Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless... "A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." My question there is really what might constitute proof? Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.
    • I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee.  However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest.  It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases.  I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway
    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
    • The sign says "Parking conditions apply 24/7". Mind you, that's after a huge wall of text. The whole thing is massively confusing.  Goodness knows what you're meant to do if you spend only a fiver in Iceland or you stay a few minutes over the hour there.
  • 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

Travelled from Camarthen to Cardiff, caught by revenue inspector


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2760 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

ANY HELP WOULD BE HUGELY APPRECIATED I am worried sick about ending up with a criminal record

 

I am experiencing the following issue:

 

On the day question I caught a train from Carmarthen to Cardiff.

I decided to board the train and pay for my ticket on the train or upon my arrival at Cardiff.

As it was Rugby International day I did not have the opportunity to purchase a ticket on the train.

 

Upon my arrival at Cardiff Station I was approached by an investigator who asked where had I travelled from .

Unfortunately I replied from Bridgeng but I quickly corrected myself and told him I had in fact come on at Carmarthen and offered to pay my fare.

However I was not allowed to do this.

 

The inspector took notes which were fairly brief, it took less than 10 minutes.

He never said they were a prosecuting company and this matter could be referred to a Magistrate Court

 

. I have contacted Transport Focus and they said they have highlighted several issues with TIL about their poor handling of the situation on the day and general process and sending letters which are inaccurate but they are not really interested.

 

They are also trying to push to have this bylaw de criminalised as they don't believe passengers should have a criminal record for travel fraud as it is not consistent with other crimes.

 

I have tried on several occasions to resolve this matter before it is referred to a Magistrate Court but they have declined and said I will be issued with a summons.

 

I am in full time employment and have never had any dealings with the police or authorities and am anxious to avoid any slur on my character which may affect my career.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

" They are also trying to push to have this bylaw de criminalised as they don't believe passengers should have a criminal record for travel fraud as it is not consistent with other crimes."

 

Did they call it "travel fraud"?

Are the referring to the Bylaw (18) or the Regulation of Railways Act (non-Bylaw) offence? Which are they intending by to summons you for?

 

Regulation of Railways Act, as you can see if don't have a clue about all of this so any help would be appreciated, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation of Railways Act (s5) is harder for them to prove as the Bylaw is "strict liability", but the RRA requires them to prove "intent".

However, deliberately stating you came from a closet station than where you actually boarded : not hard for them to show 'intent'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Court will be required to consider only what you did and said.

 

If an inspector took a traveller's offer of a fare from Bridgend without question and that traveller had come from further afield (Carmarthen) without a ticket, then that traveller would have avoided the correct fare by being untruthful.

 

That is not a Byelaw offence, it is an offence of 'intent to avoid payment'

Link to post
Share on other sites

even though i corrected myself in less than 2 minutes and tried to purchase a ticket to which he wouldn't allow?

 

Your obligation (provided there are ticket purchasing facilities) is to buy your ticket before travelling.

However, what matters is that you not only didn't buy a ticket you offered a "short fare" ; the offence was committed there - once committed they don't have to regard it as "cancelled" once you owned up.

 

Did you admit it spontaneously, or had the staff member "caught you in a lie"?. If the former, stress so in your request for an administrative settlement - if the latter, pleas of "I owned up" are mitigation, not defence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admitted it off my own accord and approached the desk with the correct amount to pay the fare. The inspector however asked the lady not to issue me a ticket and proceeded to write his notes.

 

I have ready many cases far worse who have been able to settle out of court and just feel the system is very unfair. I would understand if the same standards were issued to everyone but they are not by a long way.

 

I know I shouldn't have said it for second but I did and can't turn back time I don't need others to tell me I'm in the wrong as I know I am. Many people don't even own up until it's to late and they've received a letter. I wrote on this website as I have seen many people helping others and thought there might have been something I missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you scroll down to the bottom of the CAG page, you will see a contact us link to click on. You can then submit a message to the site admin team who will deal with your request.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you scroll down to the bottom of the CAG page, you will see a contact us link to click on. You can then submit a message to the site admin team who will deal with your request.

 

Thank you very much for your help and response I shall give that a go

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have contacted Transport Focus and they said they have highlighted several issues with TIL about their poor handling of the situation on the day and general process and sending letters which are inaccurate but they are not really interested.

 

They are also trying to push to have this bylaw de criminalised as they don't believe passengers should have a criminal record for travel fraud as it is not consistent with other crimes.

 

I have returned to this thread because I notice a common misunderstanding that can frequently result in many people erroneously believing that the matter they have been accused of is not a serious offence and/or that Transport Focus have authority to intervene in prosecutable matters, which they do not.

 

Firstly, Transport Focus are not an 'Ombudsman' they are a publicly funded lobbying organisation headed by Anthony Smith and their brief is to monitor performance in the transport industry. This includes looking at whether a rail company have followed the rules when dealing with such matters and from the OP's descripytion, it is perfectly clear that the rules appear to have been followed in this case.

 

Frequent misunderstandings by some TF advisors, resulting in poor advice for the complainant can make matters very much worse as appears to be the case here

 

Offering a 'short' fare is NOT a Byelaw offence. It is an offence of having not previously paid, did display an intention to avoid the correct fare contrary to Section 5.3 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

 

If summonsed, a Court will be required to judge whether or not the traveller intended to avoid a fare and that will take account of what that traveller did and said.

 

To paraphrase the words of former Master of the Rolls Lord Denning in the case of Oscar Chess, 'The Court is not required to look into the mind of the accused to determine what he intended, he will be judged on his words and actions at the time'.

 

If the case is proven, this is a criminal matter and in addition to the penalty imposed by a Court, a record will appear on DBS.

 

A Byelaw offence is 'strict liability' and the prosecution need not consider, nor are they required to prove intent. The alleged offender either did it, or they did not.

 

As the OP's original post refers to an incident in Wales, it is pertinent to look at Arriva Trains Wales enforcement policy, which, in common with other train operators across the UK recognises the strict nature of National Railway Byelaw 18.1.

 

Separately, the ATW policy also makes clear that the criminal act of offering a 'short fare' will be prosecuted.

 

The Byelaw makes boarding any train without a ticket at a station where the traveller could have got one a strict liability offence. The only exceptions are, if the facilities were not in working order or a sign was exhibited permitting boarding without ticket, or if an authorised person gave permission to travel without ticket.

 

Transport Focus do not need to 'push to have this Byelaw de-criminalised' as this is not a recordable offence and therefore no basic criminal record ensues from conviction.

 

The OP's post simply serves to highlight the poor understanding and poor advice meted out by Transport Focus advisors.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...