TFL Freedom Pass Misuse Bye-Laws 17(1) - multiple uses hearing - help needed.

[eldona-2541]

1. NO. SHE DID NOT KNOW. IF SHE WOULD KNOW SHE NEVER WOULD DO ANYTHING LIKE SO.

2. She did not even imagine that her acquaintancies could tell her something wrong.

 

She did not think that she need to go and check because she trust them.

 

3. She has never been in similar situation to run and study law of the UK, she just work and work to survive. Is it so difficult to understand?

 

She is repeating again and again^ "Why did I listen to her?"[the woman who said her to do it)

[dx100uk]

thank you

the owner of the pass told her she could use it ..here take it.

 

she never bothered to find out if this was true..Chinese whispers syndrome .

 

I have a much better understanding now.

leave it with me, the process and letters needs careful thought.

there is a long period to the actual court date, so plenty of time to formulate the correct approach.

 

it might well be we hold some cards back for later letters trying to gain an out of court settlement..

the first being why they have failed to even reply to her return of the form.

 

dx

 

 

 

 

 

[eldona-2541]

You wrote :"the owner of the pass told her she could use it ..here take it." 

It is again incorrect. Could you please read my letter which I wrote for her? She was advised by some friend who is Bulgarian as well,, not by her mother

 

[eldona-2541]

You named her actions fraud. But where is mens rea? 

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.

 

Fraud can violate civil law, a criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.

 

Material or immaterial.... There are circumstances and they are mitigate her action.

It is not excuse but mitigation.

You cannot take one word from sentence, you have to see a full picture. 

 

When you discribe a situation, you have to give a full picture that it would not lose even one puzzle that nobody could tell that something is wrong.

 

When you remove some details, you give an opportunity to put in that empty place a wrong puzzle to help the prosecution unfairly accuse an innocent person.

 

You can speak here about her negligence, but not about her intention to deceive.

But even negligence is under question.

 

Yes, there is breach of duty of comply with law.

And unknowing the law doesn't relief her from responsibility.

This is understandable.

But we looking for mitigation 

Good night 

[BazzaS]

TfL aren’t (currently) proceeding under a statute that requires intent (such as S5 RRA 1889).

 

The bylaw prosecution doesn’t require them to show intent / mens rea, only that the act of being unable to produce a valid ticket took place, (& in the absence of one of statutory defences).

 

BTW, I’m impressed how much your syntax and grammar improved with your reply “You named her actions fraud. But where is mens rea? In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law, a criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong.“.........

[eldona-2541]

It is not necessary to show that you are native English speaking, but I am not.
At least I can speak one language more than you. 
Can you argue in another language? I am sure that not. 
Weakness in language skills doesn't make weak other skills.
I consider your notice has discriminatory nature.

[AndyOrch]

Please can we keep this on track and deal with the problem to hand.

 

Andy