Jump to content

BazzaS

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6,373
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    1.7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

BazzaS last won the day on February 18

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,253 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. I think it is fine to highlight that the effect of a conviction could be disproportionate for you because of the profession / employment side of things, just do so factually without 'laying it on thick'.
  2. Note my previous advice “don’t over-egg the pudding”. So, I’m going to be blunt. They’ve heard all of this (and more) before. Are you you looking to have them decide to offer an alternative to prosecution? There will still be a financial cost, and it’ll be expected as a lump sum (you only get “instalments” with a court fine and that’d mean a conviction). or do you want to risk it looking to them that you want them to decide it’s OK for you to evade your fare, arrange a refund for your wife’s Oyster, and have a whip-round in the prosecution office to knock a bit off your credit card debt while seeing if they can sort you another ticket to Canada?? You still need to come across as contrite, not as if you are looking for sympathy and offering excuses.
  3. What harm have you suffered? What outcome do you want?. All the original GP needs to say is that they were delayed anyway, (since it appears this was the case, since you were told this!) and they were concerned that due to your previous complaint, and the ongoing delay that day, that they thought it best you were seen by a colleague instead, not only to reduce your delay, but also to avoid an uneasy interaction that might have made it harder for you to receive good care. If they hadn't had arranged for a colleague to see you, or you'd been denied being seen by them if they were dealing with emergency appointments and there was no-one else available for emergency appointments, then you'd have grounds to complain: on the basis that your care had been impacted. If the GP is able to present it as "care not impacted, in fact it was done to ensure quickest & best available care": you'd have to show harm (and not just the delay, which may have been present no matter what, and may even have been reduced by you seeing someone else if the original GP was running late due to dealing with an emergency). The receptionist mentioned an emergency, and it isn't surprising they won't give details of another patient. Do you have any grounds to suggest that not only has the original GP said "I won't see them" but that the receptionist has colluded by lying about there having been an emergency? If there was an emergency: you are on to a non-starter. If you are claiming there wasn't an emergency : not only are you going to have trouble proving it, but why would the receptionist risk their own career by colluding?.
  4. Gross oversimplification, since although (if a record goes onto PNC, it stays there for life), it may not go onto PNC in the first place, and even if it does, it may become 'spent' or 'filtered" for the purpose of employment checks..... A) Not all offences are "recordable", so some summary offences aren't recorded on PNC, but may be hold on "local records" only. Local records MIGHT show on an eDBS, but not a basic check. B) Are you talking only about the PNC, or about DBS / employer checks?. Even if a recordable offence, The Rehabilitation of Offenders (RofO) Legislation applies. Records become "spent" for employment purposes unless an exemption to RofO applies (like a post that attracts an enhanced DBS / e-DBS, or an overseas matter like a Visa application where I wouldn't advise relying on RofO). Take a look at regarding recordable vs non recordable, and http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/filtering-cautions-convictions/ regarding 'filtering'
  5. The relevant case law is Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597 (funnily enough, a husband using his wife's non-transferable ticket). The fact that a fare (her fare) was paid didn't mean that HIS fare was paid .... So, the risk is that you'll in effect be saying (since this was an annual Pass): "Dear TfL, I evaded my fare for months, using my wife's Student Annual Oyster. (It doesn't matter that I'd paid for her Oyster, as that was for HER fare, but I didn't pay MY fare). So, it is bad, but not as bad as Freedom Pass abuse, so you shouldn't take me to court." The fact that freedom pass abuse is "worse" doesn't equate to them having to offer an administrative settlement, and how are you going to get past any discrepancy between what you are saying, and the RPI's notes (given that you have said here you lied to the RPI). Additionally, Freedom Pass abuse might be on multiple occasions, but might be just the one event, and if they go looking, they might see your use was multiple times over months ... so the two aren't directly comparable. I suggest you tread warily. By all mean stress that the result of a conviction may be disproportionate for you, but I wouldn't try to suggest that because Freedom Pass abuse is worse they are obliged to offer you an administrative settlement. You also want to try (as far as possible, while being truthful) to not bring in anything that the RPI's notes contradict ... you don't have to own up to anything they aren't asking you about, but don't get caught in a (further) lie, either.
  6. It fits perfectly : they were so sleep deprived they forgot all the other times they’d used it!. What I’m not sure about is at what point ([for someone who clearly has been offending repeatedly!] having heard all the reasons for non-prosecution: loss of job, sole income for family, UK residence visa status, effect on visa for USA or Canada or [wherever]), the letter crosses from ”hey, that’s a reason not to prosecute” into “hey, with so many reasons why they shouldn’t risk fare dodging, yet they chose to anyway, why do they think they deserve more leniency” ? Don't over-egg the pudding.
  7. Nestle are the manufacturer, and Tesco the retailer. Whilst I have sympathy with the retailer, it is still the retailer who bears the legal responsibility for selling food of adequate standard. The problem you'll likely face is that Nestle will state that it is their policy that staff using 'plasters' MUST use the (food safe) 'blue plasters' intended for catering (that are both easier to spot visually, and detectable by systems in use in food production lines, precisely to stop this sort of thing happening). You'll no doubt have to have Nestle conclude that one of their staff came into work with a 'non-blue' plaster (or applied a non-approved plaster in work) against policy. Your options are going to trading standards / the EHO's, or sending the pack back to Nestle.
  8. TfL aren’t (currently) proceeding under a statute that requires intent (such as S5 RRA 1889). The bylaw prosecution doesn’t require them to show intent / mens rea, only that the act of being unable to produce a valid ticket took place, (& in the absence of one of statutory defences). BTW, I’m impressed how much your syntax and grammar improved with your reply “You named her actions fraud. But where is mens rea? In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law, a criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.“.........
  9. Who owns the alleged debt : the “quack” or the DCA? if the doctor: what do the original T’s & C’s for their services say about added fees for non-payment?
  10. “The lender appointed agents. One of which is also marketing an almost identical property - bit smaller, less outside space and no nice views, but fresher refurb - in same tiny street - 45% more expensive!” “Marketing” doesn’t mean it will sell for that, and they may have to wait to get any interest / a sale. What is most likely key is the way it was sold; a) if auctioned (unless the auction wasn’t advertised!) they’ll claim it sold at “market rate” : the rate an auction attracted! b) if not auctioned and the comparable (less desirable?) property goes for a higher value soon : much easier to claim sale at an undervalue. Expect them to claim the refurb made all the difference, though.
  11. Refund only. While the airlines sometimes do try to hide behind “extraordinary circumstances” for things that aren’t, an air traffic control strike is one such event not in their control, and that they aren’t obliged to compensate you for. Did you have travel insurance? If so look for what they will provide (I’m thinking delayed departure claim)
  12. One wonders if they have a “all the final demands weren’t really final, but this is our final final demand!” letter one can only hope they do, and that it really is final....... Chances are they’ll just get a different letterhead to use
  13. So, incorrect info: a) They didn’t stop you, but your friend, b) It wasn’t Oxford street, c) It wasn’t the police d) There was no CCTV. Additionally, your friend has already written to TfL. Not making it easy to help, either the circumstances nor the ‘shifting sands’ of the story. Does she have unconditional residence in the UK? If not would a conviction impact on her right of abode?
×
×
  • Create New...