Jump to content

Ruleoflaw

Registered.
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-142

About Ruleoflaw

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The vehicle owner where he proves title has in law what is called legal ownership, whereas in the courts the enforcement agent may have what is called 'equitable ownership.' Legal ownership is watertight whereas equitable ownership is merely discretionary. So, ownership can be legal or equitable, ie where one has the legal the other may have the equitable interest.
  2. I'll answer (if I may, HB), it's only relevant Bazza if I were to proceed with the legal practice course or go down the Legal Executive route. The point is I have studied the 7 (foundation) subjects of the LLB law degree course (which is transferrable to the USA; Canada; Australia; Hong Kong at least, as they're common law countries), whether I hold the piece of paper or not is irrelevant to this forum, and avoiding the question does not meant I do not hold the piece of paper - I just think it's an irrelevant question. I still possess sufficient knowledge of law through completion of this professional course entailing the completion of several LLB law modules. Notwithstanding I completed commercial law (well, commercial transactions: law and practice). The LLB modules are the professional standard of law immediately prior to a Legal Practice Course. I also hold an Open University degree in general. True, but given the OP had a child's ticket, and hasn't said "here's my explanation for how", it seems likely they were fare evading, or they'd have told us!. You are the one who "just haven't grasped" it. TfL don't have the power to convict, they have the power to prosecute. Yet, if they choose to prosecute, they'll likely get a conviction. If the OP is convicted the total cost to them will likely be greater than
  3. If the debts have not been advertised in the London Gazette, although in theory they should die the creditor may try and claim the amount. This law comes from the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The fact the debts were in not in both names (joint and severally liable) should mean any claims should fail.
  4. In theory, debts when the person dies should no longer form part of his/ her estate (whatever remains from the dead person), however, it still could lead to claims again the estate. It's a lot of money, ie 36k so the creditor may try to claim it as a debt. However, as it's not joint debt (ie not joint and severally liable), any claim attempts are not likely to succeed. If there is a Will and the Executor (legal way of distributing estate) is appointed but he/ she has not placed in the London Gazette for any debtors to come forward, it 'could' lead to claims against any beneficiaries. This law is the Administration of Estates Act 1925
  5. The NoE is the procedure under the law for enforcement. At this point there is no enforcement save notice of the enforcement. So, this I believe would be at the compliance stage, ie writing the letter for the NoE, up to the point of attendance at the address at which point (rather unfairly in my view) the enforcement stage commences. Title (legal ownership) to a vehicle whether the vehicle was acquired before or during enforcement does not alter the legal view of title - ownership is ownership, so the V5C were it to prove ownership should be a legally binding at the enforcement stage or the compliance stage.
  6. Well, whatever problem the claimant/ victim is plagued with is the consequence the tort-feasor is liable for (under the egg-shell rule, ie meaning 'fragile' so be careful with the victim). So, if the OP has a certain psychiatric condition then the tort-feasor is liable for worsening that condition. The evidence indicates the harm, ie medical practitioner perhaps a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or significant GP notes, albeit it must be a recognised medical condition, ie stress is not sufficient but PTSD is.
  7. Oh I understand, but you seemingly have a conservative view of criminal law. Incidentally, when did you study criminal law? When did you do essays on strict liability even though I had to explain to you what strict liability was. The truth is that the only losses that TFL could claim for is the price of the ticket because Tort only relates to 'actual loss', which is the difference between the child fare and the actual fair paid on the facts. So, it doesn't leave a good claim for TFL, so they threaten or allude that the OP will get a criminal record if they don't pay the £254. I think you'd make for a great prosecution but a devastatingly poor defence lawyer. It may well be the case that the OP has to bite the proverbial bullet and pay up, but the matter should be considered from both angles, which incidentally is what criminal law teaches, ie the position of the prosecution (the state) versus the defence. Understanding Tort and Criminal law at degree level helps to look at things more fairly.
  8. It is a professional course so it meets the professional and practical standards of criminal law, before doing a practice course per se. Making a grovelling apology is called 'circumstantial' - we don't know whether the questions I considered have been asked. In any event, what you're not grasping is the point that the TFL do not have the power of the courts to make a conviction; that they are threatening the OP with a fine or pay £254. Even the first level of fine is £200 and that's for not having a ticket at all. The Op had a ticket just had the wrong ticket so it cannot be as serious an offence of not having a ticket. Imagine if the prosecution could threaten a person who is the defendant to a murder charge who states, if you pay our client's estate damages for the deceased's pain and suffering prior to their death (ie damages for pain and suffering in Tort) then we'll drop the murder charge and accept a manslaughter defence, this is the same as what TFL are doing albeit the offence is fare evasion and not common law murder.
  9. Legal title/ ownership is valid where a transfer of the vehicle comes from its legitimate owner, in terms of commercial law anyway. A V5C should be sufficient to prove ownership therefore based commercial law if it were transferred from its legal owner.
  10. The barrister should have included his client's costs in the summary of overall costs, as the barrister had taken over 2 years after the OP started his case. The barrister appears to be negligent so his client can possibly claim for 'worsening his existing PTSD injuries (the tort-feasor takes his victim as he finds him). The barrister will have insurance to defend the claim too, so in principal a claim against his lawyer is at least possible.
  11. Hmm, you're right Bazza. We need do know more about the OP's mental disposition, ie were there forces affecting their person that made it difficult telling the other driver's (third party's) ID, which may provide at least a basic defence.
  12. I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act). NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.
  13. Simeon I completed a tort course at law degree level with the Open University, which covers PTSD and all tort (remedy for civil wrong). You say you were diagnosed, by whom and did the person who gave you a diagnosis provide specific detail on your actual suffering relating it to the defendant's tort (civil wrong against you), and how long you were likely to be affected. What evidence do you have that you have PTSD, for instance what information did your medical professional provide in their medical report, all these things are pertinent to valuing a claim for PTSD, besides satisfying the law for PTSD claims.
  14. Hello, Gigi I suppose it comes down to where you were married, if married in Scotland, it's Scottish law, or married in France, French law. I don't know French law or Scottish law, but I do know that English law permits you certain property rights. In England/ Wales, for instance, you can force a sale if the property was jointly owned or force a sale in your own right if the family home were intended for the family. If it's France law, they should have a post divorce law that permits the French courts control the assets. There will be way to do something about this. Hope you find the solution you need.
×
×
  • Create New...