Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

TFL Fare Evasion Prosecution - losing job - help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1760 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

Hi dx and all,

 

I received the court summons charging me "Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Great London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962"

 

A full list of 90+ journeys were suspected with signature required for each journey

 

1) I have 10+ journeys not made me and I have another oyster card travel history to prove this - should I include this as evidence or just admit all 90+ journeys, in case TFL made further investigations and incur further costs?

 

2) Surprisingly my court day is in early September, so I have three months negotiating with TFL. Since I have provided potential loss of job evidence in my initial response, TFL did not write back but send the court summons right away. How should I keep negotiating with TFL in this case?

 

p.s. I didn't see on letter that I should send materials back to court within 21 days as stated on many other people's summons..

 

Thank you all in advance  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 no.

the 90+ is probably listed as will be TIC?

if you plead guilty and attend to the one listed offence?

 

yes you should keep on at TfL.

 

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

Hi dx,

 

90+ journey list is all journeys ever recorded on that card - and they claimed all of them were suspected made by me

 

did you mean I should or shouldn't tell TFL that 10 of these were not made by me?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m always hesitant to advise someone to admit something they haven’t done.

yet, if you say “wasn’t me”, TfL might well ask “well, who was it then?”, and was it the pass’s authorised recipient?

are they the same route as the one you admit?

would the pass’s recipient be happy to confirm it was them who travelled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BazzaS

 

Yeah those journeys were made by the rightful owner..but again it's tricky for the card owner to step out as he might face the risk of being charged for letting me use the card..

 

So if I sign all the boxes to admit all 90+ journeys were made by me - would it deemed as another lie if subsequently found out the opposite?

 

would you advise in this case I just sign all of the journeys suspected and do not create another potential trouble? (that's what I plan to go for now) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know. Trying to work through the possibilities:

 

in some respects I suspect it will make little difference to the outcome if it goes to court, as these are being “taken into consideration”, and won’t affect any fine much. They will affect the recovery of unpaid fares, but for 10 fares that isn’t a massive amount.

 

where it may make a difference is if TFL are considering an administrative settlement.

If they were going to offer that, and you said “10 weren’t me”, they might offer it anyway.

 

If them offering it is “in the balance” there are 2 conflicting pressures:

a) “He has admitted to 80+, and could have just coughed to all. At least he is now being truthful, which fits with contrition”

b) “Sod it. Now we are going to have to look at / spend time thinking about the effect of those 10. Why couldn’t he have just coughed to them all and made my life simpler....”

there is also

c) Makes no difference, stop overthinking it.

 

So, unless someone can cast insight intoTfL’s process : we don’t know.

Back then to my earlier contribution :

i) “Don’t admit to something you haven’t done”.

(Along with contributions to other threads of

ii) “don’t get caught in a lie”, as it decreases your credibility, and

iii) “you don’t have to offer info they aren’t asking for, but do answer what they ask”).

 

Were the other 10 journeys the exact same route? If so, how can you be sure it wasn’t you?

If it wasn’t the same route: say so as the reason you know it wasn’t you.

If the same route and you are sure it wasn’t you (being on holiday, checking work rota, etc)

would you consider replying truthfully, and including a covering letter along the lines of:

”I’ve checked carefully as I want to be truthful.

I’ve signed admitting to the journeys I believe I’ve made. The 10 journeys I’ve not signed for weren’t me. I know this because <reason(s)>.

 

I can only hope this doesn’t now mean extra work for TfL, as I’m still sorry for the work my actions have caused TfL’s staff, but I appreciate the importance of me answering truthfully”, in an attempt to cover all of a), b), and c) above, while fitting in with i), ii), and iii) above, too.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BazzaS for all above and your patience.

 

Another quich Q: TFL currently charges my with Contract to byelaw 17 with suspected 90+ journeys also made by me. If I admit in the next letter to TFL or sign all the boxes to ask court take them into considerations.

 

Would this action actually results in TFL "upgrade my chagre" i. e. chagre me with Railway Act 1889 instead?

 

I much wanted to continue communicating with TFL and attend court in person, but I fear if I am asked if I do this knowingly - I will have to answer yes and which could lead to a more severe charge?

 

Any thoughs/advices welcomed. Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only advise: "don't get caught in a lie". The safest way to ensure that is telling the truth. You don't have to offer info they aren't asking for, but the truth means you don't have to remember what version of what story you've given ....

 

I can't tell you what to do, that is your choice, but I hope what I've said helps you make the correct decision for your circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

thanks all for your great advices and helps so far.

 

After self-report the event and telling all the truth to my employer, I am now on suspension pending the investigation. I was given the impression that dismissal without notice is very likely.

 

If this happens, my right to live in the uk will be immediately revoked so I might not be able to stay until court date.

 

Does anybody know TFL prosecutions team's direct contact number so I can discuss with them how to close the case if I have to leave the UK..

 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you this in writing from your employer?

 

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

then send a copy to your TfL liaison that wrote back?
 

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

you have a TfL case number , you know the address.

poss inc a copy of your initial letter again too 

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

Thanks dx and all others who helped me on this case.

 

After acknowledging the fact that I have self-reported to my employer and received a suspension letter (on ground of gross misconduct) pending internal investigation and the potential that I will have to leave the UK very shortly if I am dismissed without notice, a OOC decision has been made to settle my case.

 

I hope I can still keep my job after the disciplinary hearing due next week..

 

Please do let me know if I can be further help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey that's good news 

glad to help.

 

your job should be ok as they aren't prosecuting you now so nothing for your employer to do anything about..pokey nose out time.

you cant be punished by them for being honest and telling them.

if you hadn't ..given the OOC settlement, they would never have known nor needed to know about it all

 

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

thanks dx

I self reported to them so they suspended me and investigated.  I admited using it to save money and they rised allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity

 

they said OOC cannot change the fact of my criminal offence.  as we are in a client facing industry they seem to uphold a very high standard of internal code of ethics

 

so I am really worried. my hearing of alleaged gross misconduct is next week and they say if allegations substantied could lead to summary dismissal.. really worried

Link to post
Share on other sites

but you have not been convicted!

 

have you stated anything to your employer about how long you used the card for or no of offences?

do they know anything other than 'you got stopped by an inspector?'

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

10 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

Punished for being honest? Punished for being truthful about being dishonest, surely?.

yes I thought being truthful by admitting everything might alleviate the punishment.  After all what's done is done and all I hoped was to memorise this very hard lesson and  have a refresh start 

 

not sure if my employer will give me a second chance and keep me at job

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...