Train Ticket fine with court summons :s

[tortoise79]

I was issued a train ticket fine in 2006 and told by the ticket
officer I may be exempt because I was able to show him lots of tickets
I'd bought previously. He said I'd receive written correspondance
about what would happen next, ie. if I had to pay a fine etc. I
received nothing for weeks so assumed I had no fine.

Now I have been asked to pay court fees and the fine, totalling £270
because apparently a court summons was issued and I didn't turn up to
court. However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house. I have now arranged to go to court next week, does anyone
know if I'll be exempt from the fees because I couldn't have received
the summons? Also any general advice on what to take with me, what
to expect etc. would be much appreciated.

[Alex Barrow]

Post by tortoise79
I was issued a train ticket fine in 2006 and told by the ticket
officer I may be exempt because I was able to show him lots of tickets
I'd bought previously.

Why didnt you purchase your ticket before you travelled like everyone else?

If he thought you would be exempt, why did he give you an offical penalty
fair notice?

Just because you showed him an old ticket, what difference does this make?
who is to say you didnt pick them up from the bin to try and give yourself
some credibility incase you was caught?
What if, i dont pay my TV licence now, but when i get caught i say i have
been paying previously, but this time i couldnt be bothered to pay, would
they let me off because i can show them one i bought before?

Pay the fine and be done with it! its a fair cop.

[The Real Doctor]

Post by Alex Barrow
If he thought you would be exempt, why did he give you an offical penalty
fair notice?

If he had been charged a penalty fare - and they only applied in
limited areas - he wouldn't be getting / have been prosecuted.

Ian

[Steve Walker]

Post by Alex Barrow

Post by tortoise79
I was issued a train ticket fine in 2006 and told by the ticket
officer I may be exempt because I was able to show him lots of
tickets I'd bought previously.

Why didnt you purchase your ticket before you travelled like everyone else?
If he thought you would be exempt, why did he give you an offical
penalty fair notice?
Just because you showed him an old ticket, what difference does this
make? who is to say you didnt pick them up from the bin to try and
give yourself some credibility incase you was caught?
What if, i dont pay my TV licence now, but when i get caught i say i
have been paying previously, but this time i couldnt be bothered to
pay, would they let me off because i can show them one i bought
before?
Pay the fine and be done with it! its a fair cop.

Please don't assume bad faith or dishonesty by other posters, Alex - this is
the moderated group where we try to maintain some civility amidst the
heathenry of wider usenet... :o)

[b***@googlemail.com]

Post by tortoise79
I was issued a train ticket fine in 2006 and told by the ticket
officer I may be exempt because I was able to show him lots of tickets
I'd bought previously.  He said I'd receive written correspondance
about what would happen next, ie. if I had to pay a fine etc.   I
received nothing for weeks so assumed I had no fine.
Now I have been asked to pay court fees and the fine, totalling £270
because apparently a court summons was issued and I didn't turn up to
court.  However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.   I have now arranged to go to court next week, does anyone
know if I'll be exempt from the fees because I couldn't have received
the summons?   Also any general advice on what to take with me, what
to expect etc. would be much appreciated.

If you genuinely did not know of the proceedings you can make a
Statutory Declaration (under oath) to set them aside. There is nothing
to prevent the authorities from issuing fresh proceedings.

[Paul Stevenson]

"tortoise79" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7c750321-293b-4d78-963d-***@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Bits snipped

Post by tortoise79
However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.

Might the court wonder, not unreasonably, why you were not having your post
redirected?

Paul

[Robbie]

Post by Paul Stevenson
Bits snipped

Post by tortoise79
However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.

Might the court wonder, not unreasonably, why you were not having your
post redirected?
Paul

Unless there is an informal arrangement with the new owner / tenant to
forward mail, is it normally considered reasonable to have mail
redirected for as long as 3 months? Last time I moved house I had the
service (from Royal Mail) for about a month to six weeks and that seemed
more than sufficient.

[Don Aitken]

Post by Robbie

Post by Paul Stevenson
Bits snipped

Post by tortoise79
However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.

Might the court wonder, not unreasonably, why you were not having your
post redirected?

Unless there is an informal arrangement with the new owner / tenant to
forward mail, is it normally considered reasonable to have mail
redirected for as long as 3 months? Last time I moved house I had the
service (from Royal Mail) for about a month to six weeks and that seemed
more than sufficient.

The court may wonder what it wishes, but if there is no proof that the
proceedings ever came to the attention of the defendant, and he is
prepared to make the required Statutory Declaration that they did not,
he is entitled to have them set aside as a matter of right. No
question of whether he behaved reasonably arises.

[mark]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Robbie

Post by Paul Stevenson
Bits snipped

Post by tortoise79
However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.

Might the court wonder, not unreasonably, why you were not having your
post redirected?

Unless there is an informal arrangement with the new owner / tenant to
forward mail, is it normally considered reasonable to have mail
redirected for as long as 3 months? Last time I moved house I had the
service (from Royal Mail) for about a month to six weeks and that seemed
more than sufficient.

The court may wonder what it wishes, but if there is no proof that the
proceedings ever came to the attention of the defendant, and he is
prepared to make the required Statutory Declaration that they did not,
he is entitled to have them set aside as a matter of right. No
question of whether he behaved reasonably arises.

Yes.
A subsequent court may decide either way about the offence but the
'defendent' is entitled to have his case heard in court if he/she so wishes.
Application to set aside the matter is the course to take here..


Mark

[mark]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by Paul Stevenson
Bits snipped

Post by tortoise79
However, it was issued in June 2006, 3 months after I'd moved
house.

Might the court wonder, not unreasonably, why you were not having your
post redirected?

They might...... unreasonably so.
One only needs to show that they have not received notification of
proceedings to apply to have the matter 'set aside'.
Moving address is, largely, sufficient.


Mark