Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to update, i have received a letter this morning from Arrow Global-   We thank you for your letter and acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant of the consumer credit act 1974. We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested.We will now process your request for documentation from the creditor and will respond in due course. We confirm that all collection activity will be suspended pending provision of the documents.   So i assume Arrow have not bought the debt and are collecting for either another DCA or indeed the origianol creditor in this case would be Marks & Spencer. not sure to as if this is good news that they have not produced it or bad news they may be going back to M&S,Can anyone chuck some light on it for me   Many Thanks to all
    • Hello. I'm asking a question regarding paying a PPI company. I won't name names, unless anyone thinks it's relevant. My partner made a claim to a PPI company a few weeks before the deadline. He received a letter from Lloyds asking for authority for them to act, which he supplied. A couple of weeks later, rather unexpectedly, he had a letter from Lloyds with an offer, which he accepted. He's now received the payment. In all of this time, he had nothing from the PPI company apart from the odd text, asking him to keep them informed if he heard anything. He scanned the letter with the offer from Lloyds and emailed it to them as requested, expecting them to invoice him, he has no intention of not paying, even though they seem to have done next to nothing. This week, he receive 2 letters from them containing 3 forms in total, for him to complete, checking his details as Lloyds told them there was an error. I've advised him to ignore the form, since he's been paid & is just waiting for them to claim the money from him, and if they're so inefficient, that they ignore emails virtually offering them money, they might forget about it altogether! Is this the right course of action? He's concerned they'll take him to court for not paying, but I don't see how they can, when they've never even asked for any. Any advice greatly appreciated.  
    • I think you should have included the letter in your bundle to VCS and the Court. That way I would think VCS would not wish to go to Court as they would have to admit that they had been issuing PCNs for several years having no contract to do so. Completely blowing out of the water their statement that they  adhere to the Code of Conduct. As they haven't and also lied in their Witness statement, it should be pointed out that they should not be able to access the DVLA for motorists data when they have breached the Code for so long . It should also be pointed out their other misrepresentation. as I pointed out on post 123 and 126.
    • Thanks for all your help so far, it's appreciated. Received the notice of allocation to the small claims track from my local court with the following page being directions. First and foremost it reminds them to pay a fee. I'm PC savvy so I'll post up a copy of the letter with details removed a bit later.
    • grr.. THEY ARE NOT BAILIFFS they cant enter any property or do ANYTHING.    
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 553 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

Evening All,

 

I've scoured through many threads and posts on here and google and thought the only way to get esteemed advice was to put up this thread.

I thank you all for your time and advice in advance.

 

December last year I was summoned to court for a July offence for 'compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket' contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of Transport for London Railway Byelaws etc.

 

That evening I travelled from Canada Water to Norwood Junction,

on attempting to exit the barriers I tapped my Oyster and it wouldn't allow me to leave

 

I called the female attendant who informed me the oyster wasn't validated at the start of my journey.

She checked the oyster and saw that I had a monthly travel card (Z2 and 3) and PAYG balance to cover my journey.

 

She suggested to be careful mixing bank cards with the oyster; then an RPI rudely intervened, taking the oyster card from the attendant and checked it on his portable device. He also stated that my journey wasn't validated from the start, asked if the oyster was the card I travelled with from the start of the journey

- I said yes.

 

He then proceeded to get very rude and aggressive.

Initially he said he'll give me an £80 fine then as the exchange went on he said I will be prosecuted and summoned to court amongst other unsavoury comments, while I duly complied and kept my calm.

I was not given a caution re PACE.

 

I waited for the letter.

Unfortunately, I forgot this was sent to my mother's address

 

I received the Single Justice Procedure Notice (sent on 27 Nov) too late to make an appeal or an out of time appeal

- it was received 5 days before the hearing.

 

I was prepared to go to court either way but upon asking for CCTV and Travel History from TFL due to the time lapse, they were only able to provide my product history confirming I had a valid travelcard and balance on my oyster for the July offence. Furthermore, the Witness statement from the RPI repeated a snippet of our conversation convenient to prosecution (remember I had no caution re PACE) and there was no mention of the valid travelcard I had.

I called the court and they advised me the hearing will still go ahead on the set date.

 

Low and behold the day before the hearing, I received the Notice of Fine and Collection order for £473.

Again I called the court and they said as I was found guilty in absence (recall I was out of time to send an appeal) and the only way forward was to accept the fine and pay.

 

I have paid the fine in full just to avoid it affecting my record etc but I am ready to address this matter in a complaint against the RPI as it was due to his incompetence that I received the fine. But don't know where to start

- your help and advise are much appreciated?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you didn't mix up the dates?

You can't get fined before the court hears the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of other inconsistencies in the Op's post, too.

 

What happened with the Prosecutions team writing to the OP, and the OP's reply?, which would be usual practice.

 

Why does the OP think they could defend a 17(1) charge using CCTV and their travel history?. If their Oyster wasn't swiped in, it wasn't a valid ticket as far as for a 17(1) prosecution, and if they didn't have one of the statutory defences, they were bound to be found guilty if they didn't persuade the Prosecutions team to offer an administrative settlement as an alternative to prosecution.

 

If they got a SJP notice, they can ask for a full hearing... so where does "appeal' come into it at that stage?

 

"I have paid the fine in full just to avoid it affecting my record" seems (again) odd. If found guilty the OP has a criminal record. Paying a court imposed fine just stops the fine collection being escalated to (what used to be known as) bailiffs, and doesn't prevent the criminal record.....

 

The OP was entirely calm and co-operative when stopped, but the RPI was an incandescent ball of uncontrolled rage?

So, the RPI should be found at fault for a 'wrongful prosecution'???? That somehow ignores the role of the Prosecutions team in deciding to persue this to court, and of the court (how can it be wrongful prosecution if a court found a guilty verdict ...... the OP would have to get the case re-opened / re-heard and the verdict reversed for it to stand a chance of being 'wrongful prosecution').

 

For a start we only have the OP's side of things here to go on, but even so ..... too many inconsistencies. If the OP actually has a reasonable case, they are going to have to do a better job of presenting it, otherwise it just looks like a case of 'I got stopped without having swiped in my Oyster, I didn't prevent the situation escalating, to the point it got heard in my absence, and now I'm trying to complain about the RPI out of "sour grapes"', which is a complaint that will be going nowhere, as TfL will just point to the court's verdict, and stress this wasn't just to the civil standard of proof ('balance of probabilities'), but the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...