Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

South Western Railway prosecution advice - £117 fine **TfL Dropped Case**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 874 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

Dear all

 

I was hoping to receive some advice on a prosecution case.

 

Details of the event:

On 9 December 2021, I paid for a ticket through the Trainline app at 15:24 for £11.25 (travelling from Wanborough to London Waterloo via Guildford).

 

The train journey I selected was at 17:20 from Wanborough (no barriers), which I made without any issues (other than the train arriving a few mins late). At Guildford, I changed to the London Waterloo train. Throughout my journey I wasn't asked for a ticket. 

 

*On arrival at London Waterloo, when I got to the barriers I showed the ticket officer my purchase on the app after realising I didn't have a barcode to scan me through. I was informed that proof of purchase does not represent a valid ticket, even though on my app the journey that I had paid for came up under the 'My Tickets' section and still does when looking back at the time of writing this.* 

 

The ticket officer refused to let me through, despite me showing him email verification and purchase verification, both which were received before undertaking the journey. The reason being that just because I purchased the ticket doesn't mean it's valid - I needed to have printed it off at Wanborough. 

 

Today I have received a strongly worded letter from SWR with two options:

1) Settle for £117

2) Request a court hearing

 

My thoughts:

I paid for the train journey that I took and had proof of this. The fact that the officer at the barrier didn't let me through was frustrating enough as it is. Before then, I undertook 3 journeys in December which were all paid for on the app and for each one I received a barcode as a form of ticket, hence not realising that this journey was different. The fine of £117 is completely disproportionate to the severity of my actions. If I had knowingly not paid for a ticket, travelled from Wanborough to Waterloo and tried to blag a free journey then I would understand.

 

On the flip side, I stupidly didn't read the detail after purchasing the ticket and assumed I had received a barcode. Looking at my email confirmation it states, 'This is not your ticket, you will need to collect your tickets to travel'. So if I requested a court hearing, (I think) the bottom line is that I travelled without a valid ticket. 

 

The letter is written very strongly and states if I do take it to court I may have SWR's legal fees and court costs to pay for too. Do I concede, pay £117 and learn my lesson? Or do I stand against this utter nonsense?

 

It would be hugely helpful to receive some advice. 

 

Thank you in advanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interest.


Happy to disclose what’s in the letter but would prefer not to upload the doc.

 

In summary, the letter states that I was informed that I’d received a letter (which is correct). Then “on investigation, we believe there is sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute you for an offence or offences committed under the Railway Byelaws or Regulation of Railways Act 1889”.

 

It then going onto to my options - pay or going to court.

 

To be honest,  I don’t think it’s worth my time or money to appeal. If the whole case is based on the fact that I didn’t print off my ticket then I’d lose the case and be subject to extra fees and a criminal record, which in turn would affect my career.

 

Really doesn’t feel right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks, noted.

 

Today is the first letter I have received from SWR to which I am replying back to with bank statements and email confirmation of the purchase. I am asking them if this has been taken into account, as I showed the ticket officer but he may not have documented this, before I go ahead with either option. 

 

Agreed - the admin costs at £100 is outrageous really. Extremely harsh considering I actually paid before getting on the train and can prove it. 

 

Thanks for your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to South Western Railway prosecution advice - £117 fine **TfL Dropped Case**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...