Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted.
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Arrest Warrant issued for Unpaid Fines for Fare Evasion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4874 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 a morning in March 2010 after no sleep and not feeling totally sober I boarded the bus and bought my ticket. Just as i was about to get off the bus I was stopped by an inspector who asked me to produce my ticket. I could not find my ticket so the inspector began asking for my details. due to my state of mind and the panic that immediately set in I gave my old address and a falso date of birth (along with my correct name and postcode).

 

Today I received a letter (forwarded on from my old address) notifying me that the court has issued a warrant for my arrest becuase I have not paid the money I owe. As soon as i received this letter I called up the relevent Court Enforcement Officer, explained my situation and arranged to be in court the next day. I believe there may have been previous correspondence send to my old address notifying me about monies I owe, however, I was not aware of any such communications despite the current owners of my old house telling the transport department that I was no longer at that address.

 

I am very worried about the results of this visit to court as I am aware that I could receive a criminal conviction, a fine and/or community service. However, I know I am not guilty on the grounds of fare evasion but, obviously, I gave out false information.

 

What can I expect to happen tomorrow in court and what steps can I take to try and minimise the chances of not receiving a criminal conviction as a result of this?

 

Any help, advice or responses relating to this would be hugely appreciated, especially from old hands (old codja) I've seen that have posted on similar threads.

 

Cal

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've almost certainly been found guilty of an offence already reagarding the initial fare evasion thing. I'm sure this hearing is probably to sort out the non-payment of fines, as opposed to the original case. It certainly appears as though the orginal case has been heard in your absence, and you apparently, according to the court, avoided paying a fine they issued you with. This is why a warrant was issued no doubt. Not sure what the procedure is now, and whether further penalties will be levvied? I'm sure if you told the court why you didn't receive any correspondence in the first place, they'll not be best pleased! Not sure whether further offence mof giving false details can be dealt with at this stage, or whether they'll only be interested in why you didn't pay the fine. Wriggler might be able to answer that one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you knew nothing about thr original court hearing you can make a Statutory Declaration under oath in court, this will make void any fines/costs imposed & stop enforcement action being taken against you.

The court will tell the prosecuting authority & they will re-start proceedings against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you knew nothing about thr original court hearing you can make a Statutory Declaration under oath in court, this will make void any fines/costs imposed & stop enforcement action being taken against you.

The court will tell the prosecuting authority & they will re-start proceedings against you.

Plaese forgive my ignorance, but would that be a viable option, given that the reason the OP didn't know about the original hearing was his own doing?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very useful comments, so thank you for those.

I think Stigy is right though; the reason I didn't know about the original court date was because I provided false information in the first place.

Assuming that i was found guilty in my absense of the fare evasion charge, am I right in thinking I have a criminal record and if so, how serious is this with regards to getting a job?

What kind of conviction would the "unpaid fines" be (fraud, theft etc)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very useful comments, so thank you for those.

I think Stigy is right though; the reason I didn't know about the original court date was because I provided false information in the first place.

Assuming that i was found guilty in my absense of the fare evasion charge, am I right in thinking I have a criminal record and if so, how serious is this with regards to getting a job?

What kind of conviction would the "unpaid fines" be (fraud, theft etc)?

Haven't got a clue about unpaid fines I'm afraid, but assuming you were found guilty of a fare evasion offence, you'll have any outstanding fine (probably plus enhancements!) and a criminal conviction. I'm not sure if the buses have similar to the railways where there is a seperate act (5.3 RRA) which contains intention to avoid payment (fare evasion), or whether their Byelaws cover everything.

 

How relevent it will be to employment very much depends on what you're wanting to do work wise. If attempting to joing MI5/6, you'll probably be rejected at the first hurdle, lol. I'll be open here and say that I was convicted of what I would describe as a fairly mediocre motoring offence some years ago now, and because the conviction was 4.5 as opposed to 5 years old when going for my current job, the police rejected my initial vetting application. I was accepted after some grovelling etc. Bear in mind my vetting is beyond that of an Enhanced CRB check though (although not quite MI5), and is done 'in-house' by a Police force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plaese forgive my ignorance, but would that be a viable option, given that the reason the OP didn't know about the original hearing was his own doing?

 

Whether by ignorance or design, it is a safeguard built into the justice system.

All he has to say is that he didnt know about the proceedings until a letter was forwarded to him stating a warrant had been issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering I'm going for a job as a Navy Officer i think I might have to do a fair bit of grovelling too.

Thanks again for all your advice.

In that case your vetting will be on a par with mine I'd imagine, having said that I've seen all sorts getting in to the Army/Navy, lol. Play it by ear, and just be honest on any application forms, because if you don't tell an employer something that they later find out themselves, if you have the job by such time you can expect not to have it much longer, or if you're in the application stage, it's even easier just to reject the application!

 

Whether by ignorance or design, it is a safeguard built into the justice system.

All he has to say is that he didnt know about the proceedings until a letter was forwarded to him stating a warrant had been issued.

Thanks for the heads up ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 'no difficulty' in getting a Court to allow you to make a statutory declaration. At the time that you make your declaration, it is pretty unlikely that the Tfl prosecutor would be in Court, and less likely that he would have the case papers for this offence.

 

The 'delaration' is simple. 'I did not know about the Court case until 20(?) December, that being a date after the case was heard. The Court will probably ask if you can explain why you think you didn't get the summons, the answer i 'it ain't my address on it'. I have heard much thinner declarations being made, some of them as pathetic as the old 'my dog ate my homework' stories we all used to tell at school.

 

Moving on from that, the Prosecution will be informed of yout Stat. Dec. and will serve the papers on you again. It gives you the opportunity to enter a plea. Without seeing all the evidence, I cannot state 'you will be found guilty' or 'don't worry, you will get away with it', but it seems likely that you should plead guilty, the false address would seem to 'close' the matter. (I think.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to whether a conviction will stop you being a Naval Officer, I do not know. Best you pop along to the Navy recruitment office and ask. The Armed Forces do expect a very high degree of propriety in 'officer' materiel, and they have many more applicants than positions.

 

On it's own, a minor embarrassment over a bus ticket would not normally stop a career, but during the recruitment processes, all 'flaws' in the character of the applicant are looked at and taken 'on board'. It certainly will not help you to impress 'the Lordships'. It may be that a silvery tongued counsel might manage to convince a Court that an absolute discharge would be appropriate, given (one assumes) your previous untarnished name, and the circumstances of the offence. The argument would have to be based on the disproportionate effect of a conviction on your intended career.

 

I saw such an argument used by a young man who was part way through the process to become an RAF officer, he already was on a University placement, and was attached to a University Air Squadron. His case was much worse than yours in as much as he had altered a travel warrant to fraudulently obtain a train ticket. The Court (in my view wrongly) dismissed the case. I felt that the Court had taken a 'much wider' view of things, and felt that, as the young man was the first person all day to have either a job or prospect of a job, and first to wear a tie and speak 'properly', they did not want to condemn him to a life of explaining why he failed to 'get in' to the RAF. I agreed with the 'justice' of what they did, but not the 'legal position'. Must be said, he did have a 'good solicitor'. And he was 'lucky'. Different Bench, different day, it could have been a very different result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any difficulty with making a Stutory Declaration either, but it would be a very good idea to plead guilty to any new Summons if I were you.

 

The evidence of you having failed to show a valid ticket and giving a false address in an attempt to avoid a liability would be pretty damming so far as I can see.

 

A guilty plea at the earliest opportunity once you were made aware of the case and a lesser fine as a result would be the very least you should expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...