“ As it was already late and dark, we decided that we would travel back to the hospital the next day to collect the medication.” Not a good idea if antibiotics are needed : delay can be dangerous, especially if there was concern of infection that could go into the bloodstream such as from a cannula site “On arrival at home and looking at the medication, it was for an antibiotic that contained penicillin and OH is allergic to penicillin and it may have killed OH as OH's immunity system is compromised.” Some misunderstanding there, I fear. The key is what the penicillin allergy is (some allergies can be severe / life threatening, but many aren’t), so what matters is what happened with the penicillin allergy, when, and also what classes of antibiotic they’ve safely had since. People whose immune systems are compromised are more at risk of severe infection because the immune system (which is complex and multi-faceted!) doesn’t work as well as it should. Since allergy is when the immune system “works too well” and ‘over reacts’, a compromised immune system doesn’t usually cause more severe allergy, just “as bad as usual”. You could complain to the Trust, but equally you could complain to the Commisioners who pay for (Commision) the service from the trust (since it is them paying for it). This will be what used to be “the health authority” (which then became the PCT (primary care trust), which then became the CCG (Clinical Commisioning Group), and their latest incarnation is the ICB (integrated Care Board). They have an added interest over and above the penicillin allergy issue as they are paying for the “bed days” that have been lost if the admission wasn’t needed or was prolonged without reason! https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/find-your-local-integrated-care-board/

Does he live in the property (when you could be classed as a lodger, and you don’t have security of tenancy - where he is able to just ask you to leave). if he doesn’t live in the property you can be deemed to have tenancy rights, and he can’t just ask you to leave : it would be both a civil wrong (a ‘tort’) but also a criminal offence to just evict you, as he’d need to get a court order for possession of the property before evicting you.

Or you get a CCJ against both, get it enforced against either (and then if it the neighbour, they have to go after the builders). The risk there is falling out with your neighbour: how much damage (in cost of putting it back to how it was) has been done?

But, you believe you haven’t done anything wrong, so (according to you, at least) it can’t be careless (below the standard of a careful / competent driver) driving, let alone dangerous (well below the standard of a careful / competent driver) driving. So, what’s your point? (mind you they can’t change “a summary conviction to a criminal conviction to the crown” (they change a summary prosecution to a crown court prosecution…. “prosecution” not “conviction” ….. the conviction comes at a later stage. I know, maybe you should be checking the definitions in Black’s Legal Dictionary! If you are such a fan of it …… unless you mean the magistrates deciding their sentencing poses are insufficient, where they remit sentencing to the Crown Court (again, “sentencing”, not “conviction”) what / which do you actually mean?

Well, tell the court you are a good driver (and the rest of your arguments) : See if they agree. black laws dictionary? What is “black law/s” in that context? If you are referring to Black’s Law Dictionary : it is one of the DEFINITIVE tomes. The only problem : it is definitive for US law, not E&W! also : it is a dictionary … best for interpretation of legal terms. Mind you, if you struggle with the Highway Code …….

FMOTL? Well, the OP hasn’t yet said “I wasn’t driving, I was travelling…..” (but that is just about the only bit of rubbish they haven’t yet come out with). I’m not sure the OP has come to CAG for advice, but probably looking for validation of their views. In the end, it’ll be the view(s) of the bench that matter. The question is if the OP (being so sure of the reasons they aren’t guilty that they’ve stated here) will try to impress those points on the Magistrates. It’s a shame we won’t be there to observe the results…. Note that this is general comment, not advice for the OP, as it seems they don’t want advice.

“ I'm seeking someone who has been charged for the same or similar offence so thats why I am asking on different forum as people who have not been charged or been in the same or simialr situations usually do not know what they are talking about.” Sorry, didn’t know you only wanted advice from those charged with the same or similar. please feel free to ignore my previous response, as clearly I’m not eligible (by your requirements) to offer advice. It may narrow your pool of respondents though. Good luck.

I wouldn’t tell the magistrates “I told them to stop but they ignored me”, as that could lead to the reply “well, then, you knew you shouldn’t have driven it but chose to anyway!”, so what you think is mitigation actually turns out to be an exacerbating factor …..

Because : if they win, for you, they get their costs (from the other side) AND the “success fee”. £25k for costs sounds massive though! The success fee compensates them for the risk they take on for working “no win, no fee” (NWNF), as the insurance that comes with ‘nwnf’ covers the OTHER SIDES costs if you lose, not your costs if you lose. You want an itemised bill for work to date. if they are declining : formal complaint. If they then don’t resolve it : Legal Ombudsman.

Yup, he’s admitted THEY are at fault. let’s see what she says. If he’s blaming her (the divorce may not have been amicable??) perhaps he doesn’t realise he is making it harder for him to defend, too. Not your problem though. They may have to sort it out between them if you succeed and get judgement against them both.

“Your argument is with the gas safe engineer” : I don’t think so. Reply that your ‘argument’ is with the vendor, and it is them whose argument is with the gas safe engineer!

Always do a LBC, then they can’t claim you’ve been unreasonable/ not followed any relevant PAP.

Costs strictly limited in small claims track. probably £100 max their solicitors could seek to recover. (They may have other costs, travel, witness, stationery), but don’t let them scare you with “solicitors costs per hour”.

Complaint, too. Then if it goes over 8 weeks, straight to FOS. you can’t complain (well, you can but they can claim they have been reasonable) about the AML alert / decision to close the account. You can (& should!) complain about the “go in and get your money email “, when you then can’t get your money when you do as they have told you.

TfL seem to have hardened their approach recently. They seemed to have moved towards taking a more even approach (instead of risking being seen to penalise people for not having a job by being more lenient on those who have a job where a conviction might cause problems). Why do you think people should be treated more leniently because a conviction puts their job / visa / immigration status / ability to visit e.g the USA at risk? should TfL have to treat people differently, or should they take the approach “if you don’t want to accept the consequences, don’t commit the offence” ?

The fact that they've now repaired / replaced it is evidence that they accept it was faulty. You have photos of before the repair?. get photo's of the 'after' too.

I ‘reported’ the post to highlight this : Thanks for sorting it!

FOS has statutory authority, but likely over Creation Finance and not Currys, and is an Ombudsman rather than part of an ADR scheme. Curiouser and curiouser.

Most revenue protection staff wear bodycams these days. This is good, of course, as it will no doubt back up your version of events if it comes to it. Nothing to stop you SAR’ing the Train Operating Company (TOC) for any footage. Were there ticket buying facilities at your initial station? Was this Northern Trains, on one of the routes into Manchester shown on https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Penatly Fares Map - Jul 2022.pdf If so, might you have managed to miss the (not inconspicuous) signs such as https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-penalty-fare-railway-warning-notice-31570596.html …….

Yet you also report (& don’t forget this is “your side of the story”, and their report will feature “their side of the story”) : So it seems that they felt you were doing something wrong beyond “not showing a valid ticket, when asked”, such as not giving your name and address when asked (why else would they threaten you with the police?) and then threaten court? A prosecution under S5(1) RRA 1889 wouldn’t be prevented by later giving name and address if there was an initial failure to do so (it’d be mitigation rather than a defence). Prosecution under either or both of S5(1) and S5(3) RRA 1889 wouldn’t be prevented by later paying your fare if there was an initial failure to do so (it’d be mitigation rather than a defence). The Act is over 130 years old, with plenty of case law …..

They’d prosecute for you travelling without a ticket and / or failing to pay the penalty fare at the time it was offered. They’d not prosecute for you making a complaint. They’d just CHOOSE not to exercise their discretion NOT to prosecute {Any decision not to prosecute being made because they might consider (from your attitude, then and since!) that you were a reasonable member of the travelling public who had made a mistake and wasn’t wasting their staff’s time, and you weren’t likely to re-offend}. Having declined the penalty fare offered to you, the on-train staff may have reported you for consideration of prosecution. The penalty fare option may no longer be available to you : which is why you need to see what is in any letter you may now receive.

Yup, you absolutely have the right to your day in court if they decide to prosecute.

Well, they are separate in terms of result, but become linked, if the penalty fare isn’t offered or is declined. “Attitude test” failure might mean no penalty fare being offered: they are meant for when the revenue staff don’t feel there is a deliberate attempt not to pay. Being offered a penalty fare and declining it: again bylaw or RRA. They don’t have to offer the penalty fare more than once. As has been previously advised : see what turns up through the post! Does your job require a DBS / eDBS??

Well, you can choose: Contrite, accept you were travelling without a ticket, or ”point of principle”, let them know how awful the member of staff was to you, and how dare they expect you to have a ticket before travelling! So, how do you think the prosecutions team decide how to proceed?. Bear in mind you may get a chance to tell the Magistrates how awfully you were treated (and they’ll not be able to consider that as a defence, merely mitigation if convicted). Again, how do you think they distinguish between the fare dodger seeking to excuse their fare dodging, and the unfortunate member of the travelling public caught out by circumstance….

There has never been the rule that they must sell you a ticket at your destination: it is your obligation to buy one at the first available opportunity: at the station even if it means missing the train sitting on the platform, or seeking out the staff if there really were no ticket facilities at the station (which the onboard staff will know, and the prosecutions unit will have access to the records, too). If you declined the £20 penalty fare, they might even go for a S5 Regulation of Railways Act (RRA)1889 prosecution, if not for the initial fare, but for the penalty fare, which was payable at the time, or if you accepted the penalty. If you didn’t accept the penalty : they can chose a bylaw prosecution or RRA 1889 prosecution.