Jump to content

SnappySam

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SnappySam

  1. Just for the record: I have had direct experience with authorities of one sort or another where incorrect application of the law has been questioned and found to be in error. I'm not saying I know I'm right, just that I know that sometimes I have been - despite their protests and useless Defences. I also know that County Court doesn't set any precedence, and that a successful Claim against a miscreant authority doesn't stop them doing to others what you've got a judge to make them stop doing to you. I also appreciate that you'd stand little chance in a Magistrates' Court of getting a not guilty verdict if they summonsed you, but I don't see that that would necessarily stop a civil claim for them doing so.
  2. Thanks for that. Though I'm still wondering when the provision that it is recoverable as a civil debt kicks in if you still dispute the facts after 21 days. If it says the amount of the PFN is recoverable that way, and if attempt at recovery has been the process even after the 21 days, thus showing an intention to collect via the civil process, then when does it become criminal? Is it the case that the civil procedure is never used? That would be of interest - because: why not? it would at least seem questionable if the civil recovery process was never used, despite it being the prescribed way to obtain payment. I think that IPFAS saying that an 'outright' refusal to pay could be considered to be avoidance of a fare does mean something - it implies that not simply refusing to pay won't be considered as intention to avoid a fare.
  3. Yes, still hypothetical as far as the queries go about not paying the admin fees and if you would be liable to arrest for staying silent when questioned.
  4. Even if it was solicited? £19 would be unsolicited. Non-payment of the admin fees isn't unsolicited because RPSS's fees are their problem - nobody has the right to prosecute on account of failure to pay the debt collector. Hard to prove that they did it over that if they did prosecute afterwards of course. but it's surely against the spirit of the PFN scheme.
  5. All taken on board - but where does that leave the civil process? The amount should be recovered as a civil debt, say the rules, so if you dispute their side of the story then it's an argument for the County Court to hear, I would have thought. Is that not compliance with the terms? I completely get that they can choose how to deal with it, but if all along they insist on you paying, and you dispute it, and then decide to prosecute simply because you disagree with the facts, then that's just not right. If you had committed an offence they should have accused you of it to start with, not because you disputed the validity of the PFN. A claim for damages in the County Court due to malicious prosecution springs to mind. IPFAS themselves state that the PFN isn't an implication of any offence being committed. All parties are entitled to, and should, abide by the Rules under which the PFN was issued - I believe that only an outright refusal to pay, or ignoring all correspondence should lead to prosecution. I could be totally misunderstanding, I know, but that's my reading of the applicable Rules. I don't dispute what they can do, but do dispute the correctness of it in light of what the Rules actually say about recovery of such a civil debt - if that is all that is alleged to be the issue.
  6. So are you saying that if the PFN was paid, but not the admin fees, that would be reason enough to proceed with prosecution? 1. You pay the ticket plus the fees = no action? 2. You pay only the ticket = criminal proceedings? I understand that criminal prosecution is their choice, but I fail to understand how not paying the admin fees can turn a civil matter into a criminal one. How can you be prosecuted for failing/avoiding to pay when you have actually paid? The admin fees aren't part of any fare, penalty or otherwise, so payment or non-payment of them shouldn't even be a consideration when deciding whether to take action in the Magistrates' Court. I know that they can send you your money back if they choose the criminal route - but are they entitled to do so because you won't pay the admin fees? Non-payment of the PFN can be considered as intention to avoid a fare, but even IPFAS says it needs to be an outright refusal, rather than a reasonable dispute under the rules.
  7. So you refuse to pay advance charges then? Good! Some would disagree, but I believe you have every right to spread the charges out. ST could make a claim for the 'outstanding' amount, but would they win, I wonder? Nice to see someone being non-compliant with requests for settlement of non-debts. My water company 'allowed' me to pay monthly after my refusal to pay 6 months in advance after I invited them to make their threatened claim, and I don't see you coming out of this in a much different position.
  8. I've no doubt you're right on the part about being charged with the higher offence. I'm just wondering what the specifics of the charge would entail, as it's either being on a penalty fare train or in a penalty fare zone - and if no evidence shows a presence on a penalty fare train or in a penalty fare area, then is silence alone to be taken as evidence of guilt? I'm interested in the facts that would be presented before a court that would go towards proving an offence. And also if arrest is possible for refusal to give any information beyond your details. A Defence actually could be presented, depending on what the summons alleged. if the summons provided incorrect facts the charge wouldn't stand. This does happen when incompetent staff are involved, which is increasingly the case with officialdom. Not sure what you mean - the question was whether RPSS ever pursue their admin charges. The answer would obviously depend on a passenger paying the PFN but not the fees of RPSS, so the question presupposes that course of action having being taken before. Not sure if anyone would bother but there does seem room for dispute in some, maybe all circumstances as regards the implementation of administration fees. Undergoing wholesale refurbishment at the moment - still only half completed. Very few signs and not displayed as per SRA Rule 4. Taking into account that, 'The Revenue Collection Officer actually said that the passenger had lost their right of appeal due to not signing the PFN', and that the passenger walked away only after the end of the encounter, it was unlikely that any amount of hanging about would have resulted in the passenger being verbally advised of their right to appeal, as required by Rule 8.
  9. Hi. I have been looking into the SRA Rules, Railway By-laws and a friend's Penalty Fare Notice. One or two things aren't covered, as far as I can tell, so I thought I'd see if anyone on here might have an opinion or some references to legislation. My friend doesn't need advice on how to deal with the PFN, this is simply a theoretical exercise to round off my understanding of the possible consequences of two scenarios: 1. A passenger without a valid ticket is stopped by a revenue collector upon attempting to leave a station. Upon questioning, the passenger provides their name and address, but refuses to comment further. What might happen? I understand that refusal to supply details of the journey taken may be detrimental to a defence, but on the other hand can any journey be proven to have taken place without the passenger's admittance? Would you be liable to on-the-spot arrest for fare evasion? 2. A PFN is appealed, but by then RPSS, on behalf of LM, wants a £20, then a £40 administration charge just for the privilege of the passenger having to await and then dispute the unfavourable Appeal Decision. If the PFN is then paid, there will be no chance of prosecution, I assume (as the only unpaid fare was the Penalty Fare), and so if RPSS want their charges paid they would have to make a civil claim for the admin fees alone. Do they actually ever do that? It could be argued that collection should have been put on hold whilst the PFN was under appeal, or until at least a few days after the Appeal Decision, as opposed to jumping in straight away with added charges at the same time the Decision was notified. The amount of the fees could be disputed, I would think, as £20 per standard form letter is obviously a lot more than the admin costs would actually amount to. The PFN was, and is, if they carry on, being fought on three points, FYI, which were lack of Warning Notices at New Street, failure to give the passenger a copy of the PFN (they could and should have posted it after the passenger walked off without taking it according to my interpretation of the Regulations, 'give' being held to its dictionary definition in the absence of a specific meaning in the legislation) and failure to advise the passenger of their right to appeal the PFN. The Revenue Collection Officer actually said that the passenger had lost their right of appeal due to not signing the PFN (which isn't a requirement, nor is giving them your DOB, BTW).
×
×
  • Create New...