Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this. The first thing to be say is that this means that you are winning. It is pretty well unheard of in my experience for the bank to give way and finally return the money. The fact that they have done this under the threat of a judgement for breach of statutory duty indicates even more that they are worried about their position. Nowhere have they indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act and inform the National crime agency. I don't believe they have and this is a very serious breach of statutory duty. Not only that it is a very serious breach of the FCA BCOBS regulations in that they are required to treat you fairly. Treating you fairly in this case means that they must comply with the rest of their statutory duties. It appears that they really haven't done this at all and that they have acted in an arbitrary way in disregard of the law and that they are hoping to get away with it. I find myself wondering how many other hundreds of people have been treated in exactly the same way – and you are probably the first ever to have stood up to them and to get them worried. I think I've already indicated that a press contact of mine in the Sunday Times would be very interested in this story. He has already run stories about the very poor standards applied by banks when deciding that their customers are involved in some fraudulent behaviour. The first thing to say about the letter which you have received is that they are trying to apply conditions to releasing your own money. It's your money and there should be no conditions and my suggestion is that you object to this. Secondly, not only are they threatening to continue to withhold your own money – but also they are saying that if they release it to you you will simply have the net figure without any kind of interest or compensation. It's clear that while they have had your money, they have invested it and earn money on it. They have probably been lending it out at between 16% and 20% and although the usual rate of interest is 8%, it seems to me that justice can only be served by repaying you your money plus the commercial rate of interest – at a compound rate. Normally the 8% is calculated at simple. Thirdly, they are not offering to pay you any compensation and clearly they are hoping to get away with it without any kind of sanction or not even a slap on the wrist.   Fourthly, they had the nerve to impose a seven day deadline. Don't worry about their deadline. It's a load of huff and puff. This is all part of their bluff game designed to intimidate you. At the end of seven days – what? Are they then going to insist on going to court? You can be certain that these people do not want to go to court. In fact they probably wish they had never started. Finally, they want the matter to be kept confidential – and I can't say I blame them. I would be ashamed if people knew that I had treated somebody else in this way and I'm sure they are worried about reputational damage. I'm also sure that there are extremely worried about what will happen if you get a judgement against them for breach of statutory duty. It will have to be reported to the FCA. It will have to be reported to the NCA. And of course it should be reported to the newspapers because people need to know what is going on. If you want, you can simply accept their proposal – get your money back, given confidentiality – and that's the end of the matter. However, you have no idea how this will impact on your record in the future. I imagine that they will bar you from ever opening an account with them again. – But at least you will have your money and you can get on with your life. However, if you want you can stand your ground and make it clear to them that you are going to be mucked around and treated like this and that you are prepared to go to court if they won't make a proper offer. I understand that you need to pay a court fee of about £350 in the next seven days. I expect that the bank is making this offer now hoping to dissuade you from spending any more money and hoping that you will back down. If you have the money to proceed then I would suggest very strongly that it will be a very serious sign of strength that you tell the bank that you're not interested in that you are paying the fee for the next stage of the court process. If the bank knows that you've called their bluff on this and that you have been prepared to invest further money in moving this legal action forward, then they will start to reflect and I can perfectly well imagine that they will make you another more interesting offer – once again on conditions of confidentiality. Without seeing the offer, I'm suggesting already that you will probably be best off turning it down. In any event, I would remind you going back several months that I already predicted that the bank would make you confidential offer – and that has happened. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be right here – but I think that now basically the bank have pretty well admitted that they need to pay you your money, there is no chance of you losing it. You will get your money and it really is just a question of how much else you will get in addition. If you'd like to continue then let me know and I will suggest a draft response to them.
    • The cost of living in Britain over a person's lifetime is over £1.5m, new findings have claimed as the nation feels the squeeze amid soaring energy costs and dismal interest rates on cash savings.View the full article
    • Mortgage approvals for house purchases fell to 67,200 in October, according to the Bank of England’s (BoE) latest figuresView the full article
    • Uncertainty surrounding the new Covid variant is likely to linger into next year, weighing on growth.View the full article
    • An online news and information service for the UK’s commercial and consumer credit industry.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Stopped for Fare Evasion - ** RESOLVED **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2378 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

Good evening, thank you for taking the time to read this. Any advice would be very gratefully received!

 

In what is probably a familiar story for the regulars on this forum, I have come seeking advice having been stopped without a train ticket.

I was interviewed under caution and having spent the day reading the internet in a panic am now expecting a summons in the next few weeks.

 

I hope I've understood the usual process, but would be grateful for confirmation.

 

To provide a little detail,

I had been to the dentist in the next town over and dropped by car, but needed to get back to the office.

A train arrived whilst i was queueing to buy a ticket so I got on.

This is not uncommon in this area where buying a ticket on the train is often required, and trains are infrequent by London standards.

 

I enquired of a conveniently placed member of transport police if this train was going the right way and sat opposite another

(you'd think that might have nudged me out of my stupor) I didn't attempt to find the guard.

Jumped off train 4 mins later and with no further thought headed towards my office.

At which point I was promptly stopped & read my rights by another chap by the exit (no barriers here).

 

Assuming I was about to be fined on the spot, I was polite and accepted that I had no ticket etc.

I didn't attempt to run, talk my way out of it, or offer to buy a ticket.

Instead he interviewed me under caution (PACE I assume) and sent me on my way.

 

I now see that my existing understanding of how ticketing processes work in practice, is somewhat different from the legal situation.

Today i was (very) stupid rather than malicious, but that is no defence and if this reaches court I would inevitably have to plead guilty.

 

I am saving for a house, so even a 1000 pound fine would not be a complete disaster as I could pay it from savings.

As ever, the criminal record is the big problem for future employment & mortgage.

 

Would you suggest that i

 

1 - do nothing now except await the inevitable letter

 

2 - but then be ready to immediately send a grovelling letter and offer to settle out of court should I receive a summons

 

Many thanks in advance for any advice (sympathy neither required nor expected),

will happily provide any other useful details if required. Cost of journey was practically nothing

& I have no previous record or penalty fares, speeding tickets etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening, thank you for taking the time to read this. Any advice would be very gratefully received!

 

In what is probably a familiar story for the regulars on this forum, I have come seeking advice having been stopped without a train ticket. I was interviewed under caution and having spent the day reading the internet in a panic am now expecting a summons in the next few weeks.

 

I hope I've understood the usual process, but would be grateful for confirmation.

 

To provide a little detail, I had been to the dentist in the next town over and dropped by car, but needed to get back to the office. A train arrived whilst i was queueing to buy a ticket so I got on. This is not uncommon in this area where buying a ticket on the train is often required, and trains are infrequent by London standards.

 

I enquired of a conveniently placed member of transport police if this train was going the right way and sat opposite another (you'd think that might have nudged me out of my stupor) I didn't attempt to find the guard. Jumped off train 4 mins later and with no further thought headed towards my office. At which point I was promptly stopped & read my rights by another chap by the exit (no barriers here).

 

Assuming I was about to be fined on the spot, I was polite and accepted that I had no ticket etc. I didn't attempt to run, talk my way out of it, or offer to buy a ticket. Instead he interviewed me under caution (PACE I assume) and sent me on my way.

 

I now see that my existing understanding of how ticketing processes work in practice, is somewhat different from the legal situation. Today i was (very) stupid rather than malicious, but that is no defence and if this reaches court I would inevitably have to plead guilty.

 

I am saving for a house, so even a 1000 pound fine would not be a complete disaster as I could pay it from savings. As ever, the criminal record is the big problem for future employment & mortgage.

 

Would you suggest that i

1 - do nothing now except await the inevitable letter

2 - but then be ready to immediately send a grovelling letter and offer to settle out of court should I receive a summons

 

Many thanks in advance for any advice (sympathy neither required nor expected), will happily provide any other useful details if required. Cost of journey was practically nothing & I have no previous record or penalty fares, speeding tickets etc.

 

Wait for the letter.

Post here when you get the letter, saying what they are considering proceeding under (if they state such).

 

I wouldn't advise trying to tell them " buying a ticket on the train is often required, and trains are infrequent by London standards. " : that might make them reply "we'll prosecute, as it is the travellers responsibility to buy a ticket before travel"

 

I seem to recall one of the industry regulars quoting a judge who had heard similar as part of a "defence", who told the accused "I have to buy my ticket, and sometimes I have to queue to do so!"

 

It might be better (for others, if they did try to buy a ticket on the train!), to phrase it as "I erroneously thought I could buy a ticket on the train" - but as you didn't try to buy a ticket on the train, or at your destination ... You might best leave that tack well alone!

 

Did you get asked (under caution) "If I had not stopped you, would you have paid your fare" (or equivalent!), and if so : what was your reply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope you've pretty much got it all sorted and understood.

 

 

cant see this being a problem .

 

 

settlement should happen.

 

 

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

nope you've pretty much got it all sorted and understood.

 

 

cant see this being a problem .

 

 

settlement should happen.

 

 

dx

 

Depends, dx.

 

Since they were stopped leaving the station without having paid their fare, they may have given in interview answers that would lead prosecution to be the most likely outcome.

It really does depend both what the OP was asked in their IUC, and their reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't advise trying to tell them " buying a ticket on the train is often required, and trains are infrequent by London standards. " : that might make them reply "we'll prosecute, as it is the travellers responsibility to buy a ticket before travel"

 

Absolutely, you're entirely correct. Is no excuse, just the reason for my (flawed) actions. My home station has no barriers, no machines and an office that closes often. So the idea of getting on a train with no ticket is not uncommon. Although I wouldn't say as much in a letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, you're entirely correct. Is no excuse, just the reason for my (flawed) actions. My home station has no barriers, no machines and an office that closes often. So the idea of getting on a train with no ticket is not uncommon. Although I wouldn't say as much in a letter

 

Absolutely (not to use in a letter, unless you did try to buy a ticket on the train, and even then "use with caution"!)

 

The thing is, there is inconsistency ; some services it has become almost "accepted practice to buy tickets on the train", and then people get confused when served with penalty fares, and a proportion may then get argumentative, and a proportion may then get reported and get a Bylaw conviction (for a strict liability offence)

 

I don't know the answer : stopping ANY (& all) purchase of tickets onboard seems unkind, while sometimes allowing the practice can lead to an expectation of "travel first, but later" thst isn't founded in fact and may lead travellers to fall foul of the Bylaws.

 

Better education of travellers, and better ticket facilities might help......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many apologies, have just realised that train was probably FGW rather than South West. If anyone is able to amend my original title that would be great.

 

BazzaS - Agree with your comments re inconsistencies and ignorance of average traveller (me!). I think I've drifted in to the mistaken belief that confusion or error on my behalf would result in a fine, not a criminal record. Making me considerably more casual than ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, you're entirely correct. Is no excuse, just the reason for my (flawed) actions. My home station has no barriers, no machines and an office that closes often. So the idea of getting on a train with no ticket is not uncommon. Although I wouldn't say as much in a letter

 

Re-reading this, it raises an issue worth noting (though I doubt it will help you in your particular circumstances)

 

"My home station has no barriers, no machines and an office that closes often."

If there were no facilities to buy a ticket, (rather than "there was a queue") - there is a provision in Bylaw 17

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;

And an equivalent provision in Bylaw 18.

 

Scenario : Ticket office closed, machine out of order (& the TOCs will have records of these .......)

Traveller boards the train without a ticket. Seeks out on board staff and says "I need to buy a ticket".

A passing RPI pounces and says "show me your ticket", which the traveller can't....... and proceeds to make a report despite the traveller's protests and description of events)

 

(This likely won't happen, as the RPI would know which ticket offices are closed & can check which machines are out of order .... but for point of discussion let us presume they have no mobile phone signal & can't check)

 

RPI says "OK, I'll make a report : the office will check your story"

 

Situation as described : no S5 RRA1889 prosecution (as clearly no intent to avoid a fare)

No Bylaw 17 (or 18) prosecution, due to the specific defence of no facilities to buy a ticket.

 

Why won't this work for you?.

" train arrived whilst i was queueing to buy a ticket so I got on." - there were facilities to buy a ticket but you didn't wait to use them.

 

I asked previously "Did you get asked (under caution) "If I had not stopped you, would you have paid your fare" (or equivalent!), and if so : what was your reply?"

This is still relevant : it (amongst other factors) might make the difference between negotiating a settlement, a Bylaw prosecution (that is a "non-recordable" offence), and a S5 RRA 1889 prosecution (where, if convicted the offence isn't "non-recordable".

 

You mention that "As ever, the criminal record is the big problem for future employment & mortgage." - this is where recordable vs. non-recordable could come into play (depending on which employment - would you need an eDBS - enhanced DBS)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked previously "Did you get asked (under caution) "If I had not stopped you, would you have paid your fare" (or equivalent!), and if so : what was your reply?"

This is still relevant : it (amongst other factors) might make the difference between negotiating a settlement, a Bylaw prosecution (that is a "non-recordable" offence), and a S5 RRA 1889 prosecution (where, if convicted the offence isn't "non-recordable".

 

Sorry, missed that question.

 

 

I got off train in a bit of a day dream having completely forgotten about anything ticket related and walked towards nearest exit towards my workplace.

I was asked, were you leaving station without attempting to pay.

To which clearly the only answer was yes.

I don't recall being asked for a reason or explanation.

 

I get quite nervous when confronted by any authority figure, regardless of what I am doing.

So I fear I did not explain anything very well.

I assumed I was being fined, which didn't seem unreasonable.

I just meekly accepted the basic facts, I'd been on train, had no ticket and had been walking off when stopped.

 

I'm fairly resigned to having the book flung at me over a £2.70 fare. Just want to make sure I don't make things any worse than they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason they didn't ask you anything after the 'were you leaving the station without paying' question was that you answered in the affirmative.

 

Since this proves intent to avoid the payment -the fare was due at or before the time of travel and you failed to pay, failed to pay on the train and failed again to pay at the destination.

This being the case you can't then claim at a later date in court that it was your intent to pay since all of your actions and your statement prove otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, pleasing update on this today.

 

 

Received a letter this morning (two weeks after being stopped) allowing me to settle for an 80 pound admin fee.

 

 

As you can probably tell from my previous posts, this is a very satisfactory outcome and I was on the phone with credit card in hand immediately.

 

Thank you to the couple of members who took the time to answer queries and reassure me.

 

 

It is much appreciated, as was a lot of the information in other topics which although no longer required did a lot to relax me at a stressful moment.

 

 

Before you ask, I will be donating to the site before disappearing in to the ether.

 

Please feel free to lock this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there and thank you for the update. That's great news, well done to you and to the caggers who advised you. I'll close your thread as requested.

 

And thank you for the donation, that will help us to carry on advising people like yourself.

 

HB

 

PS Before you disappear into the ether, please have a look around some of our other forums, you may find help on other matters. :)

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

glad to help...:madgrin:

 

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2378 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...