Where do I stand with threatened legal action? Please help, Im very upset!

Coblcris

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Enlighten me please as to why altering a ticket for the motives the OP mentioned should not be viewed as a possible criminal action.

Certainly. Review the poster's original post re intent.

Then review Ghosh, Feely, Bonollo et al. There is much established law in this area, researching those cases should lead you to all of it.
Then read The Fraud Act 2006.

The most incriminating thing in the original post is probably this "They said I have to attend an interview which will be taped." And it incriminates the other party which is why some of us would like visibility to the exact text.
I think it unlikely that the poster's contract of employment is with the PFI partneship but stand to be corrected.

There seems no doubt that one hand is washing the other, the question to be answered is is that washing cleaning the hands or making both sets unclean ?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Coblcris wrote: »

Certainly. Review the poster's original post re intent.

Then review Ghosh, Feely, Bonollo et al. There is much established law in this area, researching those cases should lead you to all of it.
Then read The Fraud Act 2006.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf


Yep.

Read it. Its fraud.

Fraud by False Representation 1 a with part ii.

It covers services which is parking in this instance.

Parking charges are not exempt because its a civil agreement.

Section 7 also lists making & adapting..

& there is an interesting section on "obtaining" goods & services.

Paradigm

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf


Yep.

Read it. Its fraud.

Fraud by False Representation 1 a with part ii.

It covers services which is parking in this instance.

Parking charges are not exempt because its a civil agreement.

Section 7 also lists making & adapting..

& there is an interesting section on "obtaining" goods & services.

Ok lets go with that, for now, but I'm still not sure it's a correct interpretation under the circumstances

How does any private body have any right to a taped interview regarding alleged fraud?

If fraud is suspected then it must be passed on to the relevent authorities I.E the Police. Even if this is done I doubt very much that they would be interested with it being a "civil" matter.

There is no obligation for anyone to attend an "interview" when invited to do so by the Police, much less a private company.

To be honest if the OP refuses the interview (& they should) I can't see it going any further.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Obtaining any goods & any service by means of altering any document is fraud.


Parking is not exempt because its a "civil" matter.

Its there in black & white in the Fraud Act 2006 in the link I posted above.

Its actually written in quite plain english also.

trisontana

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Obtaining any goods & any service by means of altering any document is fraud.


Parking is not exempt because its a "civil" matter.

Its there in black & white in the Fraud Act 2006 in the link I posted above.

Its actually written in quite plain english also.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is in question is the apparent role of a private company or organization wanting to conduct a taped interview with this person. That smacks of vigilantism. They think they are the police. They are not.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

trisontana wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is in question is the apparent role of a private company or organization wanting to conduct a taped interview with this person. That smacks of vigilantism. They think they are the police. They are not.

I dont like it also.

Thats why they need to properly establish the position of her employer & their position if she doesnt attend prior to deciding what opinions are open & the best way forward.

But I can bet you they are quite within their rights to not allow her to park in the car park if she doesnt satisfy either the college, parking company or both.

Coblcris

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf


Yep.

Read it. Its fraud.

Fraud by False Representation 1 a with part ii.

It covers services which is parking in this instance.

Parking charges are not exempt because its a civil agreement.

Section 7 also lists making & adapting..

& there is an interesting section on "obtaining" goods & services.

We disagree then.
There is no S.1 (a).

But there is S.2


Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Please note that the poster clearly displayed no intent.

Also note that 'dishonestly' is just an English word, it is not legalese with a specific definition. The substantial body of law that I pointed you towards will have made that clear when you researched the cases. It will have also shown you how a finding on 'dishonesty' can be made. That is why I suggested you research those cases before jumping into the Fraud Act.

I agree strongly that the poster should not attend the 'interview' but we are still working in the dark.

pogofish

I've come across Carillion before in connection with other stuff and IME, they do love threatening people with their "interviews under caution"

Telling them to squat and rotate would be my advice. If they have any real case, they should direct it to the proper authorities and advise you to get proper legal representation in place.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Coblcris wrote: »

We disagree then.
There is no S.1 (a).

But there is S.2


Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Please note that the poster clearly displayed no intent.

Also note that 'dishonestly' is just an English word, it is not legalese with a specific definition. The substantial body of law that I pointed you towards will have made that clear when you researched the cases. It will have also shown you how a finding on 'dishonesty' can be made. That is why I suggested you research those cases before jumping into the Fraud Act.

I agree strongly that the poster should not attend the 'interview' but we are still working in the dark.

Ahh


I get it.

Because the OP said they intended to get a real paid for ticket later on in the day its not fraud.


I wonder why they didnt believe them?

Maybe because it was 8 hrs later? Maybe they have reviewed the CCTV? Maybe they parked right next to the pay machine? Maybe they had 30 other altered tickets on the dash?

Who knows.

I submit. Your right.

I need more information before I can be convinced its a fraudulent act & not just a stupid mistake.

Coblcris

pogofish wrote: »

I've come across Carillion before in connection with other stuff and IME, they do love threatening people with their "interviews under caution"

Telling them to squat and rotate would be my advice. If they have any real case, they should direct it to the proper authorities and advise you to get proper legal representation in place.

I would be most interested to see under what authority they believe they can conduct an interview under caution.
I suspect substantial wrongdoing, unless someone outbids me perhaps.