Claimant issued a claim against a friend (the defendant). Claim acknowledged (AoS) and defence filed, all in time. Order for payment of hearing fee by claimant issued by the court, (with automatic strike out and costs if hearing fee not paid), allocated to small claims track. C initially agreed to mediation but cancelled. Witness statements filed and served. D's filed and served in time, C's served in time, unsure if C's filed in time, (as was due on the Monday that became a bank holiday for the Queen's funeral). C's witness statement said they cancelled the mediation "as mediation would have meant accepting less than the full sum claimed, and they couldn't accept less than the full sum" C's witness statement signed and dated for that last Monday (when the court would have been closed) D and a witness turned up at court with me as a McKenzie friend / lay representative. We couldn't find the case listed, and it turns out that C's claim had been struck out (for non-payment of the hearing fee). The strike out took place a number of weeks after the deadline in the 'unless' order (mid October), but only a few days before the hearing date, so D and their witness didn't know the case had been struck out. We didn't see C, or 2 of their 3 witnesses, who we would have recognised, at court. So, how to claim costs, and what costs?. Costs in the SCT are limited, (CPR 27.14) but is it correct that D can claim costs for: a) preparation time, perhaps 5 hours at LiP rate (and not exceeding £100) b) costs for bundle (printing, paper, lever arch files)? c) travel (what rate for mileage?) and car parking? (CPR 27.14 (2) (d) ) d) (CPR 27.14(2)(e) Having to take a day's leave (/ losing a day's leave for using up e.g. an annual leave day), £95 maximum (PD27A 7.3 (1)) for each of C and their witness?. What about me, as a lay representative (PD27A 3.2 (1) and (2) ) ? e) anything else under summary assessment (CPR 27.14(2)(g)) ? If so, does D make an application on a N244 for these costs? and do they need to give C an opportunity (14 days??) to settle these before submitting the N244 (given that adds another £275 application fee).

The legislation provides a defence if you are turning right and the only thing preventing you from doing so is oncoming traffic (or other vehicles also turning right, who are themselves only prevented from doing so by oncoming traffic). The legislation says the offence is stopping within the box junction. The highway code phrases it differently as "you MUST NOT enter....." This produces a potential grounds of appeal, but in the end the offence at law is stopping (not if the exit was clear and someone else's bad driving then caused you to stop......). So, as you were turning left, I doubt an appeal will succeed, though (depending on the video, which we cant see), you might try arguing that your exit was clear (if it was!) when you entered (as per the Highway code), and other's driving then forced you to stop. Or, if you didnt actually stop, but were just moving slowly throughout : then you appeal on those grounds. The first is a gamble, they might reject it. The second is an absolute defence (if true!). If neither of those apply, and you are relying, instead, on the fact it was 6.30 am ; the time is irrelevant.

I still do not know the strength or otherwise of the OP’s position. I do feel that even if they have a strong position, if they present it to the court as they’ve presented info here, that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Unless they are a specialist in the field (TfL Freedom pass cases, rather than ‘criminal law’ generalist solicitor v generalist solicitor), how is a solicitor going to help? What would they add? I’m minded of a response I’ve seen to similar in the past (for a non-TfL specialist solicitor) of “you’d just be paying for their ‘learning curve’ “.

Their point: you committed the offence. The offence is also the most common offence of dishonesty against the public purse that they see. The factors you mention are mitigation not a defence. They might feel that otherwise people could feel free to fare dodge, just saying “ohh, I might loose my job if you prosecute” or “ohh, I get depression, so you shouldn’t prosecute”, so they aren’t allowing those as ‘excuses’, currently.

You can keep trying. What are you going to change that might mean they respond differently?

You have 3 choices: a) return it (at their expense) b) pay for it c) neither return it nor pay for it but risk getting: i) sued for the cost ii) reported to the police for theft. Your call!

It may limit the penalty by admitting the uses that were yours, and showing that the others couldn’t have been you. It won’t change the fact that you’ll have a conviction though, unless you can persuade them to seek an administrative (“out of court”) settlement - which it seems they have been offering less often recently.

You could (should?, I’ll leave that to the site team) have created your own log-in, introduced yourself, and carried on the thread. Now we don’t know what was posted by which one of you.

It doesn’t mean you are doing anything wrong with your letter. It might just reflect TfL’s current stance on prosecuting the most frequent offence against the public purse they see. At what point did this stop being about “your friend”, and start being about “you”?

That looks like his WS? Is it not that he is the claimant (C), except the D has also filed a counterclaim?

“Nicked” might imply theft. I doubt you have stolen them, especially if it is to take them to the police, as: a) there is no dishonest intent b) there is no intent to permanently deprive. Why didn’t you call the police though if you felt a crime had been committed? (You might now have reduced the value of the cameras as evidence / their ability to identify the offender).

Comes here a day before WS due, with his last contribution August 27th. I’m not sure if he is a windup merchant or just beyond help (as people asked him to reply further before now) : neither are great options.

OP wasn't "found innocent", but was found "not guilty". "Not guilty" is a verdict in a criminal case, and is per the 'criminal standard of proof' : beyond all reasonable doubt. Any case against the TOC would be a civil case, and would be on the 'civil standard of proof': which is 'on balance of probability'. So, defending a criminal case means they couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that they were wrong to bring the case. Being acquitted doesn't mean you'd automatically succeed in a civil case (though the opposite is true : being found guilty in a criminal case allows almost certain success in a civil case by a wronged party).

Return it (taking video of you boxing it up / sending it) Then point out to the seller their issuing court papers was precipitous, (and why) point out to them that you will let the court decide on the remaining aspects of the case (the issue fee, and the costs [which are limited in the small claims track). Even if PayPal / eBay said you can keep both, the law might deem this unfair enrichment. Send it back, remind the seller of the above (including eBay’s comments), and leave them to decide if they wish to pursue a claim that leaves them looking unreasonable.

If it is a vehicle, you’ll note that the V5 states that the registration shows proof of Registered Keeper, rather than proof of ownership

Does the charging order not preclude applying for a bankruptcy as it is a secured debt?. Although, there could be mileage in arguing that if it is merely a Restriction K then it isn’t secured, and so shouldn’t preclude insolvency proceedings!

Who did you purchase the house from (who held the 'legal title') : husband, wife, or both as 'joint tenants'? It is them who your contract was with, and them you should pursue. If it was both as joint tenants, then you sue both (so as to be able to recover from either) - if you recover from one, even if they blame the other, up to them to sort it out between them, not your problem!.

The big question, I guess, is if you've come here to get advice, or merely to whinge you got nabbed for speeding. So, you can always plead not guilty, and see if they accept that you weren't speeding at Sowton Cross. The downside, if the court lets them amend it to Sourton Cross: you lose the option for a speed awareness course, and if the bench is under-impressed and chooses to penalise at the maximum end of the guidance as a result: you pays your money, and takes your choice.

You asked about the DX number. That is the “address” / box number for documents sent by what was “Hays DX”, and is now “DX Delivery” I believe it was originally DX = Document Exchange, a delivery service businesses could sign up to. If you don’t have a DX box / account, you don’t have to use it, and can ignore the DX number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DX_Group

Clearly you failed the ‘attitude test’ at the barrier, and your posts here aren’t much better. Move for a minute to looking at it from the TOC’s point of view. Your responsibility was to arrive at the original station in good time to buy a ticket. If you couldn’t buy a ticket at the station you could have sought out staff on the train. If you couldn’t find any staff on the train you should have tried to pay for your journey BEFORE going to the gate line : any of those would have shown you were trying to pay your fare. You may have been worried about missing your flight, but then you should have made different arrangements so that you weren’t facing such pressure that it may have looked like you were trying to evade your fare. You MIGHT be able to defend a RRA 1889 prosecution, but if they chose to prosecute you for the Byelaw offence instead : they have a pretty much “slam-dunk” guilty on that (strict liability) offence from what you’ve stated. Don’t forget to be sure to include in your reply that you were bullied, and that there were “their fake police” there, and “they were meeting their quota”, if your aim is to ensure they decide to prosecute you! Alternatively: adjust your view to consider what it looked like to them, that they have no obligation to allow people to travel without paying their fare at the first opportunity, nor to allow people not to pay at first opportunity because they didn’t leave themselves enough time. Then look at how you might persuade them not to prosecute and offer an administrative settlement (which they are under NO OBLIGATION to offer).

Quote them their own terms as to the contract having been ‘crystallised’ before they unilaterally cancelled it, and their cancellation was past the point at which they were entitled to do so. They can then provide the items for the agreed ‘consideration’ (the cost), or (after giving them fair warning and a chance to resolve it!) you can source them at the best available price and ask them for the difference (suing them for that sum if need be) to put you back in the position you would have been had they not breached the contract.

Professional advice (who can advise on repayment mortgage vs one of the 2 types of equity release mortgage). What are your priortities? a) staying in your house unless / until you need long-term care? b) releasing funds now? c) maintainng equity to be passed on in a will?. A professional advisor can help you balance these conflicting requirements to find the best solution for you. You might also consider seeking advice from Age UK (Age Concern and Help the Aged have merged) and also Shelter.

I cant add much, except to say that 'fighting' DVLA Drivers' Medical Group is hard. Document everything. Take copies of everything you send them, and send via Special Delivery (costly, but worth it when they claim not to have received information). Bizarrely, you are in a better position when they refuse a license* : as you can then ask them to reconsider, giving the grounds for reconsideration, and then if they still refuse, take it to a Magistrates' Court. The downside is that I never found a solicitor who seemed familiar with this and the 'driving solicitors' who advertise seem interested in drink and drug-driving offenses, not licensing. I asked a very experienced Magistrate when it looked like I needed to go to bat for someone: they hadn't ever had such a case brought before them, and werent familiar with it when then also asked their colleagues on that bench. *The reason why I say refusal is better is that at least you have a statutory right of appeal. There is no such right when DVLA 'bury the paperwork', and even if they go outside of their 'expected timeframe', you cant make them make a decision ; sometimes they just leave people in limbo, without a decision you cant appeal it to a court. Record all calls. They'll deny what they said, or deny you said what you did. Then they'll claim there wasn't a complaint. Then they'll say there was a complaint but it was never logged as a complaint. Then they'll say that review of complaints is by the same team "so there is no point'. (Does any of this sound familiar?) You've done well to get the complaint to their Chief Exec : there is a further escalation (via your MP to the PHSO). The PHSO's report (albeit from 2016) isn't very complimentary about DVLA ..... https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/driven-despair

A section 8 wouldn’t (of itself) affect your credit rating, and it is hard for him to evict you by a S.8 a) if he has moved another tenant in, b) after you have already abandoned your tenancy. What might affect your credit rating is if he had a period where the property was due to be let to you, you didn’t move in, and he had to find another tenant, and he wasn’t receiving rent until the new tenant moved in. you’d likely be liable for the rent until the new tenant moved in (and depending on the terms of the tenancy agreement: possibly for the costs of re-letting) After all, it isn’t the LL’s fault you didn’t move in (based on what you’ve said). Why should they be out of pocket? (Though, your liability should end once the replacement tenancy starts: the LL can’t recover the rent twice!). if the LL sued for that rent, and obtained a CCJ that then went on the register : that could hurt your credit rating.