Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bargain Cars Bristol (also trades as Southwest Vans and Commercials). They're around 55 miles away; Bristol is the nearest place to us which has a decent amount of car dealerships.   My partner has (and had previously), yes. He's the very opposite of me - doesn't research endlessly, doesn't always err on the side of caution. I'm not in a financial position to buy a car, but need one for a new job, so the deal was that he paid for it but I wasn't to interfere with my 'over-cautiousness'. Yes, he's regretting that now! (I have so far managed to refrain from saying 'I told you so'). If it was up to me, I'd spend 3 months researching the history of car, dealership, MOT testing garage etc before buying, which is why he usually ends up taking over.   Apologies, the dealer themselves didn't carry out the MOT, but they booked it in at a garage of their choice (which appears to be a couple of miles away from their business). Personally, I don't trust any MOT carried out by the dealer's garage of choice as there were no advisories on the car that had a blow-out either (I did report that garage after the blow-out, so hopefully it was assessed and action was taken).   The ad doesn't explicitly state that, but the dealer stated it verbally (which obviously I can't prove now). Their own website's ad is still visible here, but the one on eBay (which is the one we saw) has been deleted, and I foolishly don't seem to have stored a copy of it.   So, within the first 30 days I have the right to reject without having to accept a repair option, from day 31 up to 6 months I have to allow one repair attempt before having the right to reject? Is that correct? My OH wants to 'compromise' with the dealer and say that if they process a refund immediately, we'll return the vehicle today at our own cost, but if they are unable to refund today then they will have to collect the vehicle from us instead (in line with our statutory rights). However, this section of the CRA confuses me - doesn't this mean that we have to return it as stated on our receipt?    
    • I know this but a few COVID related problems have knocked us for six. So i'll see what the judge says tomorrow. Regarding the letter it seems they are dragging up stuff already covered and cleverly wording it and there are some points that are incorrect.
    • You absolutely can (have a negative lateral flow test, and a positive PCR).   This can also happen when someone is symptomatic, and actually has Covid (the scenario most people would consider first, and what I think you are asking about). There is a fallacy to that scenario, though : if symptomatic, they shouldn't be using the lateral flow test (which is for SCREENING of the ASYMPTOMATIC), but those people should be going for the higher sensitivity PCR as the initial test.   If used 'correctly', (both in terms of 'both samples taken correctly', and 'used for the asymptomatic'!) then it is possible for someone asymptomatic to test negative by lateral flow, and positive by PCR. There is again an inherent issue to this scenario, though : the testing (for someone asymptomatic, for most situations!) should stop when they have the negative lateral flow test, and they wouldn't need the PCR - so why would they then know the PCR result?   An exception here would be e.g. someone traveling internationally, who might get a (self taken) lateral flow test (which comes back negative, with a result within 30 mins), and then a PCR taken at the same time, which takes longer to come back, but then comes back positive ........ presumed then to be the PCR being the more sensitive test, and the 'true picture' (rather than the PCR being a 'false positive'!). In the academic scenario (or if you were a leading politician, or a titan of business willing to pay for a clearer answer ..... or an answer you prefer if it meant you could travel / not self-isolate!): one could then re-test by a different PCR that uses a different target ... which then gives the suggestion of which is the 'false' test (false negative 'insensitive' lateral flow vs. false +ve PCR!).   Where does one stop, though?. All tests have false negative rates and false positive rates, so I can create the possible (but unlikely!) scenario where there is a true negative lateral flow, with one or MORE false positive PCR's. One would tend to 'believe' the PCR's (especially if more than one!), but it would be POSSIBLE (if unlikely!) that the PCR's could all be false positive. As you get more and more positive PCR's using different targets, the likelihood diminishes, though (although this wouldn't affect other sources of error such as sample crossover [what if they tested a sample which was someone else's sample, and was in fact +ve, but it had been labelled as the first person's sample??). Again, where do you stop? cell culture? (the 'gold standard' by which the PCR and lateral flow test sensitivity and specificity should be measured, but not widely available).   None of these are new issue, or specific to COVID, though. The National Blood Transfusion Service has dealt with screening tests (albeit it, not for COVID, but for other infectious diseases) for many years. Blood samples from donations may test HIV +ve (on screening!), and then there is a whole protocol (different tests on the original sample, repeat testing by the original test methodology whilst going back to the primary sample tube, and getting a completly new sample [to ensure different people's samples haven't been inadvertently 'switched'!] if there are still concerns!) to ensure that : a) the donor isn't told "you have HIV", when they HAVEN'T but at the same time b) If the donor does have undiagnosed HIV infection, they get followed up, retested, (and then told!).   All this relies on an understanding of test specificity and sensitivity (and of what can go wrong at any point in the testing : pre-analytical, analytical, or post-analytical !), while appreciating that most people just want a test result and would consider  the report as 'gospel' : "positive means you have it, negative means you don't".........
    • Thanks Dave - the updated page looks great! 🌟   Going to submit the defence next week.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Appearing in court for using Zip Card. 149 offences


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 291 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I've been summoned into court next month for getting caught using my younger sisters oyster card.

But they also analysed her card and saw that ive used it 149 times other than that.

I'm only being chargerd with the one offence and am having to pay fines and i can chose to plead guilty or not guilty. 

 

HOWEVER the letter states

"The schedule gives particulars of 149 offences, which we suspect you of committing but have not been charged with.

If you plead guilty in person and are found guilty of any offences with which you have been charged you can, before any sentence is passed, admit all or any of the matters in the attached schedule and ask the court to take them into considerations.

This in turn will result in not being subsequently charged with any of these matters"

 

I have heard that you can write a letter to try to settle out of court but who do i send the letter to as there is no contact on the summons letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like their appeals people, yes.

 

If you want to show us what you're proposing to send, we can help you to refine it.

 

Did you really misuse the card 149 times?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you sign the list of TIC's and plead guilty to the one specimen offence you are charged for, stating you wish to appear in person to show your genuine remorse for the error of your ways.

 

is this a single justice procedure hearing and when?  

 

have you evidence that since the offence you have paid for tickets etc ?

148 uses is a heavty weight so you are lucky they aren't after all of them.

 

there are a few threads here of multiple use cases already have a read of those.

 

did you not reply to the original TfL letter asking for you side of the story and plead remorse then?

 

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

That sounds like their appeals people, yes.

 

If you want to show us what you're proposing to send, we can help you to refine it.

 

Did you really misuse the card 149 times?

 

HB

Okay thank you for your help

and yes I was consistently using her zip card for about 3 months in hindsight it really wasn’t worth all this hassle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it’s a hearing and it will be on September 5th.

 

if I don’t plead guilty to the other 149 offences I will be further prosecuted for them desperately but if I do they will only charge me for the one time I was caught so the smart decision for me right now is to plead guilty unless I can somehow manage to settle this out of court.

 

I replied to the original letter with a very short statement that wasn’t exactly expressing remorse as I did not think all this would lead to being dealt in court I thought I would just pay a fine and be done with it. I now realise I should’ve takes more time with the original letter and perhaps it wouldn’t of led to a court situation

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't 100% prove the other times were you.

You plead guilty regardless to if/not you get latterly an OOC .

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ashbelushi said:

if I don’t plead guilty to the other 149 offences I will be further prosecuted for them

 

You are not being asked to plead guilty to them. You are asked if you agree to them being "Taken into Consideration" which is entirely different. I doubt very much that they will offer an out-of court settlement for 149 instances of misuse, but it's always worth asking.

 

Just to clarify, when you say you have been "summoned into court", have you received a summons or a Single Justice Procedure Notice? You cannot attend a Single Justice hearing. I don't really know what you are asking here. I should have thought the time to discuss an out-of-court settlement was a coupe of months ago when TfL corresponded with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also want to express remorse to your sister as you expose her to a risk of action as well if they feel that she knew what was going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what a single justice notice is but all i know is ive recieved a letter stating" You are required to appear on saturday 5th september at 11 am before X magistartes court to answer the following charge" 

 

Also this is the letter I drafted please offer any constructive crticism it would be much appreciated!

 

To whom it may concern,

 

I am writing this letter in response to the requisition I received to appear in Wimbledon Magistrates Court, in regards to my case X. I would like to start by apologising for my defiant actions against TFL. 

 

TFL runs the day-to-day operation of the Capital's public transport network and manages London's main roads. Millions of Londoners must pay for their travel daily and I selfishly have tried to evade payment. I now realise I have ignorantly tried to abuse the public transport system which undermines the jobs of those at TFL and all that are affiliated.

 

Me being 19 years of age has acted childishly in attempts to save money in this foolish way. This situation has been a destabilizing experience for me and has put reality into perspective for me as I now realise the effects my actions will be having on my future prospects. In hindsight I should have been more liable to my responsibilities as a law abiding British citizen. Since then I have begun paying my fares as I should have done and also made use of my bicycle more often as a responsible way to save on travel costs.

 

I would like to humbly ask if this matter could be handled out of court with me willing to pay any unpaid fares or other appropriate costs which will help settle this matter in the least damaging way. I acknowledge my wrongdoings and can promise to strive to rectify my past mistakes and overcome them. I have taken this experience as a life lesson and will hope that you consider my proposition, I appreciate the time taken to read this.


 

Kind regards,

 

X

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

HOWS THIS GOING?

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...