Thanks again Old CodJa. Much appreciated information. I hope you don't mind if I pick your brains some more... you are obviously very knowledgeable. (BTW I'm not a lawyer I'm simply a concerned wife doing a bit of research to try and help her husband, my husband will of course answer any letter from the TOC himself when the time comes) Again for clarity I'll number my further questions in light of your responses... 1. I understand that if the ticket is returned by the gate that the user could try to fraudulently re-use it as you say. My question really is do you know whether said ticket would physically pass through the barrier once again - ie. would the barrier accept it and open as usual given that the ticket has already passed through barriers at the start and again at the end of one journey? 2. Are there a set of defined rules as to under what circumstances the inspector can change his mind once offering a penalty and having it accepted by the passenger? You mentioned before that it depends what was said... By the sounds of it I'm guessing its totally at the inspectors discretion, but it would be good to know for sure nonetheless. 3. By cautioning do you specifically mean reading out rights to the passenger? There was no opportunity given to the 'suspect' (in this case a passenger) to sign anything, my husband even asked if he could see or have a copy of what the inspector had written and this was declined. The inspector simply said he's get a copy in the post in a few weeks time. Should the 'suspect' always be asked to sign the form? If the 'suspect' is not given this opportunity does this render it invalid? I'm looking for the specific section in the PACE Act that details the codes of practice for reporting offences and I can't seem to find this. These are the PACE codes I can find (as listed on Wikipedia). Is there any chance you can point me in the right direction of the section you mention? PACE Code A: deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of such a stop or encounter. On 1 January 2009, Code A was amended to remove lengthy stop and account recording procedures, requiring police to only record a subject's ethnicity and to issue them with a receipt. PACE Code B: deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons. PACE Code C: sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of people in police custody by police officers. PACE Code D: concerns the main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records. PACE Code E: deals with the tape recording of interviews with suspects in the police station. PACE Code F: deals with the visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects. On 1 January 2006 an additional code came into force: PACE Code G: deals with statutory powers of arrest. On 24 July 2006 a further code came into force: PACE Code H: deals with the detention of terrorism suspects. Thanks again for all your help!

Thanks Old-CodJa, that's really useful. I've referenced the nos of my original questions for ease of reference below. I was hoping you could help further if you don't mind... 1. Can I just clarify - when the carnet ticket goes through the ticket barrier machine at both the start and end of the journey the same ticket can be used again for another journey either the same day or another day, is that correct? (I appreciate its fraud, I'm certainly not about to try this, I just want to be absolutely sure I'm understanding you correctly). 2. There was no question of not having the means to pay the penalty, it was a simple change of heart from the inspector - is this allowed once an agreement to pay has been reached? 3. Is there a certain procedure that the inspector must comply with when completing an MG11? I've been searching google for this but haven't found anything specific. If you have a link to this info I'd be very grateful if you could send it over or advise me of the specific procedure. I want to be sure the inspector in question followed this as there was certainly no opportunity given to my husband to either see or sign the form, nor did anyone else sign the form at the time. My husband did ask if he could see what had been written but he was refused. Thanks for all your help so far, its much appreciated.

I was hoping someone could advise me. Apologies in advance if I'm posting this thread in the wrong place, I'm new to the site and can't see another way of starting a new thread. My husband was caught filling out a date on his First Capital Connect carnet when the inspector came to check tickets. When the inspector took it off him presumably as 'evidence' it was correctly dated. He is new to the system and simply forgot to fill it in - he had no intention of re-using it in fact his route would make this impossible in any case. In preparation for the potential prosecution letter I have a few questions which I was hoping someone could advise on, 1. Can a carnet ticket physically be used again after they have been through both the station entry and exit barriers once a journey is complete? Surely the machine renders them 'used'? 2. Can an inspector offer a penalty fare and once it is accepted by the passenger withdraw the option? 3. On serving of a MG11 form, does the inspector have to specifically tell the passenger what the MG11 is exactly before reading out any rights? 4. Does the inspector have to show the passenger the details he has included in the MG11 form at the time of filling it in? 5. Does the passenger have to sign the MG11 form at the time? 6. Is there any scope in complaining about the carnet system, which effectively has no way of accounting for human error? Any help and advice would be appreciated. I can see a lot of posts on this so I'm hoping there are some experienced people out their willing to share their wisdom.