Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • E&W=England and Wales for correct sign see TSRGD paper on disabled parking and within that fig 6. note layout and size Whilst you are at it look at all of the suggested floor markings and bay sizes. The ones shown dont pass the regulations. That means they have fiale to meet planning regs. So then we look at intent- now they will argue that the intent is clear but then as the layout, markings and signage fail to follow the code of practice they will be considered advisory (as they should be on private land). Can it be true that you can be sued for ignoring someones advice, esp when there isnt a contractual term that says anything about it in the first place? In the fullness of time you will be copying this pdf and using it as evidence. In the meanwhile you stick to the deadlines imposed by the court procedure and if they fail to pay the allocation fee in tiem you ask for the case to be chucked out. At near the end of thsi month you post your outline defence via the moneyclaim portal and state that (1) the claim is denied as there  was no offer of a contractual term to breach in such a manner  (2) the claimant has failed to show a cause for action against the defendant, being the keeper of the vehicle because they have failed to follow the protocols of the POFA so cannot create a keeper liability in this matter.  The claimant has failed to identify the driver at the time (3) the Particulars of claim are so vague  it is impossible to determine what the claimant is actually relying upon to show a cause for action in terms of the location, date of event and how the the amount of the claim (sum of £160) was arrived at and particulary the signage they rely on to form a contract with the public. The defendant invites the court to issue a Case management Order under CPR3.3 to instruct the claimant provide evidence that signage that expressly offers a contract exists as claimed and that this contract was then breached as the defendant believes that the claim has no reasonable grounds and is a waste of the courts resources and should be dismissed if such evidence is not produced.   the last point may well be ignored whislt the paperwork is processed at Northampton as they dont read much of it and it will only be read once it gets allocated to your local court so prepare to get as far as a hearing in any case.  
    • At the end of the day, I tend to agree that they have been more than reasonable.
    • The Prime Minister of Luxembourg has just held a press conference without boris Johnson,  and all that was in his place was an empty podium and a UK flag.   We are absolute laughing stocks... the Luxembourg prime minister didn't mince his words either...
    • Followed. I believe they've sent everything to me. I've re-upploaded. I meant Provident never sent the notice of assignment not default notice. Looks like the default notice would have come from Vanquis. CCA Reply Lowell_compressed.pdf
  • Our picks

azaman

Southern: Notice of intention to presecute **SETTLED OOC**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 229 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

Posted (edited)

Hello,

 

I'm looking for some help regarding a letter I received from Thameslink regarding intention to prosecute.

 

Background to incident.

 

I work in London and buy a monthly season ticket from my Home station, New Malden to London Waterloo. On 18 Sept, the company i work for had a business contingency day and i was instructed to work from our contingency site (i got a call the night before). the contingency site is in Bookham (surrey).

 

So on the 18th Sept I traveled to Bookham by train and tapped in at New Malden to pay by contactless debit card. When I reached Bookham there was a revenue inspector there who informed me that Bookham was not an oyster station. I did try to tap out at Bookham where my debit card didnt work, at which point the revenue inspector took me to one side to explain contact less not support here and took down all my details. I showed the inspector my ticket from New Malden to Waterloo and tried to explain i wasnt fare dodging and had attemted to pay and that i wasnt aware that contact less didnt extend to Bookham.

 

Yesterday, I received a letter from Thameslink, stating that they intended to take the case to the magistrates court and want me to respond with what happened from my point of view. Any advice what i should do? and how serious is this, is it likely to result in a criminal record.

 

Since then I've stopped using contactless, to get out out of the habit if tapping in / out. Feels like a trap.

 

PS, the inspector didnt dispute that i had tried to pay with my contactless debit card, and after i had given all my details mentioned that i would get charged by TFL (whatever the maximum daily fare was) because i hadn't tapped out.

 

Regards,

A Zaman

Edited by azaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it will if you don't respond within the timeframe.

 

there are numerous appropriate letters in threads here

 

you need to BRIEFLY explain the above

then grovel to get them to settle out of court.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk, thanks for the prompt reply. whats the typical out of court settlement amount.

whilst as they say I didnt have a ticket for the journey, I didnt intended to fare dodge. Just wasnt aware which stations have contactless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't read minds

Read other threads


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just seen where Bookham is, just outside the M25 boundary, and think you've been very unlucky. In other threads there are premedidating fare dodgers who got an out of court settlement. Once upon a time you would have been able to just pay your fare at the destination station!

 

However, that's by the by, the important thing now is to not get prosecuted. Reading other threads, I see the TOCs are under pressure from the courts to drop out of court settlements, which could be a problem.

 

In any case, the essential thing is to reply, briefly explain what happened, and apologise profusely, as DX has said. However, while accepting to be in the wrong, I would underline that you weren't fare dodging and that a genuine mistake can happen in a complicated system (you'd bought a monthly ticket, got hammered for the maximum daily fare by TFL which is hardly the action of a fare dodger, you were used to using contactless, Bookham is only just outside the M25, etc.) and suggest that a penalty fare or out of court settlement would be more appropriate than prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Malden > Bookham £6.50. TFL maximum fare £10.50. Hardly the action of a fare dodger. Still apologise and admit your error though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Reading other threads, I see the TOCs are under pressure from the courts to drop out of court settlements, which could be a problem.

 

Slight thread drift, but where does this come from?

 

Why would courts put TOCs under pressure this way?

What reason would courts have to do that?

 

Indeed, how could they do that, who speaks for "the courts"?

 

General government policy since forever has been to encourage out of court settlements, not force them into the courts.

 

When did the Home Office decide to adopt a different policy for fare evasion cases?

 

Waht's the evidence for this policy change?

 

Just asking.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a post in a recent thread here that reference a letter about such from a TOC


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first link doesn't seem to have anything relevant to this, unless I'm missing something.

 

The second link the poster just says "I called and this very nice man picked up this time he was very helpful. He told me apparently they have been told off by courts for doing settlements out of court for these kinds of cases, as it was for the courts to decide the case". An anonymous "very nice man" sounds to me to be about million miles away from a statement of government or court policy.

 

I'm not convinced about this policy change being true.

 

That doesn't affect the good advice given to the OP though. It just seems a bit alarmist to tell the OP there has been a change of government prosecution policy on such slim evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's the only one ive seen

p'haps old-codja might appear soon to clarify.

 

all for now.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the feedback, i'll give it a go and see what happens. I still feel aggrieved of being accused of being a faredodger...especially as i just bought an annual pass 2 days back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experts here have dealt with loads of these cases over the years, including many where real fare dodgers escaped prosecution. If you want, post up what you propose to say and they will suggest which bits to tweak.

 

You're right, it's a disgrace you're being threatened with the Magistrates' Court. You made an honest mistake, paid £10.50 instead of £6.50, and you're being threatened with court!!!

 

However by the letter of the law they're right and you're wrong, it's a strict liability offence, so you do need to reply to their letter with your side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

i thought i'd let you know that i got a letter back saying they would accept £61 as an out of court settlement. Whilst im still bitter about the experience , i wanted to thank you all for your feedback.

 

AZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

glad its over well done.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azaman,

 

firstly, well done on avoiding court action.

 

As you saw upthread, I had mentioned rumours about the TOCs not accepting OOC settlements any more, then Ethel Street had rightly written that the evidence for this was hardly conclusive, so I was really hoping you would report back (a) for yourself and (b) for the benefit of future forum users. Thanks.

 

Completely agree that you should be bitter, you make a genuine mistake, actually pay £10.50 instead of £6.50, then instead of just being waved through once you explain like used to happen, no, you get threatened with a criminal record and then clobbered for an extra £61!!!

 

Well done though on avoiding the beak.

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...