Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

Caught using relatives 60+ pass,


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 403 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

Hello,

I am trying to get help with an OOC in my case, I've read up a few posts but I'm still unsure how to proceed.

 

I was caught using the pass on Wednesday, which is the first time I have used it on a Wednesday (I have used it approximately 13 times over the past 3 months on my evening return journey on Thursdays and Fridays).

 

I'm assuming my best course of action would be to grovel for an OOC stating my financial situation and possibly exaggerate some other details.

 

If anyone else has received the same letter could you let me know your outcome.

 

I don't believe they know about the other times yet, when the ticket inspector asked me if I had used it before I said once today on my previous train (If I'm remembering correctly).

 

After they took the card and let me go I proceeded to get on the same train using my own card.

 

Thanks, M.

tfl.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

simply reply with a grovelling letter via email like the ones you'll see in many threads here.

 

dont tell them anything they dont already know.

i very much doubt they'll tie up you other journeys.

 

going by recent single mis use issues here

you should get OOC and poss a warning letter and a sum to pay.

 

if you wish , inc evidence of use of your own card before/after.

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

Here is the draft I have, should I also add a screenshot of the tfl charge from my bank account for that day?

 

Dear TFL, 

I am writing to request an out of court settlement for the offense of using a relative’s Oyster card. 

 

I understand that I have committed an offense and that I am liable to the fines imposed by TFL.

 

I take full responsibility for my actions and I would like to avoid the consequences of a court hearing, which would include a criminal record that could have a detrimental effect on my future.

 

I would like to emphasize the fact that when I was stopped by the inspector, I immediately produced my relatives oyster card then proceeded to use my own when I was let go by the inspector and used it to get on the train, I would also like to state that I used my own card to get on the train that morning. 

 

I am sincerely apologetic for my mistake and humbly request that you consider my request for an out of court settlement. 

 

I am hoping that we can reach an agreement where I am liable for the time and money spent on my case along with the fines imposed, and I am sure that it is in public interest to avoid a lengthy court process.

 

I wish to apologise to the member of staff concerned, TFL, and to the public for the extra administration work that my actions have caused. 

 

Henceforth I will take every precaution so that I and others around me do not commit the same offense.

 

Yours sincerely,

Full name.

 

Anything else I should add?

Link to post
Share on other sites

id fluff that out a bit and briefly address WHY you had the pass upon yourself.

they dont need excuses not to allow an ooc, but are more interested in why this happened

 

 

 

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

Do you think I could say something along the lines of the pass and my wallet being next to each other before I left the house in a rush, then while at work I decided to use it to save money on the journey home? Or would I be admitting to to much with this response? If this is a valid reason I would also mention that I was unemployed for 4 months and recently started my job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Fwiw, I think you should be more apologetic at the beginning of the letter, maybe move some of your later paragraphs up. In being apologetic, you also need to sound as if it isn't just because you were caught.

 

I would also mention steps you have/will take to ensure this never happens again. And I would provide proof of payment as you say.

 

As I see it you need to get them on your side so they feel amenable to helping you.

 

HB

 

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with HB …. It reads as “sorry I got caught” rather than “sorry I offended”.


I’d also not say “am sure that it is in public interest to avoid a lengthy court process”, as it is in the public interest to deter fare evasion, and the prosecution team already have to decide “is this in the public interest to prosecute” :

a) you don’t want to be seen to be “telling them their job”, while

b) if you were correct they’d never prosecute anyone … so I doubt they’d agree you were correct.

 

As for “the pass and my wallet being next to each other before I left the house in a rush” : I bet they’ve not heard that one before, (at least not in the preceding ten minutes!!)

What wallet was the pass in? You really don’t want to get caught in a lie: if they are wavering on if to prosecute or not, suspecting you are lying would make them more likely to prosecute!

 

When in a hole, stop digging.

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is anywhere I can be more apologetic in the letter please let me know.

 

Dear TFL, 

 

First and foremost I wish to apologise to the member of staff concerned, TFL, and to the public for the time and administration work that my actions have caused. I am extremely regretful of my mistake and I have been having restless nights since the offence. 

 

I am pleading for an out of court settlement for the offence of using a relative’s 60+ Oyster card. 

I had the card in my possession due to sharing a bag which we use for work. When I got to the office, I stupidly decided to use it, attempting to save money since I’m currently helping my family with the monthly mortgage and bills.

 

After having time to reflect on my actions I realise that there is not a single benefit to them, since by evading the fare that money comes out of other people's pockets who may also be struggling financially, and when a case similar to mine happens almost daily, it adds up to a lot. 

 

I understand that I have committed an offense and that I am liable to the fines imposed by TFL. I take full responsibility for my actions and I’m pleading to avoid the consequences of a court hearing, which could include a criminal record that will have a detrimental effect on my future. 

 

I once again wish to express my remorse for attempting to violate a public service which has helped me out on many occasions. I am truly sorry, there is no valid excuse for my actions.

 

I would like to emphasize the fact that when I was stopped by the inspector, I immediately produced my relatives oyster card then proceeded to use my own when I was let go by the inspector and used it to get on the train, I would also like to state that I used my own card to get on the train that morning.  (I don't know if this paragraph is useful)

 

I am hoping that we can reach an agreement where I am liable for the time and money spent on my case along with the fines imposed, so that I may put this behind me as a one off event so that I may continue to help my family.

 

Henceforth I will take every precaution so that I and others around me do not commit the same offense and that you may grant me some leniency in this case since this is the first time I have committed an offence with any public or private body. 

 

Yours faithfully,

Full name

 

 

I will also attach a screenshot of the bank statement where there is a charge for tfl on that day, and my recent DBS check to backup the last line.

 

Thank you all.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Caught using relatives 60+ pass,

and?

 

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

well you certainly wont have anyone at your door....what made you think that?

 

they have 6mts .

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Finally got the letter for a 'REQUESITION to attend x's court'.

They are stating that I have to turn up to court to answer the following charge:

    That on the date of the offense I entered an area without a valid ticket (I believe they are only stating the one use in that part)

Then under the statement of facts they say there is a regular pattern of use and an additional 70 journeys had been taken in the prior 2 months. The wording here makes me think they have a pattern but not all 70 journeys follow that pattern.

I looked through all the journeys and it looks like I have only committed ~14 of them. (I have strong evidence that I did not do some of these, but for others they would have to check cctv)

I am guessing that if I plead guilty to the offense it would be pleading guilty to the single use or would it imply I am pleading guilty to all 70?

If you could help outline all the options I have.

I will scan the pages and upload them here later today.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

scan it up.

are these TIC? with a sep sig for Each?

 

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

Here is the scan, yes it is separate signatures for each offense they stated.

I have highlighted in red the offenses I may have committed and the days in green I was out of the country.

My first idea would be to write to them asking for a settlement and ask to pay the full value.

I don't know whether to argue and say that some of these can not be me, but I know not to explicitly say what I have committed.

Thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you prove by say - passports stamps, bank statements , or any other written material the dates you say you were out of the country?

 

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

Yes, passport stamps.

I'm thinking about saying that those specific dates could not be me, and then say I'm willing to pay the full price of the all the fares as a way to close the case quickly.

I'm worried that this might come of as a bit aggressive, saying that I'm willing to fight for the other stuff in front of a judge.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

god no way will it, it's why its going before a mag and not just the SJP court

you've months before court.

id be assembling as much evidence as possible and inc that in a new OOC begging email to TfL. 

how many dates could you ultimately prove it could not have been you?

as if its lots, then how can they say the others were too even under the same pattern....

 

 

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

I'll try and get data from my gym , which should have date and time on entry, I would guess around 40-50 of them I have solid evidence for being not me.

Could you also remove the pdf I uploaded since it has my personal information showing, I don't know how it formatted like that and I will re-upload it better.

Thanks.

Edited by MichaelWolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've re-uploaded the pdf, the order is reversed.

To disprove most of these I am able to get receipts from a store near my gym and entry and exit times from the gym, I also have trips I've made at different locations at the same time of the trips mentioned, I am able to get the exact time I used my card for those trains.

Just to clarify, after looking around elsewhere the 2 laws I have been accused of breaking are bylaws and won't show up on a DBS check (unless it's enhanced). Is this correct?

jpg2pdf.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

not necessarily, they are criminal charges and if you are found guilty by the judge will show on enhanced, but sometimes the judge will say it wont be recorded on their register.

but thats not anywhere near reality of whats going to happen and not your focus for now.

you need to gather all your evidence disproving each TIC you can.

then get a new begging letter off by email to TfL.

wanting an OOC , and offering the cost of each fare you cant prove was not you + any admins fees etc.

 

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

use the TfL email on their 1st letter, the one you sent he 1st begging letter too.

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...