Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

London Underground


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4493 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 533
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Everyone. I have a question and would be grateful if someone could help me.

 

An year ago, I was caught by some ticket inspectors for travelling on a bus without a ticket or an oyster card. I didn't want to give my name and address details to the inspector because I was worried about a criminal record, so I started to make up my address. They didn't believe me, and hence they forced me to give my bag, in which they found my NHS card, with my correct contact details. They recorded these details and gave me a small receipt (which I have now lost). They also gave me the penalty fare details, so i paid the 25 pounds penalty fare on the same day online.

 

I am now applying for jobs. My question is that, if employers conducted background checks on me, will they be able to trace both the 'penalty fare' and the 'bag search' that was conducted? My main worry is that, since I did not give the correct details to the ticket inspectors upon being questioned, I was given 'an additional piece of paper' (which I can only assume to be a receipt for the "search" they conducted), and whether this will show up on any background checks that my potential employers will conduct?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

PS: Note that I did not receive any letters in the post regarding this incident afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone. I have a question and would be grateful if someone could help me.

 

An year ago, I was caught by some ticket inspectors for travelling on a bus without a ticket or an oyster card. I didn't want to give my name and address details to the inspector because I was worried about a criminal record, so I started to make up my address. They didn't believe me, and hence they forced me to give my bag, in which they found my NHS card, with my correct contact details. They recorded these details and gave me a small receipt (which I have now lost). They also gave me the penalty fare details, so i paid the 25 pounds penalty fare on the same day online.

 

I am now applying for jobs. My question is that, if employers conducted background checks on me, will they be able to trace both the 'penalty fare' and the 'bag search' that was conducted? My main worry is that, since I did not give the correct details to the ticket inspectors upon being questioned, I was given 'an additional piece of paper' (which I can only assume to be a receipt for the "search" they conducted), and whether this will show up on any background checks that my potential employers will conduct?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

PS: Note that I did not receive any letters in the post regarding this incident afterwards.

As Wriggler said, the matter is now resolved and you have not got a criminal conviction, so it wont affect any job you apply for. You were luck though, because you giving false details was more than likely an offence under TfL's byelaws on the buses, as was the travelling with no ticket, so you could have been visiting a Magistrate!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses. Yes I am aware that I was very lucky because what I did was unacceptable and I have learned from my mistake.

 

Are you guys definitely sure though that the ''bag search'' that was conducted is not recorded on the Police Records?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses. Yes I am aware that I was very lucky because what I did was unacceptable and I have learned from my mistake.

 

Are you guys definitely sure though that the ''bag search'' that was conducted is not recorded on the Police Records?

Obviously the bag search was done by a Police Officer, and as such a form would have been filled out. This is kept for 12-months, but only as a record of the search, and nothing will be shown on any CRB checks etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 5,3,a requires the prosecution to prove that you travelled by train, without previously paying the fare and with intent to avoid paying. Well eventhough i had my brothers oyster card.. I had enough money on my student oyster card which was enough for me to get to my destination.

 

To prove 'intent not to pay' the prosecutor needs to satisfy the Magistrates that you knew a fare was due, had not paid it and intended not to pay unless you were asked to do so.

 

Your comment about having a pre-pay Oyster in your pocket with sufficient funds held on it is not an absolute defence as you seem to suggest.

 

The shop-lifter who takes a bottle of Whiskey off the display and walks out of the shop intending to leave without paying may well have sufficient cash, or a Debit or Credit Card in his pocket, but he hasn't met the obligation to pay.

 

A pre-pay Oyster card is NOT a rail ticket. It is best described as an 'electronic purse'. A means of carrying credit in order to pay a rail or bus fare and must be touched in before travelling in order to be accepted as valid.

 

Wriggler7 and I often agree on the best recommendation here and I can see why he would be happy to defend the allegation. As he has said, he would be getting paid win or lose.

 

However, based on only what you have said here, I again agree with Wriggler7 and if I were the prosecutor it is quite likely that I would charge with the strict liability Byelaw offence only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Old Codja and I agree rather a lot, it is probably because what we all want to see is the 'right thing done'.

 

It isn't always, there will always be 'miscarriages of justice', and some of the worst criminals will 'get lucky' at Court.

 

There are times when I really do not like the 'instructions' that I am given, and I give the best advice that I am capable of, which is not always correct, but I try.

 

Perhaps this morning, a much better judge of what is right and wrong will have indicated a verdict, and there will be some people waking up to find spaces under the tree to reflect their naughtiness over the past year.

 

Merry Christmas to all of you, and it is my hope that you all have a wonderful, and righteous, new year.

 

If some of you do not like ticket Inspectors or railway prosecutors, the best way to 'get back at them' is to always buy the right ticket before getting on the train, allow them all to be made redundant. I, for one, look forward to the day that my telephone stops ringing, and I can wander into a police station and be told 'no one has done anything wrong, you can go home'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wriggler7, I'd like to second all of that.

 

One of the things I've always tried to instil in training new inspectors is how important it is to deal with each individual fairly and to remember that the ways of the world really does mean that 'you'll never run out of stock in this business'.

 

I'm at that end of the job that now has me thinking just how nice it would be to see a desk with no prosecution cases pending.

 

I'd like to add my good wishes for a Happy Christmas and a healthy & prosperous New Year to you and all the vast majority of people who do try to do their best in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you intend to 'mention' drunkenness, I think you should explain a reason why you were drunk, but only if it is a reason that will seem 'good'. In one of the areas where I work, drunkenness is seen by the local press and Council as a plague that needs to be eradicated. This is one of those cases where if you do seek legal advice, you need a 'local' criminal defence solicitor who will have a good idea about how your local Magistrates are likely to react. He might suggest that your 'mitigation' uses the angle that the volume that you had drunk was the problem, and that you couldn't 'hold on', rather than that the alcohol blurred your judgement, and in an intoxicated state, you just chose to pee.

 

If you have nothing better to do, read the case of Regina V Majewski. Strangely, I did meet Majewski, many years ago. (Only 'met', not a friend)

 

CCTV is likely to only be viewed fully in a 'not guilty' plea and subsequent trial. Frankly, unless you pee on the camera, it is quite likely to only show that you were there, how long you were facing the wall. Without reading the witness statement, we are not able to comment on the 'quality' of the evidence, but I doubt if a Crown Prosecutor would 'run' with the case unless the evidence is all there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wriggler

 

Yes I am sending the form with the apology letter and proof of earnings (pay slips)

 

re drunk

The truth is I had a drink too many but have had a drink too many on occasion and never done anything like that. I had been dieing to pee on the tube and do have bladder issues (bit embarassing but I do go a lot).My letter so far does not mention drunkeness but my concern there is that the magistrate may say 'if you were not drunk why do it'. So should I mention this or not ?

catch 22 as far as I see it.

and as I am asking for the case to be dealt with in my absence and I just say 'moment of madness I couldnt hold on' how likely is it the magistrate will say 'I need to clarify with this man' , adjourn and get me into the courtroom'?

 

Hope you are still online as sending off my paperwork this morning

Link to post
Share on other sites

have just briefly read Regina V Majewski , interesting but bit heavy for me right now.

 

quick question - is my admission of guilt a gurantee I will be found guilty?

 

Re: R v Majewski & also R v Quick, these are matters that questioned whether means rea was present, they have no impact in relation to a byelaw offence as mens rea is not required.

 

A written plea of guilt will be rejected by the court if you do not appear to accept your guilt in any mitigation you give & appear to be pleading guilty for 'convienience'.

 

Am I right in assuming that you were drunk, went to the ladies loo by accident & pee'd over the floor? I am suprised the CPS proceeded to charge on this & did not recommend a caution.

Unless of course there is more to the incident than we are aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: R v Majewski & also R v Quick, these are matters that questioned whether means rea was present, they have no impact in relation to a byelaw offence as mens rea is not required.

 

A written plea of guilt will be rejected by the court if you do not appear to accept your guilt in any mitigation you give & appear to be pleading guilty for 'convienience'.

 

Am I right in assuming that you were drunk, went to the ladies loo by accident & pee'd over the floor? I am suprised the CPS proceeded to charge on this & did not recommend a caution.

Unless of course there is more to the incident than we are aware of.

 

I had been drinking yes but not particularly more than usual and yes I did pee in ladies toilet

 

I received a caution at the time so says officers statement

 

There is the usual questions did you do it etc I denied at time but said sorry

 

I have now written letter apologisng to all involved and advising that I had been dieing for wee on tube and ran to toilet in station but didn't make and through impaired judgement did the deed

 

I have asked the court to deal in my absence

 

You are saying this will be rejected? If so I will have to get off work somehow and maybe go anyway

 

Opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts too SRPO

 

More like what ? There is honestly no mention of anything more.

 

Why would I decieve

 

'Soiling rail property' that is charge honestly

 

Are you suggesting there may be a suprise for me in court ? Surely it is based on the documentation and statements you receive and in that respect I have been honest about everything

Link to post
Share on other sites

More like what ? There is honestly no mention of anything more.

 

Why would I decieve

 

'Soiling rail property' that is charge honestly

 

Are you suggesting there may be a suprise for me in court ? Surely it is based on the documentation and statements you receive and in that respect I have been honest about everything

 

And why recommend a caution if I have already received one on the night?

 

I am very worried and confused now

Link to post
Share on other sites

The paperwork is prepared after the event and no-one doubts that what you have described having received and what you have been charged with is an accurate description

 

The decision as to whether any matter should proceed to issue of a Summons or not will have been based on the evidence and report of what happened at the time of the incident.

 

I haven't seen that report / statement or any of the first hand evidence and therefore will not comment on why the CPS considered the case warrants prosecution, but I do suggest they must have thought that there is very good reason to have gone that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow I cant get my head around this. Lastly OLD_Codja as its NYE Ill leave you too it, but I am now wondering if my letter of apology and request of absteeism was such a good idea, it is def heartfelt I just hope it is viewed that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get confused with 'cautions'. There is the 'caution' that an officer/inspector/investigator is required to give to warn a potential defendant that the questions and answers that are about to happen are going to form part of 'evidence', and then there is the 'Caution' administerd by 'police' to close a case without it going to Court. Such cautions are normally done by officers of Inspector rank, at a Police station, long after the event, and after a decision has been made regarding suitable disposal of the case.

 

Folk are correct to point out that there is no need for prosecution to prove 'mens rea' (guilty mind, or guilty intent depending what school you went to) in a byelaw offence. However, drunkenness as a defence or a mitigation is often 'iffy', it can make the Court see the offence as 'worse', it might not, hence my suggestion for taking advice from a 'local' man.

 

CPS have processes to go through before deciding whether a case is 'in the public interest'. However, there will always be parts of a case which will only seem clear to the prosecutor that made the decision. It may even be that the 'location' has particular problems, and there was pressure for the matter to go to court. We can all speculate, truth is, 'we' don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very clear explanation by Wriggler7 and exactly why I would not attempt to speculate further.

 

I take the point that some Courts may view drunkeness in a dim light, though if you have made up your mind that you accept you are guilty, I don't think you can do yourself any harm by saying sorry and asking the Court to deal with it in your absence as you say you intend to.

 

The only thing that you could do to improve things for yourself is to go to Court and say sorry in person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am surprised the CPS chose to run with this one, and the Police didn't offer an official caution, although given you were drunk, you might have had to been arrested to implement this...Same goes for a Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND - £80), although you'd have had to have been in clear public view for the latter to be implemented, as the Public Order Act would be used, also would need arresting or for the officer to visit you when you were sober. From what I gather, although the toilet was not meant for Gentlemen, surely the fact that you urinated in a Toilet, regardless of for whom it was intended, you didn't soil railway property, as the toilet is designated for this very use...

 

Unless of course you missed the toilet on account of you being elephant's.... ;)

Edited by Stigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4493 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...