Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – you are the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 30 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the store you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I would supply this to their solicitor that if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me that we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
    • In the very first claim thread it mentions contacting the claimant is encouraged by the court etc. I was thinking about contacting them and asking about a Tomlin order to put an end to all this, at least I'd be able to stop worrying and maybe get some sleep (currently 4.52am) 😴
    • Hi I'm looking for a bit of help to deal with a claim form from Hoist/ Cohen referencing an old Capital One account please. I have filled out the details below as requested and submitted an acknowledgement of service intending to defend.   In 2007 I sent a SAR and requested a copy of the original CCA from Cap One on this account.    In 2014 Lowells sent a claim form for the same account. I have a copy of a notice of allocation to the small claims track hearing and a copy of the front sheet of ack of service with intent to defend but I have no recollection of its outcome and there are no CCJs on my credit file.    Name of the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd   Date of issue – 5/11/2019   Date of issue 05/11/19 + 19 days = 24/11/2019 + 14 days to submit defence = 7/12/2019 (33 days in total)   Particulars of Claim This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a default notice issued pursuant to ss. 87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294  2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £369   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC I received a letter of claim & income / exp forms.   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? yes   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not sure claim is for Credit card   When did you enter into the original agreement 2003   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement not sure   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files yes, as closed   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor. Assigned   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?  from HPH2 to HFUKH2L, I don't have anything from Cap One.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes (2007) Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not sure, I’ve had letters from Robinson Way.   Why did you cease payments? illness and inability to deal with my debts, I had no money no job and my mental health was in a terrible state.   date of your last payment? 07/2014 paid to Robinson Way   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No (PPI and bank charges refunded)   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes   Do I send a CPR 31.14 next asking for the agreement, notice of assignment and the Default notice?   Thanks.
    • It states the charge as: 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17 (1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.'   Then a brief statement of facts that the pass did not belong to me, and that I had stated it was due to financial reasons. It then contains information about making my plea and then the statement of the revenue officer.   I am of course planning on pleading guilty before the cut off point and attending court (I'm hoping to be well enough to attend anyway). I'm just concerned about the consequences and if there is any point in trying to still reason with TfL now that court application costs are at least involved.   I have debated getting a solicitor solely because of what I've read on the internet and what it says about ruined job prospects, I know it's probably scare tactics to get me to hire someone but it is the driving fear behind everything at the moment. 
  • 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...