Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ruleoflaw

  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.
  15. The rule is if you win your case - costs follows the event, so any cost detriments the winner should be able to recover all reasonable costs. You had a barrister then you changed your status to 'litigant in person.' Your legal costs should have followed the event, ie claims for legal costs for 2 years prior and costs from when your barrister had taken over up to the point when the event (end of case) was over. You could have a claim against your barrister for negligence as he likely over-valued your case, screwed you as far as your costs go.
  16. There are two issues here - The Magistrates convicts not the TFL; 2) TFL is clearly not interested in prosecuting as it would have done so already. So, in my view, TFL is using its powers like a cash cow. It is potentially an abuse of power, therefore. Criminal Procedure rules 'Over-riding Objective' is to be fair, and in my view, TFL are clearly not being fair. I underlined section 5 (3) because it was the nearest provision I could find. However, the OP paid for their ticket, whereas section 5 (3) states did not pay for their ticket. Under the rules of statutory interpretation the law is read in everyday terms. Thirdly, we do not know if there was 'intent' as this is not a specifically strict liability offence (ie guilty on the act alone, ie the actus reus). Furthermore, Parliament clearly separates any losses which are potentially recoverable (section 5 (4), from 'fine.' In my view, TFL are putting undue pressure on the OP to pay the £254 which does not go to the Magistrates but into their pockets. I think this is a case for the London Mayor or a public authority ombudsman. We need more information, ie what was the entire version of events, for instance, did the OP pay the extra for the ticket when requested to do so? Did the Op offer to pay the difference but the train staff (conductor) didn't accept? Have TFL acted in accordance with Criminal Rules of Procedure October 2015 as amended, probably not, as aforesaid. We need to know why the OP and not her friend, whom being 2 years older, was not formally threatened as the OP was.
  17. Clarion, what law did they use against your friend, ie the section and name of Parliament Act (ie statute). Was this to do with an enforcement police camera?
  18. I believe your friend can make statutory declaration during or after the proceedings for Traffic Offences. Your friend was not driving so she should not plead guilty either. Besides your friend's main defence, her lawyer should concentrate their mitigation for her insofar as the driving licence is necessary to perform her job which without simply stops you from making a living. In addition, the prosecution has actual and or constructive knowledge that your friend was not driving so in any event, there is 'public interest' in any conviction where the lady concerned was/ is a mother who made a mistake by not making a statutory declaration at an earlier time. In addition, the guidance provided by Chief Police officers is that the speed limits permits actual speed& 10% & 2, with further discretionary thresholds as the vehicle's speedometer is not reliable unless calibrate like commercial vehicles: lorries/ coaches etc.
  19. the 1889 act at section 5 doesn't appear to cover the wrong ticket for the distance travelled...just saying "5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.E+W+S+N.I. (1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale] level 2 on the standard scale]]. (2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law. (3)If any person— (a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or (b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or ©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale[level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale][level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months]. (4)The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him. [(5)In this section— (a)“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and (b)“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]"
  20. What happened over the repossession matter, I just scrolled through this thread to see the initial problem. Whose fees/ charges are you talking about?
  21. The only problem with Trump is that he was born, also having foot in mouth syndrome, a bit like our Etonian oaf, Borris. The US system since its health reforms has made the cost of living very high for the average US person, Trump knows this so is like a parasite, politically launching himself off others' misery. I mean who says this, 'they'll let grab their P**** as you're a celebrity. I wanted to F**k her. Many Americans loathe Hillary Clinton. It's a bit like Br-exit here - the average Joe was given a voice and the exceptionally out of touch UK politicians/ Parliament paid for it.
  22. The way I understand law, it's either a criminal matter, ie fine, and or a civil matter, ie usually damages (compensation) for losses. It sounds like to me that there is no prosecution against you, meaning it's a claim for civil damages. It's the police and CPS (the prosecution) incidentally who investigate crimes which lead to conviction and fines. It's the courts (civil) who award compensation (ie you pay X person for Y losses). If you're weren't fined, it means there was no crime committed, so no criminal record unless you accepted a caution by the police at any point. TFL offering you a formal warning unless you pay £254.90, is therefore likely a civil claim, meaning you do not have to pay them.
  23. Unfortunately, we have this democratic concept called 'democracy' meaning people have the right to vote about their interests affecting them, in the referendum. It's clear that many UK citizens - the disaffected - don't care if the country burns, as it were. We simply don't know the impact that Br-exit will have on the long term even though in the short term prices may be slightly higher that normal. So, putting the voting rights in the hands of independent economists, even though economists may have different opinions to others, a bit like lawyers on that front, is but like putting legal rights for citizens in the hands of lawyers who like the economics have vested interests.
  24. You can apply to High Court using form N244 (for its type) to request a financial breakdown of costs, if contacting the principal creditor (main), agent (Bailiff company/ staff: Enforcement Agent) brings you no positive outcome. You could also make an application to transfer the matter to your local County Court.
  • Create New...