Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "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 ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
  • 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

another FGW problem, opinions welcomed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4664 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

Been dealing with this one for the last few weeks and hit a bit of a wall. About to approach passenger focus for further resolution but a better understanding of the situation would help.

 

We travelled on a sunday in March from a town in the west country to London. Frequently in these rural places, and particularly on sundays, some stations are unmanned and one is able to buy a ticket on the train. It's often unclear so I always try to ask.

 

On arrival at this particular station, we asked the FGW chap on the platform if we could buy a ticket on the train. He said yes. I asked again just to check, 'we can buy a ticket on this train?'. The platform guard says "Yes, yes, on you get", so on we got. We could have bought a ticket at the station, but there was a bit of a queue and we'd have had to wait for the next train, which really wouldn't have been a problem. We certainly would have done so if we had known that it would cost us more than three times the price.

 

It was a very crowded train, with no where to sit at all, and people lining the gangway. As soon as I saw the inspector, I told him we needed to buy a single ticket. (I had a return, my companion did not).

 

He told us we could not buy a ticket on the train and that he would issue a penalty fare. I explained what we had been told on the platform. Unfortunately, he did not believe us, or seemed unable to help us, and, I feel, was quite rude. His explanation wasn't very clear. He eventually made my companion pay £69.50. The journey, had we bought the ticket prior to departure, would have cost £20.

 

It seems we were mislead by the guard on the platform. FGW, in subsequent correspondence, have seemingly accepted that an employee of theirs misinformed us. They also say we were not charged a penalty fare, but an Anytime Single Fare, and that there is therefore no 'penalty' aspect to it. I have to say I feel 'penalised' by it though.

 

Three letters later, no recompense, and I feel we were rather unfairly treated.

 

- We sought advice from a person of authority from the train company and were advised to board the train

- It is our responsibility to check conditions of travel prior to boarding, surely checking with an employee should be a failsafe method of doing this

- Although we were sold a 'ticket' on the train, the RPI said initially that we could not buy a ticket on the train as we had been advised by the platform guard, therefore he is clearly mistaken

- His misleading advice lead us to pay over three times the price for the fare

- We in good faith fully intended to pay for the journey and asked to do so as soon as possible on the train

 

I'd like a refund of the difference in fares that the platform guard's mistaken advice cost us. FGW say sorry, but no refund.

 

Frustrating that a company can profit from their own mistakes.

 

In my correspondence to Passenger Focus is there anything in particular that could help our case? I do have the name of the chap who told us to get on the train.

 

Many thanks for your suggestions, if any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrating that a company can profit from their own mistakes.

 

Welcome to the privatised railway. Accountants profit from the railways today; passengers do not.

 

Railway Byelaws 17 / 18 cover ticketless travel in Compulsory / Non-Compulsory Ticket areas. Stating:

 

No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17 (1) or 18(2) / 18(1) or 18(2) if:

 

  • an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

Mind you that really only applies to Penalty Fares and Prosecutions. Goog luck with Passenger Focus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of clarity, could you expand on the OP just a little?

 

Did the member of platform staff advise that it may be more expensive to purchase the ticket on train?

Once on board, did you seek out the guard to purchase?

Was the 'RPI' in uniform or a grey suit?

 

I ask because had you boarded within a Penalty Fare zone and met an RPI, (suit), it is highly likely that a Penalty Fare would have been issued had she/he not accepted that you had been given authorisation to board without a ticket. PFs can of course be appealed.

 

FGW guards are not Penalty Fare trained. They are however, instructed to apply the full fare without benefit of any discount when passengers board without tickets, having had the opportunity to purchase one. Most guards will use discretion in how this is applied, particularly if approached by a customer.

 

Grotesque points out the Byelaw position above, but passengers boarding from an unstaffed station, without any form of working ticket vending machine, cannot be PFd

Edited by Maxwell TM
typos :-(

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...