What is the &quot;date of service&quot; of a UK fixed penalty notice? A cousin just asked my thoughts on a letter he received about an alleged speeding offence. The letter was the standard UK one that is sent out after a speed camera detection, and is fairly simple, so his actual query wasn't a problem. However he asked me the deadline and I had to say that couldn't work it out. The letter states in bold that &quot;YOU HAVE 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS NOTICE&quot; to take various actions. However it nowhere states what the &quot;date of service&quot; actually is. I know that the date printed on a letter, date of actual handing of the letter to a postal service, date of actual service of the letter, date of effective service, and date of deemed service, are all different dates. But this letter didn't say which was meant by &quot;date of service&quot; nor how tell when that date was. In effect my cousin was sent a letter which stated a response was legally required by some date that it neither provided, nor provided the information to calculate. Of course a prudent respondent would reply within 28 days of the date on the letter, but legally the deadline would seem to be some unspecified number of days (or working days) beyond that, and the legal deadline is not provided. For example there is no stamp or indication when it was handed to a postal service. So we don't know the start date of the notice period, only that it was at minimum on, or some number of days after, the date that the letter was printed. Even if we did know the start date of the notice period, the end date still seems indeterminate/unspecified/ambiguous, since we don't know if the letter is telling us to use actual/effective/deemed service workings from that date, nor how to calculate it. Which method of calculating date is actually correct? What method is used in practice to determine if a response was within time? Bonus points, in UK law, would a notice that says &quot;you must reply by the end of some period of time, that isn't actually specified or legally clear,or is indeterminate&quot;, be enforceable as a stipulated time limit? Or would it be deemed defective?
The fixed penalty notice is a notice under s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules, if the alleged offence took place in England and Wales, or by post otherwise; Let's assume england-and-wales. For service by post the relevant rule is 4.11. (2) Unless something different is shown, a document served on a person by any other method is served— (b) in the case of a document sent by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post, on the second business day after the day on which it was posted or despatched; The date it was posted or dispatched will be indicated by the postmark on the envelope, &quot;‘business day’ means any day except Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday or a bank holiday&quot; (2.2), and second means not the next one but the one after that. For scotland or northern-ireland you would need to determine their laws for service by post. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Your cousin was provided with all the information needed to determine the date of service because they are legally required to know the law. I can't believe neither of you had this right at your fingertips 😂. Note the &quot;unless something different is shown&quot;. If your cousin was in the Antarctic for the summer and didn't collect their mail until they returned, that would be &quot;something different&quot; and service would be when they collected the mail.
the company does have the right to "verify the eligibility of the person and terminate the service to the ineligible at any time" is pretty unambiguous. They have assessed your eligibility, determined you don't have one and have terminated the service. They are completely within their rights to do this. If you feel that they have assessed your eligibility wrongly then you can dispute their assessment - either through whatever dispute resolution is detailed in the contract or by going to court if the contract is silent. The fact that they previously assessed you as eligible (or didn't actually make an assessment) is irrelevant.
Having done a bit of brief research, I find that "legit" is a synonym for "good". So, no. The header announcing a "principal amount" serves no purpose and could be misinterpreted as indicating that there is a loan. There is no reason to indicate the date twice, which gives rise to two different values of "date". The phrase "For value received" can be interpreted in at least two ways, one being "in exchange for some unspecified value to be received at some future date by Promisor", and "in exchange for a specific value already received by Promisor". Under the later interpretation, Promis(s)ee probably could not breach but under the former, Promis(s)ee could. So it makes a difference. You can just pay to the Promis(s)ee, and not imply that you are creating a pay-to-order instrument such as a check. That still leaves you the option to pay with a check. Or was the intent to say "pay on demand"? The expression "the sum of £500 shall the Promisor fail to meet his target" is not grammatical in US English, and I'll leave it to a UK speaker to judge if this is, over there. I assume that this is supposed to express conditionality, in which case "if" is a useful term. Then the meat of the contract, I guess, is that if the Promisor fails to meet somebody's target of 47.5 work hours per week, then Promisor has to pay Promissee £500 (and not otherwise). It's really not clear how anyone would know whether "meet a target of 47.5 work hours per week" has come to pass. Does that mean "work at least 47.5 hours per week"? Does that mean "for each of the three weeks within the time period" (or did you mean "work 47.5 hours within some one week, within the 3 week period"). Being explicit that the work obligation extends for 3 weeks would be legit (vide supra). Supposing that the second clause means "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 2 July 2016", you should put it that way. Or if you mean "Promisor will pay £500 by 5:00pm 3 July 2016", say that. Deadlines for performance should be stated very directly and clearly, and require no calculation and interpretation. And I'd suggest including a clause stating that "Promissor" and "Promisor" are used interchangeably in this contract. Or else be consistent in spelling. Note that almost any contract can be given some interpretation. From the perspective of creating a contract, the first concern should be over clearly expressing the intentions of the two parties in written form. After all, you don't have a contract if there is no meeting of the minds.
No landlord-tenant laws that I have ever seen impose an obligation on a landlord to give a point by point response to everything in an email from a tenant. However, a tenant probably has the right or obligation to provide a landlord with written notification of a problem requiring remedy. You might then be required by law to provide a specific reply within some time frame, for example "We will fix that tomorrow afternoon", or "We are not required to fix that": it would depend on the jurisdiction and the accusation. Some caution in how you respond is warranted, because your answers can be used against you in a court of law, thus you want to be sure that your response is not misleading, and that you don't accidentally promise to do something that you won't actually do. There is a concept of "adoptive admission", where silence can be used against you. A typical case is if Smith says to Jones "That was really cold-blooded, the way you murdered Thompson", and Jones does not respond to the accusation – that fact can be introduced as evidence, because there is an assumption that if Jones were really innocent, they would protest the accusation. I don't see any way for "failure to respond to everything" in this manner could constitute an adoptive admission – an "admission" means that you directly or indirectly indicate that you did a thing, which is not the same as ipso facto agreeing to something (for example, not replying to a statement "I'd like my rent reduced by $100 per month" is not an "adoptive agreement").
What offence was Bob fined for? Bob likely committed the offence of entering a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket contrary to clause 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws which were made by Transport for London under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 September 2011. The nature of the compulsory ticket area is evidenced by the fact that Bob had to pass through a ticket barrier to enter the area. There will likely also have been a a notice stating that no person may enter there without being in possession of a valid ticket. However, if there is no notice then it was not a compulsory ticket area and so no offence was committed. Does his payment of the fine imply a concession of guilty of that offence? Yes. Clause 23 of the Byelaws states that: Any person who breaches any of the Byelaws commits an offence and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Intent is irrelevant for a clause 17 breach (it is a strict liability offence) and payment is admission of guilt. What records likely now exist of Bob's alleged offence and the ensuing fine? Probably just a local record of the offence on TfL and BTP systems. Potentially an upload to the Police National Computer, depending on how BTP systems work. What prevented the officer from pocketing the £40 cash for himself? The existence of the offence record and the fact that a receipt of fine payment is not associated with the record. Presumably the officer could do it once or twice and not get caught, but not regularly. What could this have been, if not a TfL penalty fare? It could be an offence of avoiding payment of fare contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 section 5(3)(a) with a penalty of three months prison or a Level 3 (standard scale) fine. Intent is required to be proven, but it does not have to be dishonest intent, just an intent to avoid payment of the sum due per Browning v Floyd [1946] 2 All E.R. 367. Alternatively, a charge of making off without payment contrary to S3 Theft Act 1978 could be used, but would require dishonest intent to be proven. Punishment (on summary indictment) could result in a six month prison sentence or a fine not exceeding £1,000 or the relevant amount under S4(3)(b) of the Theft Act 1978. It would probably be difficult for the prosecution to prove either alternative charge. A clause 17 Byelaw offence is probably the most appropriate charge to bring, and the punishment is also more affordable (a £40 on-the-spot fine) compared to those other potential punishments.
Its difficult to tell without seeing the exact paperwork, and the exact meaning of without prejudice varies by jurisdiction (I think UK is the same as here in NZ though). If an agreement is reached through communications marked "without prejudice" it should be valid in court to the extent that it shows an agreement was reached and what the agreement was (but the court will not generally look at the documents marked without prejudice for other reasons &ndash; e.g. admissions made &ndash; if no agreement is reached). There are a couple of other relevant things to mention &ndash; although not strictly part of your question: Lawyers are officers of the court, and have duties to the court, which include acting ethically. So, provided it's a reputable law firm, it is reasonable to (somewhat) trust their solicitors in procedural matters. My understanding is that courts encourage anything that will help settle a matter out of court &ndash; hence the whole idea of "without prejudice" letters being valid. I believe that the court will uphold an agreement reached through communication of without prejudice emails as it's in their interests. If you have these kinds of concerns, you can raise them with their solicitor, suggesting that you would prefer the final document to not be without prejudice, even if it only refers to the matter and agreement, without sensitive stuff. I imagine they would be only to happy to oblige, as they can bill their client for another letter!
At this point, since it's been more than four weeks since the order was issued, you are able to enforce the order. The delay is just to allow appeals or corrections. It is up to you to arrange enforcement, so at a high level your choices are to do nothing, or to proceed. If you do nothing then you will not get any money. If you proceed then you will spend more money, which you may or may not get back, as with the original sum. The Scottish procedure is conceptually similar to the English one that is more normally described in online resources, but the words are different. To decode things a bit, You are now trying to proceed with &quot;diligence&quot;, which means enforcing the court order. The court itself is not involved, having moved on to other things. There are several ways the money could come to you, such as &quot;arrestment&quot;, &quot;attachment&quot; and &quot;inhibition&quot;. Or, X might give you the money voluntarily. The next steps must be taken by a &quot;sheriff officer&quot; on your instruction. Despite the name being similar to &quot;sheriff&quot; as in &quot;Sheriff Court&quot;, these officers are private practitioners who are licensed by the courts to pursue debtors. You can use https://smaso.org.uk to find a sheriff officer you like. Most likely you will be able to give them all the information online. Then, they will go ahead with the first step, formally serving a &quot;charge for payment&quot; on X. Then, X has 14 days to come up with the money; if they don't, then the sheriff officer can proceed with more drastic steps. They will be able to advise based on the particular circumstances, but some broad possibilities are &quot;arrestment&quot; of X's money directly from their bank, or &quot;attachment&quot;, which is seizure of X's property to be auctioned off. If X is an employed person (rather than a business, say) then you might also arrange &quot;arrestment of earnings&quot; whereby the employer diverts a sum from X's pay to you, for whatever necessary period of time. All these come with their own rules and timescales, including processes if X's bank or employer does not comply. The sheriff officer will have to be paid for all this. The usual way is that you pay them up-front, and then that fee can be added to the diligence. All officers charge the same rates, but the fee schedule is a bit complicated depending on exactly which services are involved, how long it takes the officer to do the work, and their travel time. It is up to you to make the decisions about how much you want to spend in pursuit of the money, also taking into account the likelihood that you will actually get it. For the sheriff officer, since this is a completely routine part of the job, they will be able to give you their impression of the range of outcomes based on the specifics of X's situation.
Termination is a matter of fact That is, it has either happened, or it hasn’t. Whether it has or hasn’t depends on a multitude of factors including the terms of the contract, the actions of the parties, and communication between them. These factors are so case specific that it is impossible to generalise. Further, within a given case, reasonable parties may differ on if a contract has been terminated, which party initiated the termination, and if that termination was lawful. Usually, these cases involve mutual allegations of repudiation by the other party and rightful termination in response by our side. These issues are likely to be the major ones that the court or tribunal will have to determine. A claim for damages would need to be pursued as part of the overall case but the deadline for raising them is a procedural matter for the court or tribunal. Failing to raise them as an issue in pre-litigation correspondence would not be a bar to raising them in a claim or counter-claim. However, failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity denies the offending party the opportunity to mitigate the damage and, if they can show that there were actions they could have reasonably taken to mitigate but couldn’t because they weren’t informed, then that may reduce or eliminate the damages payable.