Yes, I did read that. Sorry if i wasn't clear - I was more looking at the realistic prospect of this happening. The "may"s really complicate things. I am prepared for the worst case scenario, however, I wonder what the chance of it coming to a prosecution for myself is? EDIT: I can't read. I am glad that I shouldn't face prosecution and that the worst to happen is I need to bike more often (good for me anyway...). It seems all my questions have been answered at this moment in time. I don't know forum policy, but is it advised that I leave this thread open until the full issue is resolved, or that I closed this thread and create a new thread when the letter comes?

Alright, well I suppose I shall seek further advice when the letter detailing the allegation comes through, thanks for making it clear. I have obviously been writing in my girlfriend's position and what I could do to help. One unresolved issue is the mention in many places where the card owner may face action if intentionally allowing use of it (which it seems I would fit a description of). What is the likelihood of my own self facing any sort of penalty and/or court action? I am even afraid of re-applying for a student oyster at this point because I feel that leaving this mention could help me more.

I really do appreciate all the help and thanks for really framing what goes on in this forum. I've visited many sites and there is normally a large proportion of people ready to point the blame and take the high moral ground. As you say, the constructive advice on how to mitigate the consequences is really quite something which I realised before i posted. I acknowledged my position in the first post and I'm really looking for a way to limit the damage I suppose. The 3 remaining questions I have I can summarise here since I feel the posting has muddled things somewhat:

I just realised that point myself actually but thanks for pointing it out. in that case it's very likely that most of the formal warnings were issued for the less serious travelling without a valid ticket offence. I can only hope that someone experienced with the numbers could shed light on the likelihood of not being prosecuted for using someone else's student oyster.

Yeah, I'm the sort of person you could say feels that knowledge is power or that sort of thing. Thanks for the profile thing, it seems like quite a varied community! I've looked on wiki for a variety of terms, but it's ones that i don't think of checking that people point out here, which is of course one of the great things coming here. I have an additional question to add to my 2 above questions in my previous post... http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/revenue_inspectors_and_drivers_o - according to this resource which is prosecutions statistics (ctrl+f '2,481' to find the relevant section, though the whole thing is interesting), only 32 of 2,481 cases by London Underground were settled out of court. This was in 2009, and as i understand it, the stance has grown harder in recent years. Are these reliable statistics by your experience? (I am looking for tfl employees who might have experience in this ideally) EDIT: on further reading the article, the prosecution statistics state 4,567 underground cases, with 2,481 progressing to formal prosecution. The remaining 2,176 were a mixture of formal warnings for first time offenders, lack of evidence and ongoing cases. What are the chances of receiving a formal warning for a 21 year old first time offender?

I think the sum of your answers have answered most of my queries as before. I seem to just be thinking up new questions all the time to get a better handle of what is happening. Thank you for the advice on the suggestion to avoid court action. In reference to "mitigating the effects" of the alleged offence - in what way can the effects be mitigated from the prosecution manager's point of view? Is the only form of mitigation in my instance not being called to court? It brings me onto another point which may not be so relevant: how is a penalty considered proportionate to a crime? For example, it would be disproportionate to pay £5,000 for fare evasion (or is it? this is my opinion), yet on the other hand, it could be deemed that the impact of a criminal record could be greater than a £5,000 fine. Is there the prospect of pointing out that the effect of a criminal record could be disproportionate in that respect, thus implying that we would rather incur a large penalty to cover costs? Currently these are my only questions, and I'm grateful for all of your answers that have informed me quite well on my options. I am likely to continue to research the area as that's in my nature, but I know that the advice is to wait for the letter, at which point advice can be better targeted for me. If you can help me with this information I'd be really thankful. I am also curious - are you forum regulars mostly just frequent forum goers who begun from someone like myself, or is it more normal to be involved within the relevant businesses? (I have come to know that there are some prosecution managers/supervisors/ticket inspectors and all sorts around here!)

Actually, Bazzas, that was a very useful distinction - I realise that incorrect wording could really create a misunderstanding that wouldn't be desirable. In correspondence, would I then be suggesting "a reasonable administrative penalty and costs"? I realise this seems to be the most suggested form of wording, is it unwise to include a specific amount? I have mentioned that I am willing to take a penalty in excess of £750, however, I fear that including a figure may possibly be construed as a bribe of some sort. If i were to go down this path I feel that wording like, "I suggest an administrative penalty and costs up to £750 and/or a caution in order to avoid court action" - can this be improved? In addition, can anyone offer advice on the other queries I had?

I suppose that seems to be the best advice - to wait for the letter. I realise the court summons can take anywhere between 1 week to half a year to arrive, how soon should I expect the letter from the TOC? From what I've read on here, it can be counter-productive to contact the TOC before they contact us so I will definitely wait before responding. I am a sort of person who really doesn't like to sit around and wait I suppose, and i feel that any information I can gather is going to help me make a better decision when the time comes. For now I'll sit tight, but I do have questions on the subject. By stating the concerns of public interest of the CPS (namely that fare evasion is the principle form of dishonesty & is widespread), does that mean prosecution will be more likely as the offence has been committed that is relevant to public interest, or is it that prosecution will take place in order to limit the offences committed in the public interest? i.e. Does it only consider the action in the past, or is there a consideration on the unlikelihood of repeated offence and/or raising of awareness amongst peers that would in effect be favourable in the public interest? We really did not realise the seriousness of the offence and also feel that in general students don't know this. My current train of thinking is that the public interest would have been served on this occasion - there is 0% chance we will commit an offence ever again and we are likely to educate our peers, additionally, we would probably be prepared to pay the maximum fine, given the disproportionate effect a CR would have on our budding careers. Are these factors that would be considered at all, or am I going down the wrong track of thinking? Any input here would be great, and thanks again HB and OC for taking the time to construct a helpful response.

Could anyone enlighten me on what constitutes "public interest"? I have a feeling 'I won't do it again and I will treat my oyster stricter than a debit card of mine' doeesn't cut it - what would? Again an example would be useful for me. To firstclassx: I wouldn't expect anything other than prosecution, CPS or not, given the situation. I can gather money for a fine or out of court settlement - either way I expect a fine to be coming my way, it is the question of how I can reduce the chance of being prosecuted. I appreciate the effort and help you have given me in informing me of my current situation, however, I am still very lacking in what to include in this letter of apology. Could anyone clarify on what i should include and also how to structure the letter? This I think is the most help that could be given to me at the moment. Thank you everyone again for your advice.

Thanks for the explaining of 8d with the accompanying example. As i mentioned before, I am unversed in the terminology so I didn't know what a "malicious prosecution" was. I think this explains very well that I am overlooking nothing. I realise that everything points in favour of prosecution. I realise that there are no points against prosecution. I realise this and come here to seek your advice on what I can do. Anything I can do that may result in a lesser penalty than prosecution. The only other option is to plead guilty, and accept a criminal record, which as I have made abundantly clear, I am trying to avoid. I realise you are telling me that my chances are low and all point towards prosecution. Now it would be helpful if you can help me by providing advice on how can i maximise this TINY chance of not being prosecuted. I apologise if I come across in a negative tone, but I really am quite frustrated...

Your information is useful, and thank you for it. As i mentioned in my first post, it's a first time offence and the edit mentions how we had no idea of the consequences - I don't think I would be mistaken in saying most people would expect a fixed penalty and nothing close to court action! Is there any advice on how to construct a letter to achieve the best chance of settling out of court? EDIT: Coming at this from a different perspective: 8.3 TfL will have regard to the following factors in the decision to discontinue proceedings: (a) New and compelling evidence not previously available to TfL. (b) Insufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution. © Where the continuance of proceedings is likely to lead to an abuse of the process of the courts. (d) Where continued proceedings are likely to be deemed malicious or in fact likely to be prejudicial to TfL’s interest. (e) Where the Prosecutions Manager takes the decision to discontinue proceedings against the offender, due to exceptional circumstances. Where the withdrawal is due to (e) above, the relevant Prosecutions Manager may set the terms and conditions for such withdrawal. It seems to me that a,b and c are unlikely to come into effect. The only hope I would have is d or e. I am reasonably sure d is not applicable either - perhaps someone can give me an example to illustrate this? Otherwise, the only part that seems relevant is 8(e). From the above description of exceptional circumstances, it seems that we stand no chance here and firstclassx seems to suggest that prosecution will happen regardless of what a letter may say. Well, assuming the above - it seems the thing that would help me most is being able to construct a good letter, is that correct?

I have read a lot of threads regarding all types of tickets and TOCs - It seems that the London Underground have a reputation for prosecution... For us the worst outcome really is a criminal record - even a fine of £1000 without prosecution would be favourable to us. The problem we have is that we don't know how to convey this to the prosecution manager, and if there are any "exceptional circumstances" at all? Any advice directed to this point in particular would help a great deal.

"If you allow someone else to use your photocard, we may withdraw your Student-rate travel concession and the person using your photocard may be subject to a penalty fare and/or prosecution." I would be glad if we could pay a penalty and even have my student rate travel concession withdrawn as long as there's no criminal record! I understand it's taken to be more serious when a freedom pass is used but I have no idea what the stance is on allowing someone else to use my student oyster. Is the norm to have privileges revoked and pay a penalty or is prosecution more likely? Thanks again, HB. This is all really new to me and it's quite daunting - any information I could get would really ease my mind.

It definitely gives a discount to students for travelcards, i think it is in order of 30% or so. My girlfriend probably used the card for a return trip maybe 3-4 days a week? That i am unsure. As i mentioned, she is a graduate and she previously had a student oyster too and felt that in order to save money whilst she didn't have a permanent job she could use my oyster. Personally, I don't even suffer from typical student finance problems as I do not go out much and my family are quite supportive - i felt that the discount was helping someone who actually needed it instead... I realise how stupid that reads, but it was the genuine thought at the time. Thanks for the quick reply and I appreciate the help.

I'm not sure if this would help my case or not, but I have spent an appreciable amount on my PAYG Oyster during the period my GF was using my student oyster - I will check the exact amount, but i'm reasonably sure it is lower than the travelcard cost, though it is still quite a lot.

Hi all, I have read up on some threads about fare evasion in general and felt that it would be useful if some experts could advise me on my specific case. So to lay it out - my girlfriend graduated last year and has been jobhunting for a while. She obtained a temporary job which required regular travel and i thought I could let her use my student oyster (she paid for travelcards herself). I personally used a PAYG oyster as I prefer to walk/cycle when the weather is nice and only tube when the weather is horrible. Obviously, she was caught at the station with my card and was informed that we would receive a letter from TfL soon and face prosecution having signed a statement of some sort. We realise now how stupid it was and would never do it again - a criminal record for a new graduate in the current climate would really ruin our lives. I should mention that this is a first time offence if it's not obvious. As i understand, we should soon be receiving a letter for TfL and a court summons shortly after. I intend on writing to the prosecution manager as soon as possible with an apology and hope that TfL will not continue with the prosecution (it's in my opinion that the prosecution would probably be successful. It's hard to deny that she was using my student card when it is linked to her bank account payments, as well as regular travel) Could you give me any advice on how to proceed? Specific advice on how to write the letter and what to include would be really much appreciated - what would construed as "exceptional circumstances" (referring to tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf, section 8.3(e)? Any advice I would be incredibly grateful for. EDIT: Edit with details of questioning by the inspector: She was taken aside by the ticket inspector and was asked to show a valid ticket - she showed my card She was asked who's card it was - answered that it was mine and admitted that she had been using my card She was cautioned about upcoming questions Ticket Inspector asked questions, noting down questions and responses as follows: Do you realise you're not supposed to use someone's card? Yes - realised, but didn't realise seriousness of consequences Do you know it's an offence not to have a valid ticket? Yes What was your previous card for travel? Student Oyster card and recently graduated Do you have another card to use? No How long have you been using the card? November but unsure. Asked again who's card it was and reason for having it - boyfriend's card and used it because he began to cycle What is your occupation? Temporary work having recently graduated I'm not sure if this can help in any way but I thought the additional information may be useful to get a better idea of the situation.