Today in the post I received a Penalty Charge Notice from TFL for unpaid 
congestion charge. However, to my knowledge my car has never been to London 
and certainly wasn't there at the time in question. In fact their picture 
clearly shows the registration number of a different car, (differs from my 
reg by 1 letter, V instead of Z).

Of course the assumption is that I am guilty and the only number they 
provide for queries is an 0845 which just adds insult to injury. After 
looking up the alternative on saynoto0870.com I called them to challenge 
the charge. Apparently you can't do that, you have to write to them. They 
actually demanded to know where I was on the 20th June. I said it was none 
of their business at which point the droid got stroppy.

I am not really in the mood to waste any more of my time writing to them, 
but I suspect I will be letting myself in for a Kafkaesque journey if I 
don't pre-empt the problem. Does anyrat know what happens if I just ignore 
this? 

Martin

"Martin Durkin"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9ACAB51477725martinwilliamsdurkin@130.133.1.4...
> Today in the post I received a Penalty Charge Notice from TFL for unpaid
> congestion charge. However, to my knowledge my car has never been to 
> London
> and certainly wasn't there at the time in question. In fact their picture
> clearly shows the registration number of a different car, (differs from my
> reg by 1 letter, V instead of Z).
>
> Of course the assumption is that I am guilty and the only number they
> provide for queries is an 0845 which just adds insult to injury. After
> looking up the alternative on saynoto0870.com I called them to challenge
> the charge. Apparently you can't do that, you have to write to them. They
> actually demanded to know where I was on the 20th June. I said it was none
> of their business at which point the droid got stroppy.
>
> I am not really in the mood to waste any more of my time writing to them,
> but I suspect I will be letting myself in for a Kafkaesque journey if I
> don't pre-empt the problem. Does anyrat know what happens if I just ignore
> this?

Do write. A phone call means nothing. A recorded delivery letter cannot be 
denied. All it needs is a couple sentences pointing out their error and job 
done. A pain in the arse, yes, but unfortunately necessary. If, after this, 
they persist, then you can start to accuse them of intimidation. If you 
ignore it, it won't go away, even though they are in the wrong. You don't 
really want to end up having to appear in the county court just to prove 
their error.

"Graculus"  wrote in
news:6ckn5uF3hlhqfU1@mid.individual.net: 

snip my tale of woe.
> 
> Do write. A phone call means nothing. A recorded delivery letter
> cannot be denied. All it needs is a couple sentences pointing out
> their error and job done. A pain in the arse, yes, but unfortunately
> necessary. If, after this, they persist, then you can start to accuse
> them of intimidation. If you ignore it, it won't go away, even though
> they are in the wrong. You don't really want to end up having to
> appear in the county court just to prove their error. 
> 

Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I wish I 
had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small print 
somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them in any case.

Martin Durkin wrote:

> Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I wish I 
> had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small print 
> somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them in any case. 

Would it help to mention the story I read today, where a couple went to 
court over a small fine and 3 points, because they believed the camera 
was dodgy... and lost, with costs to pay of £15,000 (the judge let them 
off the rest)?

Makes a stamp look quite cheap.

Kimbo xx
-- 
www.bykimbo.com

On 27 Jun 2008 21:43:35 GMT, Martin Durkin
 wrote:

>
>Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I wish I 
>had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small print 
>somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them in any case. 

Liberal Democrat Peeresses take TfL to jucidial review so that you
don't have to - read all about it in this word doc:

www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item11WalmsleyJudicialReview15Sep0.doc

n

Niles  wrote in
news:n0ra64too84p3ogutubo2ics2djb8ve57j@4ax.com: 

> On 27 Jun 2008 21:43:35 GMT, Martin Durkin
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>>Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I
>>wish I had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small
>>print somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them
>>in any case. 
> 
> Liberal Democrat Peeresses take TfL to jucidial review so that you
> don't have to - read all about it in this word doc:
> 
> www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item11WalmsleyJudicialRevie
> w15Sep0.doc 

Thanks, but I hope it doesn't come to that. At least the baroness had been 
in the charging zone and had made a mistake when trying to pay. The photo 
of the number plate is remarkably clear and could not really be mistaken 
for that on my car, which was parked outside my house in Cambridge at the 
time.

Kim Andrews  wrote in
news:6cl5nbF3gmu81U1@mid.individual.net: 

> Martin Durkin wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I
>> wish I had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small
>> print somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them
>> in any case. 
> 
> Would it help to mention the story I read today, where a couple went
> to court over a small fine and 3 points, because they believed the
> camera was dodgy... and lost, with costs to pay of £15,000 (the judge
> let them off the rest)?
> 
> Makes a stamp look quite cheap.
> 

Thanks Kim. I hadn't planned to put a stamp on my reply actually. I'm also 
tempted to include a brick in the reply envelope, but no doubt that would 
come under some new terror law and I could expect to be banged up for 42 
days.

In message , Graculus 
 writes
[]
>Do write. A phone call means nothing. A recorded delivery letter cannot 
>be denied. All it needs is a couple sentences pointing out their error 
>and job done. A pain in the arse, yes, but unfortunately necessary. If, 
>after this, they persist, then you can start to accuse them of 
>intimidation. If you ignore it, it won't go away, even though they are 
>in the wrong. You don't really want to end up having to appear in the 
>county court just to prove their error.

So it is "necessary" for OP to shell out for the recorded delivery fee, 
for something they are innocent of, quite clearly? In such 
circumstances, I'd be inclined to include an invoice, to cover both the 
cost of the fee and postage, the stationery, and something quite hefty 
for your time. If you feel so inclined, you can offer then a discount 
for prompt settlement, as they probably did to you - as well as warning 
them that costs of recovery in the case of non-payment will also be 
sought.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message 
news:+e3mF9O81YZIFw1j@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Graculus 
>  writes
> []
>>Do write. A phone call means nothing. A recorded delivery letter cannot be 
>>denied. All it needs is a couple sentences pointing out their error and 
>>job done. A pain in the arse, yes, but unfortunately necessary. If, after 
>>this, they persist, then you can start to accuse them of intimidation. If 
>>you ignore it, it won't go away, even though they are in the wrong. You 
>>don't really want to end up having to appear in the county court just to 
>>prove their error.
>
> So it is "necessary" for OP to shell out for the recorded delivery fee, 
> for something they are innocent of, quite clearly? In such circumstances, 
> I'd be inclined to include an invoice, to cover both the cost of the fee 
> and postage, the stationery, and something quite hefty for your time. If 
> you feel so inclined, you can offer then a discount for prompt settlement, 
> as they probably did to you - as well as warning them that costs of 
> recovery in the case of non-payment will also be sought.

That thought also went through my mind. They'll charge you extra whenever 
they have to do more work, after all. And since you are being inconvenienced 
in both time and money because of their incompetence, I think an invoice 
would be quite fitting.

Martin Durkin wrote:

> 
> Thanks Kim. I hadn't planned to put a stamp on my reply actually. 

I do that with junk mail lists I've never asked to be on.

I'm also
> tempted to include a brick in the reply envelope, but no doubt that would 
> come under some new terror law and I could expect to be banged up for 42 
> days.

I have heard of people collecting all their junk mail for a few weeks, 
then deciding which lucky recipient will get the lot. You probably don't 
  have a collection of false accusations you can collate, thoughbut.

Incidentally, some years ago I had a letter from Kent police suggesting 
(I don't think it put it any stronger than that) that I had been driving 
dangerously in their area. Since the time and date given was one when I 
was at work at Luton Airport, and my car was parked in a secure, 
camera-patrolled car-park, I was pretty confident they'd got something 
wrong. However, in that simpler age I merely had to ring them and tell 
them that, and was assured (correctly) that that would be the end of the 
matter.

Now that we live in an age where the base assumption is that all 
citizens are lying, evil scum who are merely waiting to be caught on 
CCTV doing something wicked, it's no doubt a lot more work to extricate 
yourself. You have my sympathy.


Kimbo xx
-- 
www.bykimbo.com

"Graculus"  wrote
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote

>> So it is "necessary" for OP to shell out for the recorded delivery fee,
>> for something they are innocent of, quite clearly? In such circumstances,
>> I'd be inclined to include an invoice, to cover both the cost of the fee
>> and postage, the stationery, and something quite hefty for your time. If
>> you feel so inclined, you can offer then a discount for prompt
>> settlement, as they probably did to you - as well as warning them that
>> costs of recovery in the case of non-payment will also be sought.
>
> That thought also went through my mind. They'll charge you extra whenever
> they have to do more work, after all. And since you are being
> inconvenienced in both time and money because of their incompetence, I
> think an invoice would be quite fitting.

Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.

It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make a point
which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It will go to some
low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If you begin insisting,
they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly, it seems to me that you're
just setting yourself up for an awful lot of letter-writing, aggro and
possibly expense to very little purpose.

It *is* infuriating to have to sort this out, and it will cost you in time
and some expense.  It's very tempting to have a go back at them - but is it
really worth the time and expense involved in sending and then trying to
enforce an invoice?  My experience with this sort of thing is that it's
usually best to do as they ask in order to get the matter properly resolved,
and then if you still feel strongly enough about it to write to the Chief
Executive or equivalent saying why you're unhappy and what, if anything,
you'd like done.  Your complaint will at least go to someone who can deal
with it.  You'll probably get a politely-written reply expressing insincere
regret and basically telling you to sod off, but you may just have some
small influence.  It's a lot less satisfying in relieving your feelings when
you're furious than a grand gesture like an invoice, but it's more
effective.

Dull but true, I think.
-- 
Sid
Make sure Matron is away when you reply

"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in message 
news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Graculus"  wrote
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote
>
>>> So it is "necessary" for OP to shell out for the recorded delivery fee,
>>> for something they are innocent of, quite clearly? In such 
>>> circumstances,
>>> I'd be inclined to include an invoice, to cover both the cost of the fee
>>> and postage, the stationery, and something quite hefty for your time. If
>>> you feel so inclined, you can offer then a discount for prompt
>>> settlement, as they probably did to you - as well as warning them that
>>> costs of recovery in the case of non-payment will also be sought.
>>
>> That thought also went through my mind. They'll charge you extra whenever
>> they have to do more work, after all. And since you are being
>> inconvenienced in both time and money because of their incompetence, I
>> think an invoice would be quite fitting.
>
> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>
> It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make a 
> point
> which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It will go to 
> some
> low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If you begin insisting,
> they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly, it seems to me that you're
> just setting yourself up for an awful lot of letter-writing, aggro and
> possibly expense to very little purpose.
>
> It *is* infuriating to have to sort this out, and it will cost you in time
> and some expense.  It's very tempting to have a go back at them - but is 
> it
> really worth the time and expense involved in sending and then trying to
> enforce an invoice?  My experience with this sort of thing is that it's
> usually best to do as they ask in order to get the matter properly 
> resolved,
> and then if you still feel strongly enough about it to write to the Chief
> Executive or equivalent saying why you're unhappy and what, if anything,
> you'd like done.  Your complaint will at least go to someone who can deal
> with it.  You'll probably get a politely-written reply expressing 
> insincere
> regret and basically telling you to sod off, but you may just have some
> small influence.  It's a lot less satisfying in relieving your feelings 
> when
> you're furious than a grand gesture like an invoice, but it's more
> effective.

Despite what we're told, it's pretty obvious that the likes of Capita and 
parking enforcement folk are working to targets in terms of penalty charges 
issues, and there are probably bonuses somewhere along the chain for some 
people.  In my ideal world, any plus points you get for a correctly charged 
penalty should be countered by double or triple minus points for 
successfully appealed tickets (with, of course, the appeals people being 
independent and with no vested/financial interests). That way, the person 
who issued this ticket may have taken a bit more care in checking the number 
plate, and traffic wardens may stop issuing gratuitous and obviously dodgy 
tickets. It seems, as usual, the public bodies (councils, TfL etc) are 
hopeless in negotiating sensible two-way contracts with their suppliers [1].

[1] The one recent exception is when NHS Connecting for Health negotiated 
quite onerous fixed-price contracts with the Local Service Providers for IT 
services to the NHS. Then, when they likes of Accenture and more recently 
Fujitsu realise that it's not just another public sector gravy train, they 
pull out to all sorts of fall-out. While the headlines try to paint this as 
another NHS computer cock-up, it is, in fact, how it should be with the 
suppliers having to correctly account for themselves and fulfil the contract 
they've signed up to.

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:40:01 +0100, Niles 
wrote:

>On 27 Jun 2008 21:43:35 GMT, Martin Durkin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I wish I 
>>had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small print 
>>somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them in any case. 
>
>Liberal Democrat Peeresses take TfL to jucidial review so that you
>don't have to - read all about it in this word doc:
>
>www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item11WalmsleyJudicialReview15Sep0.doc
>
>n
Am I misunderstanding or is there still an appeal pending by TfL?  If
so it is not decided yet, is it?

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:43:08 +0100, "Siderius Nuncius"
 wrote:

>
>"Graculus"  wrote
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote
>
>>> So it is "necessary" for OP to shell out for the recorded delivery fee,
>>> for something they are innocent of, quite clearly? In such circumstances,
>>> I'd be inclined to include an invoice, to cover both the cost of the fee
>>> and postage, the stationery, and something quite hefty for your time. If
>>> you feel so inclined, you can offer then a discount for prompt
>>> settlement, as they probably did to you - as well as warning them that
>>> costs of recovery in the case of non-payment will also be sought.
>>
>> That thought also went through my mind. They'll charge you extra whenever
>> they have to do more work, after all. And since you are being
>> inconvenienced in both time and money because of their incompetence, I
>> think an invoice would be quite fitting.
>
>Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>
>It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make a point
>which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It will go to some
>low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If you begin insisting,
>they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly, it seems to me that you're
>just setting yourself up for an awful lot of letter-writing, aggro and
>possibly expense to very little purpose.
>
>It *is* infuriating to have to sort this out, and it will cost you in time
>and some expense.  It's very tempting to have a go back at them - but is it
>really worth the time and expense involved in sending and then trying to
>enforce an invoice?  My experience with this sort of thing is that it's
>usually best to do as they ask in order to get the matter properly resolved,
>and then if you still feel strongly enough about it to write to the Chief
>Executive or equivalent saying why you're unhappy and what, if anything,
>you'd like done.  Your complaint will at least go to someone who can deal
>with it.  You'll probably get a politely-written reply expressing insincere
>regret and basically telling you to sod off, but you may just have some
>small influence.  It's a lot less satisfying in relieving your feelings when
>you're furious than a grand gesture like an invoice, but it's more
>effective.
>
>Dull but true, I think.
What about sending the invoice to the chief exec?  Could they be made
liable so you could set up proceedings to collect from them?

"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in
news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net: 
> 
> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
> 
> It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make a
> point which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It will
> go to some low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If you
> begin insisting, they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly, it
> seems to me that you're just setting yourself up for an awful lot of
> letter-writing, aggro and possibly expense to very little purpose.

Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven into by 
an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess + a "wear and 
tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in numerous forms for 
my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little prospect of recovering 
the money. I get wound up just thinking about it. The uninsured driver has 
probably forgotten all about it.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

In message , Kim Andrews 
 writes
[]
>something wrong. However, in that simpler age I merely had to ring them 
>and tell them that, and was assured (correctly) that that would be the 
>end of the matter.

Nowadays, at least with the police, I always feel that "my card would be 
marked" as a troublemaker - electronic of course )-:. Even - perhaps 
even especially - if I were innocent. (Like them keeping your DNA and 
fingerprints if you're arrested, regardless of the outcome.)
>
>Now that we live in an age where the base assumption is that all 
>citizens are lying, evil scum who are merely waiting to be caught on 
>CCTV doing something wicked, it's no doubt a lot more work to extricate 
>yourself. You have my sympathy.
[]
You jest, of course ... (-:
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

In message , Siderius Nuncius 
 writes
[]
>It *is* infuriating to have to sort this out, and it will cost you in time
>and some expense.  It's very tempting to have a go back at them - but is it
>really worth the time and expense involved in sending and then trying to

Well, there is some not insignificant satisfaction in getting money back 
out of them. In the last year I have received such from both BT and the 
TV Licence company, as compensations for their errors/incompetence; I 
didn't actually send them a formal invoice, but I did ask them for 
compensation, and let them decide what. It was clearly not a common 
occurrence, though - the cheque from TVL was handwritten, and the BT 
refund appeared as "low user discount" on the bill, which it wasn't.

I think there comes a point where they decide either (a) to take it all 
the way and make an example of you or (b) give in and cough up as it's 
costing them more to continue the discussion. IME (b) is far commoner 
(especially with anything smaller, like a council - where there is also 
a better chance of actually getting through to a real human being who 
knows not to speak in standard phrases).

>enforce an invoice?  My experience with this sort of thing is that it's
>usually best to do as they ask in order to get the matter properly resolved,
>and then if you still feel strongly enough about it to write to the Chief
>Executive or equivalent saying why you're unhappy and what, if anything,
>you'd like done.  Your complaint will at least go to someone who can deal

Won't it usually just be dealt with by his/her secretary (PA, whatever)? 
(Even if you send it to their home address - which I'd say was probably 
inadvisable - they probably still have someone there, at least for the 
bigger organisations. Some chance it's be dealt with by the b_mb squad, 
too.)
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

In message , Graculus 
 writes
[]
>Despite what we're told, it's pretty obvious that the likes of Capita 
>and parking enforcement folk are working to targets in terms of penalty 
>charges issues, and there are probably bonuses somewhere along the 
>chain for some people.  In my ideal world, any plus points you get for 
>a correctly charged penalty should be countered by double or triple 
>minus points for successfully appealed tickets (with, of course, the 
>appeals people being independent and with no vested/financial 
>interests). That way, the person who issued this ticket may have taken 
>a bit more care in checking the number plate, and traffic wardens may

The above is excellent. Pity it'll never (or very rarely) happen, 
though. You could try writing to your MP, suggesting that some law be 
passed that all such contracts be set up that way, but porcine aviation 
looms ...
[]
>[1] The one recent exception is when NHS Connecting for Health 
>negotiated quite onerous fixed-price contracts with the Local Service
[]
>public sector gravy train, they pull out to all sorts of fall-out. 
>While the headlines try to paint this as another NHS computer cock-up, 
>it is, in fact, how it should be with the suppliers having to correctly 
>account for themselves and fulfil the contract they've signed up to.

Agreed - but the fall-out probably didn't help those caught in the 
crossfire.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

In message , badriya 
 writes
[]
>>Dull but true, I think.
>What about sending the invoice to the chief exec?  Could they be made
>liable so you could set up proceedings to collect from them?

I doubt you'd get anywhere, but the satisfaction in doing so would be 
much greater (until, as I've said in an earlier post, you realise it'd 
still not reach him/her, only their front line). You could always 
publicise what you're doing, too, though I'm not sure how good an idea 
that is either.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
[]
>Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven into by
>an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess + a "wear and
>tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in numerous forms for
>my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little prospect of recovering
>the money. I get wound up just thinking about it. The uninsured driver has
>probably forgotten all about it.

Did your insurance have the protection against uninsured drivers that's 
often pushed at me when I renew (can't remember as an automatic 
inclusion or an extra I can pay for - probably varies between insurers), 
and if so how well did it work? (Not very, by the sound of it, if you 
had it.) You are in a position to tell the rest of us who don't know, 
and of course there is little information available.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

The hills were worn down by eroticism. - G4PKP's bienapropism list

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in
news:2S9kmDfXigZIFwUv@soft255.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , Jim 
> Easterbrook  writes
> []
>>Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven
>>into by an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess +
>>a "wear and tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in
>>numerous forms for my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little
>>prospect of recovering the money. I get wound up just thinking about
>>it. The uninsured driver has probably forgotten all about it.
> 
> Did your insurance have the protection against uninsured drivers
> that's often pushed at me when I renew (can't remember as an automatic
> inclusion or an extra I can pay for - probably varies between
> insurers), and if so how well did it work? (Not very, by the sound of
> it, if you had it.) You are in a position to tell the rest of us who
> don't know, and of course there is little information available.

I've got "uninsured loss recovery" - that's who sent me loads of forms to 
fill in, six months after the incident. (The insurers just took details 
over the phone, so I didn't have a written note to fall back on.) It may 
be that the wheels of justice are still grinding, and a cheque will come 
my way eventually, but I suspect not.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:37:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:

(letters to chief executives with/without stamps/bricks/counterclaims)

> Some chance it's be dealt with by the b_mb squad, 
>too.)

Probably depends on how heavy the brick is..
...and whether or not it's ticking.

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com

In message , Martin 
Durkin  writes
>Niles  wrote in
>news:n0ra64too84p3ogutubo2ics2djb8ve57j@4ax.com:
>
>> On 27 Jun 2008 21:43:35 GMT, Martin Durkin
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, that's what the rational part of my brain is saying, but I
>>>wish I had time to let it go to court. No doubt there is some small
>>>print somewhere which means I couldn't win a court case against them
>>>in any case.
>>
>> Liberal Democrat Peeresses take TfL to jucidial review so that you
>> don't have to - read all about it in this word doc:
>>
>> www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/Item11WalmsleyJudicialRevie
>> w15Sep0.doc
>
>Thanks, but I hope it doesn't come to that. At least the baroness had been
>in the charging zone and had made a mistake when trying to pay. The photo
>of the number plate is remarkably clear and could not really be mistaken
>for that on my car, which was parked outside my house in Cambridge at the
>time.

Martin: there was - ages ago - a piece on Y & Y about this very thing. 
IIRC it was something to do with the fact that people were driving with 
forged number plates so of course any poor S** caught in the camera 
copped the fine or whatever.  Trouble is the information has long since 
disappeared from Y & Y so I don't remember what the outcome was of the 
said article.

Sincerely Chris
-- 
Chris McMillan
http://www.chinavision.org.uk/
http://www.oneplusone.org.cn

In message , Jim 
Easterbrook  writes
>"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in
>news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>>
>The uninsured driver has
>probably forgotten all about it.

Probably done it a good few times since you mean. Especially in a car 
park near you and me. (Well not me personally you understand but 
whoever's car I might have just got out of)

Sincerely Chris
-- 
Chris McMillan
http://www.chinavision.org.uk/
http://www.oneplusone.org.cn

In article <lyEg+hdxZgZIFw14@soft255.demon.co.uk>, 
G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk says...
> Well, there is some not insignificant satisfaction in getting money back 
> out of them. In the last year I have received such from both BT and the 
> TV Licence company, as compensations for their errors/incompetence; I 
> didn't actually send them a formal invoice, but I did ask them for 
> compensation, and let them decide what. It was clearly not a common 
> occurrence, though - the cheque from TVL was handwritten, and the BT 
> refund appeared as "low user discount" on the bill, which it wasn't.
> 
> I think there comes a point where they decide either (a) to take it all 
> the way and make an example of you or (b) give in and cough up as it's 
> costing them more to continue the discussion. IME (b) is far commoner 
> (especially with anything smaller, like a council - where there is also 
> a better chance of actually getting through to a real human being who 
> knows not to speak in standard phrases).
> 
> 
I think that there are many organisations which have procedures in place 
to extract payment from people, but there is simply no machinery for 
making payments when that organisation screws up.

Where that is the case, there isn't any way you can get money from them 
without litigation - even if they admit to being wrong (not a common 
corporate posture).

-- 
Sam

In article , bykimbo@hotmail.com 
says...
> Martin Durkin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Thanks Kim. I hadn't planned to put a stamp on my reply actually. 
> 
> I do that with junk mail lists I've never asked to be on.
> 
> I'm also
> > tempted to include a brick in the reply envelope, but no doubt that would 
> > come under some new terror law and I could expect to be banged up for 42 
> > days.
> 
> I have heard of people collecting all their junk mail for a few weeks, 
> then deciding which lucky recipient will get the lot. You probably don't 
>   have a collection of false accusations you can collate, thoughbut.
> 
> Incidentally, some years ago I had a letter from Kent police suggesting 
> (I don't think it put it any stronger than that) that I had been driving 
> dangerously in their area. Since the time and date given was one when I 
> was at work at Luton Airport, and my car was parked in a secure, 
> camera-patrolled car-park, I was pretty confident they'd got something 
> wrong. However, in that simpler age I merely had to ring them and tell 
> them that, and was assured (correctly) that that would be the end of the 
> matter.
> 
> Now that we live in an age where the base assumption is that all 
> citizens are lying, evil scum who are merely waiting to be caught on 
> CCTV doing something wicked, it's no doubt a lot more work to extricate 
> yourself. You have my sympathy.
> 
Is it worth holding a mini-umra poll?

How many of us have been accused of speeding[1] when both car & self 
were miles away from the scene of crime?

[1] Or any other camera-recorded naughtyness.

Me for one.

-- 
Sam

Plusnet wrote:

> Is it worth holding a mini-umra poll?
> 
> How many of us have been accused of speeding[1] when both car & self 
> were miles away from the scene of crime?
> 
> [1] Or any other camera-recorded naughtyness.
> 
> Me for one.
> 

Mind was pre-camera, as you probably gathered, but I'll put my hand up 
(fnarr, fnarr) and you can count me or not as you please!


Kimbo xx
-- 
www.bykimbo.com

In message , Plusnet 
 writes
[]
>Is it worth holding a mini-umra poll?
>
>How many of us have been accused of speeding[1] when both car & self
>were miles away from the scene of crime?
>
>[1] Or any other camera-recorded naughtyness.
>
>Me for one.
>
I fear it isn't, at least not if you call it a poll, for the same reason 
petitions have dubious validity: because those who _haven't_ suffered in 
this way will probably not respond, so you won't get a "poll" result, 
just a count. (For what it's worth, I haven't so far been falsely 
accused in this way, but I expect it to happen sometime [not sure what 
that says about society or me].)

I've often thought that any given petition would hold more weight if 
those collecting signatures were to collect them from people with both 
views, and present the results so gathered; however, most people who set 
up petitions do so because they have a particular point of view, so 
won't do this (or at least I've never heard of anyone doing so).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"... there were certain words you couldn't say in front of a girl. Now you can
say all of them - but you can't say girl!" Tom Lehrer on BBC Radio 4, September
1998.

Plusnet wrote:
> In article , bykimbo@hotmail.com 
> says...
>> Martin Durkin wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Kim. I hadn't planned to put a stamp on my reply actually. 
>> I do that with junk mail lists I've never asked to be on.
>>
>> I'm also
>>> tempted to include a brick in the reply envelope, but no doubt that would 
>>> come under some new terror law and I could expect to be banged up for 42 
>>> days.
>> I have heard of people collecting all their junk mail for a few weeks, 
>> then deciding which lucky recipient will get the lot. You probably don't 
>>   have a collection of false accusations you can collate, thoughbut.
>>
>> Incidentally, some years ago I had a letter from Kent police suggesting 
>> (I don't think it put it any stronger than that) that I had been driving 
>> dangerously in their area. Since the time and date given was one when I 
>> was at work at Luton Airport, and my car was parked in a secure, 
>> camera-patrolled car-park, I was pretty confident they'd got something 
>> wrong. However, in that simpler age I merely had to ring them and tell 
>> them that, and was assured (correctly) that that would be the end of the 
>> matter.
>>
>> Now that we live in an age where the base assumption is that all 
>> citizens are lying, evil scum who are merely waiting to be caught on 
>> CCTV doing something wicked, it's no doubt a lot more work to extricate 
>> yourself. You have my sympathy.
>>
> Is it worth holding a mini-umra poll?
> 
> How many of us have been accused of speeding[1] when both car & self 
> were miles away from the scene of crime?
> 
> [1] Or any other camera-recorded naughtyness.
> 
> Me for one.
> 
I was accused of dangerous driving on a section (forget which) of the 
A1(M) at a particular date and at a precise time of between 7.15 and 
7.30 AM and I had in fact driven that road that morning (as I did 2 or 3 
times a week for 10 years).
I remembered the date because I'd bought nine copies of the DT to get 
some coupons on their last day, and being a nice sort of chap, didn't 
want to deprive other customers of their Liz Hurley pics, so bought 3 
copies at the newsagent I passed just outside Bedford which didn't open 
until 6 AM, 3 more copies at a newsagent just off the M25, and 3 final 
copies at the newsagent outside the Ford office at Great Warley. I also 
knew that I'd arrived at work as usual before 7.30, and like Kim had 
used my electronic pass for entrance to Ford and logged on to both IMS 
and TSO at around 7.30 as the logs showed. So there was no way that I'd 
been on the A1 at the time specified and still made it in to work at 
that time, even at the speeds I drive  :)

I've no doubt that I'd pissed someone off by driving a bit too close or 
flashing them when they wouldn't move over and they'd complained but 
were too stupid to get the time right.

I wrote to the police with this wealth of circumstantial and more 
concrete evidence and that was the last I heard of the matter.

In message , Plusnet 
 writes
>In article <lyEg+hdxZgZIFw14@soft255.demon.co.uk>,
>G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk says...
[]
>> compensation, and let them decide what. It was clearly not a common
>> occurrence, though - the cheque from TVL was handwritten, and the BT
>> refund appeared as "low user discount" on the bill, which it wasn't.
[]
>I think that there are many organisations which have procedures in place
>to extract payment from people, but there is simply no machinery for
>making payments when that organisation screws up.
>
>Where that is the case, there isn't any way you can get money from them
>without litigation - even if they admit to being wrong (not a common

Well, my experiences above suggest that they sometimes find a way, and 
if you're happy to accept that (and you'd have to _really_ want to make 
a point not to be, once you've got the money!), ...

>corporate posture).
>
You're not kidding; I think I have at least twice successfully 
challenged a parking ticket issued in London (Camden), and in neither 
case have they actually admitted they were wrong: "perhaps the 
[temporary] signage wasn't clear" or something like that is the closest 
they would admit. (Another one was where they _sent_ me someone else's 
parking ticket - I can't remember why I responded, as it clearly wasn't 
me, not my registration number or model; I think it had my name on, or 
something like that. Plus I didn't want the unfortunate true victim to 
get into trouble for not having responded in whatever time was 
applicable.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

"... there were certain words you couldn't say in front of a girl. Now you can
say all of them - but you can't say girl!" Tom Lehrer on BBC Radio 4, September
1998.

In article , 
G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk says...

> >I think that there are many organisations which have procedures in place
> >to extract payment from people, but there is simply no machinery for
> >making payments when that organisation screws up.
> >
> >Where that is the case, there isn't any way you can get money from them
> >without litigation - even if they admit to being wrong (not a common
> 
> Well, my experiences above suggest that they sometimes find a way, and 
> if you're happy to accept that (and you'd have to _really_ want to make 
> a point not to be, once you've got the money!), ...

I'm pleased that you suceeded in getting compensation from 'them'.

The great majority of organisations have IT based systems which means 
that, if they are to make payments, that has to be written into the 
system at the design stage.
Any employee who points out that the organisation often screws up, and 
thus provision should be made within the system design to compensate 
customers, is likely to be regarded as a trouble-maker & "not a team 
player".
For this reason, the suggestion is often ignored or never made in the 
first place.

> 
> >corporate posture).
> >
> You're not kidding; I think I have at least twice successfully 
> challenged a parking ticket issued in London (Camden), and in neither 
> case have they actually admitted they were wrong: "perhaps the 
> [temporary] signage wasn't clear" or something like that is the closest 
> they would admit. (Another one was where they _sent_ me someone else's 
> parking ticket - I can't remember why I responded, as it clearly wasn't 
> me, not my registration number or model; I think it had my name on, or 
> something like that. Plus I didn't want the unfortunate true victim to 
> get into trouble for not having responded in whatever time was 
> applicable.)
> 
Car insurance policies always insist that, if an accident occurs, you 
should never admit liabilty.  
Most organisations seem to give their employees the same instructions - 
possibly for the same reason.

-- 
Sam

BrritSki wrote:
> Plusnet wrote:
>> In article , bykimbo@hotmail.com 
>> says...
>>> Martin Durkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Kim. I hadn't planned to put a stamp on my reply actually. 
>>> I do that with junk mail lists I've never asked to be on.
>>>
>>> I'm also
>>>> tempted to include a brick in the reply envelope, but no doubt that 
>>>> would come under some new terror law and I could expect to be banged 
>>>> up for 42 days.
>>> I have heard of people collecting all their junk mail for a few 
>>> weeks, then deciding which lucky recipient will get the lot. You 
>>> probably don't   have a collection of false accusations you can 
>>> collate, thoughbut.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, some years ago I had a letter from Kent police 
>>> suggesting (I don't think it put it any stronger than that) that I 
>>> had been driving dangerously in their area. Since the time and date 
>>> given was one when I was at work at Luton Airport, and my car was 
>>> parked in a secure, camera-patrolled car-park, I was pretty confident 
>>> they'd got something wrong. However, in that simpler age I merely had 
>>> to ring them and tell them that, and was assured (correctly) that 
>>> that would be the end of the matter.
>>>
>>> Now that we live in an age where the base assumption is that all 
>>> citizens are lying, evil scum who are merely waiting to be caught on 
>>> CCTV doing something wicked, it's no doubt a lot more work to 
>>> extricate yourself. You have my sympathy.
>>>
>> Is it worth holding a mini-umra poll?
>>
>> How many of us have been accused of speeding[1] when both car & self 
>> were miles away from the scene of crime?
>>
>> [1] Or any other camera-recorded naughtyness.
>>
>> Me for one.
>>
> I was accused of dangerous driving on a section (forget which) of the 
> A1(M) at a particular date and at a precise time of between 7.15 and 
> 7.30 AM and I had in fact driven that road that morning (as I did 2 or 3 
> times a week for 10 years).
> I remembered the date because I'd bought nine copies of the DT to get 
> some coupons on their last day, and being a nice sort of chap, didn't 
> want to deprive other customers of their Liz Hurley pics, so bought 3 
> copies at the newsagent I passed just outside Bedford which didn't open 
> until 6 AM, 3 more copies at a newsagent just off the M25, and 3 final 
> copies at the newsagent outside the Ford office at Great Warley. I also 
> knew that I'd arrived at work as usual before 7.30, and like Kim had 
> used my electronic pass for entrance to Ford and logged on to both IMS 
> and TSO at around 7.30 as the logs showed. So there was no way that I'd 
> been on the A1 at the time specified and still made it in to work at 
> that time, even at the speeds I drive  :)
> 
> I've no doubt that I'd pissed someone off by driving a bit too close or 
> flashing them when they wouldn't move over and they'd complained but 
> were too stupid to get the time right.
> 
> I wrote to the police with this wealth of circumstantial and more 
> concrete evidence and that was the last I heard of the matter.

IIUC, you cannot be convicted of a motoring offence on the evidence of 
one witness (unless it's a constable), or one group of non-independent 
witnesses.  The police might act on a complaint to tell you that you 
were reported, but it can't be brought to court.

-- 
David

On 28 Jun 2008 07:49:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
 wrote:

>"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in
>news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net: 
>> 
>> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>> 
>> It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make a
>> point which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It will
>> go to some low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If you
>> begin insisting, they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly, it
>> seems to me that you're just setting yourself up for an awful lot of
>> letter-writing, aggro and possibly expense to very little purpose.
>
>Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven into by 
>an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess + a "wear and 
>tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in numerous forms for 
>my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little prospect of recovering 
>the money. I get wound up just thinking about it. The uninsured driver has 
>probably forgotten all about it.

Unless you were unable to identify the uninsured driver, I would doubt
that, since it's a fairly serious offence, isn't it? Which would mean
they would get prosecuted.

lff

Linda Fox wrote:
> 
> Unless you were unable to identify the uninsured driver, I would doubt
> that, since it's a fairly serious offence, isn't it? Which would mean
> they would get prosecuted.

<hollow laugh>

Unless, of course, you knew perfectly well who'd done it and had watched 
them drive home just around the corner, but the police took so long to 
arrive that they'd had a chance to go indoors, talk to their scummy 
husband, and conclude that having the "stolen" would be a good plan...


-- 
Kimbo xx

www.booksbykimbo.com

Linda Fox  wrote in
news:ce6h64tvenjmi088adj4e78hg1bc96p0eo@4ax.com: 

> On 28 Jun 2008 07:49:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
>  wrote:
> 
>>"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in
>>news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net: 
>>> 
>>> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>>> 
>>> It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make
>>> a point which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It
>>> will go to some low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If
>>> you begin insisting, they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly,
>>> it seems to me that you're just setting yourself up for an awful lot
>>> of letter-writing, aggro and possibly expense to very little
>>> purpose. 
>>
>>Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven
>>into by an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess +
>>a "wear and tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in
>>numerous forms for my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little
>>prospect of recovering the money. I get wound up just thinking about
>>it. The uninsured driver has probably forgotten all about it.
> 
> Unless you were unable to identify the uninsured driver, I would doubt
> that, since it's a fairly serious offence, isn't it? Which would mean
> they would get prosecuted.

At the time, I had no reason to suppose she wasn't insured. I didn't 
inform the police, as it was a non-injury accident. It was some time 
later that she told my insurers (who handled everything) that she wasn't 
insured, then later she said she was, then later she said she wasn't, but 
would pay, then later still she wouldn't pay and ignored all further 
communication.
-- 
Jim                             <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

On 30 Jun 2008 16:11:35 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
 wrote:

>Linda Fox  wrote in
>news:ce6h64tvenjmi088adj4e78hg1bc96p0eo@4ax.com: 
>
>> On 28 Jun 2008 07:49:24 GMT, Jim Easterbrook
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>"Siderius Nuncius"  wrote in
>>>news:6cm4saF3hji14U2@mid.individual.net: 
>>>> 
>>>> Justified, possibly.  Wise?  Hmmm.
>>>> 
>>>> It depends on how much time and effort you want to go to to try make
>>>> a point which won't be taken by anyone in any authority at TfL.  It
>>>> will go to some low-level droid.  They won't pay it, of course.  If
>>>> you begin insisting, they still won't pay it.  And then?  Frankly,
>>>> it seems to me that you're just setting yourself up for an awful lot
>>>> of letter-writing, aggro and possibly expense to very little
>>>> purpose. 
>>>
>>>Sometimes life just deals you some bad luck. Last year I was driven
>>>into by an uninsured driver. I'm out of pocket by over £300 (excess +
>>>a "wear and tear" element of the replaced parts) and have filled in
>>>numerous forms for my insurer's loss recovery solicitors. I see little
>>>prospect of recovering the money. I get wound up just thinking about
>>>it. The uninsured driver has probably forgotten all about it.
>> 
>> Unless you were unable to identify the uninsured driver, I would doubt
>> that, since it's a fairly serious offence, isn't it? Which would mean
>> they would get prosecuted.
>
>At the time, I had no reason to suppose she wasn't insured. I didn't 
>inform the police, as it was a non-injury accident. It was some time 
>later that she told my insurers (who handled everything) that she wasn't 
>insured, then later she said she was, then later she said she wasn't, but 
>would pay, then later still she wouldn't pay and ignored all further 
>communication.

But she's still committed a criminal offence, so either by way of a
solicitor or through the police, you ought to be able to pull her up,
oughtn't you? Even if she'd never been involved in an accident at all
she was still committing a criminal offence - insurance isn't
optional.

lff