Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

Bought Wrong Train Ticket, Thameslink Notice of Intention to prosecute


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 113 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

13 hours ago, fkofilee said:

Be careful with how you go back to them - I saw on Railforums that some GTR ticket investigations have been going back through a past history.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised, as with electronic ticketing it's so easy to follow. Like a digital thumbprint. If @a.l.h was using a paper ticket they should be OK though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 

 

I have made some changes and cut the letter down to 352 words, appreciate your honest feedback

Many thanks

-------

Dear Govia thameslink Team,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my actions relating to the incident that took place on August 16.

I would like to sincerely apologise to Govia Thameslink and all members of staff for the time and administration costs my actions have caused.

On the day, I boarded the train under the belief I had the correct ticket for my Journey, but to my shock, I only realised I had the wrong ticket when the Inspector checked it. 

My actions are inexcusable and I am extremely regretful for my mistake. Reflecting back on my actions, I feel ashamed, extremely stressed, anxious, and unable to sleep at night.

I’m the sole breadwinner and recently lost my job, my kids and a disabled brother depend on me financially, therefore, if this matter were to escalate further to court, a criminal conviction will certainly compromise my search for employment, impact my future, will be devastating to my family, myself and will further complicate my mental health.

I have always been on the right side of the law and never had any kind of trouble, I guarantee that this will not happen again as I have learned a big lesson; since the event I make sure to check that my ticket cover the whole of my journey prior to boarding a train; I have also purchased a rail card which I plan to use every time I buy a train a ticket.

Whilst my words above do not serve as an excuse, I take full responsibility for my carelessness and fully understand now the impact Fair evasion has on Train companies and how unacceptable it is. 

Furthemore, I am keen to resolve this matter as quickly and smoothly as possible without the need for court action if possible, if you would allow me to pay the outstanding fare and any administrative costs incurred by Govia Thameslink in dealing with this matter.

Once again, I would like to express my holehearted apologies for the inconvenience caused to the staff and assure that it will not happen again.


 

Many thanks for your understanding

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that’s a lot better

Only tweak I’d make is

 

1) change fully understand now to and now fully understand (where the fare evasion bit and hm it costs is - just flows better / easier to read that way imo) 

 

2) assure that to I assure you that (last para)

Also ite FARE evasion not fair evasion

other than that a LOT better than before

Edited by jk2054
  • Like 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

also just thinking maybe thank you for your understanding should be replaced with something like

 

”Yours Sincerely 

NAME”

since your asking them to mitigate thanks for your understanding seems more something I’d say after they accept OOC settlement

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done for persevering, you're getting there. I think it was Grotesque who said to run the final version through spellcheck because you still have some misspellings.

See what Grotesque thinks about the length of the letter because I can see a few things that could be a word or two shorter.

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Honeybee and jk2054. A good rule of thumb regarding letters is to keep them to one side of paper where possible; then there's no chance of losing your audience. Re. details (and sorry HB, I know...), I suggest something like this. This omits a lot of things, as I said before, and will not, unfortunately, be as persuasive as it might think (for instance, they might think that the money they lost on their ticket would have been spent on headphones or plane tickets - even though you're unemployed. See what I mean?) Anyway.

Quote

Dear Govia Thameslink Team,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain my actions relating to the incident that took place on August 16. On the day, I boarded the train under the belief I had the correct ticket for my journey, but to my shock, I only realised I had the wrong ticket when the Inspector checked it. 

My actions were inexcusable, and I sincerely regret them. I feel ashamed at the trouble my carelessness has caused everyone.

I’m the sole breadwinner in my family and recently lost my job. I seriously fear a criminal conviction would compromise my search for employment and impact my future and that of those who rely on me.

I have always been on the right side of the law and never had any kind of trouble. I can guarantee that this will not happen again as I have learned a big lesson; since the event, I make sure to check that my ticket covers the whole of my journey prior to boarding a train. I have also purchased a rail card which I plan to use and carry with me every time I travel.

Whilst my words above do not serve as an excuse, I take full responsibility for my carelessness and now fully understand the impact fare evasion has on train companies and how unacceptable it is.

I am keen to resolve this matter as quickly and smoothly as possible, hopefully without the need for court action. I would very much like to pay the outstanding fare and I owe any administrative costs Govia Thameslink have incurred because of me.

Please allow me to express my wholehearted apologies and regret for putting you to this trouble, and please pass on my apologies to all staff involved.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning

 

Can I please check, does the 14-day deadline to respond includes weekends? their letter was dated 11/10 so my deadline could either be 25/10 or 02/11

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am indeed hovering! @honeybee13 and her magic eyes! But always - per @fkofilee - assume working days (odd that the letter doesn't specify: if you think about it, it's generally ubiquitous with these sorts of letters, like parking offences? But I don't know about that). If you're going to assume anything, in fact, assume ASAP!

Remember, you're offering to make things cheaper for them by removing the need to prosecute, although don't actually say you're doing them a favour, of course.

Edited by Grotesque
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rule of thumb, calendar deadlines are more often than not set in multiples of 7

...and business day deadlines in multiples of 5 😏

 

Just need to set your deadlines to 6 days or 19 days to make folks extra confused  🤡

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

any news?

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...