Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The ideal would be a negotiated discounted settlement  The cards in your hand are that you would most certainly win an irl complaint via the fos And the behaviour of Burlington  Im not so certain that you would win on unfair treatment given that for a LBL company they have been pretty accommodating for the best part of a year  If they don't agree to negotiate on a monthly payment of the 1500 then straight off to the fos Only if things get dicey consider a time order due to your other debt a t/o could get messy
    • Sorry to disagree. Credit file drops off at 6 years, which is the Statute Bar period for 'simple contract debts' But the limitation period for mortgage debts is 12 years.   https://www.nationaldebtline.org/fact-sheet-library/statute-barred-debts-ew-/   So (in theory, at least(, it can drop off a credit file at 6 years, the lender can issue a County Court claim at any point up to 12 years, and IF they do, and IF they succeed, the CCJ then shows on your credit file....... yes, there are lots of 'IF's there, but it isnt as cut and dried as at first glance.
    • Hi all    Thank you so much for all your comments and advice, especially @bankfodder    The treadmill was a Proform pro 1500. Icon are the manufacturer.    Just to clarify this is the second machine we had. The initial treadmill we had for approx 2 months. Again this was working fine one day then would not switch on the next. We reported this to Sweatband who redirected us to the manufacturer. The problem was the same with the electrics however on that occasion the manufacturer indicated there was a problem with alignment of the running surface and they sent a replacement. Now the electric problem is the same issue but they are saying the item is in an unsuitable environmental.    I have reviewed Sweatband's website again and now I notice there is a small Q & A section at the bottom which states as follows:    "Can I keep this treadmill in my garage? if your garage is insulated and is warm and dry throughout the year then it will be OK. However if it's an ordinary garage without heating or insulation we'd say it's better not to put it in there as cold and damp conditions may damage the electronic components."    Do you think this now means we have no protection? I cannot say if this was on there when we purchased the treadmill. I am also reading a number of reviews from other people indicating the treadmill has packed in after short usage. These reviews are all after we made our purchase.    Thank you again  EM0149
    • Begging letter - ignore.   It's not Debt Recovery Plus's debt, so they can do absolutely nothing.
    • I ignore them with a smile on my face, but something needs to be done  Can you expand your hint a little bit ?
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Prosecuted by Tfl but CRB disclosure clean


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3210 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

You are required to declare the conviction if asked for a period of.5 years from the date of conviction.

 

SPRO,

 

I don't want to create an impression that I am trying to break the rules and avoid declaring my circumstances. I just don't want to declare something I may not have. So my question is really - whether or not it may be the case that despite being taken to Court I don't have criminal record. Or why it may be the case that despite being convicted my CRB has returned clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BazzaS,

 

I think technically I am not lying as it looks like I just don't have a conviction at all. I am not a specialist but I may have been conditionally discharged by the Court because of pleading guilty at the first opportunity and also some other mitigating factors which I included in the letter to the court (I wasn't present at the actual hearing).

 

If the Court dealt with the case in your absence you will have been sent a copy of the resulting register.

 

I have never experienced any instance when a conditional discharge could have been imposed without the defendant being present to hear the conditions of the discharge from the Magistrates.

 

Check the notice that you received from the Court following the date that the case was heard and disposed of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Check the notice that you received from the Court following the date that the case was heard and disposed of.

 

Old-CodJA,

 

I only received "Notice of the fine and collection order" following the hearings in which it said the following:

 

Offences and Impositions:

"1 / Attempt to travel on railway without paying fare"

 

And then it goes on and specifies the fine amount. Does it actually mean that I have a conviction and a criminal record? If it so, why does my disclosure certificate not reflect so?:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you were fined, you were convicted.

 

There is a lot of variation in the resulting of these offences and a basic check may not show it, but an enhanced search will almost certainly reveal the conviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
enhanced search will almost certainly reveal the conviction.

 

Then it all comes down to the type of jobs I am applying to. I definitely don't need Enhanced disclosure because I don't work with vulnerable people or children. So in my case I will only get checked with Basic or Standard Disclosure.

 

Now, my understanding is that the difference between those two is that the Basic one lists all unspent convictions whereas the Standard one lists both spent and unspent. So by definition (unless spent already) I don't have this conviction. I am really confused here - why do I need to disclose something that is not coming up on the type of CRB needed for my level of required disclosure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I was taken to court and prosecuted by Tfl for using someone else's Freedom pass last October. As far as I understood from this forum and other sources this is a recordable offence and results in a criminal record. However, I have just received my Basic Disclosure Certificate form Disclosure Scotland and it is clean with no record on it!

 

My question is, should I still tick the box "Convictions" on any pre-employment screening forms? I definitely don't need Enhanced disclosure because I don't work with vulnerable people or children so in my case I will only get checked with Basic or Standard Disclosure.

 

My understanding is that the difference between those two is that the Basic one lists all unspent convictions whereas the Standard one lists both spent and unspent. So it looks like (unless spent already) I just don't have this conviction.

 

So the conclusion is that since it didn't come up on the Basic disclosure I don't need to disclose it?

 

Any input would be highly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are required to declare the conviction if asked for a period of.5 years from the date of conviction.

If you do not & the employer finds out you can be dismissed and/or prosecuted for gaining a pecunary advantage by not declaring as required or even worse, under S76 of POCA.

 

This is a matter for you and your conscience. None of us can tell you what to do. I think SRPO made the point clear in the posting above.

 

If you declare 'no convictions' and an employer later finds that not to be true, it will be their decision what they do about it.

 

This is not a conviction for a very serious offence and very few potential employers in my experience will be put off by it, but a lack of transparency might be viewed differently, who can say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old-CodJa,

 

I get the point and I think it is fair. Just to confirm - is Tfl prosecution always a criminal matter and result in a criminal record booked if taken to Court or it could also be a civil case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry was this a civil case (county court) if so it wont show as a conviction on either basic or std CRB

 

It was dealt in Magistrates court so I am pretty sure it should be a criminal matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Old-CodJa,

 

I get the point and I think it is fair. Just to confirm - is Tfl prosecution always a criminal matter and result in a criminal record booked if taken to Court or it could also be a civil case?

 

None of these matters are civil cases.

 

Allegations resulting in prosecution for breach of Byelaw, or prosecution of an allegation of 'fare evasion' are summary matters heard in a criminal Court listing by Magistrates. A Summons to answer the allegation will be issued and the normal penalty on conviction is a fine. For a subsequent conviction in fare evasion cases a custodial sentence can be considered, but this is exceedingly rare.

 

I can understand why it happens, but the problem is that far too many people confuse 'fare evasion' with issue of a Penalty Fare Notice (PFN).

 

The PFN should NEVER be issued where staff suspect, or have gathered evidence of fare evasion.

 

A PFN may be issued ONLY in areas where authorised by DfT scheme and ONLY by an authorised person as a means of resolving what would otherwise automatically be reported as a breach of Byelaw.

 

A PFN is a civil remedy, but if the notice is not successfully resolved within 21 days by full payment, or successful appeal, the Rail Company is at liberty to cancel that notice and proceed to prosecution.

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

 

I was taken to court and prosecuted by Tfl for using someone else's Freedom pass last October. As far as I understood from this forum and other sources this is a recordable offence and results in a criminal record. However, I have just received my Basic Disclosure Certificate form Disclosure Scotland and it is clean with no record on it!

 

My question is, should I still tick the box "Convictions" on any pre-employment screening forms? I definitely don't need Enhanced disclosure because I don't work with vulnerable people or children so in my case I will only get checked with Basic or Standard Disclosure.

 

My understanding is that the difference between those two is that the Basic one lists all unspent convictions whereas the Standard one lists both spent and unspent. So it looks like (unless spent already) I just don't have this conviction.

 

So the conclusion is that since it didn't come up on the Basic disclosure I don't need to disclose it?

 

Any input would be highly appreciated!

 

What sentence did you receive? If it was an absolute discharge, the rehabilitation period is only 6 months, which you may have just come out of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What sentence did you receive? If it was an absolute discharge, the rehabilitation period is only 6 months, which you may have just come out of.

 

SKJP,

 

How do I find out if it was an absolute discharge? I wan't present at the hearing but I did plead guilty at the first opportunity and also sent a remorse letter to the court.

 

I received "Notice of the fine and collection order" following the hearings in which it read the following:

 

Offences and Impositions:

 

"1 / Attempt to travel on railway without paying fare"

 

And then it goes on and specifies the fine amount. Would the letter say that I have an absolute discharge? If it's not the case, it is really strange that my disclosure certificate not reflect the conviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SKJP,

 

How do I find out if it was an absolute discharge? I wan't present at the hearing but I did plead guilty at the first opportunity and also sent a remorse letter to the court.

 

I received "Notice of the fine and collection order" following the hearings in which it read the following:

 

Offences and Impositions:

 

"1 / Attempt to travel on railway without paying fare"

 

And then it goes on and specifies the fine amount. Would the letter say that I have an absolute discharge? If it's not the case, it is really strange that my disclosure certificate not reflect the conviction.

 

OK, I THINK that if you got a fine, it's NOT an absolute discharge. An AD is basically no further action - the lowest form of sentence that can be passed in a criminal court, as far as I'm aware.

 

You could contact the court in question.

 

However, are you 100% sure that it was dealt with as a criminal matter, despite the presence of Magistrates? Magistrates can deal with some civil matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know prosecution for an allegation of fare evasion are always heard in a criminal Court by Magistrates. So it's very unlikely to be a Civil matter.

 

Would you suggest I contact the court and ask why the conviction doesn't come up? I guess I still need to tick the box "convictions and fines" if asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know prosecution for an allegation of fare evasion are always heard in a criminal Court by Magistrates. So it's very unlikely to be a Civil matter.

 

Would you suggest I contact the court and ask why the conviction doesn't come up? I guess I still need to tick the box "convictions and fines" if asked.

 

I note that this seems similar to:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?344682-Tfl-prosecution-but-CRB-clean&p=3779443

Mods, do these 2 threads need merging?

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to disclose it sadly.

 

it is a criminal matter.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...