What does the fact that you eventually had the clutch done for free tell you ?? Well done anyway

This may not be the case at all I have a 2004 Zafira where it did just this at 20K miles and the Local main dealer insisted that it was wearable part and not covered and would cost £1K to fix BUT I am very mistrustfull so I attended the Garage and insisted on seeing the clutch once it was out The fault was a broken spring BUT the foreman kept telling me this was not covered and I kept telling him " Show me what the warranty says." This went on fo 10 minutes or so till he finally gave in and showed me. It said "friction material not covered" Thanks I said now get onto Vauxhall and get it sorted under warranty which they reluctantly did. I also informed him that I had run a garage and had probably changed as many clutches as he had which did not please him greatly . The Dealer principal was not impressed and I was treated like Gold therefter I have to say this was in 2007 and the Vauxhall warranty may well be changed by now but it is worth checking Hope this helps

I am sure you are absolutly correct and the OP would be given short shrift by the Mags but this has been unnecessarly complicated by mentioning funds on the card. "It is alleged by Transport for London that on the day of the alleged offence, you offered for inspection a Discounted Pay As You Go Oyster Card, which contained insufficient funds and had not been validated for your journey." This means that if there were sufficient funds then the allegegation fails as both parts need to be true for the condition to be met ( If the word AND/OR had been used instead of AND then it would be a different matter ) Either the OP had enough credit on the card for a successfull touch in or he did not. The Letter writer from TFL clearly believes not and as you said earlier it would not be likey that the OP would be prosecuted . The OP needs to address if he had enough money or not to the Mags ( although you did qualify about PFs which the OP has had before) He

I have no dispute about the PF at all and had it been issued correctly then I would simply have paid it if the appeal had failed without further thought. There is no disputing it was legaly issued. the offence was stricl liability etc What I vigorously objected to ( and this was seconded by both Revenus managemnt and customer serices managment from his TOC !)was the leaving of a vunerable young person stranded. Never mind the fact that he further punished us by making us pay £4.00 to LUL the next day for his return. I asked IRCAS twice in writing to send me a copy of The RPI report so I could see what he had to say but they ignored the request both times The TOC were equally vague about precisly what happened and waht action they were going to take citing the Data Protection Act As no one wants to tell me otherwise I naturally assume my kids version of events is true The child had a ZIP card so our address was not in question I assume that you do not have children. To Old Codja I am happy that your view as someone who deals with cheats and Liars all the time still thinks that Respect is deserved by honest people who are caught out. As stated I certainly would not avoid paying a PF if IRCAS had dismissed an appeal Kind Regards

This true tale redresses the balance regarding penalty fares. I am not going to reveal the TOC concerned as their customer services manager have given the child a full apology, assured us that all their RPIs will be reminded that they are to use discression to Children and a small amount of compensation. The story starts with a 16 year old who has an Oyster which does not touch out properly at a london surburban station, and the system takes all the remaining credit on the card. The child then travels back to Central London as there is no top up place any where the station and then goes as they have always been taught to the RPI in uniform who is standing at the barriers and asks for help. Said RPI then issues a PF BUT also behaves like a playground Bully and orders said child to hand over the last remaining £3.00 they have leaving them stranded at a rail station with no money to get home This is totally against the penalty fare regulations. The child rings me who instructs the RPI to go and see the Tube Station supervisor who issues a yellow form which entitles child to get home I had to pay LT back for this Not surprisingly the customer services at the TOC who are more thoughtfull of the reputational risk have ensured that said RPI has been educated by his managemnt in some common sense (even if it was not in the rules common sense would have dictated that acting in such a manner was not very sensible) I have enormous pleasure in knowing that the RPI probably had to write a report to his managment indicating why he behaved like this, and also at his realisation that after he had been instructed to take the child to the LT supervisor as he had removed the last of their money that he hoped the matter would go away. I made sure it did not ! The really surprising thing was that I had fully expected IRCAS to share the same lack of common sense and insist that I paid the PF but they kindly declined to persure the remaining money. I am therefore happy that I was able to arrange to have reeducated someone who has been given tremendous legal powers and has abused them . The TOC heve clearly stated that this goes against their company policies Kind Regards PRI_Educator