Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Appearing in court for using Zip Card. 149 offences


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

So that's who you write to.

 

If you have a read around this forum, there are plenty of threads where people have sent pleading letters about settling out of court.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

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

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...