If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.

I’d reply : but only to note they have your name and address which suffice, and you are still complying with the ‘over-riding objective of CPR1. Additionally, note that you do not accept communication by e-Mail, so there is no point in providing an e-Mail address, and, similarly : you wouldn’t accept communication by phone or text, so if they have anything to communicate, they can write to you!

I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.

OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.

How many uses, over how long?

From what you’ve posted, it absolutely is in the public interest to prosecute. You’ve fare evaded multiple times. Your reason for doing so is impecunity: but if they accept that as a valid reason they’d have to create a new scheme to allow free travel outside of the existing ones. So that’s mitigation rather than defence. A conviction carries stigmata and inconvenience : but that is one of the downsides of committing an offence, and one of the reasons to prosecute is deterrence : so you saying it will affect you doesn’t make it not in the public interest to prosecute - it is in the public interest but just not in your interest …. I come back to the fact that you haven’t really given TFL a reason not to prosecute, and (by being caught in a lie about it being once only) given them a reason to harden their attitude (even if they haven’t seen your comments here about lack of remorse / wishing “you’d just done a runner” . Why shouldn’t they prosecute?

I (and other respondents) always advise “not getting caught in a lie” it hardens their response. Why would they now believe protestations of remorse and “I won’t do it again” if they've already seen you'd lie and say it was a one-off when it wasn't.. You can try approaching the prosecutor on the day, but "I wouldn't hold my breath" …..

rather than the thread you had quoted?

In that thread you have quoted, the OP hasn't yet heard back from Tfl as to if they are being prosecuted or given an administrative settlement, so it isn't correct to say "the only reason the user received a warning was because of her medical condition", as they haven't yet heard.

Solicitor

My responses don’t prevent others replying : it isn’t “either /or”, so I don’t need to shut up, provided my posts meet site rules (see above about reporting them to the site team) The good news is people can make up their own mind if it looks like you are trolling, based on YOUR posts / behaviour. I can accept that me pointing out why you are just out to waste their time, then allows them to choose to reply or not ; yup, agreed. If you are trolling as part of a team : can we expect some recently joined members with a low post count to rush in to stir things up?

What makes my reply bigoted? I don’t know your gender, religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or anything else about you to make me / my reply bigoted. If you gave a ‘protected characteristic’ now : why should anyone believe it given your posting history and lies? So, my conclusion is you are trolling and / or deluded. if you believe I’m bigoted / my reply shows bigotry : report my post for it and let the site team decide. I’ve commented on the facts. People can look at the start date of this thread, your posts during it, and your false claims about the solicitor. So, they’ll see you are either a) trolling, and/or b) couldn’t lie straight in bed. The thing is, you forget what lies you have told, so you aren’t that good a liar. I’m keen to help people, but wind up merchants / people who just lie : they waste the time of those who otherwise might help people who really need it. If you are threatening to ‘stomp off’ and go troll elsewhere: fill ya boots.

Sorry, but: a) this appears to have been dragging on for some 13 years (is that a record for a CAG thread??) b) OP (who I've previously wondered if they are a 'wind-up' merchant), decided (according to what they said in this thread) to "joke" about seeing a solicitor, and that thst solicitor entered into a physical / borderline sexual relationship with them. Hilarous joke, if they have £50k at stake, ..... (posts around no. 130, if people want to review). So, even if it isn't a wind-up: i) OP should have involved a solicitor, years ago, and if they haven't: are up a creek ii) I'm not sure anything OP says can be trusted, so on that basis, how can anyone offer advice?. Let OP go to a solicitor. If someone wants to waste their time trying to offer advice: at least you've been warned, and its your decision if you want to waste your time.

Revolut don’t offer Naira at present.

The third party like Wise isn’t the issue, I suspect, but the source not being your own account.

Therein lies your problem as to Barclays eyes : it looks like money laundering and / or receipt of proceeds of crime. To prevent the same happening for your newer TSB account : transfer money in sourced from your own Naira account, rather than a third-party account. You may still be asked about the source of the funds, but when you explain it is your own money it’ll look a lot less suspicious to the bank.

What do you want to achieve? have you had an apology? What do you think will make her less likely to repeat her mistake?

You can SAR them again, to check. If: a) they dealt with it as a complaint, b) stated that their response was a final response, c) noted that you could escalate it to FOS (and had 6 months in which to do so), and d) Didn’t say “we will waive our right to have to grant permission after 6 months” Them : you can still take it to FOS but FOS would have to obtain their permission to review it outside of the 6 months (and that seems unlikely) https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/before-get-involved#:~:text=These time limits are%3A,they had cause to complain)

Did they say “final response.” …..but also as part of their final response “you can take this to the FOS” ? (And if so, did it mention a time limit in which to do so)? it’d be worth posting up a pdf of their response (personal info redacted)

Any mileage in being pro-active re: it being a one-off use? The difference in patterns of usage may be obvious once highlighted. Something along the lines if “I attach printouts of usage for both my sister’s card and mine, showing that although we both start our journeys at the same station (near our home), hers are always earlier, corresponding to her school day, and those on my Oyster are later, which hopefully will reassure you that this was a one-off, using her card in error (as mentioned above), an error which I will be certain not to repeat”

“I hope this email finds you well” seems to be a (new) recurring opening phrase. I don’t know if this is from ChatGPT, but I wouldn’t use such an informal opening. They’ll check back (8 weeks usage?). If they don’t see a pattern of usage that suggests repeated use by you, you may well get let off with a warning.

Still haven’t replied to b). It’s an uphill battle already if they; i) fare dodge, repeatedly. ii) start replying to TfL (and potentially dig themselves further into a hole) before seeking advice here iii) expect a “magic bullet” letter to be provided, ‘on a plate’, once they realise the negative effects of being prosecuted for fare evasion. However, add to that: iv) don’t answer relevant questions - and I conclude: Can’t help those who won’t help themselves. I’m out.

I don't know what you should put in the letter. I can't advise as I'd asked a) what you said when you were questioned (as TfL will have the notes of that), and b) if you'd already told them 2 different stories, and you've not answered either query. It is hard enough trying to come up with help for people who have multiple episodes of fare evasion, let alone where they have said "it was a mistake on the day", when clearly that isn't the whole truth, but: If you don't engage (by replying to relevant queries), how do you expect people to help?.

What did you say when you were stopped (were you questioned?). Have you told them both a) that you and your partner "use them interchangeably" but also b) that on the day you picked up the wrong pass by mistake ? That might look to TfL that you aren't being honest with them. You don't have to answer questions they haven't asked you, but equally,if you are hoping for leniency, you don't want to get caught in a lie, either.

I can’t tell from your post what stage this is at. take a breath : whilst you shouldn’t do nothing, you also shouldn’t panic. Have they obtained a CCJ? Are they threatening one? And, (most importantly: do you owe them anything?) So, don’t hang around and engage with this thread but don’t be tempted to make a knee jerk response to them. Likely the 2 best things to do ASAP are 1) post up the letter you have received as a .pdf but redacted of any personal / identifiable info of your details 2) post up a ‘bullet-point’ chronological summary of events to date, including why they think you owe them, and what happened.