Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

£600 Fine Threat


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4894 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

As my station is often unmanned and the machine only accepts cards, I always ask the conductor before I board the train (or, like today, I wait in the doorway for them to walk down if they're up the other end and then ask) if I can purchase a ticket. On every occasion apart from today I have been told that I can. However, today the conductor told me to get off the train. When I asked why he refused to give me a reason, only telling me that 'I knew why'. I ignored him and sat on the train at which point he came up to me and told me that the train wouldn't be leaving the station until I either paid a £600 fine or got off the train. I asked him what the fine was for, but still all he would say was 'You know why.' A £600 fine is obviously a lot more than the fine for travelling without a ticket, so I'm wondering if it could be for something else? The company in question is First Great Western if that makes any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like mistaken identity to me, lol. Did he mistake you for a fare evader? You shouldn't have boarded the train without a ticket if there were facilities available to buy one, without seeking permission first. There is no £600 fine, just the cost of the ticket, a Penalty Fare of £20 or twice the cost of the full single fare, which ever is the greater, or summons to a Magistrate's court. Only the court can issue said fine, and even then it's more than likely going to be nothing like £600. Sounds to me like a Guard who likes his scare mongering, although he didn't have to carry you on his train if you could have bought a ticket before you boarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistaken identity was my first thought. However, I forgot to specify before that he told me that I could catch the next train, which seems strange if I've been mistaken for someone not allowed to travel. So there's nothing that First Great Western are able to issue a £600 fine for any reason?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like mistaken identity to me, lol. Did he mistake you for a fare evader? You shouldn't have boarded the train without a ticket if there were facilities available to buy one, without seeking permission first. There is no £600 fine, just the cost of the ticket, a Penalty Fare of £20 or twice the cost of the full single fare, which ever is the greater, or summons to a Magistrate's court. Only the court can issue said fine, and even then it's more than likely going to be nothing like £600. Sounds to me like a Guard who likes his scare mongering, although he didn't have to carry you on his train if you could have bought a ticket before you boarded.

 

Yes, I would tend to agree with all these very good points, definitely no such £600 fine, PFs don't apply to most of FGWs routes and so I agree, the TM was scaremongering, possibly because he misidentified you.

Perhaps the TM was unaware the station was unmanned or could only accept cards?

On that particular point I thought that ALL of the automatic ticket machines that FGW have installed took cash as well as cards?

IF that IS the case then his statement 'you could catch the next train' would seem to make sense.

 

It would help if you identify the station and time of day you were travelling, as I could check what the situation was then.

 

I was a RP manager for that very company for some years, so I really DO know!

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point Timbo, PF's now apply on most FGW routes as they were finally implemented in April this year after many years of false starts.

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

My station (Bramley) is a penalty fare station, but due to the situation the staff on board the trains and at Basingstoke don't give out penalty fares for failing to get a ticket prior to boarding the train there. I hadn't seen this particular guard before, so it's possible that he's new and isn't aware of the situation.

 

The machines used to take cash but the local chavs stole the money from them on numerous occasions, so now they're card only.

 

I forget what time it was that I was travelling, but I can confirm that the ticket office was locked as the man who works there didn't turn up until a couple of minutes before the next train arrived. I'm curious as to how you'd know if someone was there or not. I assume there's a list of hours during which the station is supposed to be manned? If that's the case then he's often not there when he's supposed to be (I wonder if he gets paid for all those hours he's missing...).

 

Thanks for confirming that there is no such £600 fine.

 

I have some more questions though, which are related to another incident. Yesterday on the way home from Waterloo for the third time I was asked to produce my outbound ticket upon showing my return ticket. As I don't place this ticket back in the plastic wallet after putting it through the barriers at Waterloo I struggle to find it. As I haven't shown it immediately all three conductors have told me that I'll have to pay a penalty fare for not having my outbound ticket along with my return ticket. When I do eventually find it though, they move on without issuing a PF. The thing that really annoys me about this is the fact that no-one else within my vicinity on all three occasions was asked to show their outbound ticket (most of the others are businessmen on their way home, so they're definitely not avoiding it due to their current journey being outbound).

 

Is it right that I can be issued a penalty fare for not having my outbound ticket during my return journey? There are a number of stations that don't give the ticket back after it's been used, which makes me reluctant to use barriers if I'm not sure that I'll get the ticket back.

 

Also, I was under the impression that standard conductors are unable to issue penalty fares? South West Trains' website says so at least:

 

"Only those who have been specifically trained as authorized collectors can charge you a penalty fare. Authorised collectors carry an authorised collectors identification badge, which must be shown upon request."

 

southwesttrains.co.uk/penaltyfares.aspx#64524

 

What are those who aren't authorized collectors able to do in such situations?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it right that I can be issued a penalty fare for not having my outbound ticket during my return journey? There are a number of stations that don't give the ticket back after it's been used, which makes me reluctant to use barriers if I'm not sure that I'll get the ticket back.

 

Also, I was under the impression that standard conductors are unable to issue penalty fares? South West Trains' website says so at least:

 

"Only those who have been specifically trained as authorized collectors can charge you a penalty fare. Authorised collectors carry an authorised collectors identification badge, which must be shown upon request."

 

southwesttrains.co.uk/penaltyfares.aspx#64524

 

What are those who aren't authorized collectors able to do in such situations?

No, there's no obligation to show your outbound ticket on your return journey. As you rightly say, ticket barriers often retain the outbound ticket once used, and this isn't a fault, as they're supposed to do so. Are you sure it's the outbound ticket that the Guard asks to see on your return journney? If for example you could only produce your outbound ticket on your return journey, as opposed to the correct ticket for your return journey, then yes, you can become liable for a Penalty Fare at the Revenue Protection staff's discretion.

 

Guards or Conductors cannot issue Penalty Fares, as only Reveny Protection staff can issue them, on SWT at least. I suppose if they had the relavent training then they could become authorised collectors like RPIs/RPAs are, but due to the responsibility of the Guard primarily being that of the safety of the train, I doubt very much that any company would want their Guards/Conductors issuing PFs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely the outbound as I have looked at the ticket I'm showing and have asked why I'm being asked to show my outbound ticket. I was given the reason that I may have found or stolen the return ticket and they wanted proof that I'd purchased the ticket. :roll:

 

So if I'm asked for my details by a conductor I'm under no obligation to give them? Also, regarding the earlier incident where I was asked to get off the train. Do I have to leave the train if I'm not being provided with a reason as to why I must get off, or if the reason isn't lawfully valid? For example in the past I was told by a conductor that he didn't want girly-boys (I have long hair) on board his train and that I would have to leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely the outbound as I have looked at the ticket I'm showing and have asked why I'm being asked to show my outbound ticket. I was given the reason that I may have found or stolen the return ticket and they wanted proof that I'd purchased the ticket. :roll:

 

So if I'm asked for my details by a conductor I'm under no obligation to give them? Also, regarding the earlier incident where I was asked to get off the train. Do I have to leave the train if I'm not being provided with a reason as to why I must get off, or if the reason isn't lawfully valid? For example in the past I was told by a conductor that he didn't want girly-boys (I have long hair) on board his train and that I would have to leave.

I've been thinking about this actually...I'm not entirely sure that the ticket barriers retain an outbound ticket, or if it's just the return they retain after a journey is completed? Either way, I can't see any reason why you'd need to provide the part of the ticket that you've already used.

 

A Conductor or Guard can legally ask you for your details if he or she believes an offence has been committed. Any member of staff of a Train Operating Company can do this. If you're asked to leave the train for no good reason, the Guard is in the wrong. I'd say it depends on the situation, although if requested to leave a train by any authorised official, I'd be inclined to do so, after having ascertained the reason why I was required to leave the train. If you think that the reason is an invalid one, I'd complain to the Train Operating Company. At the end of the day, the Guard can only act on the information he has, as as the train is 'his' train, what he says, goes I'm afraid.

 

There is a byelaw that states you must leave railway property (ie a train), if requested to do so for being reasonably believed to have commited a byelaw offence, and if you refuse, reasonable force is allowed to be used. There's also a byelaw that states you need to provide your details when suspected of committing another byelaw offence. Bear in mind that when requesting your details the staff member needs to advise you of what you have allegedly done wrong. If you're asked for your name and address, but the Guard wont tell you what he believes you have done wrong, I'd recommend he calls the BTP. Sometimes it's easier to do as they say though, lol.

 

Basically it's the duty of any staff member to be clear in what they believe you have done before attempting to enforce a railway byelaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in the past I was told by a conductor that he didn't want girly-boys (I have long hair) on board his train and that I would have to leave.

 

Mildly bizarre to say the least.

Am not sure exactly what byelaw your hair would have been in breach of on that occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be asked to leave a train in accordance with National Railways Byelaws (2005) 24.2, or Section 103 of The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, but you do have the right to be informed of exactly how you have infringed these legislations at the time of the request.

 

In respect of the two-part ticket, if rail staff believe that an offence may have been committed they may ask for production of the 'other' half of your ticket for verification and it is reasonable to do so.

 

For example, if an unstamped outward half issued at say 7 a.m is being used late in the day it might suggest that the ticket has already been used earlier. Sight of the return half might reveal an examination mark, or reading the encoding by swiping through an avantix machine may show that it has been through a barrier gate.

 

An outward half of a two-part ticket cannot be used if you cannot show the unexamined return half of that ticket at the time of inspection. There are many codes on most tickets that help rail revenue staff to identify what a ticket is and how it must be used.

 

I can think of a few reasons that an inspector might want to see the 'other' half of any ticket, but not if a it is just a return half, which is being used in the right direction of travel and by an unaccompanied traveller within the 'conditions of issue and use' relating to that particular ticket.

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

One point Timbo, PF's now apply on most FGW routes as they were finally implemented in April this year after many years of false starts.

 

Ah, I left them at the end of summer 2009, so that is news to me.

I never thought they would actually implement them as I found in my previous role that FGW seemed to forever delay revenue protection measures despite the excellent work the RP department did in proving these were very necessary.

 

I would say some of the reports on here of silly comments from staff and over zealous behaviour are obviously the minority and I can't think of many (I worked for 'High speed' or Intercity as it was known as a proper company!) that were there with me that would be so stupid.

Saying that FG as a whole seemed (seems?) hell bent on recruiting unintelligent brown-nosers in management IME so it wouldn't surprise me if there was a dumbing down in staff recruited elsewhere.

Just my opinion: no offence to the learned people on here who probably know exactly what I mean!8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean about 'dumbing down' of staff. When 'I were a lad (I served a term)' there was a very high degree of professionalism in the TSSA grades. Now, my big gripe about 'railways' tends to be 'staff attitude', and I most certainly can tell the difference between BR and 'new' staff.

 

That said, I am having a belief problem with this thread. I cannot believe that 'long hair' would draw a comment. I do wonder if there are 'things' about this incident that we are missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to what type of staff can/cannot issue penalty fares, that is down to the train operator, as long as they stick within the relevant 'penalty fare scheme'. LTS Rail (as was) authorized 'conductors' and 'guards' for a while, as well as some 'Burns' security staff (employed by 'Burns security', under contract to LTS Rail) I think it was the '1986 Train Crew Agreement' that restricted 'penalty fares' to Senior Conductors, Ticket Inspectors, and not 'conductors, guards, ticket examiners' as well as allowing some other grade related restrictive practices. Most of those 'old agreements' seem to have been torn up, both the good bits and the bad bits, and train operators do seem to try to 'do what they want'.

 

The 'law' creates a distinction in the level of authority allowed to 'an officer of the railway' and a 'servant of the railway', and my 'observations' of my local line is that 'management' fail to understand those distinctions. There are 'contract staff' turning up, mainly in the 'lowest level' of 'customer facing roles' all over the line. Paid peanuts, poorly equipped, and very poorly trained. I cannot think of any other industry where 'customers first contact' with the business is left to the least capable/competent people. And it is grossly unfair to those contract staff, as well as the 'customer'. (When did they stop being passengers?) Still,with this weather, I will be working from home today, and won't see how they cope with 'the snow'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree totally Wriggler7. Like you, I can tell in an instant whether particular staff were employed in the job pre-1994 and not just because of the fact that they may be the older ones:-)

 

There are a number of companies employing 'contract staff' in front-line roles where even a basic grasp of revenue protection rules and principles seems woefully lacking and even worse, an understanding of the legal position may be non-existent. Proper training is the first pre-requisite for achieving a good job.

 

Right too in the comment regarding the references to 'customers'. The Law makes no such distinction, describing all travellers by a railway as 'passengers' as you well know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...