Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.   2.     This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   3.     The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.   Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).   4.     The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.   A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
    • They must have had something to hide as they have been pulled up on these deaths before.   This seems a typical case   https://welfareweekly.com/family-of-jodey-whiting-seek-fresh-inquest-into-her-death-to-examine-role-played-by-dwp/
  • Our picks

Goodman24

I used someone else's Oyster card, had a letter from TfL

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2530 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

I need help , I was got caught on the bus by the inspector for using someone Oyster card and they took all my details such as date if birth, name, address and receive letter from TFL that I need to fill my details on the form and send copy of my Oyster card which I sent to them yesterday and I don't know what to do ,can someone help me pls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I've started a new thread for you and am going to move it to the transport forum in a minute. There will be a short term redirect from here so you can find it.

 

I expect the transport guys will have questions for you when they turn up and I have one. Please would you tell us what type of Oyster card it was and how many times you used it?

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I travel without a valid ticket and its child Oyster card and for one month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that.

 

Does TfL's letter say what offence they think you committed please? Is there a reference to a particular law or byelaw?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used someone elses child oyster? are you a child? Is straightforward transfering of tickets to start with which is a byelaw offence for a start and you obviously used it in order to avoid your correct fare.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They send me letter say that I travel without valid ticket and they me to fill my name on the form and copy of my Oyster card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, I received a letter from TFL stating "the facts of this incidents are now being considered and I must advice you that legal proceedings may be initiated against you regarding this matter in accordance with Transport for London policy. If you have any comments to make, to write it on the reverse & return the form with personal details within 10 days. You do not have to reply to this letter but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you may later rely on in court. Anything that you do provide in writing may be used in evidence. Failure to respond to this letter may result in the matter being progressed by Transport for London without further notification."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you got caught I take it you knew that what you were doing was fraud, which is against the law let alone the transport companies policy? If not, then maybe you should be travelling with an adult! Or did you use it by mistake? In which case you need to explain that to them, especially if you have your own Oyster Card.

 

The outcome will depend on whether they decide to keep it in-house or make it a criminal charge. it does however seem like they are going to keep it in-house as long as you keep them informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what should I do now any suggestion for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see what happens - lesson learned?


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came to this country 2years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for you TfL are usually very reluctant to settle out of court, you could offer to pay their cost's whilst saying sorry and you won't do it again but don't hold your breath, if they do allow you to settle out of court then great, if not then you will need to enter a plea, if you are guilty and accept that then appear in court and plead guilty and show remorse, this will severely reduce any potential fine and cost's.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

As the guys have said, it's hard to guess what might happen, but I think you could well be looking at court. I assume you're not entitled to use a child Oyster card?

 

What did you say when you replied to TfL?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say nothing I just fill the letter and sent it back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say nothing I just fill the letter and sent it back

 

Right, thank you. Is that all it asked please? I thought the first letter asked for your version of events, but maybe TfL are different.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just came to this country 2years ago

 

Can I ask what difference does that make? Does that mean that 'right and wrong' in your country is different to here?


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this thread, the OP doesnt have much of a defence at all. They knowingly and willingly used the card for a lengthy period before they got caught even though they were not entitled to use it.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Although the OP has failed to ask the question that was asked early in the thread, it is clear that s/he is over 18 years of age otherwise s/he would be unlikely to have received a notice of intended prosecution.

 

It is possible to prosecute a 16 year-old in a Youth Court for this offence, but in common with other organisations, TfL do not normally prosecute under 18s unless there are very serious aggravating factors.

 

Claiming a child rate discount in this way in order to avoid paying the proper fare is a serious breach of trust. TfL may examine the Oyster record of past journeys and may yet ask further questions.

 

This is likely to be prosecuted as an offence of 'fare evasion' contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889)

 

All that the OP can do is to reply truthfully, apologise profusely and ask if TfL will be prepared to allow the case to be disposed of without Court action.

 

In my experience that is unlikely in a clear case of intentional fare evasion, but the OP loses nothing by asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...