Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I had my mediation with Hermes and it was not successful i.e. we couldn't come to an agreement to settle out of court.   This was my mediation process:   First call from the mediator was received at 1:03pm which was close enough to the start of my alotted time of 1pm-4:30pm. The mediator introduced themselves, confirmed the intention of the mediation and asked if I could provide a short summary of my claim and any points I would like to raise with Hermes. I mentioned the claim amount and raised the argument that Hermes inherit the liability under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act even though I booked through Packlink and that there is a systemic problem with Hermes and their business model. The mediator said they will take this to them and call back after discussing with Hermes. Call ended 1:09pm (lasted 6 minutes).   Second call from the mediator was received at 1:15pm and they said that Hermes' stance is that my contract was with Packlink and not with them. Hermes mentioned they had investigated with Packlink and that I did not pay for insurance for my item but they were willing to offer me the standard claim amount of £25 plus £2.86 postage = £27.86. Of course I did not entertain that offer and I said that the whole point of having to pay extra to insure my item against their own negligence is absurd. Hermes also stated that this item was on Packlink's prohibited list. I replied that this so called list was not made clear to me when listing my item on ebay or purchasing the label through Packlink (which is ebay's affiliated choice for purchasing postage) and I would bring up the whole question of prohibited items for consideration by the judge if it goes to court. The mediator asked what I would be willing to settle at. I said I am not willing to budge from my claim amount of £357.84 which includes court costs. They reminded me that they don't see Hermes willing to accept that and that the whole point of mediation is to be willing to be flexible. I stood firm and said I am not budging from this amount and that I am being flexible by not taking Hermes to court and willing to settle now. The mediator said they will discuss with Hermes and call back. Call ended 1:27pm (lasted 12 minutes).   The third call from the mediator was received at 1:32pm and they mentioned that Hermes were willing to offer £300 as a goodwill gesture plus the £2.86 postage costs = £302.86. They said £300 is the maximum they can offer to settle for this process. I stayed resolute and asserted I am not willing to go any lower than my claim amount. I said it's not so much about the money and reiterated that the routine denial of liability and having to pay extra for insurance is a systemic issue with Hermes and that I have evidence that many other customers face the same problem when using Hermes which I am willing to present to the presiding judge if this goes to court. Only if they were willing to pay me back the full claim amount then I would drop the case. The mediator did mention that taking this to court I may also lose which would mean losing further court fees (£55 I believe they mentioned as the fee) as well as time and effort in preparing for the case. I repeated that paying the extra costs and risking the money is not so much of an issue to me. I also added in there that a national newspaper are sniffing around at this story and if a judgement goes against them then I won't hesitate to share with them and across social media a copy of the transcript. The mediator asked if they were happy to share this detail to Hermes which I agreed. They said they will discuss with Hermes and call me back. Call ended 1:36pm (lasted 4 minutes).    Received the fourth and final call from the mediator at 1:39pm and they said that Hermes were not willing to improve on the offer, reiterating they would argue to the judge that my contract is not with them and is with Hermes so this case cannot be settled through the mediation process and I would receive further details on the next steps. Call ended 1:40pm (last 1 minute).   I am somewhat surprised that Hermes were willing to offer up to £300 plus postage costs given their arguments but would not settle by offering my full claim costs.   In terms of the mediator's attitude, they did add a bit of pressure in trying to get me to be flexible i.e. settle for a lower amount. I suppose it is their job to get this settled out of court. They did also mention on a couple of occasions that it may be months before this case is looked at, with the covid situation it may not be in person and that I would have to go through the motions and prepare which would take time and effort on my behalf. However as noted above in this thread I wasn't willing to settle for a lower amount so let's see how it plays in court.   Any advice on the next steps BankFodder?  
    • all uploaded images merged and vastly reduced in size full DQ above.   you should have room now to upload the rest of the required docs but not all single pages please!   dx  
    • woe slow down put them ALL in ONE multipage PDf please   use pdfreducer and merge pdf if you have too.   cant be here all day downloading single pages. read upload carefully   claim no in 1st page removed. dx  
    • UK transport secretary aims for a new air traveller testing regime, but BA boss is sceptical. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1610 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,

 

On wednesday 23/03/2016 i was travelling as I am used to from ilkley to go work in leeds,

I have a metro card that i top up every month, this one expired on 22/03/2016.

 

As I was in a rush I did not want to miss the train

I did not buy a ticket from the station i assumed I could do so on the train,

on board no guard came offered fares as I was expecting.

 

 

When I arrived i then decided to go and buy the ticket from the platform.

I was then stopped by a guard and telling me i to fill inn the paper...

 

The guard took my travel card receipt covering for the period from 23/02/2016 to 22/03/2016.

Opened the gates and let me go.

 

I then went to the nearest payzone and topped up my metro card covering period from 23/03/2016 to 22/04/2016 INCLUDING wednesday 23/03/2016.

 

I am now very concerned about this situation in here as I did not do anything wrong.

The agent who took my details saw my passport and Iam sure i spelled my name correctly

but for some reason I received a letter with my first name spelt wrong.

 

My question is

will I be prosecuted for this ?

this was the first time this has ever happened to me.

I am flabbergasted as i was not trying to be dishonest that is not my nature..

 

 

but then I receive that letter accusing me of fare evasion.

I am really worried I don't want to have it on my records and ruin my future.

 

Can any one help me ? Much appreciated

 

Thank you

 

S.S

Link to post
Share on other sites

not a professional so can only give my opinion

 

at the time you traveled you did not have a vaild ticket for that journey, however at your first available opportunity you did pay for the service used

 

did you explain to the gaurd you spoke to that you wanted to buy a ticket to cover your travel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

simply reply offering to pay any reasonable costs and admin fees

and promise it was a one off and you will not do it again.

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
however at your first available opportunity you did pay for the service used
No, the first available opportunity was at Ilkley before getting on the train.
Link to post
Share on other sites

cookie, my understanding is that if you seek out the conductor/guard on the train to pay your fare, then it's probably OK.

 

The OP seems to have waited for the guard to come and find them to offer to take fares, which could be where this has gone wrong.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a ticket office or self service machine available at your origin - you MUST use it, even if it means missing your train.

 

It is a criminal offence to fail to do so - regardless of whether you "intended" to avoid the fare or not.

 

Fortunately, Northern Rail will, for first time offenders only, offer you a Fixed Penalty of £80.00 plus the full single fare for the journey. If you refuse to pay it, they will commence a criminal prosecution, to which you have absolutely zero defence. To get the offer of fixed penalty, you must admit the offence and express your regret and apologies.

 

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter

any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a

valid ticket entitling him to travel.

 

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity

when asked to do so by an authorised person.

 

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and,

[...] may be liable for each such offence to a

penalty not exceeding level 3 [£1000] on the standard scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Thank you very much for your replies I have sent a letter back apologizing and promising not to do it again...

 

But again I did not do anything wrong and I feel like paying 80 pounds would be an unfair outcome for myself, as I was not dishonest and I was going to purchase the fare at the platform, I looked for guards on the train could not find any next to where i as sat, I did not lie or try to lie about the station of origin.

 

I understand that I made a mistake, It would only be fair if they made this law applicable on EVERYONE... I see people buying fares on board or on the platform all the time, do they get this hastle for it ? No. I guess its just my luck.

 

I will keep you updated.

 

Thanks

 

SS

Link to post
Share on other sites
cookie, my understanding is that if you seek out the conductor/guard on the train to pay your fare, then it's probably OK.

 

The OP seems to have waited for the guard to come and find them to offer to take fares, which could be where this has gone wrong.

 

HB

 

That would be a defence to "intending to avoid their fare", as seeking out the staff shows there wasn't intent.

However, intent isn't relevant to a Bylaw 18 prosecution : if the on train staff chose to ask you for your ticket and you can't produce one - you will be in breach of the Bylaw (absent one of the statutory defences).

 

There is no "travel first, buy later" scheme if there were previous facilities for the purchase of a ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone,

 

Thank you very much for your replies I have sent a letter back apologizing and promising not to do it again...

 

But again I did not do anything wrong and I feel like paying 80 pounds would be an unfair outcome for myself, as I was not dishonest and I was going to purchase the fare at the platform, I looked for guards on the train could not find any next to where i as sat, I did not lie or try to lie about the station of origin.

 

I understand that I made a mistake, It would only be fair if they made this law applicable on EVERYONE... I see people buying fares on board or on the platform all the time, do they get this hastle for it ? No. I guess its just my luck.

 

I will keep you updated.

 

Thanks

 

SS

If you think paying £80 is unfair, just wait until you get fined £hundreds + £hundreds in costs in court when you're found guilty of not producing a valid ticket, for which you have no defence whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What paper did you fill in?

In order to secure a criminal prosecution for an dishonesty crime (ie theft), prosecution MUST show mens rea. Because you offered to pay on a voluntary basis immediately on arrival, I think they would struggle to show that you intended to evade the fare. In addition as a season ticket holder, assuming that you have a history of back to back season tickets, this would also support your claim that you had no intention of avoiding paying.

 

Also note that the contents of their letter is important. If they have asked you to pay £80 then they cannot seek a criminal prosecution. Threat of criminal prosecution if you do not pay their £80 fine is making a demand with menaces and a criminal act under 1968 Theft Act

Threat of civil action (ie county court for a civil debt) if you do not cough up, is not. The fine is purely a revenue generating exercise for the railway company. I don't know how you would avoid paying it if this is their policy under terms and conditions of travel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What paper did you fill in?

In order to secure a criminal prosecution for an dishonesty crime (ie theft), prosecution MUST show mens rea. Because you offered to pay on a voluntary basis immediately on arrival, I think they would struggle to show that you intended to evade the fare. In addition as a season ticket holder, assuming that you have a history of back to back season tickets, this would also support your claim that you had no intention of avoiding paying.

 

Also note that the contents of their letter is important. If they have asked you to pay £80 then they cannot seek a criminal prosecution. Threat of criminal prosecution if you do not pay their £80 fine is making a demand with menaces and a criminal act under 1968 Theft Act

Threat of civil action (ie county court for a civil debt) if you do not cough up, is not. The fine is purely a revenue generating exercise for the railway company. I don't know how you would avoid paying it if this is their policy under terms and conditions of travel.

 

See post #8 : intent is necessary for the "intent to avoid a fare" offence, but the Bylaw 18 offence is 'strict liability' - so intent is irrelevant, and does not need to be established, only that a valid ticket was requested and not shown.

 

That would be a defence to "intending to avoid their fare", as seeking out the staff shows there wasn't intent.

However, intent isn't relevant to a Bylaw 18 prosecution : if the on train staff chose to ask you for your ticket and you can't produce one - you will be in breach of the Bylaw (absent one of the statutory defences).

 

There is no "travel first, buy later" scheme if there were previous facilities for the purchase of a ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also note that the contents of their letter is important. If they have asked you to pay £80 then they cannot seek a criminal prosecution. Threat of criminal prosecution if you do not pay their £80 fine is making a demand with menaces and a criminal act under 1968 Theft Act

No it's not. It's known as an administrative settlement to keep the matter out of court and to be honest, is a good thing as it save people from getting a criminal record and shows the court that the TOC is trying not to criminalise people unless absolutely necessary.

 

As Bazza also said, no intent is required to secure a Byelaw conviction as it's a strict liability offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a whole thread here which discusses the mens era v strict referencing a landmark case.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59393

 

The bottom line is that the OP is being asked to pay a penalty fare. The railway company cannot seek prosecution if they do not pay. It is important to understand exactly what the letter says because if this is what they are trying to do then a well worded letter back should close the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
There is a whole thread here which discusses the mens era v strict referencing a landmark case.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59393

 

The bottom line is that the OP is being asked to pay a penalty fare. The railway company cannot seek prosecution if they do not pay. It is important to understand exactly what the letter says because if this is what they are trying to do then a well worded letter back should close the issue.

You're correct reference the direct prosecution of a nil paid Penalty Fare, however, if not paid, a penalty fare is cancelled and the matter dealt with under the strict liability Byelaw (usually 18(1)). It's the original fare dealt with under the Byelaws and NOT the original Penalty amount. The Penalty Fare itself is NOT prosecuted as this is a civil matter. A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy for a criminal matter. I believe this case divers from a usual Penalty Fare matter in that the amount was an £80 penalty as Northern don't operate a Penalty Fare scheme. The only difference technically is the amount, and that Northern deal with this penalty amount themselves rather than an agent such as IRCAS or IPFAS. The original fare is what's being prosecuted should they cancel the notice, not the £80 penalty amount.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...