http://swarb.co.uk/palmer-and-saunders-v-southend-on-sea-borough-council-ca-1984/ Palmer and Saunders -v- Southend-on-Sea Borough Council; CA 1984

Remember to fit it onto a single page.

Thanks to AIW for the info. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/black-hole-fears-as-atos-ends-fittowork-contract-early-9219832.html?origin=internalSearch

lol yeah not like the good ole days eh

No room for sloppiness, I fancy. Bit like the railways.

No but remember pink pixels...

Fair question. The OP says that the company 'could maybe do something if she (she mind you) found someone to job share with her.'

He probably got his materials dirt cheap (knocked off?) and has pocketed a larger difference than you'd expect, thus making it unnecessary for him to charge for working time- which he might know could be long and drawn out due to the poor quality of workmanship. How profitable could that be I wonder; not very perhaps, but maybe it doesn't need to be.

****ing classic

Questions correct: 8 / 10 You took 104 seconds to complete this quiz. Q.4 nice and easy to those who read Agatha Christie lol

Representing.

Well, the relevant legislation is generally focussed on the returnee keeping their extant T&Cs rather than changing them. Is she returning from Ordinary or Additional maternity leave?

Were you issued a P45 whilst on suspension?

Write to them- registered- and make sure you use the reference code they have assigned to your case, so all correspondence is kept together. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Absolutely fare point. I think HB was been quite subtle and moullding hher language to the context. 'Atos carry out assessments in the prescribed way' rather implies that the prescribed way is fundamentally faulty, and therefore the fault is carried down.

Right, now we're getting somewhere Ironically if you had appealed the penalty within the allotted time frame, you would almost certainly have won the appeal on the grounds of implicitly having been authorised to travel by a member of railway staff (an 'authorised person' as the character in the ticket booth would be held to be). Assuming that you did buy it from a TO rather than a self-service machine of course- they can tell the difference! Unfortunately it has now moved on from that position, because as I pointed out in post #7, regardless of the original rights or wrongs, the fare for that particular journey has not been offered and is still outstanding, and they are allowed (indeed, they have a statutory duty) to pursue this loss through court. Obviously contact them again, other wise the next time you hear will probably be with a court date. I would suggest that it needs careful phrasing- not to sound too brash if I can put it like that, because at the moment they are legally in the right. So a sense of atonement would not go amiss- regret too perhaps. But you might try suggesting to them that this unfortunate state of affairs only arose because you misunderstood (NOT that you were misled-!) what the inspector said, and believed that you had to discuss it with Prosecutions Dept. first (and thus became time-expired on your appeal). You might also point out that you believed that the ticket office clerk had effectively given you permission to travel, otherwise you would never have considered doing so. Lastly, you may well feel it is opportune to suggest that a prosecution would have a disproportionate effect on your life / career etc; and that therefore, accepting your error in not double-checking the ticket and discount card (which might stick in your throat slightly but it is unfortunately a passenger's responsibility to hold the correct ticket before travelling), you also understand the amount of time, trouble, and expense that the company have already gone to in pursuing this, and that perhaps you could recompense them for their costs and pay all reasonable administrative expenses they have incurred. It's worth a shot, but you must be mindful that there is absolutely no onus on them to accept your offer at all by this stage- it is now up to you to persuade them! I tells ya, you really should have appealed at the time

Dear RS. Honeybee never actually said otherwise.

So basically you received a penalty fare which you did not pay immediately? You don't have to- but you have three weeks to pay and / or appeal the notice. If it remains unpaid then it may be returned to the railway company to be pursued as fare evasion (because of course up until that point, the train fare has not been paid). However I'm still slightly unsure what is meant by a 'penalty notice letter or the penalty fare''; you are either issued a penalty fare notice (as above) or the Inspector cautions you ('you do not have to say anything' etc), questions you, and reports you- in which case you receive no bits of paper but eventually a letter stating you are being prosecuted under the relevant legislation. So this still needs clarifying. On another note, what does the letter say exactly? -minus your personal details please.

H'mmm unless they were anything like mine in which case I'd be the first to put them on a three-wheeled bus touring the Grand Canyon

So what did the inspector actually do on the train? Did he physically give you a (n orange) ticket, a piece of paper, or ask you some questions? Did you pay him anything, did he ask for your name and address? Etc. Sorry for the twenty questions but your story is still somewhat opaque.

Np. It would be interesting to hear what they say, when they get back to you. It does sound a curious incident, as a school bus is subject to no lighter safety regulation that a commercial one; so if it had broken down, and hence unsafe to convey you, I don't see why the school kids were any different.

No you should not have. And if you wrote that to First Bus they probably put you down as a misogynist and filed your letter appropriately However to answer your original question, your next approach for resolution will be through bususers.org as you have already suggested- as far as they are concerned, no response from the bus company is equal to an unsatisfactory one. Obviously.

And unfortunately employers tend to take full advantage when their staff make it apparent that they don't treat social networking sites as an extension of real life. Viz online bullying / harassment.

Yes but it's never good form and mention that 'I could've jumped over the gate' or 'followed someone through' etc when you write to them, it might appear to indicate that you considered it a course of action!!! -even though of course you didn't. Know wot I mean.

OOC, why is it of such significance in your eyes that 'the lady driver' was 'female'... and not just a coach driver to you?