Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
  • 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

IRCAS Penalty Fare Notice Appeal Rejected - London Overground


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3584 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 All,

 

Been sometime since last here. Is there anything I can do?. Utterly sick of the aggressive extortion in London by TFL, Highways and Traffic Wardens.

 

My wife was staying at my daughters in Hampstead and travelling to Richmond. On 11 April at Hampstead none of the barriers were working, no staff at the ticket office and no staff available to assist. A couple of stops into her journey a couple of inspectors got on. She handed her Oyster Card to one when asked and he confirmed she had credit but that her journey had not registered. She explained it was due to the barriers not working.

 

What ensued made her feel intimidated, threatened and anxious as the inspector was in her personal space repeatedly asking her to pay a £40 penalty. This continued until she reached Richmond even after passengers had disembarked. Other passengers could see what was happening and came to her assistance but the inspector could barely speak English and became rude and abrupt.

 

She spoke to an employee on the station at Richmond who told her not to worry, appeal and let her through. Having called me at the time I could tell she was upset and anxious and she subsequently mislaid the paperwork.

 

On 22 May she received a reminder for a sum of £110.00 as she had not appealed within 21 days. She wrote explaining the circumstances but they have replied there 'are no mitigating circumstances and the right to appeal has been forfeited' She has been given 14 days to pay.

 

This feels like blatant extortion. The inspector had the wherewithal to check her Oyster Card and address details but not to call Hampstead station to check her story or even debit her Oyster Card for her journey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd ignore the advice you've received so far, or you're going to end up with a conviction.

 

The very first thing you need to do is pay the amount they are requesting, which appears to be £110. This does two things:

 

1) Stops the company instigating criminal action under the Railway Byelaws;

2) Limits the financial penalty to £110 as a maximum;

3) Allows you to sort your complaint out in a timescale that suits you, rather than them.

 

The Managing Director will NOT intervene, especially as "Mike Brown" is not the Managing Director of London Overground, fyi it is Peter Austin.

 

A criminal offence HAS been committed under Railway Byelaw 18 (Failure to possess a valid ticket for travel). An Oyster card is just a wallet that holds funds. As payment was not made prior to travel, as required, the offence is complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write a 'Formal Letter of Complaint' is in relation to the following and no I didn't expect the CEO to intervene on the financial penalty, although he might look into why the OP's wife found herself in that position in the first place and why the RI hasn't checked the facts first ('Hampstead none of the barriers were working, no staff at the ticket office and no staff available to assist I'm sure'), TFL could easily pass over the letter to LOROL, as apparently they work closely together, also remember they only keep the CCTV footage for so long, ask for a copy, it is worrying that other passengers were worried enough so came over to assist your wife, don't forget to seek compensation for the distress caused to your wife:-

 

'What ensued made her feel intimidated, threatened and anxious as the inspector was in her personal space repeatedly asking her to pay a £40 penalty. This continued until she reached Richmond even after passengers had disembarked. Other passengers could see what was happening and came to her assistance but the inspector could barely speak English and became rude and abrupt'.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

 

Mr. Peter Austin

Managing Director

London Overground

[email protected]

 

From London Overground:-

 

'If a customer explains the reason for not touching in at the start of their journey (e.g. if the barriers were not working) the RPI should already know this information as any station faults are emailed to all RPI's. If they are not aware of the situation they should phone the station in question or check with our Control Room.'

 

 

 

Well I'd ignore the advice you've received so far, or you're going to end up with a conviction.

 

The very first thing you need to do is pay the amount they are requesting, which appears to be £110. This does two things:

 

1) Stops the company instigating criminal action under the Railway Byelaws;

2) Limits the financial penalty to £110 as a maximum;

3) Allows you to sort your complaint out in a timescale that suits you, rather than them.

 

The Managing Director will NOT intervene, especially as "Mike Brown" is not the Managing Director of London Overground, fyi it is Peter Austin.

 

A criminal offence HAS been committed under Railway Byelaw 18 (Failure to possess a valid ticket for travel). An Oyster card is just a wallet that holds funds. As payment was not made prior to travel, as required, the offence is complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Update and Conclusion

 

Have received a response from Mike Brown:

 

It seems clear to me that your wife was not trying to avoid paying for her journey so I have arranged for her penalty fare to be cancelled on this occasion

 

Many thanks for your support and advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...