Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I don't think that you have told us when you bought the car. However, you have referred to a conversation in which they apparently told you that the MOT had been carried out on 11 November so that suggests to me that you bought it after that date. Although it seems as if you are dealing with quite a dodgy crowd, you may as well go through the paces of asserting your proper rights. Because you have discovered this issue within the first 30 days – you can add to the strength of your position by sending them a letter asserting a right to reject the vehicle under the consumer rights act. If a car manifests a defect within the first 30 days then you are entitled to reject it out of hand with no chance of repair but you must assert your right in writing. Send them a letter immediately – recorded delivery – informing them that you are rejecting the vehicle and telling them on what grounds and say that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act. It won't make a whole lot of difference, but later on if you find yourself having to take court action, then it will all help. Please let us know when you have had the AA check. Meanwhile, I suggest that you contact me at our admin email address and let me know the identity of the garage and any other identity clues that you have unearthed. It may enable us to give you additional help
    • Assuming you're correct about the limitation running from the last date of deferral. The last deferral was in 2013 so the statute barring period would end on 31 August 2019, the money claim was made on 3rd June 2019 so is within the limitation period. Therefore the debt is not statute barred.
    • I agree with my site team colleague @slick132 but with variations. These people have been needing you around and cause you serious harm in terms of the amount of effort that you have been put to as well as the damage to your credit file. You have taken all sorts of different stories and also been misled by them as to their statutory obligations in respect of data disclosures. It has taken the issue of court claim to get them to make any move. You have taken control of the situation and it is you who has the whip hand at the moment. They are now proposing to telephone you to discuss the matter in some way – but you have no idea. Also, you have no idea who you are going to be speaking to and whether they have authority to commit Virgin to anything at all. If you agree to this phone call then you are at risk of handing control back to them because they will partly ask you to withdraw the action and they will also offer to make a payment as a "gesture of goodwill". Now that you have attracted their attention and they realise that something needs to be taken seriously, I don't think you should let go of the initiative. Please can you post up the email which you received from them. He was it from and what is that person's role within the company. I think you should write to them and refuse the call and tell them that you are happy to discuss matters that you will want to know what it is they think they have to discuss and who will it be who will be phoning you – and will that person has any authority to make decisions. I think should also emphasise to virgin that they are already in breach of their statutory duty. That if they decide to file a defence that they will have to sign it is a statement of truth subject to a sanction for contempt of court and that as they are clearly in breach of their statutory obligations, it would not be possible for them to sign off such a statement of truth and if they do, then you will bring the whole thing to the attention of the court and invite the court to express their own opinion on the matter. I think it's very important that they tell you in advance what they propose to discuss. I think you should tell them that if they're not prepared to disclose the purpose of their phone call and the points that they intend to cover and if the phone call is not made by somebody at a suitably elevated managerial level, then you are not prepared to discuss the matter. I'm afraid that I'm struck by the naïveté of your statement which I suppose is intended to be assertive.   Haven't we reached a point yet where you understand that you can't trust these people and although you may discuss various things on the telephone, if they then are required to minute the conversation and provide you with the resume of the conversation, you are handing them carte blanche to present the conversation in a way that suits them together with nuances included or removed, and generally slanted in their favour. They might not – but you are certainly opening up the possibilities and if that's what they do, how are you going to counter them and say that they have not correctly recorded what you discussed and agreed? You seem to be doing everything you can to keep on handing the baton back to Virgin. I have no idea why. You should not get involved in any telephone conversation unless you have first read our customer services guide and you are recording the call for your own benefit. If you cannot do this or you are not prepared to do this then don't take the call at all. Please will you post up the email that you have received, let me have your comments on what I've posted here and if you agree we will draft a response. You might like to start. Apparently they are proposing to telephone today and so we need to get a move on. If they happen to telephone before you have received a written reply to your message, then you should simply tell the caller that you are still waiting for their response to the email which you sent a little while earlier and you're not prepared to discuss anything until you have their written reply to that.
    • Well done on getting your refund and thanks for the update. I understand that you are still out of pocket. If you would like to get that money back and we will help you and I think it will be fairly straightforward. The amount of money outstanding is scarcely worth his while causing any trouble. It would be very helpful if you could post up a link to the new advertisement and also do you have any pics of the car and also its registration number please. I think we owe this to possible new owners in case they come to this forum.
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1941 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

Hi all,

 

I'm here to seek some experienced advice.

 

I made the mistake of jumping on the DLR without tapping in when I was in a hurry.

 

 

When I arrived at my destination there were revenue inspectors waiting at the exits.

 

 

I knew I made a mistake so handed in my contactless card to be scanned and awaited my fate.

 

 

The handheld detector flashed red, then green and the inspector just let me go on my way.

 

When I checked my online account, that journey has been flagged as "revenue inspector" and have been charged the maximum fare.

 

Will I also be getting a surprise penalty notice/court order letter in a few weeks?

 

 

All these TFL horror stories have got me spooked :|:sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

doubt it

he would have taken a statement under caution if he was taking it further I think

 

 

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

 

 

Can TFL prosecute you after the system has charged you for a journey even if the charge is retrospective ?

 

I would argue that The TFL website uses the word OR so this implies NO

 

 

 

 

If you don't touch in at the start of your journey, you could be charged a maximum fare (up to £8.80), face a Penalty fare of £80 or be prosecuted. If you don't touch out at the end of your journey you could be charged a maximum fare

 

 

This contradicts conditions of use which says You can be prosecuted

 

 

. 2.11 If you do not touch in and touch out correctly, you may be charged a maximum fare. You may also be liable to a penalty fare or you may be prosecuted

 

 

I doubt that you will be !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payment of a fare after being detected when travelling without a valid ticket and reported does not automatically negate the possibility of prosecution because the relevant law is clear in saying

 

'...having not previously paid his fare....',

 

however, in the circumstances that you describe the answer is NO, you will not be likely to receive a Summons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies.

 

however, in the circumstances that you describe the answer is NO, you will not be likely to receive a Summons.

 

Why are my circumstances different? Fare evasion is fare evasion be it on purpose or misjudgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for your replies.

 

 

 

Why are my circumstances different? Fare evasion is fare evasion be it on purpose or misjudgment.

 

2 potential reasons.

 

1) Misjudgment isn't fare evasion. For evasion to be shown there has to be intent.

Misjudgement might be prosecuted under Bylaws for failure to show a valid ticket, but that isn't an "evasion" prosecution.

 

It will be harder to show intent if the staff chose not to interview you to determine the circumstances

 

2) it looks like the member of staff used their discretion to charge a maximum fare rather than reporting you for consideration of prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are my circumstances different? Fare evasion is fare evasion be it on purpose or misjudgment.

 

 

Simply because you have not been reported for such an allegation.

 

It appears that the inspector charged the maximum fare because of your failure to abide by the rules by not 'tapping in' and that is the end of the matter on this occasion.

 

I wouldn't rely on that happening in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...