Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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

Penalty ticket already paid - **resolved nothing more to pay**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4032 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 everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,

 

i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.

 

At this point i started to pay more attention,

i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.

 

The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

 

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash

i think £2.50

which as it turns out covers the short journey i think

 

i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.

 

My question is what happens now,

will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

 

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.

 

Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting

with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

Anyway they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.At this point i started to pay more attention,i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash i think £2.50 which as it turns out covers the short journey i think.Anyway i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.My question is what happens now,will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

 

Possible offences :

Byelaw 18 : failure to show a valid ticket on demand.

S5.3a RRA 1889 : intent to avoid a fare (the fact that you later paid it is immaterial to both of the above, and also to: )

possibly S5.3c RRA 1889 : giving false details when questioned : were the details you gave merely "incomplete" or "false"?

 

S5.3:

If any person—

 

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

 

(Fine, only imprisonable on repeat offence)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5#commentary-c574454

 

They have up to 6 months to lay a summons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

A month ago i was on a short journey on southern railways and didnt have a ticket.

 

When i got off the train i was confronted by Revenue Protection Officers,

 

i really wasnt paying attention as i had a meeting with a client and was already late.

I refused the offer of a penalty ticket and asked them to send me the ticket.

I gave an incomplete address as i wanted to think later about whether i would pay it or not.

 

they became suspicious when the name and address didnt check out and they threatened me with getting the railway police and possible arrest.

 

At this point i started to pay more attention,

i immediatley admitted that my details were incomplete and gave my full details.

 

The RPI then said i would probably be prosecuted and asked me to sign twice on a form which i did.

 

I was then also given a penalty ticket by his colleague which i paid some cash

i think £2.50

which as it turns out covers the short journey i think

 

i did pay the full penalty ticket before the 21 day timeline.

 

I have recieved no other letter so far it has been 1 month.

 

My question is what happens now,

will the fact i paid the fare at the time and paid off the penalty ticket help to close the case or are the two issues completely seperate.

 

I mean if the charge is trying to avoid a fare then i did pay the fare and the penalty notice.

 

Or should i expect a summons or letter regarding the other issue ?

 

thanks

 

await a letter before you do anything further

 

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

Possible offences :

Byelaw 18 : failure to show a valid ticket on demand.

S5.3a RRA 1889 : intent to avoid a fare (the fact that you later paid it is immaterial to both of the above, and also to: )

possibly S5.3c RRA 1889 : giving false details when questioned : were the details you gave merely "incomplete" or "false"?

 

S5.3:

If any person—

 

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

 

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

 

(Fine, only imprisonable on repeat offence)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5#commentary-c574454

 

They have up to 6 months to lay a summons.

I read it that he was issued with a Penalty Fare in the end as he states he paid the full penalty ticket within 21-days?

 

That being said, I'm assuming the matter was dealt with by way of PF in the end, and no report to Southern was made in the end by the RPI....Unless I misread of course, because we went from him not accepting the PF, to having paid it within the 21 day deadline. It does seem strange that one staff member issued a PF and his colleague said he might be prosecuted though...

 

Regardless, he can't be prosecuted under 5(3)c regarding the details without the accompanying 5(3)a, as this is not a 'stand alone' offence, therefore I'd say it's case closed here. Also, as he'd been issued a PF, the matter is resolved so no other either Byelaw or RRA 1889 offence regarding the fare would be applicable. Regarding the details, incomplete or downright false, if he meant to avoid further contact with the TOC by providing such details, these can be seen as false, even if just incomplete.

Edited by Stigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it that he was issued with a Penalty Fare in the end as he states he paid the full penalty ticket within 21-days?

 

That being said, I'm assuming the matter was dealt with by way of PF in the end, and no report to Southern was made in the end by the RPI....Unless I misread of course, because we went from him not accepting the PF, to having paid it within the 21 day deadline. It does seem strange that one staff member issued a PF and his colleague said he might be prosecuted though...

 

Regardless, he can't be prosecuted under 5(3)c regarding the details without the accompanying 5(3)a, as this is not a 'stand alone' offence, therefore I'd say it's case closed here. Regarding the details, incomplete or downright false, if he meant to avoid further contact with the TOC by providing such details, these can be seen as false, even if just incomplete.

 

Given the :

(a) or (b) or ©, I would take the statutory interpretation of "or" to mean any section can stand on its own.

The fact that he later paid his fare doesn't mean that a 5.3c couldn't proceed if he (at that time hadn't paid his fare) and gave false details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the :

(a) or (b) or ©, I would take the statutory interpretation of "or" to mean any section can stand on its own.

The fact that he later paid his fare doesn't mean that a 5.3c couldn't proceed if he (at that time hadn't paid his fare) and gave false details.

The 'or' relates to sub sections 'a' and 'b' really which can only be used alone as they are different variations regarding a journey. Whereas 'c' needs either 'a' or 'b' to work. That's why 'c' emphasises 'having failed to pay his fare...'. I agree it's not as clear as it should be.

 

You cant prosecute someone for a 5(3)a/b or Byelaw 17/18/19 etc AND issue a penalty fare.

 

Edit: After reading the act in some depth, I can see what you mean, however I wouldn't want to use 'c' by itself as it's an offence of dishonesty amd as such wouldnt want to explain to the mags why I reported for the false details but didn't for the fare evasion, as it brings the whole incident in to question.

Edited by Stigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'or' relates to sub sections 'a' and 'b' really which can only be used alone as they are different variations regarding a journey. Whereas 'c' needs either 'a' or 'b' to work. That's why 'c' emphasises 'having failed to pay his fare...'. I agree it's not as clear as it should be.

 

You cant prosecute someone for a 5(3)a/b or Byelaw 17/18/19 etc AND issue a penalty fare.

 

Edit: After reading the act in some depth, I can see what you mean, however I wouldn't want to use 'c' by itself as it's an offence of dishonesty amd as such wouldnt want to explain to the mags why I reported for the false details but didn't for the fare evasion, as it brings the whole incident in to question.

 

How about : (as a general concept, rather than any particular case .....)

Unable to prove intent to the criminal standard of proof :

Use of Bylaw 18, as no valid ticket shown. Even paying a penalty fare (later) wouldn't preclude this.

No valid ticket & false details : S5.3c

 

I accept that with no other prosecution a Magistrate might ask why a 5.3c on its own.

 

Back to the OP : if the Penalty Fare precludes a Byelaw prosecution the OP might hear nothing further.

If the OP gets a letter from the TOC they should post back with the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the quick replies,the knowledge of the members here is impressive.

 

When i admitted to the incomplete details which i understand would qualify as false details the RPI started filling out his form regarding that issue,his lackey then asked him "do u still want me to give him a PF ? " he said yes and said something to the effect that they were seperate.

 

I suppose its up to the OP whether they want to pursue it in light of the fact the penalty fare was paid but what i was wondering was that under S5.3 © it states that "Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address" but could it be argued that i did pay the fare to the amount of £2.50 as a cash contribution to the PF ?

I have noticed in some other online news regarding this issue that it is sometimes recommended to pay only the full single fare amount at the time if you are in a dispute over a PF, i suppose this is because in any subsequent action they cant claim that the fare was unpaid or even maybe that you tried to avoid it,the question then is does the phrase "failed to pay his fare" refer only to the time before coming into contact with the RPI inspectors.

 

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the quick replies,the knowledge of the members here is impressive.

 

When i admitted to the incomplete details which i understand would qualify as false details the RPI started filling out his form regarding that issue,his lackey then asked him "do u still want me to give him a PF ? " he said yes and said something to the effect that they were seperate.

 

I suppose its up to the OP whether they want to pursue it in light of the fact the penalty fare was paid but what i was wondering was that under S5.3 © it states that "Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address" but could it be argued that i did pay the fare to the amount of £2.50 as a cash contribution to the PF ?

I have noticed in some other online news regarding this issue that it is sometimes recommended to pay only the full single fare amount at the time if you are in a dispute over a PF, i suppose this is because in any subsequent action they cant claim that the fare was unpaid or even maybe that you tried to avoid it,the question then is does the phrase "failed to pay his fare" refer only to the time before coming into contact with the RPI inspectors.

 

 

Thanks again

 

At the time you gave those (false?) details, had you paid your fare?.

If not and the details were false, the fact you later paid your fare would not prevent a S5.3© offence from having been committed : the issue is not "was the fare ever paid" but "was the fare paid at time false details were given, bearing in mind details were requested as the fare had not been fully paid at that time"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier comments are correct in that, without either an allegation of offence contrary to Section 5(3)(a) or 5 (3)(b), a charge of breach of 5 (3)© should not be laid as a stand alone offence

 

5(3)© opens by saying 'Having failed to pay his fare....' therefore either (a) or (b) will be relevant and © is supplemental

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza S wrote

 

Earlier comments are correct in that, without either an allegation of offence contrary to Section 5(3)(a) or 5 (3)(b), a charge of breach of 5 (3)© should not be laid as a stand alone offence

 

5(3)© opens by saying 'Having failed to pay his fare....' therefore either (a) or (b) will be relevant and © is supplemental

 

There seems to be a split of opinion as to whether section 5 (3) © can stand on its own.I tend to agree with BazzaS and Stigy that it would look odd going to the magistrates and being prosecuted for not paying the fare and also giving false details when the fare issue had been settled by way of PF,it would mean that half the charge would be historical and no longer relevent.

 

Its possible that i was being threatened with an escalation to section © as a way to pressure me into settling the PF,something to be held in reserve if i got arsy or ignored the PF.But thats just a guess i'll wait and see if i recieve a letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 5(3c) can definitely be a "standalone" offence, without prosecuting for (a) or (b).

 

Whilst it would be unusual to do so alone, there is nothing preventing a prosecutor from doing so.

 

It is quite simple.

 

If any person having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

The OP, having failed to pay his fare, gave a false name and address.

 

The TOC only needs to prove:

 

1) The OP failed to pay his fare in the first place - regardless of reason why;

2) When requested to do provide his name & address, a false one was provided.

 

Section 5(3) Starts: If any person-

 

then after 5(3)a says "or"

then after 5(3)b says "or"

then 5(3)c...

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

It can be "or" as well as "and".

 

AFAIK South West Trains (not relevant to the OP), prosecute in an unusual style-

They use Byelaw 18 for the ticket offence AND

Then use RoRA 5(3c) for the false details.

 

They don't use 5(3a) AND 5(3c) together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK South West Trains (not relevant to the OP), prosecute in an unusual style-

They use Byelaw 18 for the ticket offence AND

Then use RoRA 5(3c) for the false details.

 

They don't use 5(3a) AND 5(3c) together.

 

I'm interested to find out what makes you say this? I will drop you a PM.

 

Still baffled as to why anybody would want to report for the 5(3)c and not the 5(3)a in the first place here anyway, as the whole reason sub section 'c' exists is because it relates to dishonesty involving a fare, and if you can reasonably prove a 5(3)c, a 5(3)a should go hand in hand quite nicely by default.

Edited by Stigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to find out what makes you say this? I will drop you a PM.

 

Still baffled as to why anybody would want to report for the 5(3)c and not the 5(3)a in the first place here anyway, as the whole reason sub section 'c' exists is because it relates to dishonesty involving a fare, and if you can reasonably prove a 5(3)c, a 5(3)a should go hand in hand quite nicely by default.

 

Correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct

 

Proof of intent to the criminal standard?.

 

5.3(a) relies on intent to avoid a fare.

5.3© relies on false details with the fare not previously paid : there doesn't have to be proof of intent to avoid paying the fare.

Mind you, giving false details may make it easier to demonstrate there was intent to avoid a fare .......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof of intent to the criminal standard?.

 

5.3(a) relies on intent to avoid a fare.

5.3© relies on false details with the fare not previously paid : there doesn't have to be proof of intent to avoid paying the fare.

Mind you, giving false details may make it easier to demonstrate there was intent to avoid a fare .......

 

Exactly so.

 

The good prosecutor will simply say something along these lines:

 

"I note that you have advised the Court that you did not intend to avoid your fare, however I put it to you that, by giving false details when asked for your name (and/or) address, it was your intention to avoid further contact with the rail company and thereby avoid payment of the fare due?"

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

My point is that 5(3)c is not dependent on the use of (a) or (b), in my opinion, you could, quite easily, prosecute © alone, as you don't need to prove any intent.

 

I agree, however, that it is not standard practice to do so.

 

Think I might look into this. Can see a useful application for the offence for a common scenario which I hadn't previously considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

hi everyone.

 

The matter has now been resolved without a court case.

 

I did get a letter several weeks later asking me to pay an extra £20 fine,the letter did not refer to any particular offence it just mentioned that i had been caught travelling without a ticket,no mention of any regulations or the issue of giving false details.

 

Although i was pleased to get this offer to settle for £20 i thought the letter was odd as it was pretty vague.Any way i called them up on the phone number provided and politely queried what i was being charged £20 for as the pf had already been paid ? The lady then brought up the dishonesty issue which i had admitted to,i told her yes but i was confused why there was no mention of dishonesty on the letter and she made some incomprehensible waffle as to why this was.

Anyway she then put me on hold and spoke to her boss and then came back and agreed to waive this £20 as long as i didnt do it again and that sort of thing.

 

So a good result it seems they were not willing or unable to take the matter to court with the pf already paid.But had tried to get an extra £20 which i guess most people would pay.So my advice to people facing possible prosecution would be to take the offer of a pf and pay it on time.

 

Thanks again to everyone who contributed.this forum is excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great result!!

 

thread title updated.

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...