, for fare evasion as a one off... we aren't talking about a complex fraud or sexual assault here) with the 'necessity criteria' of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117583/pace-code-g-2012.pdf ? Please stop spouting tosh. The police asren't going to visit the OP, and aren't going to arrest them.
  7. BF is right that No win No fee (NWNF) isn't a good option here (see my recent post), but not for the reason BF states. This is likely to be a small claims track case, and (see above) it will be hard to find a solicitor to take it on on a 'no win, no fee' basis. If this case was likely to be in fast track or multi-track, then NWNF could be an option. BF is wrong about the warning and risks of costs with a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) though. A solicitor NOT discussing the implications of winning (and the 'success fee' that came with it), or costs implications of losing would be almost unheard of: it would be a professional obligation under 'client care'. Along with that, the CFA should include 'self-insuring' After the Event (ATE) insurance. This insurance insures against costs if you lose. If you win, you don't get to recover the ATE premium, it has to be paid (and comes out of the judgment award). If you lose you don't have to pay costs (and you don't have to pay the ATE insurance premium...., it is covered by the insurance, hence 'self-insuring'). So, if you can find a solicitor who is happy to take the case on on a CFA basis, you won't have to pay the other sides costs if you lose*. * : provided you haven't misled your solicitor when they did the 'risk assessment' for the insurance, comply with their advice, and are truthful and honest during your claim. OP, the declaring each package to be worth at most £20 may prove to be a major sticking point for you.
  8. I doubt it is the potential percentage alone that is the issue, but: a) Both the cap on the maximum percentage together with the value of the claim, so that both: i) you'd not recover the full sum, and ii) the maximum the solicitor would get may not make it worth the time they'd have to expend, although (more importantly) b) The fact this is still likely to be on the small claims track, so solicitors costs are VERY limited unless the circumstances are SO extreme the judge removes the limit on their basic fee (2 hours or so worth), which is unlikely. The whole point of small claims track is to keep things simple so a solicitor isn't mandated. See below for more on 'no win, no fee'.
  9. How can anyone prove an item *Wasn’t* delivered?. what a nonsense. If you / Argos are saying you believe it wasn’t delivered, it would be for Parcel2go to prove it had been!
  10. They have 6 months in which to (lodge a prosecution at court) / bring a prosecution. This is a time limit set by law. They don’t have to reply. They don’t have to take that long, they might not take that long, but they are allowed to do so. Don’t want the risk of a criminal record? Don’t want to be “kept in limbo”? Don’t fare dodge / use a nominee pass you know you aren’t entitled to. Simples!.
  11. A) By the fact the surety has been paid, the OP will also have paid for the clamp to be released. The OP was asking about getting their surety back. B) Even if the clamp was still on, if the OP uses force to remove it, causing damage, and gets seen to do so : how does getting a conviction for criminal damage help the OP?
  12. You've had 2 replies explaining why you can't just keep it. You haven't explained why you believe they are wrong. It seems that you aren't actually after advice, but only validation of your (incorrect views). Legally, you are wrong. The fact that you are also morally wrong, and aren't interested in 'doing the right thing' either: I hope they sue you, and win. Good luck.
  13. Firstly, did you contact them pointing out their error, and offering to return the goods (at their cost). If so: they are yours provided they didn't ask for them back within 2 weeks of that letter. If not, then it will depend on if a court would decide these were truly unsolicited / sent as a marketing gimmick or s*c*a*m (where they will be yours), or if it was a genuine error by the company (who you have had previous business dealings with) where they can require them back, or for you to pay. I suspect that legally (as well as morally!) the latter applies. Do the right thing, though you shouldn't be out of pocket for returning it, it should be at their cost and by a suitably insured method. https://consumerarbitration.co.uk/2018/11/01/unsolicited-goods-your-rights/
  14. If the charge was for parking without a permit and: a) you’d paid for a permit while b) it hadn’t been issued despite multiple requests, you’d be on very safe ground. However, I bet that somewhere in the “staff parking permit” application (or on receiving the permit) there is a term about not causing an obstruction. So, the private parking co. may have difficulty enforcing their “charge”, but watch out you don’t shoot yourself in the foot and the hospital find an excuse to withdraw their permit (that is providing you still need parking there!) on reflection (& given the note from the driver who found it hard to manoeuvre their car), if push came to shove can you say “I wasn’t causing an obstruction”?
  15. From that leaflet: “How to claim a refund of the surety fee Produce a valid tax disc to either the vehicle pound or a DVLA local office, within 14 days of the vehicle’s release. After this period, you will lose the surety fee.” It says 14 days, not 15. it also says “from vehicle’s release”: when was it released?.
  • Create New...