It is only too late to ask if the case can be settled outside of Court when the Magistrates have made their orders. I have even known cases where after 'mitigation', the Court have suggested that they 'wonder' if a conversation should take place without them hearing it, but: Once all of the paperwork has been done, there is very little reason for the prosecutor to accept a settlement. It will also depend on how 'compelling' the case is, and why they have decided to prosecute. It is true that some cases are listed just to 'make up the numbers', whilst other cases are listed for very good reason. It does not hurt to ask them.

To attempt to avoid Court, reply, ask if you may be allowed to pay reasonable costs.

Wouldn't we all. But, the 'choice' rests with the prosecuting authority.

I have no direct experience with 'Mersey Rail' but: This isn't in the 'Ned Kelly' league of offences. I honestly don't know if they will write to the Irish address. Was it Northern Ireland or the Republic? I expect that they will use one of the various 'tracking systemes' and stand a reasonable chance of working out who you are. Some folk will suggest that you wait and see 'what happens'. Mersey rail may give up when they get post back from the address that you have given. Or they might not. For peace of mind, I suggest that you take the initiative, contact them, tell them how silly you have been, and offer to pay them a reasonable contribution. By 'drawing the sting', I suspect that they will be minded to accept your money.

Hardly a death warrant. But.......... If I understand this correctly, you got on without a ticket, and no 'obvious' means to pay your fare. Your friend had a card, but that had been declined. At the time that your friend was paying a fare, or a penalty, or vaulting the gates or whatever, he did not say 'And I want to pay for my friend who is coming up in the lift.' Seems to me very reasonable that the Inspector, or for that matter a train driver who just happened to be near the exit with a pen and paper, they are entitled to report 'fare avoidance' as much as any other employee of the railway, should submit a report to 'the railway'. Standard advice, wait for their letter to you, reply, ask if you might be allowed to 'settle' by way of paying reasonable costs.

Where I live, there are too many cars for the amount of room for them to be parked. One of the neighbours wants to 'get the Council to do something'. A large part of the town, nearer the station, already has warden patrolled streets and parking regulation. It all costs money to manage, and ultimately, there is no good reason for the tax payers of the rest of the Borough to pay to keep 'my' parking space clear for 'me'. As such, if we end up with 'parking regulation', there will be rules, and 'breaches of rule', difficulties like 'what happens when my mates pop round to see me' and so on. The only way that such a scheme can be 'self financing' is for every 'breach of rule' to end with a payment to the 'management company'. It is 'awful' that a person with a permit to park can be penalised for 'failing to display', especially where the failure is 'technical', in that the permit could be seen if the attendant chose to stretch his neck just a little bit. However, the 'breach of rule' seems to be 'proven'. As to whether they can 'enforce' payment, I am afraid that without reading all of the 'contract' that exists between the 'tenant', the 'landlord' and the parking company, I cannot give an opinion. In my own street, I have a very firm opinion that 'we' should not ask for 'regulation', as it will come to haunt us with situations exactly like this.

This has fascinated me, I have looked, and there is a suggestion that there may be a requirement in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 for 'stopped clocks' to be set to show 12 noon. However, I am having trouble following all of the 'amendments' to that wonderful Act, and with 'time' pressing me to work for 'money', I will have to put the thought onto a back burner for now. But not in any public highway, as there are clear prohibitions on fires there. This is the same piece of law that prohibits the beating of rugs in the street, other than door mats before 8am. There are some other very old laws relating to working hours which make reference to a 'railway clock' as being a public clock for the purposes of measuring time for 'employers' and 'employees' in determining how long they have worked and therefore how much they should be paid. These all seem to have been replaced by 'modern' employment law. Certainly, the concept of 'time' for everyday activities, where previously it had been regulated by the sundial and the bell at the nearest church, comes very much from 'the railway', especially after the growth of the GWR. The need for every town in the land to have the 'same time' as Paddington meant that 'railway' clocks were expected to be right. I rather fear that modern railways do not know who I K Brunel or Mr Churchward were. I did hear a man in Basildon say a word that sounded very much like 'fugit', although it was his temper, and not the 'tempus' which was being examined.

Some people may accuse me of being 'stuck in time'. As a young man, I worked in a building that has a clock outside, over the entrance. There was a man who seemed to me to be as old as Methusala who came once a week to wind the clock. He took it very seriously, and carried a rather good looking 'Hunter', with which he checked that the clock was 'right'. He told me, and I am embarrassed to say that I do not know if this is true, that it was illegal to have a clock that was 'wrong' where the public can see it. Whether that is or is not 'true', it remains my opinion that 'wrong' information is far worse than no information.

Railway franchise holders submit a 'bid' to the Department for Transport. It is a long and very complex document, indicating how they will operate the franchise, and it makes 'promises'. Most are to do with running a certain level of service, meeting safety regulations and so on. Generally, they will have made some other promises, improving disabled access, or installing improved information systems or whatever. Must confess, I don't know how a member of public could get to see the 'franchise bid', I guess a freedom of information application would have to be made. The Dft will monitor each company against the 'franchise commitments', and will 'talk' to them if there are shortfalls. If the company knows that it will fail to comply with something that was 'promised', they can ask for an amendment to the agreement, usually having to substitute a different solution to the one originally promised. My 'local line' promised to instal automatic ticket gates at all stations. 11 years later, they still haven't, but were obliged to put staff on site to 'replace' the function of the gates.

Visit the local Council. 'Tell' them, they can make enquiries to determine whether it is 'Network Rail' or the train operator, and can make a variety of enforcement notices. If nothing happens, they can prosecute the failure to comply with the notices.

I recommend filling in the letter, it has their reference number on, and will find it's way the 'the file'. I also recommend keeping a copy, I guess you were ahead of me on that point, but I like to think of 'other readers', many of whom may not consider such things.

Try to keep some perspective with this. In life, we all face 'trials and tribulations', and this is a relatively minor one. It will have less long term effect on your life than, for example, taking out a loan to buy a second hand car. It is not something that you can be proud of, but it will not destroy your life.

There needs to be some indication at some point in the process that indicates that a prosecution in Court will happen, but the first 'discussion' with a member of railway staff can be as basic as 'have you got a ticket', 'no', 'what is your name and address'. A 'caution', or lack of one, only damages the admissability of the questions and answers that are relevant to proving the offence. And only if you are spoken to by a person who's main job is the investigation of offences. Any employee of the railway is entitled to ask for a ticket, any 'officer' of the railway is entitled to take your details. An officer of the railway has been tested, and shown to include 'leading railmen'. A quick check on the old BR Grade Relativity charts will show that fundamentally, all staff employed by train operators are equal to or senior than an old 'leading railman'.

From my very limited and second hand knowledge of the London Eastern prosecution team, I suspect that she 'told the truth'. They have (I understand) quite a number of 'prosecutors' and 'managers' and people who simply do the paperwork. I suspect that she will be sliding a note under the nose of a manager.

I hope that 'common sense' will prevail. I don't have a copy of 'byelaws' to hand, and I wonder if there is a 'good' argument that the 'platform announcements' amount to an instruction by staff to use the 'first class' compartment. It would certainly seem harsh to enforce it under all of the circumstances. The worst case would be a breach of byelaw, and one hopes that the 'company' would not wish to seem too inflexible with this matter. Something in the back of my mind is 'wondering' if the Inspector made a deliberate error. I understand that London Eastern has some form of 'target' system. I don't know how it works, but it may be that he felt under some pressure to submit a certain number of report, but didn't like reporting this situation. Thoughts, anyone?

May we assume that you live near Tottenham Hale and work in central London? May we also assume that you have no previous penalty fares or prosecutions for 'fare dodging'? During the tube strike, I assume that the 'passenger loading' was heavier than normal. I don't know the type of trains used on that route, in some of my other posts, I have mentioned that I only use 'NXEA' from Upminster to Romford, and often the difference beween 'first' and 'standard' is hard to spot. Do you know if you were the only 'sinner' on that particular trip?

All railways have strict 'dress codes', I know that my local line has an absolute prohibition of 'visible tattoos'. They simply will not affer employment to someone with 'Hate' tattooed on her knuckles. They also have codes of behaviour. Even if the behaviour of the Inspector was not illegal, a complaint will be properly investigated, and if found to have been 'below standard' that Inspector will find him or herself being offered 'further training' or potentially being invited to seek alternative employment. 'Companies' are well aware of their 'public image', and the potential damage to their ability to keep their franchises (and therefore the profit) if that image is tarnished. If you feel that you were treated in a way that was simply wrong, write to the 'prosecution team', and you may want to send a copy to the managing director, via the registered office of the Company.

It is 'unlawful' for an official to be abusive, which is not always the same as it being 'illegal', that is to say, a breach of a written law. Many people have made a lot of money arguing points like that whilst wearing wigs. One of the difficulties with alleging that someone was 'abusive' is that it can be seen from two perspectives. It is not abusive to call a liar a liar, and it is not abusive to quietly ask a person who's answer doesn't (initially) seem possible if it is possible that they are wrong. It is clearly abusive to tie them to a chair and use rubber hoses until they say 'I am lying'. At various points between those two positions, there will be different opinions as to whether the Inspector was being abusive. My experiences (for what they are worth) suggest that you should make it clear to the prosecutor, through letters, that the Inspector abused you, explain how you felt that his behaviour and attitude was abusive, and if it is possible, supply any evidence of that behaviour that you can, names of other people who are prepared to supply written statements and so on. Ultimately, an application can be made for evidence of the bad character of the witness, that is to say, the Inspector, to be heard in Court. The bad news is that such actions are only really practicable if you are 'not guilty' of the offence as charged. It is one reason why I do not approve of the regular use of the strict liabilty 'Byelaw' offences by railway prosecution teams. They allow very little 'wriggling' room. All prosecutors that I know well are always a little nervous if the 'witness' is known to be a shade 'overbearing'. They know that a Court will readily spot that when the witness gives his evidence, and when they see the size, shape and general deportment of that 'witness'. In the (thankfully distant) past, there were more than a few thugs employed as 'inspectors'. I haven't seen any recently. (That isn't to say that there aren't any, just to say that I haven't seen any)

This is the legal equivalent of playing poker. It depends on 'London Eastern' being a bit sloppy with their paperwork. If they leave it two months before applying for a summons, to allow for any reasonable exchange of letters, and then get a court date (effectively) 4 months after the alleged offence, when, at first hearing, you plead 'not guilty', they will still be 'in time' to spot the mistake and issue a correct summons, having looked very closely at 'the evidence', and realised that the report relates to something in the Inspector's notes that happened after he had signed on duty on 30th. At that point, they will not be interested in any settlement, and might cheerfully go ahead with a court hearing two months later still, with rock solid evidence. There would be no possibility of an 'abuse of process' argument, nor one of 'duplicity'. It is possible that they might grow bored with the effort, and they might find 'other flaws' with the Inspectors report, and allow the matter to drop, but these are all 'mights and maybes'. It becomes a question of your 'nerve' and your choice. Frankly, if you are a career criminal, with many other convictions already, and no regard for whether you get another one, then please feel free to ignore all of their letters, plead not guilty at first hearing, take a chance. If, however, this is the first time since infancy that you have transgressed in any way at all, I would recommend a polite letter pointing out their mistake and offering to pay them the equivalent of a penalty fare.

£130? Wel, a tad more than some a lot less that others. However, the railway has had a little more work with this one than a 'simple' fare dodge, they have had to research 'father & daughter'. By all means ask for a breakdown, but: It will take 'them' longer at this stage to type up a breakdown that to apply for a summons. My instinct is screaming 'pay'. If you read other threads, you will see one poster happily paid £200.00, and FGW asked for £175.00, c2c would 'often' ask £110.00. And all probably still 'cheaper' than Court. And much cheaper than asking a solicitor to negotiate a settlement.

I often find that I develop a deep dislike for a lot of the folk I am obliged to speak with. Many times their actions are very reprehensible. There are a few days when even a really good malt doesn't take the taste of succesfully helping from my mouth. Ho hum. Hopefully, our recently qualified lawyer will suffer the sort of scare that will prevent him from even borrowing a paper clip from work in future.

At this stage of the business, things are 'awkward'. The mistake is theirs, and if they 'charge' on the wrong date, they will not be able to 'prove' the offence as charged. But: If you send a 'curt' reply, they are in good time to look again at the evidence, check the inspector's notes, and correct the mistake in good time to serve a 'true' summons. The other question is, although you were spoken to on '30th', is it possible that an offence on 29th was disclosed? (Oyster history perhaps) My 'spiritual advice' is to write to them, politely explain their mistake, admit the 'true' offence and take the consequences. A clear conscience can be worth a lot more than gold. My professional advice is 'reply, tell them that you were not spoken to on 29th'. I honestly cannot predict how this will turn out, London Eastern might be 'harsher' if they have to work it all out again, or they might be 'embarrassed', and walk away from the matter. I honeslty don't know.

People of all sorts and professions manage to fail to recognise that their behaviour is plain wrong. Of much more serious and interesting note is the current allegations that a Peer who is a Barrister managed to misunderstand the difference between legitimate expenses and plain theft. However, the interests of justice dictate that we offer helpful suggestions to all that ask.

'Advice' in an open forum is always 'difficult'. Advice from a persons standing next to you in a queue at a checkout can be judged for 'what it is worth' by the appearance of the person giving that advice and your own knowledge of how much of the situation you have told that person. Should I start my runner beans indoors yet? Oh no, it is abit early, they will be leggy by the time the risk of frost is over. Does the old boy know what he is talking about? Maybe, maybe not. The risks involved are small, and the consequences not life changing. When it comes to a question regarding an issue that could (potentially) end with a Magistrates Court saying 'three months in prison' with all of the consequences that follow, 'proper advice' requires a full examination of the evidence by a person who is both qualified and experienced. It is just not possible in a public and open forum for all of the evidence to be properly disclosed. However, at the start of each of these threads, it is quite possible for an experienced person, and I think that we are all aware of Old Codja's background and experience, andfor that matter his 'interest' with the rail industry, he has never made secret of that, to get a feel for whether the matter discussed is 'top' or 'bottom' end of the offences covered by 'fare dodging' legislation. He, and I, as well as several others, are content to give a quick opinion. There are 'facts' which we are happy and able to give, such as the addresses for 'prosecution teams', although a brief amount of research will normally reveal those. There are procedures, which through regular compliance, we are very familiar with. We are very happy to 'report' what those procedures and processes are. I think that care has often been shown to distinguish between personal 'comments' and opinion relating to the cause of the original posts. None of us claim to be 'nice people', and we should not show 'sympathy' when the need is for a warning. There is just no value in saying 'oh, that is terrible, poor you' when what was needed was a blunt statement that 'it is not the Inspector's attitude that is 'on trial', but whether you did or did not have a ticket'. We continue to paste comments into these threads, I suspect, because we are aware that the 'costs' of qualified advice means that most people charged with 'not having a ticket' will simply not be able to afford that 'advice'. One of the continuosly annoying aspects of 'modern justice' is that regular and determined criminals will be able to access very good legal advice, whereas the normally honest people who genuinely have only 'offended' once will find the advice out of reach and the experience quite frightening. Indeed, many regular criminals themselves know 'the system' well enough that they can relax and be blase about the most serious allegations. What can be a worry is that sometimes we see inflammatory comments which purport to be advice. If 'readers' think that I have 'advised', they need to remember that I have made my comments without full sight of the facts of a case, and as such should weigh those comments accordingly.

Yes, it can go to Court. Without seeing all of the evidence, I cannot say whether it would succeed at court, but there is 'enough' for an allegation. (I think) I have to try to be a bit tactful, and I regret that I am not very good at it! Remember that the railway will have access to the CCTV at stations along your route. If it is possible that they can find film of you entering the station near you home, and if they can also show footage from the station where you say you got on the train, you could be in for a rough ride, unless you 'get religion', and accept that you have been caught. They will also have records from Hanforth showing whether the ticket machines were or were not working. If they were, then the evidence is already 'good enough' to prove an offence. The bad news is that you will not know what they can prove until they make primary disclosure, that is to say, send you a copy of the basic evidence, whic is at the same time as service of summons.