Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Been quiet for a bit just received   this  Intrum 15th Nov .pdf
    • Guys, we have three days left in which to respond to this.   While I appreciate all the input we've received, at present we seem to be left with more questions than answers so is anyone in a position to advise what to do next please?
    • The only way I can guess that I Go 4 got my details was through a car insurance search website.  At the time of thisCCJ I insured with the RAC,  THEN THE sAGA.  aT NO POINT DID i TAKE OUT INSURANCE WITH ig4 .  They certainly never wrote to me saying I owed them money.  The debt is for £235., so if I did owe,  I would have paid it,  but I knew nothing about it and to this day have never heard from J C International or IG4.
    • Thank you, just received letter back " acknowledging that the account is now Statute Barred, whilst they do not consider that they have breached any law or regulatory guidelines, the account has been withdrawn from their regular collections process and closed. You won't be contacted by us our agents regarding this matter".   Thank you all for your help, nice to finally get it settled.
    • The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue. You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. You started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule. I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion. In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread (a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and (b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD. I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen. As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14).   The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged. If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration. If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question. For the final time, the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned).   To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday):   I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings...   She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.    
  • 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...