Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There will be no issues with a course offer if the dates are as you say. The usual cut off is four months from the date of the offence. This is so as to give the driver the time to accept the offer and take the course before prosecution becomes "timed out" at six months.   However, if the NIPs really were the first to be issued and there are no issues with the address details then both have a cast iron defence to the speeding allegation. The first is dated 20 days after the alleged offence and the second 23 days after the alleged offence. The Road Traffic Offenders' Act makes it quite clear that if a NIP is not served within 14 days of the alleged offence then no prosecution can take place. But as I said, late first NIPs are very rare and both need to check all the details I have mentioned before they decline any out of court offers of a course or Fixed Penalty.    For information, courses are normally offered for speeds up to (Limit +10% + 9mph). Only one course of any type can be taken in three years (with the date of the offences being used to calculate that period) and courses are not offered in Scotland. However, if a driver is not offered a course for any reason when he would normally qualify (including late NIPs) he has no right of appeal to have one offered. If the matter goes to court the court has no power to order a course.
    • My grievance against my manager is on Wednesday at 12.00 noon. A union officer is representing me. The representative for my manager is a product manager. I was told today that she is the Daughter or a Step-Daughter of the manager. Is this a conflict of interest? Am I correct in saying that, because the manager is the subject, the hearing has to be carried out by a person higher than the manager such as a director? if so, the product manager is not entitled to carry out the hearing. I'm pretty certain that I read this in law books. My Brother is a licensed union chairman but has since left his previous employment.  He is certain that I am correct . Any help would be gratefully appreciated.   diecastdave
    • Ok cool many thanks!  Much appreciated...I will check everything out now and answer all those questions!
    • Sorry,  its regular outgoings of payments. It’s income related they’re on, not contribution based.  Mum and applicant were totally unaware of the rules in regards to deprivation of capital.   On income related ESA but claim housing benefit and council tax support.   He hasn’t came into a huge chunk of money. It’s been spent over a duration of four years. appointee’s livid, and worried that he’ll be homeless.  
    • Hi all           I spoke to the courts earlier today and they advised me that the points placed on my licence were removed in October 2019, and that a court date is set for November 26th. Guess what ??? I had not been given that info either. The courts were very helpful and explained to me that everything had been sent to my previous address (which I have not lived in or owned for 5 years) The car in question was registered in March 2016 and I have owned since new and has never been registered to my old address. I have proof of this down to the point of not taxing the car March 2017 as the car was zero tax I did not realise I still had to go online and tax it, the summons for that was sent to my current home address.  it is very strange that the police directed everything to my previous address. i then contacted the police on the number given by the courts and was told to forward proof I was out of country at time of offence for them to look at, the police officer was very understanding and quite helpful giving the information. I have to e mail her tomorrow and will give an update when I know more as this previous address thing is really confusing !!!  
  • Our picks

act0145

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

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


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

 


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

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

 


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

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 


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

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
Posted (edited)

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...