Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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 does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

London Midland Prosecution Letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4364 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

Hello,

 

I am seeking advice on a situation involving a prosecution letter from London Midland which reads as follows:

 

Dear Mr. ***,

 

On **th May 2012, a person giving the above name and address was questioned by a member of staff with regard to an alleged incident on London Midland Railway. This matter has been provisionally authorised for prosecution.

 

Before I proceed further, I invite you to respond by completing in full the bottom section of this letter, making any comments about the incident on the reverse, and send it to the above address within seven days.

 

Failure to respond will lead to the matter being progressed without further notification.

 

I am then aske to provide my name, adress, whether I wa the person that travelled, phone number, occupation and NI number. Although the letter says seven days, my Dad has phoned London Midland to explain to them that he has had to send the letter to my university address (which I originally gave them, but they could not verify, as I live on campus, so searching for the university address on a database would probably come up with the Post Room address), and they have kindly extended the deadline for reply by a couple of weeks to allow for this.

 

The incident was that I was travelling from Canley to Birmingham New Street for some temporary work at the ICC. At Canley, the ticket office was closed and the permit to travel machine was out of order, so I assumed I would be able to purchase a ticket on the train. However, there was no conductor passing on the train, so I did not get the opportunity. The train arrived late at New Street, causing me to panic about being late for work. My mental state at the time was not helped by a lack of sleep due to hot weather and stress over university exams that were five days away, which I felt severly underprepared for and feared failing and not being allowed back next year.

 

As such, the added worry of being late to work meant my head was all over the place and was not thinking clearly at all. Amongst the crowd, I did not see anyone being checked for tickets, so I thought I would be able to purchase the ticket for both journeys on my return (which I now understand was an incredibly stupid thought). However, there were ticket officers there and I was asked to show a ticket, which I obviously couldn't. I then made what was intended to be a light hearted joke of "Could've got away with one there!", which was an incredibly idiotic and inappropriate comment to make and one I don't believe I would have made if not under so much pressure at the time. I think the officer took it in the manner it was intended and didn't seem bothered when I went back to go to the temporary ticket stand to by the ticket.

 

However, whilst in the queue, another woman came up to me and asked where I had travelled from. I answered Canley and she said "come with me" and took me back to the officer who took my details and asked me a series of questions including "What did you mean by "I could've got away with that one"? to which I replied "Without paying for a ticket." He also asked me how I would have bought a ticket had he not been there, to which I replied "On my return journey". Another question was "From what I have gathered it seems that you attempted to exit the station without purchasing a ticket. Is this correct?" I replied yes to this as it is the honest answer as I was attempting to get out of the station as quickly as possible to avoid being late for work, so didn't want to get into any further arguments, which probably would only have led to me saying something similar anyway.

 

After these questions, I was told I would be receiving a letter and to carry on. I started to go back to the queue to pay for the ticket, when the officer stopped me and said to just go through the barriers. I again attempted to purchase the ticket for both journeys on my return, but was refused by the lady on the temporary ticket office as she said I should've had to pay a penalty fare at the time due to the inspectors, so I could only buy the ticket for the trip back.

 

I am a university student possibly looking to go into a career teaching maths and physics, so am scared that if I am prosecuted, a criminal record would prevent me doing any modules or courses required for me to pursue this career path. I am a regular user of the train, probably averaging one trip a week since arriving at uni in October, and have paid for every trip, whether at Canley, by permit to travel, on the train or at the destination and have a stack of these tickets dating back to January. This one isolated incident has been such a dissapointing episode for me, which has caused me stress throughout and after my busy exam period. I have never been in this situation before, and am unsure how to progress. I obviously want to avoid court to avoid a criminal record and would be more than happy to pay any fine they give me to do so, as seems to be the recommended course of action on similar threads.

 

Firstly, I would like advice on the manner in which to respond. I assume a letter of apology, explanation and offer of settlement is what I should do. Should I handwrite the letter on the back of the form with the explanation of the incident, or type up the letter separately, leaving just the explanation on the back of the letter? Also, should I include photocopies of some of my tickets to show that I am a regular paying customer? I would also appreciate your opinions on whether my foolish comment to the inspector have basically ruined any chance I have of preventing this going to court.

 

Thanks in advance and I apologise that my first post on this forum is such a long one about an embarrasing moment of stupidity.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

Just posting to inform you that the situation has been closed. I sent London Midland a letter apologising profusely and explaining the incident. London Midland were happy to settle for a £20 fine.

 

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just posting to inform you that the situation has been closed. I sent London Midland a letter apologising profusely and explaining the incident. London Midland were happy to settle for a £20 fine.

 

Dan

Thanks for letting us know. I'm happy for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...