Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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 
        • 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

Court summons - S.5.3(a) regulation of railways act 1889


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5210 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

My son has been presented with a magistrates court summons for fare evasion back in September.

 

Background......

 

Ticket purchased by 'friend' (use the term loosely) prior to boarding train.

 

They proceeded to have a heated discussion on journey home, 'friend' decided to leave son on arrival destination and sauntered off - ticket still in back pocket.

 

Son has attempted to explain himself on arrival but not very articulate.

 

Questioned by Railway enforcement officer...... extract of text in statement.

 

REO - 'Do you have valid ticket for journey?'

 

Son - 'No, its not in my possession'

 

REO - 'I suggest it was your intent to avoid the fare'

 

Son - 'No'

 

REO - 'I Suggest it was your intention to board the service knowing you had no means to pay'

 

Son - 'I had no means to pay, that is why my friend purchased the ticket'

 

REO - 'Do you have any proof of fare purchase?'

 

Son - 'No'

 

REO - 'Your friend has just departed the station without you, is that correct?'

 

Son - 'Yes'

 

Followed by signing notebook, reporting etc

 

3 weeks later received request for confirmation of details and notice of intent to issue PF.

 

Son responded agreeing to meet all reasonable costs and would await PF notice (hasnt kept a copy argggggghhh). I in the meantime had a 'chat' with his friend who agreed to pay any penalty imposed on sons behalf.

 

Yesterday morning received summons for court for 14th December under S.5.3(a)

 

Cannot afford legal help for him and he's just got a job (starts monday) after a year of claiming JSA. Not brilliant money 20hours a week at minimum wage.

 

Have spoken to Prosecutions office who deny receipting earlier response and state that they wish to proceed with prosecution - seems a slightly vindictive action but I suppose they see thousands of such cases every year.

 

Friend will not write statement for court as he feels he may then be prosecuted for wasting the courts time as he did not come forward earlier??

 

Is there any point in defending such an action or is travelling without a ticket in possession indefensible?

 

They are claiming fare of £1.80 + £125.00 contribution + any court costs imposed.

 

For the record, he has never been in trouble before...... not a blemish on his school records or since in adult life (just turned 18 )

 

Thanks

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll let SRPO and old codja comment on that actuals but i wonder if the existance of the valid unused ticket might well help.

ok he got on the train knowing he had no ticket so that might be blown right out the water by doing that, but atleast the journey WAS paid for in a round about way.

 

if not reclaim the unused ticket....!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx

 

The little git binned the ticket, don't think they spoke for a good couple of weeks afterwards so any defence would be based on hearsay evidence and convincing him that he would be doing the right thing by acting as witness at hearing....... although having read some bad experiences of court hearings in the past you have to wonder if magistrates live in the real world, have a feeling most would be looking for an easy guilty plea and an early finish.

 

Having thought about it I actually worked with someone who passed as magistrate and he was known to most of us as Tommy the grapefruit (rhymes with lagger), bored one out on a night shift and was 'allegedly' spotted by a security guard. Became the talk of the town for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aw!! bummer........

 

dont think you've too much to worry about really

i take it you have done a bit of reading here?

my take on it is to grovel and it should turn out ok with no bad record.

 

good luck

 

one or the other will be on tomorrow i'm sure

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son has been presented with a magistrates court summons for fare evasion back in September.

 

Background......

 

Ticket purchased by 'friend' (use the term loosely) prior to boarding train.

 

They proceeded to have a heated discussion on journey home, 'friend' decided to leave son on arrival destination and sauntered off - ticket still in back pocket.

 

Son has attempted to explain himself on arrival but not very articulate.

 

Questioned by Railway enforcement officer...... extract of text in statement.

 

REO - 'Do you have valid ticket for journey?'

 

Son - 'No, its not in my possession'

 

REO - 'I suggest it was your intent to avoid the fare'

 

Son - 'No'

 

REO - 'I Suggest it was your intention to board the service knowing you had no means to pay'

 

Son - 'I had no means to pay, that is why my friend purchased the ticket'

 

REO - 'Do you have any proof of fare purchase?'

 

Son - 'No'

 

REO - 'Your friend has just departed the station without you, is that correct?'

 

Son - 'Yes'

 

Followed by signing notebook, reporting etc

 

3 weeks later received request for confirmation of details and notice of intent to issue PF.

 

Son responded agreeing to meet all reasonable costs and would await PF notice (hasnt kept a copy argggggghhh). I in the meantime had a 'chat' with his friend who agreed to pay any penalty imposed on sons behalf.

 

Yesterday morning received summons for court for 14th December under S.5.3(a)

 

Cannot afford legal help for him and he's just got a job (starts monday) after a year of claiming JSA. Not brilliant money 20hours a week at minimum wage.

 

Have spoken to Prosecutions office who deny receipting earlier response and state that they wish to proceed with prosecution - seems a slightly vindictive action but I suppose they see thousands of such cases every year.

 

Friend will not write statement for court as he feels he may then be prosecuted for wasting the courts time as he did not come forward earlier??

 

Is there any point in defending such an action or is travelling without a ticket in possession indefensible?

 

They are claiming fare of £1.80 + £125.00 contribution + any court costs imposed.

 

For the record, he has never been in trouble before...... not a blemish on his school records or since in adult life (just turned 18 )

 

Thanks

 

Gez

 

 

Sadly, I cannot give you the answer that you perhaps hope for here.

 

'My friend has my ticket' or, 'My friend is going to meet me to pay the fare at the other end' are two of the most common excuses that Inspectors hear every day when encountering travellers without a ticket.

 

It is worth a look at the actual Act for guidance here:

 

Section 5 (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 the case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

Your son is in breach of the Act, because he has failed to show a valid ticket and did fail to pay the fare, but has complied with the legitimate request for his name and address

 

Section 5 (3) (a) If any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

Again, your son may be considered to be in breach of the Act here.

 

Any person who has neither a valid ticket showing that the fare is paid or means to pay if facilities were not availabe to get one before travelling has no right to board any train. I understand the suggestion that his friend had it, but there was no evidence of this for the REO to take into consideration.

 

When questioned your son could not show a ticket and could not pay the fare due. He admitted both these points at the time of the ticket check.

 

It has been ruled that a person cannot give what he doesn't have available to give and commits the offence by default. He had no ticket and no means to pay and no evidence that his fare had been paid.

 

A ticket that is not present at the time of the ticket check cannot be accepted as valid for any journey for a variety of reasons.

 

Not least of these is the fact that any ticket produced later could be a ticket that had been used by someone else. For that reason alone it can be rejected (although in the case of a season ticket left at home a different view may prevail where it is shown to be valid and the photocard is held.)

 

In this case there is no evidence that any fare had been paid.

 

Your sons' best chance was for the 'errant friend' to write a statement explaining what happend and attach BOTH TICKETS to it showing that the fares had been paid prior to travel. (all tickets have the place & time of issue coded on them.)

 

This might have given a little hope, but as you say he has disposed of them and refuses to provide an alibi for your son I cannot offer much likelihood of success.

 

Your son could put the explanation to the Magistrates in mitigation, but I have to say that the 'my friend had my ticket' is such a well-worn story, it may not stand much chance of success I'm afraid.

 

I am rather surprised by the claim that your son had received a postal notice stating that a Penalty Fare notice was to be issued retrospectively.

 

Penalty Fare Notices have to be issued by a specifically authorised person at the time of any incident and the traveller is given 21 days to pay or appeal liability in writing.

 

This is a case of a report of 'attempted fare evasion', which is much more serious and Penalty Fare Notices are not used to report these matters as evidenced by the interview under caution referrred to in your original posting.

 

With no previous history of offending, your son should write requesting an opportunity to settle the case administratively by paying the fare and the costs incurred by the company in dealing with the case.

 

You cannot do this on his behalf as he is over 18, but you can of course write any request for him to sign if he so wishes.

 

The rail company do not have to agree, but it's worth a try.

Edited by Old-CodJA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Old-codJA

 

Thanks for the input, to be honest its pretty much what I expected. There are well worn excuses in every service or trade and to be fair I tend to tar everybody with the same brush in my line of work so can see why the railways and the courts are no different in this respect. Does present as a dilemma when its a genuine case though.

 

He has previously offered to meet all costs so I guess 1 more attempt at that wouldnt do any harm. Having read the previous correspondence from south eastern it clearly stated that they would issue PF on receipt of response.... just wish he'd kept a copy, although having thought further they must have receipted this as it requested his N.I number which now appears on their statement of evidence.

 

Given the above they have an admittance by default (ticket not in possession at time of travel) plus a second admittance agreeing to meet costs if/when issued.

 

He has 7 (now 5) days only to respond to the court, do we acknowledge with mitigation and advise we are in correspondence with railway? Really doesnt give much time to try to come to an agreement, I assume any offer would have to be in writing and the court would need to be aware they we have attempted to reach settlement before encumbering their valuable time?

 

Thanks again

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be advisable to send your out of court offer via special delivery, which is recorded and will be there the next day.

 

best of luck

Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arghhhhhhhhhhh, phoned prosecutions office Monday morning, agreed fee of £126.80 sent next day. Phoned the court today, proceedings discontinued........ all things considered a reasonable result and the little git will be paying dad back.

 

Just got in from work and 'friends' mum rings. Tells me how sorry she is that son got messed around by her boy and then proceeds to tell me she purchased the tickets for them and still has the receipt from her credit card and the ticket receipt.

 

Typical kids, half a story...... apparently she'd dropped them off in town whilst she went shopping, they (being the teenage idiots that they are) drove her to despair so she dumped them at the station on the way back and got them a ticket each to make their own way home.

 

She's now busy writing to the Prosecutions office to see if they'll relent on any or all of the fee and requesting CCTV of ticket office for time and date. Don't honestly hold out much hope but will wait and see what she can come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Meant to update this the other day and ermmmmm......forgot

 

South Eastern have relented and sent cheque back.

 

Strongly worded but somehow polite letter (guess they have dopey kids too) enclosed advising that after due consideration and as an exceptional gesture of goodwill they will not be requiring payment in the absence of any judgement and find the matter concluded with the evidence presented by Mrs C...........

 

They do however go on to quote Byelaws and a gentle reminder that son would have been best served by buying his own ticket for travel.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good result, congratulations.

 

Thanks O-C

 

Have decidely kicked idiot sons butt though........

 

If nothing else it should remind him to be more sensible in the future

 

Cheers

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow..so they are human after all ! :)

 

Lol...... wouldnt go that far :D

 

To be fair I did ring them to check (the details not the humanity thing lol) and the young lady was very pleasant and understanding on the phone.

 

Guess its not just me with stupid kids

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done everyone

 

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...