Rail firm hounded my family over £2 fine
Miranda Bryant
29.03.10

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ound-2-fine.do

A commuter today told of his two-year legal dispute with South West
Trains over an unpaid £2 fine.

Neil Warwick, 29, said his family was hounded by bailiffs and he had
to attend court twice after he was issued with an unpaid fares notice
in 2008.

Mr Warwick was fined on his way to work from Strawberry Hill, where he
lived with his father, to Richmond after he forgot his season ticket.
He tried to buy a ticket but the ticket machines were not working and
the inspector would not accept his bank card, he said.

Mr Warwick, who works for an animation company, claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol —
when his father called to say he had been threatened by bailiffs at
his home in Strawberry Hill. Debt collectors said that if he did not
pay them £600 they would pick the locks and take double the amount in
goods. Mr Warwick said: “I went to the Citizens Advice Bureau and they
said that it was illegal and that if it happened again to phone the
police. My dad felt completely threatened.”

He went to Bristol magistrates' court to say that he had received no
court correspondence but about four months later his father told him
he had been threatened by bailiffs again. On 10 March he received a
summons to Richmond-upon-Thames magistrates but could not get time off
work to attend. He now faces a fine of £217.

Mr Warwick — who has a four-month-old son, Sol, with his girlfriend,
Florence May Hyland, 28 — said the ordeal has cost him hundreds of
pounds in travel from Bristol to London and three days off work. He
said: “This has left us in a very hard situation money-wise.”

A spokeswoman for SWT said: “While it is unfortunate this case has
been escalated to such an extent, it is our belief that it could have
been resolved by the customer long before it reached this stage.” A
spokesman for Her Majesty's Courts Service said: “This matter has not
been brought to our attention previously. We would welcome details
from Mr Warwick so we can look into it.”

"Scott" wrote in message
...

A spokeswoman for SWT said: "While it is unfortunate this case has
been escalated to such an extent, it is our belief that it could have
been resolved by the customer long before it reached this stage." A
spokesman for Her Majesty's Courts Service said: "This matter has not
been brought to our attention previously. We would welcome details
from Mr Warwick so we can look into it."

I assume Mr Warwick complied with a request to provide his name and
address to the ticket inspector. He must have known at that stage
that there was a debt owed to SWT. Any reasonable person would have
done something about it rather than waiting for one year.

[uk.transport.london reinstated]

I wonder if he ever had a season ticket at all? AIUI a visit to a ticket
office with his valid season would have immediately cancelled the UFN (but
there may be a limt to how often this can be done).

As is usual with these stories, we'll never get all the relevant info...

Paul S

On 29 Mar, 14:26, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

A spokeswoman for SWT said: "While it is unfortunate this case has
been escalated to such an extent, it is our belief that it could have
been resolved by the customer long before it reached this stage." A
spokesman for Her Majesty's Courts Service said: "This matter has not
been brought to our attention previously. We would welcome details
from Mr Warwick so we can look into it."

I assume Mr Warwick complied with a request to provide his name and
address to the ticket inspector. *He must have known at that stage
that there was a debt owed to SWT. *Any reasonable person would have
done something about it rather than waiting for one year.

[uk.transport.london reinstated]

I wonder if he ever had a season ticket at all? *AIUI a visit to a ticket
office with his valid season would have immediately cancelled the UFN (but
there may be a limt to how often this can be done).

As is usual with these stories, we'll never get all the relevant info...

Paul S

None of it makes any sense, but then it's a story in the Standard.

There is no such thing as a £2 fine, or even a £2 penalty fare.

On the other hand, if SWT weren't going to accept £2 but insisted on
issuing a penalty fare and, when this was appeared to be disputed
(because correspondence not received), sold the punter to a debt
collection agency for the penalty fare plus enormous costs, one could
piece together a plausible story.

I don't agree that in the absence of correspondence asking for the £2
fare, having given name and address, it was for the punter to do
something about it. You can't just send off a cheque to the head
office of a company, in the hope that it will be associated with a
specific case, unless you have correspondence with reference numbers
etc.

It would also be reasonable for him to forget about it or assume that
they had deemed it to be too trivial.

"CJB" wrote in message
...
Rail firm hounded my family over £2 fine
Miranda Bryant
29.03.10

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ound-2-fine.do

A commuter today told of his two-year legal dispute with South West
Trains over an unpaid £2 fine.

Mr Warwick, who works for an animation company, claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol —
when his father called to say he had been threatened by bailiffs at
his home in Strawberry Hill. Debt collectors said that if he did not
pay them £600 they would pick the locks and take double the amount in
goods. Mr Warwick said: “I went to the Citizens Advice Bureau and they
said that it was illegal and that if it happened again to phone the
police. My dad felt completely threatened.”

I feel the paragraph above is almost totally untrue! Baliffs are not
allowed to pick locks. They can not take more than goods to the value of
the claim and since the guy who owed two pounds did not live at the address
they would have trouble identifying his goods. They could not take anyone
elses to pay the dues.

He went to Bristol magistrates' court to say that he had received no
court correspondence but about four months later his father told him
he had been threatened by bailiffs again. On 10 March he received a
summons to Richmond-upon-Thames magistrates but could not get time off
work to attend. He now faces a fine of £217.

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in London?

There is much more to this then we are being told about.

PDS



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Paul Stevenson" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in
London?

Because, as the text you quoted said...

claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stevenson" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in
London?

Because, as the text you quoted said...

claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol

But the case had not moved to Bristol so the court there would not know
anything about it.

As another poster has pointed out the story is almost complete rubbish, it
does not hang together and the chap with the £2 fine/penalty seems not to
have told the complete story.

PDS


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 29/03/2010 16:52, Paul Stevenson wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stevenson" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in
London?

Because, as the text you quoted said...

claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol

But the case had not moved to Bristol so the court there would not know
anything about it.

Perhaps there is a mechanism for declaring you have "received no
court correspondence" at a convenient location? Presumably the court
system has access to a phone or carrier pigeon or something.

A friend once got sent a fine for cycling without lights at a time he
could prove he was out the country. He was able to make some kind of
formal declaration that he knew nothing at all about it (it was
suspected that someone else had been stopped and had given his name).

And it isn't entirely unknown for people to say bailiffs have made
legally questionable claims.

Of course none of this means I'd take anything in the Standard at face
value....

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:32:09 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 29/03/2010 16:52, Paul Stevenson wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Paul Stevenson" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Why did he go to the court in Bristol when the incident happended in
London?

Because, as the text you quoted said...

claimed he did not
hear from SWT until a year later — after he had moved to Bristol

But the case had not moved to Bristol so the court there would not know
anything about it.

Perhaps there is a mechanism for declaring you have "received no
court correspondence" at a convenient location? Presumably the court
system has access to a phone or carrier pigeon or something.

The "address for service" will almost certainly be the one he supplied
when the whole palaver started. As with parking penalties, moving
without the new address being notified to someone (validly) pursuing
you does not get you off the hook. OTOH there is a vague hint in the
words from HMCS that his pursuers might not have done things by the
book; presumably time limits apply to communications in a way that is
at least similar to those involved with chasing up parking charges
where a letter being _posted_ one day late (even if it arrives within
time) can kill the process.

A friend once got sent a fine for cycling without lights at a time he
could prove he was out the country. He was able to make some kind of
formal declaration that he knew nothing at all about it (it was
suspected that someone else had been stopped and had given his name).

And it isn't entirely unknown for people to say bailiffs have made
legally questionable claims.

Of course none of this means I'd take anything in the Standard at face
value....

Face value WRT the Evening Standard is the square root of bugger all.

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 06:32:09PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

A friend once got sent a fine for cycling without lights at a time he
could prove he was out the country. He was able to make some kind of
formal declaration that he knew nothing at all about it (it was
suspected that someone else had been stopped and had given his name).

Now that's *obviously* nonsense. Cyclists don't get stopped for
ignoring traffic regulations. Well, unless they get stopped rather
suddenly by the driver who didn't see them riding on a dark rainy
evening wearing dark clothes and with no lights.

Of course none of this means I'd take anything in the Standard at face
value....

I work on the assumption that if it's in the Standard, it should be
assumed to be a lie unless corroborated by a newspaper. This includes
the date on the front page.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Seven o'clock in the morning is something that
happens to those less fortunate than me

On 30/03/2010 11:19, David Cantrell wrote:
Now that's *obviously* nonsense. Cyclists don't get stopped for
ignoring traffic regulations.

You obviously haven't been in the City of London when City of London
Police are having a quiet day and decide to stop cyclists after a set of
traffic lights.

--
Simon Hewison