Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

South Western Railway prosecution advice - £117 fine **TfL Dropped Case**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 802 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

Depends under what they are aiming to proceed :

byelaw offence of failing to show a valid ticket - well, you didn’t, on the facts stated.

 

Regulation of Railways Act 1889, S5(3) (intent to avoid fare): they wouldn’t succeed on the facts stated.


You say that their letter is the first you have received, so you can “make representations” - indeed it gives an email address to do so.

 

So, you explain. Don’t “have a go” at the gateline staff member’s actions, but explain:

You’d had previous barcode tickets

You made a mistake and thought your ticket was a barcode ticket

You never intended to avoid paying your fare - indeed the ticket is visible in your app still (give the ticket ID)

 

Prosecution would have a disproportionate effect on your employment and although you already always pay your fare you are sure never again to not check if the ticket needs printing.

 

Bearing all this in mind Would they consider you paying any reasonable admin costs to resolve the matter?

 

See if they come back with a reduced figure (unlikely they’d go straight to court without at least saying “No, still £117”) and if you are lucky they may waive it completely and let you off with a warning!

 

Draft the response, then put the draft up here for comments before sending 

 

 

Edited by BazzaS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dx: the TOC has a “slam-dunk” Byelaw prosecution (if the OP hacks them off!)

 

a DCA can’t prosecute, let alone prosecute and definitely win : The TOC can!

 

IF the TOC took this to the Magistrates, the bench might see the OP had bought a ticket, and could ask the TOC “are you sure you wish to proceed?”

if the TOC say yes, and under Byelaw 17, the Mag’s don’t have discretion as to if the offence has been committed if the terms of the strict liability are met.

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf
 

The OP didn’t have a valid ticket with them.

They didn’t hand it over when asked for it : (both as the OP hadn’t printed it!).

It isn’t that the OP was intending to avoid their fare, but that they breached Byelaw 17 (and don’t have one of the statutory defences).

 

The Mag’s might find it harsh, and find decent grounds of mitigation, but not of defence : a conviction MUST result if it goes to court, and a seasoned prosecutor uses Byelaw 17 and phrases their argument well.

 

Please don’t try to persuade the OP to treat them like a fleecing no-power DCA:

Hack the TOC off and they CAN get the OP

a) prosecuted, and

b) convicted.

 

That is by no means inevitable, but going “great guns” at the TOC might harden their attitude, and make it inevitable !

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent! It is what I was hoping a well phrased (and not too pushy) letter might result in.

In the end, they want to encourage ticketed-travel.

 

By showing you never intended to evade your fare, and by accepting that you had made a mistake : opened the door to them thinking “we don’t need to punish this person, likely they won’t let it happen again”

 

Result. Well done, bet you are relieved!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to South Western Railway prosecution advice - £117 fine **TfL Dropped Case**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...