It's about 390 words. Also, I agree with @jk2054, for what it's worth. Also, getting a railcard is a good idea even if you think you'll never use it: it shows a willingness to put a bit back, if you know what I mean.

Honeybee has it right as ever. Keep it short and simple is always the best way. As it stands, the letter is unnecessarily too long: yours is >550 words, I've knocked >200 off. As she says, the material about shopping, booze and covid can all go. That's absolutely no disrespect to you! - but prosecutors are a cynical bunch, and I'm afraid they will very much have heard every COVID-related excuse going. The important thing is to persuade them - that, make them feel - that they do not need to prosecute you, their business will not financially suffer, and future incidents have been avoided in the bargain. From their position, that's a job done well for the sake of a couple of letters, and from yours, it avoids everything you want to avoid. I think your main area of weakness is if they really want to know how you travelled ticketless for so long without realising it, but you might have that covered under general forgetfulness. Good luck! (Also, put your letter through a spell checker, then it looks more serious.)

Thaaanks @honeybee13. Should this thread be moved to Transport? (And feel free to delete this post if you do to save derailing the thread.)

Thanks. First things first, don't panic. That's a scary long list of potential consequences, but a) it's a simple statement of fact, and b) they must tell you all possibilities. However, you will be very much towards the bottom of that list. They also deal with people who, e.g. fake annual gold cards, and you should not worry yourself that you are anywhere near that category! Yes, a fare has been evaded; yes, you unnecessarily complicated things further, but a carefully written appeal should persuade them that it is not in their interests to prosecute. Be mindful that this will not come for free. But also note that they effectively encourage recipients to attempt mitigation by mentioning it as a possibility. (HB got in first, I see, much more succintly!)

To clarify, was not that "the inspector was not happy"; instead, he clearly felt he had no choice. Look at it this way. You admitted to travelling from Nunhead to St Albans City - a journey of about 15 stops and an hour in duration without a ticket. You did have a ticket, however, for the last stop of the journey - the cheapest tick available - necessary to exit at Parkway. Also: what does "wasn't fully compliant while giving my details" mean? Did you give a different name, or address? Or just didn't answer? You see, multiple offences under the bylaws appear to have been committed and, frankly, the inspector would probably have found themselves in hot water had they merely issued a penalty notice. It is important that you recognise exactly where things went wrong on the day, as acceptance and understanding of this will be important to your response to Thameslink.

I like this thread!

It's the "if grossly in excess of the limit" clause that bothers me. Basically, it's open-ended, but that's the thing about discretion - it cuts both ways.

@Parks123 (and @stevenkenny to help you in your thread), here's the Oxford judgment that HB could not, temporarily, link too. Hope that helps.

That would be those who want Johnson to remoan remain in office? I agree that they're a somewhat unholy rabble, though

This looks great. And especially for art historians. Well, historians of a certain form of artistry anyway

I think I'm right in saying that the garage has a duty of care under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As @just_jue says, it should be as simple as filing an insurance claim. And if the garage isn't happy, they might take more care of people's motors after their premiums have gone up!

@köszönöm Contacting Site Admin might help you, as—to be fair—you've been advised twice by now...?

If you feel like it, let Nationwide know about it anyway: if it is a con (as it sounds very likely!), they'll want to know, and in doing so you can help protect their customers. Having said that, historic mobile accounts may have made you jaded when it comes to going out your way for large firms...I know it did me!

It's true that she's under the two-year rule for most employment-related tribunal issues, but remember her statutory rights apply from day one of employment and, further, cannot be contracted away. The most common example of this is discrimination on the usual legal grounds.

Absolutely fundamental. Obviously, getting a good employment lawyer is useful. Still, not everyone can afford it, whereas a trade union will usually be able to provide access to legal advice and organise representation as part of its role. However, some unions will not assist in cases that originated prior to a member joining.

Thanks Andyorch

Apologies if this isn't the right place (it's more of a vague question rather than a desperate demand for info!), but do we have a section here (I looked but couldn't find it, but then, it's all a bit different to back in the day-nice site redesign!) notiong respected financial advisors, or put it another way, highlighting bad ones? Although ther latter might verge on the libellous, so perhaps not! Anyway, hope everyone's enjoying the bank holiday!

This does almost exactly what it says on the tin. Put simply, on the UK rail network, if you have a travelcard but wish to travel beyond your permitted zones, you can buy a boundary zone extension to ensure the continuing validity of your ticket. For example, if you have a zones 1-6 London travelcard but want to travel to, say, Colchester, then you can buy a ticket from where your ticket expires. This is not the same as buying a point-to-point ticket from the last station in zone 6 to Colchester, which would be more expensive (if admittedly not by much. But if you did that, in our example, you would be paying for a ticket between Harold Wood and Colchester, not the boundary. I.e., you would pay twice for the section between Romford and the edge of zone 6. But there is now a court case over the fact that many people were not informed of this and unwittingly paid more than they should, in many cases, several times. The operators currently involved are those running the South Western, Southeastern, Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern and Gatwick Express services. The website is at The Boundary Fares Claims. @honeybee13 can this be stickied for a while to ensure exposure? Cheers.

Yep, remember KAL007?

Bro, they are receiving loads of similar letters every week! Remember the weekends get in the way too.

This is not a book of condolence. Overly sensitive, much?

I guess she didn't like Mondays either...

Very nice touch! Well done

Merely that you demonstrated little knowledge of courts and even less of revenue protection.

The Curse of CAG strikes again!!! lol