Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No you're not doomed. It's a shame you covered up the dates and times on your PCN since they can possibly help your case when they don't comply with the requirements of the rules in private car parks. Could you please therefore include the arrival and departure times as well as the date of the offence and the date on which they alleged they sent you the PCN. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.since the wording should invite the keeper to pay the outstanding amount. Also I cannot see on the PCN that UKPO are the Creditor though I may have missed it since it is so unusual not to include it. The upshot is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge if the driver fails to pay within 28 days-0nly the driver is now liable. As Courts [assuming it gets that far ] do not accept that the driver and the keeper are not the same these rogues will have a hard job who was driving unless you appeal or have appealed and revealed who was driving. You did say that you weren't parked there long and had that been correct you have perhaps 15 minutes where you might have had a further. argument. As it judging by the confusing times mentioned in the wording or the PCN you were there for almost an hour? However as the light was not good and I presume the signs were not illuminated that is a reason that you could not see the sign. And did you have your blue badge showing ? Interestingly the post code quoted does not agree with the Post office one in West houghton= BL5 3JS Are there two different Tesco  car parks in Bolton. You obviously could not be in two places at the same time...............
    • Especially because you have bought the car on finance, there is probably quite a lot that you can do although it sounds as if you are maybe taking the appropriate steps anyway. However you need to give as much more information. We need to know – the name of the dealer details of the vehicle, make, model, mileage, age, price paid – 70 8K? The name of the finance company – and some dates. Date purchased, the date that you have logged this with the FOS and I'm sure there will be other questions. I suppose that you don't understand your consumer rights very well because issues like the sunroof et cetera should have been repaired by the dealership and there was no need for you to spend your own money on this. On the basis of what you have told us, I would suggest that eventually should be up to recover all of your money plus the expenses you have incurred in carrying out repairs. And in fact – you could also list out the faults which have manifested themselves so far and the money you have spent on correcting those. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality remains that way for a reasonable period of time. At £78,000 I wouldn't expect any serious issues to manifest themselves in this vehicle for quite a few years. Tell us also about the £2400 inspection that you have had carried out. Were you advised to do this? To do this of your own initiative? Who carried it out? That lot for a start
    • Hi Dx, I am hoping you have had an opportunity to skim through this thread. Please may I give it a humble bump for your consideration. My last date to present a WS is Wednesday the 17th. Many thanks and kind regards 🙏  
    • Hello I've got a parking ticket, see here... https://ibb.co/DfHqg9F https://ibb.co/QvqH52m https://ibb.co/pbPPdDg https://ibb.co/X2F1X25 I've been parking at a particular corner in a small Tesco car park for years. Recently they put two electric charging plugs, one where that spot is and one at the bay next door, so I stopped using them out of courtesy in case they need to be used (I use that Tesco every day and drive past every day but have yet to see anyone use them). Recently I went back to Tesco when it was reasonably dark. All the bays were full, including the three blue badge bays. I have one but none of the cars parked in the bays did, I noticed as I walked past them (nobody ever gets pulled for that because Tesco have never policed this small car park before). Since there was two free electric bay spaces, and since I wasn't going to be long (just one product), I parked into my former 'regular' spot. There was a notice on the wall but if I'm honest I didn't read it because (a) I'm thick, and (b) I honestly thought it was just telling people how to use the device (like I said, I'm thick) rather than this being a parking fine. I went back during daylight and the sign is very obvious (as you can see from the picture), although not so obvious at night, although probably still obvious enough for you to tell me "tough luck, pal". Now they want £100 or £60 if I pay quickly. Am I doomed?
    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
  • 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

caught by SWT - lied to inspector.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4942 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

On another SWT incident; recently I was travelling from Claygate to Teddington at 6.30am. I got on the train without a ticket as I was seconds from missing my train. There are only 2 per hour so could not afford to miss it. When I changed at Wimbledon, I had to switch platforms. It was while switching platforms that I was stopped by SWT employees asking people for their tickets. It was here that I said I had put my ticket in the train bin and was about to use the underground district line. I tried to get out of this situation as quickly as possible as I always, bar this occasion buy tickets for the train. I planned on buying one on the train to Teddington. However, after being questioned about where I had purchased my ticket at Claygate and method of payment, I realized that I was probably getting myself into more trouble than it was worth. I had actually lied to the guard. I had NOT put my ticket in the bin, as I never bought a ticket. I subsequently told him the correct story which was that I was about to miss the train and had to jump on at Claygate. The reason I lied was because I was in a situation that I have never been in before. I always pay, and all I wanted to know then was to get out the situation and continue my journey to Teddington, with every intention of purchasing a ticket. He wrote everything in his notepad and asked me to sign it. He gave me a ticket and off I went. He said I would receive a letter in a few weeks with a plan of action.

 

Now my question is, shall I get hold of the SWT team and further explain my situation? I can prove I always purchase tickets from South West Trains.

 

I was notified that I would receive a letter with either a fine or a summons? What can I expect? I was not trying to avoid paying a fare however my story where I lied, I do not think will help matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to be blunt I'm afraid, you say 'I was not trying to avoid paying a fare', but any Court will be told that when asked for your ticket, you said that you had 'thrown it in the bin on the train', you said you 'had paid at Claygate' when you had not.

 

If the inspector had accepted your story, you would not have paid, thus it is clear that you 'lied' as you put it, with the intention of avoiding the liability for your actions.

 

Your best bet is to wait for the letter from the company and then write back immediately with a truthful explanation, apologise profusely, ask if you may be allowed to pay an administrative penalty in order to avoid futher action and then hope that you get a sympathetic response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I lied was to get out of the situation with the inspector.

 

I had every intention of buying a ticket when I was on the train to Teddington. I have prove that I buy tickets in the past. The reason I lied with a story was to get away from the SWT colleague. I felt that had I said I did not have a ticket, then I would have been given a fine of £20. However, if I had managed to get away with him 'buying' my story, then all I would have had to pay would be £3.50 on the train.

 

What I say is true and honest. I have never had a history of avoiding fares and have proof of that with past bank statements. I ended up in a situation which I have never been in before and being late for a meeting, nieve, very early in the morning (which is no excuse) I acted on impulse which on reflection, seems immature of me.

 

What do you think the letter will say? Shall I try and settle out of court? Will the first letter from the SWT just ask me to explain my actions or will it summon we straight away or will it fine me straight up? Can you get back to me if you have a history of working for the SWT or have had similar situations.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JJJulian,

 

You have been very silly and I suggest you follow Old-CodJA's advice.

 

However, I have to say that the rule that you have to necessarily buy a ticket before getting on a train is wrong precisely because of the situation you describe. Why should a law-abiding citizen who has every intention of paying their fare not be able to pay on the train or at their destination? I can completely understand why you didn't immediately go to the barrier and offer to pay the fare because you'd probably have been fined for travelling without a ticket.

 

If you are about to miss a train, why on earth shouldn't you be able to jump on the train and pay the guard on the train or when you reach the end of your journey? This was always acceptable when I used to travel by train (many years ago now, thank heavens). You would just say to the ticket inspector, "Sorry, I couldn't buy a ticket or I'd have missed the train", and he would take the fare from you. No recriminations, and no fines.

 

Yet again, this is a money-making idea which penalises travellers for no good reason. Go for the fare-dodgers by all means, but don't punish the rest of us.

 

Yesterday, we saw in the papers that a traveller had been told he had to pay £155 for getting off his train one stop before his destination because it was late and he decided he wanted to go straight home, rather than travel the full distance (to where he worked) as he had originally intended. Why should that man have gone further than he wanted, only to have to travel back again? Why should he pay for not using the train for the last few miles? Why are we putting up with this? The world has gone crazy. :-x

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

 

I am obviously going to write back as soon as I can and tell them I was naive in lieing. I was not lieing to avoid the fare but trying to avoid the potential penalty.

 

I had every intention to pay the fare. The inspector seemed relatively sympathetic and hope he can help me out.

 

What would an out-of-court settlement be in terms of money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know. You'll have to wait for Old-CodJA as he's up to speed with them.

 

I think they probably stick with certain fines and won't really take into consideration the fact that you were clearly not in the habit of trying to avoid paying your fare. There doesn't seem to be any discretion ever used in situations like this.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old-CodJA , what is your background with SWT? I merely lied to the inspector to get out a fine, not to avoid a train fare? If I settled oout of court etc, what would a standard fine be? £20? Do I get hold of SWT before I get a letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are about to miss a train, why on earth shouldn't you be able to jump on the train and pay the guard on the train or when you reach the end of your journey? This was always acceptable when I used to travel by train (many years ago now, thank heavens). You would just say to the ticket inspector, "Sorry, I couldn't buy a ticket or I'd have missed the train", and he would take the fare from you. No recriminations, and no fines.

 

Yet again, this is a money-making idea which penalises travellers for no good reason. Go for the fare-dodgers by all means, but don't punish the rest of us.

With regard to the first paragraph, how would SWT intend to catch fare evaders if it wasn't for diligent staff using initiative BEFORE the traveller has finiished their journey? You have to think outside the box sometimes, and if we used your scenario, one would just be letting all those in suits go because they SAY they intended to pay their rail fare. How is that fair, when Joe Bloggs who wears jeans and a hoody isn't so lucky? In my experience, those in suits are quite often the real fraudsters!

 

Regarding the second paragraph, lets not forget, the £20 Penalty Fare is to settle byelaw ticketing offences without the need to go to Court (much like Penalty Noticed issued by local Government and Police forces), and not for more serious 5.3(a) or similar offences, whereby intent to defraud has been ascertained!

 

 

Julian, the offer to settle out of court is likely to be in the region of £170 - £200 is memory serves me, depending on your age (if under 18 it's a little different legally), although please don't quote me on that as that's just from past experiences and seems to be the norm! Remember though, SWT are not obliged to settle the matter out of Court, but will receive all of the money if they do so, as opposed to just the costs should you be found guilty at Court. Arguably it's in their interest not to go to court, but different situations warrant different actions. Unfortunately, the fact that you have lots of old tickets says nothing, afteral, you could have got them from a freind!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumping on trains without a ticket is legal in some, rural, places, but most of the railways in the UK require a ticket before boarding. So, for that matter, do airlines, cross channel ferries and so on. The rules, Byelaws and otherwise, have been in place for a very long time.

 

I am obliged to plan my day, and my work, to 'other people's timetables'. If I have a meeting at 10am, I am obliged to work it back to what time I will need to get out of bed. Train times are published. Sorry if I don't sound sympathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stigy,

 

You are totally misunderstanding what I said. Where did I say that 'suits' should be getting away with it? Many years ago I had a client who was a multi-millionaire and he looked like a tramp. I know NOT to judge people by what they are wearing.

 

What I was saying is that I cannot see why someone alighting at a station cannot go to the ticket office and say they were sorry but they (for example) got stuck on the underground and only had two minutes to catch their train, or would have to wait an hour for the next one and therefore they had jumped on intending to pay at the other end, or an inspector on the train if there was one.

 

Surely, before they left the station would count as BEFORE they finished their journey. Unless they are ready to push through the staff, or jump over the barrier, which would be on CCTV so they could be caught, they would still be inside the station and therefore they would not have finished their journey and should still be able to pay without incurring a £20 penalty. Why not?

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stigy,

 

You are totally misunderstanding what I said. Where did I say that 'suits' should be getting away with it? Many years ago I had a client who was a multi-millionaire and he looked like a tramp. I know NOT to judge people by what they are wearing.

 

What I was trying to say was, where do you draw the line? You have to have boundaries in place in order to keep things consistant. If you're allowing one person to board the train without paying beforehand, you have to allow everyone, and where passenger number 1 might well approach the Guard or go to the ticket office when alighting the train, passenger 2 might have different ideas...Everyday.

 

What I was saying is that I cannot see why someone alighting at a station cannot go to the ticket office and say they were sorry but they (for example) got stuck on the underground and only had two minutes to catch their train, or would have to wait an hour for the next one and therefore they had jumped on intending to pay at the other end, or an inspector on the train if there was one.

 

Surely, before they left the station would count as BEFORE they finished their journey. Unless they are ready to push through the staff, or jump over the barrier, which would be on CCTV so they could be caught, they would still be inside the station and therefore they would not have finished their journey and should still be able to pay without incurring a £20 penalty. Why not?

 

DD

Usually, unless on a pre-planned ticket checking excersize, the member of the public that doesn't have a ticket, and is changing train at a seperate railway station, as long as they approach the staff to buy a ticket (basically speaking about whereby one usually wouldn't have to pass any staff, thus going out of their way to find someone), staff are able to use their discretion.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Old-CodJA , what is your background with SWT? I merely lied to the inspector to get out a fine, not to avoid a train fare? If I settled oout of court etc, what would a standard fine be? £20? Do I get hold of SWT before I get a letter?

 

My background is explained by looking at the biography section of my profile on the site. (Click on the name Old-CodJA if you are unfamiliar with the link)

 

What you are perhaps not understanding is that it is the simple fact that you lied to the inspector which gives grounds to convict if the more serious matter of 'intent' were charged before a Court. You have admitted here that your motive was to avoid a payment that you knew was due.

 

You call it a 'fine' and to some people it might be easily explained that way, but it is not a fine. Only the Courts have the power to impose a fine.

 

The charge you are referring to is formally defined as a 'Penalty Fare'. That charge may be imposed in some circumstances, at the discretion of authorised staff.

 

You had not paid your fare.

 

Facilities were available for you to pay before travelling and National Railways Byelaw 18.1 makes it a strict liability requirement that you pay your fare before boarding any train in those circumstances, unless you have been given specific authority to do otherwise by an authorised person.

 

You had not been given express permission to board without a valid ticket. In those circumstances a penalty fare can be charged.

 

When questioned about your ticket, you, by your own admission, lied to the inspector in an attempt to avoid the fare due.

 

You say that you told the inspector 'you had paid and had thrown the ticket in the bin'. You had not paid and lied to the inspector to avoid any further liability for that fare. If the inspector had accepted your explanation, you would have avoid paying the fare due at the point at which it was legally due. That is sufficient for a Court to convict you of intending to avoid a fare.

 

The company will write to you giving an opportunity for you to explain your actions before issuing a Summons and you could write back, admitting the liability and asking if they will allow you to settle out of Court.

 

It is their decision. They do not have to agree.

 

If they do agree it will be because they have taken account of all the relevant factors.

 

Whilst they can legally simply say, 'No, it's going to Court', they have an interest in getting their money and will consider your request.

 

Some of the factors that will go against the likelihood of a settlement are:

 

Did the traveller set out to decieve?

Did they lie persistently to avoid payment?

Did they use a forged or altered ticket?

Did they use a transferred ticket?

Did they give false details that had to be disproven?

Is there a previous record of fare evasion or history of penalty fare charges?

Was the traveller abusive or threatening?

 

If they do decide to allow an administrative settlement they will normally ask for all of the costs that they have incurred in recovering the unpaid fare plus that fare to be paid. The settlement will normally be conditional on the traveller formally agreeing not to repeat the offence.

 

The sum asked will vary according to the amount of work involved, but in my experience will rarely fall less than £120 and may be considerably more if there has been a lot of correspondence and a big unpaid fare is involved.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the Railway would be concerned, a journey had been made (without a ticket etc). Whether it's the journey claimed to have been intended to make is pretty irrelevant: after all if hypothetically he had alighted at the previous station, that fare would have been avoided; and likewise if no inspection had been taking place at Clapham, the fare would have been avoided as far as Teddington (no disrespect to JJJulian, am not implying this would have been the case, but that is how it would look to the railway).

It's a shame cos it's the lying that has probably resulted in this situation- at that point it is clear to the Inspector that an offence has definitely been committed and there is only one unfortunate course of action then remaining.

Yes he might have been Penalty Fared (better £20 than £200?!?!), but who knows- horror of horrors- a ticket may even have been issued (the Inspector may have known of circumstances at Claygate that the passenger was unaware of (closed BO, broken ticket machine, no PERTIS etc etc).

 

Surely, before they left the station would count as BEFORE they finished their journey. Unless they are ready to push through the staff, or jump over the barrier, which would be on CCTV so they could be caught, they would still be inside the station and therefore they would not have finished their journey and should still be able to pay without incurring a £20 penalty. Why not?

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...