Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Peter McCormack says "ambition is big" and Real Bedford's attendances are increasing with promotions.View the full article
    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
    • The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  First reason Section 9 [2] [e]  "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?
    • I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  
  • 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

FGW - further info ....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4753 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

Hi

 

I posted here a few weeks ago when I was asked to produce a ticket I didn't have due to being told that Police Employees could travel free..

 

Anyway, I travelled again last week with FGW, same starting point etc.

 

Well, at my starting station there were the (dreaded!) RPI employees. So, I see them checking all and sundry and taking names and writing in books with yellow pages and asking people to sign them etc.

 

I buy my ticket with a rail warrant and go to my platform. As I am an investigator I decide to ask a few questions about free travel etc.

 

1). Can Police employees travel free?

a). 1st officer - Let's see your ID - I'd let you travel, 2nd - yep, 3rd - I would, 4th - yes, but the leter of the law states ....

 

2). I was told I could travel a few weeks ago and I got stopped. What do you trhink?

A). No way, who stopped you? did you explain to them what you were told? Who was it?

 

3). I have been told my defence is I was given permisson to travel without a ticket.

A). yes, quite correct but only these police forces have free travel ........you do have a defence though.

 

I agree with what they say and then make note of all of their names along with a statement I write on the train.

 

At my destination I go through the barriers using my ticket but ask a chap on the barrier if I need a ticket to travel being a police employee, I show my ID, he says yep, no problems and opens the barrier. I tell him I will be back later.

 

When I get back (I have a ticket) I ask a different barrier guard if I can travel and show my police staff ID card. He opens the barrier with no questions! I tell him I have a ticket and use this to go through the barriers.

 

I note their names on their badges, no surnames but they are always there.

 

It is interesting to note that it seems that FGW employees don't actually know what their policies are and this is causing 'issues' for law abiding travellers as well as embarassment.

 

I have emailed FGW customer services with this information but I'll ask different TOC employees when I travel again at the end of this week. It will be interesting to see how long my concerns and recommendations take to filter through if at all. I'll keep testing them and reporting these findings to the TOC.

 

I would like to thank all for their advice I received.

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that they know the company policy but choose to ignore it (with good intentions).

As the RPIs said, they would let you travel but technically you should buy a ticket.

Frankly im suprised this has'nt been resolved yet, have you heard from the prosecutions dept?

I still go back to my previous point that the policy of police travel on public transport is VERY clear in standing orders & the responsibility was yours to check whether you could travel free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice of you to take all of the names and probably drop them all in the preverbial!

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

No, I won't drop people in it, not in my nature but the chap who took my details and was rude to me was there although I didn't appraoch him. I'll not disclose any names but just flag up the message that there is no continuity.

 

I agree I should've also checked before but I guess when someone tells you something sometimes you take it for granted that they are giving the correct advice. I'll never take that sort of advice again without checking!!

 

I also agree that they do probably know the exact policy but are trying to assist individuals by allowing them to travel for free. Unfortunately I feel unless they all take the same route and they either all let you travel or all do not then there is no continuity, as if I was stopped at the barrier before I could embark on my return I would have had to purchased a ticket to get on the train, unfortunately those trying to be good to me, landed me in it, I don't blame them as they were trying to do a good deed.

 

Unfortunately, the chap who took my details wasn't happy, although I still say that if I was a police officer he would have let me travel whether I was from the Met, BTP or any other force. As his colleague who gave me the advice said, he was probably in a bad mood, maybe at having to deal with others who maybe gave him abuse or were rude to him that day. Who know's why.

 

I'll update again when my investigations are carriedout this week, same route but I;ll question different staff. I'll also report back when FGW customer services reply to me so I can let everyone know what they say.

 

Thanks again for your views and taking the time to reply.

 

Kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SRPO

 

I have spoken to many colleagues at work and none of them know whether they can travel for free or not. Some people in Reading say they can use FGW buses for free but don't use the train as they have no need.

 

It is not clear but I have reported the incident soIi am waiting for things to be clarified to everyone and probably a rollicking!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SRPO

 

I have spoken to many colleagues at work and none of them know whether they can travel for free or not. Some people in Reading say they can use FGW buses for free but don't use the train as they have no need.

 

It is not clear but I have reported the incident soIi am waiting for things to be clarified to everyone and probably a rollicking!!

 

Have a read of your standing orders, its never a good idea to rely on anecdotal evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that they know the company policy but choose to ignore it (with good intentions).

As the RPIs said, they would let you travel but technically you should buy a ticket.

Frankly im suprised this has'nt been resolved yet, have you heard from the prosecutions dept?

I still go back to my previous point that the policy of police travel on public transport is VERY clear in standing orders & the responsibility was yours to check whether you could travel free.

 

Yes, I agree with SRPO here and so far as 'free travel' is concerned, I think that where this has been addressed formally it is abundantly clear that it only applies to serving Police Officers and does not extend to civilian support staff.

 

I have personal knowledge of at least one case where this has been tested to the stage of issuing a summons (not on FGW), but where an administrative settlement was eventually allowed with the issue of a final warning. In that case it appears the original interaction was a little different, but the principle of whether the traveller was wrong, or not was very quickly established.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

There are all sorts of convoluted rules on which forces can go for free, where, when and under what circumstances-it's all rather complicated. The general rule adopted is that any police officer just needs to show their warrant to travel at no financial cost, the other side of the coin is that train crew or any other railway employee will expect any officers to assist should it become necessary.

 

On a personal level you would be welcome on my train anytime, I never know when I might need you or one of your colleagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are all sorts of convoluted rules on which forces can go for free, where, when and under what circumstances-it's all rather complicated. The general rule adopted is that any police officer just needs to show their warrant to travel at no financial cost, the other side of the coin is that train crew or any other railway employee will expect any officers to assist should it become necessary.

 

On a personal level you would be welcome on my train anytime, I never know when I might need you or one of your colleagues.

 

I don't want to cause any 'ripples' here and I hope that 'Railman' will understand why I say this. I think a slightly better wording would be to say 'the generally adopted attitude taken by revenue staff' is to allow serving officers to show their warrant as an unofficial authority to travel.

 

I think it should be stressed that this should not be described as a 'general rule' because it isn't. There are agreements with the Met and some others, but there is no blanket 'rule'.

 

As an Inspector many years ago, I always adopted the discretionary view that allowed Police Officers to travel without a ticket because I always took the view that one day, I might need their help. I guess the vast majority of RPIs will still do the same today.

 

I think that the thing to remember is that, where there is no formal agreement, a member of rail staff should not be considered to be a 'jobsworth' simply for applying the rules.

 

I agree that I think most staff will welcome the thought that there might be a little support should it be needed, but it cannot and should not be relied upon as a 'given'. A Police Officer who makes himself known to revenue staff is likely to be met with a nod, a welcome and a blind-eye, but just as in other walks of life, we have all come across the odd one who seems to be motivated by a self-important expectation rather than an ability to be gracious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with 'unwritten rules' is that they often clash with written ones.

 

If a specific group of employees of a particular company get a benefit as a result of their employment, real or perceived, then they may be charged tax for it. Tax authorities assume various benefits, for example, they assume that taxi drivers get tips, and will tax a taxi driver in Tilbury the same as a taxi driver who works in the 'West End'.

 

So a constable, getting free travel, may be liable for tax.

 

Equally, police forces may want to avoid accusations of 'corruption', and may regulate free travel through their standing orders. They may pay a local transport provider a certain agreed amount, or have some other arrangement.

 

There are 'changes' being negotiated between some forces and 'railways', which will change whether Metropolitan and City of London officers are entitled or not, and there will be an endorsement added to warrant cards. I am not fully aware of the details, but 'officers' may wish to check with their own force to determine whether they are 'entitled' or whether it is a 'nod & wink' arrangement. To prevent any personal or disciplinary embarrassment, I recommend that officers speak with their Fed rep rather than their force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a side note.

 

I got pinged doing 71mph on a 3 lane duelcarridge way. My crime, having a commercial van. I had no idea that I was only allowed to do 60mph.

 

I was informed by Sussex Police that ignorance is no defence.

 

Surely, you have 'No' defence!!

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...