Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What advice would you give about Amex. Should i set up a payment plan directly with them or wait until they contact me. I have not had any letters from amex for 1 year and NCO have only contacted me in the last few weeks. Many thanks for your help. Just to mention my only income is the state pension.
    • Okay. Thanks. Nice piece of research. You should come and volunteer for us a bit if you get fed up with your day job stop The recipient is clearly in a position of trust. I wonder if he is self-employed or an employee. Let's assume that all of the consumables/perishables which were included in the parcel are no longer available. That leaves you with the WMF cutlery set which is presumably what you really want. I'm wondering whether you should start to correspond with him directly by letter to his home and also copies to his work address. I think if you made it plain that you know all about him and where he is and that you are prepared to escalate this matter even to the point that his employers might discover what has happened, you could find that there would be an agreement whereby he would return what is left of your parcel to DHL. You could then take up the question of the value of the missing items – the loss of which can clearly be compensated by a pecuniary award – with DHL. You wouldn't be able to guarantee success – but you could have some fun – and we would help you. If it failed then you could still proceed against DHL as I've already described. An advantage is that this approach really wouldn't cost you very much other than some damage to your Karma – but I dare say you could find some interesting outlet for that. It seems fairly clear that this person has acted with intent to deprive you of these items. Does that give you enough of the – grudge factor – to pursue this?  
    • If it's with debt recovery, you can ignore them. As we've said, you only respond to a Letter Before Claim/Action.   HB
    • Sorry I didn't mean to come across like that. My bad.  I definitely appreciate the time.  I will go through it again, but I have no documentation, no yellow slips, no letters, nothing.. all binned... Because as far as I am aware, these people write their own laws, so I write my own too, just tell them to f off.  I will read over them all but not sure how trying to clear up some ntk slips now will do anything, it's all been passed to debt recovery, I think anyway, because I never answer unknown calls.  Anyway sorry I have gone on... Maybe we should close this here. 
    • Conversion is a tort – and references to it are contained in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act. Generally speaking if you sue in contract or negligence then you wouldn't be getting your goods back. You would simply be getting financial compensation. That's the way the courts work. The basic premise is that everything can be compensated by a payment of money. When we deal with special values such as sentimental/expectation losses then you have to reassess. However, if you are simply concerned with the replacement value then we would simply be talking about money. The idea of suing in any kind of tort whether it is the tort of conversion or the tort of negligence is to put you back into the position that you would have been if the tort had never occurred. Returning you to your pre-incident position is generally considered to be putting you into that position in terms of monetary value. So if you run into someone's car and cause £500 with the damage – then you are entitled to recover £500 and that puts you into the position you would have been if the accident never occurred. If you suffer the loss of something that has a particular value to you which may not be of value to anyone else – then things get much more complicated – especially if you're suing  in contract or in negligence because generally speaking remedies are assessed on a replacement market value.  A sentimental item may be worth very little on the market and couldn't be replaced simply by finding out the going rate on eBay or in the shops, for instance. If you are  suing in conversion then the natural remedy to be awarded by the courts is an order for the return of the items. Of course you face additional complications if the items have been sold on or damaged. I have to say it seems to me that you are better off not having your German chocolates. There are much better ones around – but that  is a matter for you. Of course, everything I said in my much earlier post about the disadvantages of suing the actual recipient still stand and in fact if you did sue that person, it would be in the tort of conversion. Basically you would be saying that that person has usurped the rights of owner. They have converted your property into their's. (We talking about ownership/title here). I hope you understand how messy it would be to have to sue the alleged tortfeasor in Liverpool and if you are simply prepared to go with replacement values – even if we can enhance the value because of the special value to you, by suing DHL – how much easier it would be. It's good news that DHL apparently carry items up to €500 – and also good news that the value wasn't declared. This means that they would not be able later on to try and argue that because the original contract with the sender was based on a £200 declared value – or a £200 German statutory maximum, that you wouldn't be entitled to claim anything more. We would have been able to overcome that – and of course at the end of the day if they put their hands up to £200 then they would be really stupid to start putting their heels in for an extra £ton. Of course I'm sure that you would like to go for the recipient. It would be very satisfying – but there would be considerable risk factors in terms of the economic risk  I have explained in my earlier post. It's up to you. We will help you do either – but if you want a quick resolution to this then as I have already said, DHL is your target. Of course you could then hope that DHL will challenge the recipient and attack them – but that will never happen. DHL want a quiet life and just get on with business and making money – which isn't altogether unreasonable. If you sued the recipient, then if you are able to establish dishonesty on their part then they could be a question of punitive damages – but I would have to look that up. I think we would then have to think about suing that person in trespass which carries with it the sense of not only having usurped rights of owner but also having delivered an insult to the true owner by deliberately interfering with their goods. You would have to establish the dishonesty of the recipient which would be another complicating factor – although the fact that you have attempted to contact them and they haven't responded and they have blocked your messages will be extremely helpful. Also if it came to court and they had to admit that they had eaten your dog treats and fed your German chocolates to the dog, it wouldn't go down well and the judge would be disposed to award you some punitive damages – but it probably wouldn't be more than 300 or 400 quid, I would have thought – and of course at the end of the day you still have all the problems of enforcement. I'm afraid people often know lots about their rights and about how to assert their rights – but they never think about enforcing their rights. You will find this to be the case where the you go to Resolver, or citizens advice – or most other agencies.  
  • Our picks

act0145

TFL Oyster 18+ Student Card - multiple uses over 3mts - Caught **SETTLED OOC**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 194 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

Thank you dx.

 

Regarding losing my job, how would I go proving that as HR won't give me a letter and I'm reluctant to share internal policy information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't need to provide proof you state you will, they know the score

if you read a few recent threads here marked with won OOC 

 

 

and TfL guy comments on loss of job in the reply letter


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you dx.

 

I know I have asked this question already, but is there any merit at all in sending the initial letter through a solicitor? I have read the reviews on some of them and it seems that if the initial letter is sent through a solicitor, things are resolved quicker.

 

Your opinion is much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no none at .....all waste of money.

don't believe all those fake reviews.

 

 

dx

 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...thank you. I have read the post (thank you for guiding me to that) and will write in similar thread.

 

My worry is that I lied to the inspector about not having used the card before. I also recall now that he did not ask me to sign the notes he took so I am worried I have no idea what he wrote down. 

 

Without my signature on his notes, would this be admissible evidence in court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they would

lets wait and see

as far I remember from other threads

the notes are only used if you plead by post

which if it does.. you will be pleading guilty and MUST attend to show remorse in person 


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you dx.

 

It appears that majority of the offences on the public transport forums related to Freedom Pass abuse.

 

In my case, it was an annual student Oyster card in my spouse's name which I had paid for on their behalf being the sole earner in the household. I have the receipts to display the card used to pay for their Oyster card is mine.

 

Do you think I should mention it in my letter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relevant case law is Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597

(funnily enough, a husband using his wife's non-transferable ticket).

The fact that a fare (her fare) was paid didn't mean that HIS fare was paid ....

 

So, the risk is that you'll in effect be saying (since this was an annual Pass):

 

"Dear TfL,

I evaded my fare for months, using my wife's Student Annual Oyster.

(It doesn't matter that I'd paid for her Oyster, as that was for HER fare, but I didn't pay MY fare).

So, it is bad, but not as bad as Freedom Pass abuse, so you shouldn't take me to court."

 

The fact that freedom pass abuse is "worse" doesn't equate to them having to offer an administrative settlement, and how are you going to get past any discrepancy between what you are saying, and the RPI's notes (given that you have said here you lied to the RPI).

Additionally, Freedom Pass abuse might be on multiple occasions, but might be just the one event, and if they go looking, they might see your use was multiple times over months ... so the two aren't directly comparable.

 

I suggest you tread warily. By all mean stress that the result of a conviction may be disproportionate for you, but I wouldn't try to suggest that because Freedom Pass abuse is worse they are obliged to offer you an administrative settlement.

You also want to try (as far as possible, while being truthful) to not bring in anything that the RPI's notes contradict ... you don't have to own up to anything they aren't asking you about, but don't get caught in a (further) lie, either.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BazzaS for putting this in a concise and highly articulate manner.

 

Another query if I may.

 

In my letter, to support the impact a criminal conviction will have on my future livelihood, I would like to state that I have a lot of credit card debt and loss of earnings (due to prosecution) will mean I will not be able to afford the monthly interest payments in the future.

 

Would this be reasonable to include in my letter?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note my previous advice “don’t over-egg the pudding”. So, I’m going to be blunt.

They’ve heard all of this (and more) before.

 

Are you you looking to have them decide to offer an alternative to prosecution? There will still be a financial cost, and it’ll be expected as a lump sum (you only get “instalments” with a court fine and that’d mean a conviction).

 

or do you want to risk it looking to them that you want them to decide it’s OK for you to evade your fare, arrange a refund for your wife’s Oyster, and have a whip-round in the prosecution office to knock a bit off your credit card debt while seeing if they can sort you another ticket to Canada??

 

You still need to come across as contrite, not as if you are looking for sympathy and offering excuses.

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to what Bazza has said so eloquently, TfL will also want to see not just whether you are contrite but also if they think you have learned a lesson from the experience and won't evade fares again.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BazzaS and HB.

 

Would it be wise to mention that I will be losing my professional status in the event of a conviction and prosecution? Or is it best not to bring this to their attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fine to highlight that the effect of a conviction could be disproportionate for you because of the profession / employment side of things, just do so factually without 'laying it on thick'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning,

 

I realised something else. In my letter, when I mention my spouse's unemployed status, it'd contradict the RPI's notes as I lied to her saying that my spouse works in the area I got caught in.

 

How am I going to address this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you need to mention your spouse in the letter? Otherwise you may need to attribute the error to panic in the heat of the moment.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB,

 

Yes cause the fact that I am the sole earner is a strong factor for me as it's true that any loss of income will be devastating for us.

 

The other aspect of prosecuting me being in public interest (high profile role and professional status), how can I argue that it won't be in public interest to prosecute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they used the words 'public interest'? See what the others think, but I'm not sure it's an argument you want to get into, could open a whole new can of worms.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from TfL's Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy, which you can google. HB

 

6.3 Public Interest and Interest of Justice

Even where the evidential test has been satisfied, the prosecution of an alleged offence must be in the public interest and in the interests of justice, i.e. must be seen to be appropriate, fair and properly brought. There can be no definitive guidance as to when it may not be in public interest or in the interest of justice to prosecute an alleged offence, as each case will turn on its own individual factor.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, act0145 said:

Hi HB,

 

Yes cause the fact that I am the sole earner is a strong factor for me as it's true that any loss of income will be devastating for us.

 

The other aspect of prosecuting me being in public interest (high profile role and professional status), how can I argue that it won't be in public interest to prosecute?

 

Are you suggesting that a high profile role and professional status would mean it's not in the public interest to prosecute you?  If I were you I would stop and think about that - more likely to backfire on you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Rather the very opposite, it may be in the public interest to prosecute me for those very reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in that case do you need to mention your employment?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB,

 

Probably not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

A bit of an update. My mitigating letter was accepted and I was issued a warning letter with a fine of £951.85

 

The letter noted that despite strong grounds to prosecute me (multiple offenses, lying to the revenue inspector etc), based on my mitigating circumstances (and by the grace of my Creator) they have decided not to prosecute.

 

The matter is now settled with no further action. It is needless to say how relieved I am and what a nightmare I went through. 

 

I wanted to thank the CAG forum and to give back in some way, by sharing the below tips:

 

-Solicitors are truly worthless. They tend to scare you into spending money you'll need later on. Avoid them, read up on CAG

 

-Write your own, heartfelt, and sincere letter. Show genuine remorse. Thank TFL for the opportunity to provide your side of the story

 

-Read the TFL Prosecution Policy thoroughly and draft your letter accordingly. Any prosecution decision will be made following those exact guidelines and Solicitors use that very document to draft your letter (for £250 and upwards)

 

-Buy an annual travel card to prove that there is no intention or opportunity to reoffend and submit that as evidence with your mitigating circumstances letter 

 

-If your health has deteriorated or impacted as a result of the stress, submit medical evidence to that effect. 

 

-TFL is committed and bound by the Human Rights Act and any conviction decision will need to be fair and proportionate. Those are very important and serious concepts.

 

-Display in your mitigating letter how a conviction decision will be unfair and disproportionate. For example, a criminal conviction will mean limiting future career progression, mortgage applications, travel prospects, personal health, volunteering opportunities etc 

 

-Emphasise that you are willing and able to pay any fines and penalties applicable to avoid the inconvenience of TFL taking you to court 

 

The mitigating circumstances letter is the make or break of your case. Each situation, level of offense, type of concession card, and personal circumstances are different. You may have a lot of "aggravating factors" (e.g. lies, multiple offenses etc) but remorse and active steps not to reoffend (buy an annual travel card if financial means to do so and offer the penalty payment upfront) goes a long way.

 

Hope the above helps in some ways. I will be regularly visiting the forum to provide my insights if I can.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done and thank you for your thoughts on fare evasion issues. I'm pleased that you got the result you hoped for. 

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

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...