Issued an unfair caution!

[Old-CodJA]

I'm begging to get the vibe that everyone on here is a total...

 

I came on here to find out the extent of my fine.

 

Not be ridiculed as to how valid my "excuse is" so unless anyone has anything useful to say, please, find someone else to preach your crap to.

 

The thread is mainly labeled as it is to attract attention.

 

Sailor Sam is probably right in that you will be a long while getting more or better free advice however, having followed this with similar amusment to everyone else, I shall disregard your comment and feel free to 'preach a little more' of what you call 'crap'. Those who have much more experience of life and of the legal process in relation to fare evasion on the railways may well have a different description.

 

1. Your excuses are about as likely to be accepted as a valid reason for not paying a rail fare as I am to hit the moon with a snowball. If you actually took the well-meant advice that you have been given and moderated your approach to this you might have been given a more sympathetic hearing by forum users. Your attitude will not find sympathy in front of a Court

 

2. You now tell us that you are only 16 years of age. That actually doesn't make the slightest bit of difference in relation to whether or not you can be prosecuted. Should the rail company choose to do so they may issue a Summons. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 years and as Wriggler7 has already made clear, fare evasion is a charge that could be put before a Youth Court if they so desire. It isn't often that they do, but there is nothing to prevent it.

 

3. If you really have been given such ridiculous advice by a qualified lawyer as you claimed in your posting, I suggest that you find one who stands a chance of helping, rather than hindering your case.

 

4. In answer to the question of what fine a Court might impose, if you really want to know, the maximum fine on conviction can be up to £1000. If you are Summonsed & Convicted, no Court will apply the maximum in the case of a first offence. Any fine will be reduced by the Magistrates who will take into account the earnings of the defendant and social factors affecting the ability to pay, but just because someone has no job or regular income, it would be foolish to believe that the Court cannot ever impose a financial penalty.

 

5. If you are only 16 years of age, I think you'd best get off the 'hard done by' stance and think about making a proper apology to the rail company for a start. Maybe, they'll consider dealing with this by an administrative disposal if you recognise that you have done wrong and face up to that fact.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[Sean.Howson]

"and feel free to 'preach a little more' "

 

Got to here then deemed you to be someone else who can't give a straight answer, posted this and walked off.

[esmerobbo]

Bye!

 

Even allowing for your tender age I believe you should show more respect to members here who have probably forgotten more then you will ever Know. If you ask for opinion it may not suit you however what these members have said is perfectly true.

 

I did not enter into this thread as I do not know enough about what you were asking. I posted as I believed a comment posted by you, which was used by your solicitor to be at best bigoted or could be deemed racist. For an educated person as your solicitor should be to even make a statement such as that is beyond belief.

Before you think I have a chip on my shoulder I do not, I do not need to say who or what I am, except I am a human being. As such I find any bigotry or racism abhorrent.

 

The question you ask is unanswerable as it depends on to many if's and but's. No one could give you the answer you wish to hear!

 

You again have probably not got past the first line because the reply does not suit you. I hope for your sake the authorities deal with you leniently and not take you to court. However I would suggest if you are taken to court you adjust your attitude to people wiser and more experienced then you. Or it could cost you more then you wish.

[Sean.Howson]

Thank you for a slightly more respectful answer with some relation to my question

 

to clear things up,

 

To start a fresh, new views:

 

I'm 16

In the eyes of the law, i am in the wrong.

somewhat in the wrong anyway though i would like to make the point that i was not simply bumping the train as it is often known, i had my own reason, i have explained this reason to First capital connect yet did not expect a reprieve i simply wanted to make clear i was not skipping the train fare.

 

I am not racially prejudiced at all there has obviously been some misunderstanding where this is concerned though i would be quite interested to find out some of the views on political correctness held by the others on this forum just to share opinions.

 

I would like to offer my apologies to anyone and everyone that i have offended on this forum, if i'm honest i think I've probably misinterpreted many of the replies i have received and the same to those reading my replies, i may not have made my self clear at all in the past and I'm sure this thread could be made into about six different events from the amount of self criticism, when i posted it i was in a bit of a flap and probably thought it said something completely different

 

I do not expect anyone to accept this apology.

 

Now, about this fine, i know i could be up to £1000

any ideas where between there an 0 it could be?

[Sean.Howson]

Bye!

 

You again have probably not got past the first line because the reply does not suit you. I hope for your sake the authorities deal with you leniently and not take you to court. However I would suggest if you are taken to court you adjust your attitude to people wiser and more experienced then you. Or it could cost you more then you wish.

 

I have reacted badly to some of the answers on here for this i apologize, i would normally treat anyone older, or younger for that matter.

though i may not seem it i'm far from the typical yob you may see in a street.

[esmerobbo]

Sean you have been man enough to apologise and admit you may have been wrong. I think if you have the same approach with the train company it will help. Although you may feel you had a perfectly good excuse as to why you boarded the train without a ticket or the means to pay, Can you honestly say the rail company would except what you say as an excuse.

As for the punishment it depends so much on your own circumstances of which no body here knows!

 

For instance if I was unemployed on benefits and a millionaire and I were on the same charge you would presume the fine would be tailored to punish us both fairly. I would be towards the lower end and I presume near the upper end for him. Then you can get Magistrates who look differently on different cases!

 

I don't know what stage this is at but I if I was you would write a letter stating that you realise what you have done is wrong. You are sorry and that if possible because of your age and damage to your future whether this could be dealt with without going to court. If it is at the court stage then address the letter to the magistrate.

 

Regards an actual figure I don't think anyone could give you the exact amount but I would assume if it is your first offence it would be nearer the lower end then the top end!

 

I hope for your sake the worry this has caused has been enough and the train company let you deal with it outside the court room.

 

Also I do not believe anyone thought you to be racist I was just somewhat taken aback that a solicitor could make such a statement. And they thought that it could be used as a line of defence!

 

Good luck I hope it is nearer the £0 then the £1000

[Grotesque]

Bro.

 

I did not particularly appreciate being told to 'use [my] brain', as- possibly like yourself- I use it every day and specifically when I am at work; however:

 

The reason the thread got 'expanded' to your reasons for failing to show a ticket were that in order to answer your specific question (as to the potential rate of a court-imposed fine), the experienced posters here need further information.

The more info provided, the greater the detail of the answer on the whole, and the less further questions arise or need to be queried; that's all.

 

On your question, the general fine ranges from £150-£350 all included: that's what you should steel yourself for.

 

Please re-read Old_CodJA's post again- that is the exact position you face.

 

However if this is your first prosecutable offence, then with some mitigation (which I'm afraid does involve effectively grovelling, but hey...) based on, say, your age, personal circumstances, remorse, then there is a chance of settling without criminal conviction.

 

Regardless of the slightly bizarre nature of your 'Solicitor's' advice, I personally don't think you don't need (or want) a solicitor for this case- all he could do is mitigate- the facts seem clear, so all he will do is cost you a fortune and then shrug his shoulders when you are convicted for fare evasion. And you can mitigate for yourself!

 

Write the letter. Gently... and thoughtfully... and it might save you a wedge!

 

On edit: Cheers esmerobbo, spent so long posting this you said it all quicker!!!

Edited November 13, 2010 by Grotesque

[SRPO]

As you are 16 & this is a first offence it will not go to court. Is it possible that the prosecuting authority believe you to be over 18? if so contact them immediately.

 

By the way, at 16 you shouldnt be riding a motorcycle with an engine capacity in excess of 50cc.

[Old-CodJA]

I think that you have now reached an important point in this process Sean ( so I thought I'd preach some more :-) )

 

Hopefully, you will be able to avoid anything more serious than what is known as an administrative disposal.

 

Perhaps you can use the suggested template that I have written here (see below) to seek a quick closure to this case:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write regarding the letter that I have received from you and concerning the occasion on > when I was reported for travelling on your train service from > to > without a valid rail ticket.

 

I wish to offer my unreserved apology for my actions in the hope that you will allow this matter to be resolved without court action and thereby allowing me to avoid the stigma that such a punishment would deliver so early in my life.

 

I do recognise that I have been foolish in the extreme. I boarded the train without first having paid the appropriate fare for my journey and having taken the decision to make that journey without the means to pay the full fare due, I am extremely sorry for having attempted to avoid my liability when questioned by the inspector.

 

I hope that you will recognise that I acted with the rash impulsiveness of youth. I am only 16 years of age and have since taken advice from a number of people, following which, I wish to apologise to the member of staff concerned and to the rail company for the extra administration work that my actions have caused.

 

I make no secret that I think rail fares are very expensive, but I also understand that fare evasion is a serious problem and is unfair to the vast majority of travellers who pay the correct fare every time.

 

I am offering to pay the full fare that is due and the reasonable costs that have been incurred by the rail company in the hope that you will allow me to put this matter behind me and move on. I have learned an important lesson in responsibility and without need to take any further action.

 

I hereby give a solemn undertaking not to repeat this uncharacteristic and immature act and to ensure that I always hold a valid rail ticket on future journeys.

 

Yours etc.

 

 

Good Luck

 

.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Old-CodJA
grammar correction

[Sean.Howson]

Hi guys,

 

Somewhere earlier in the thread, though by no means expected anyone to read through the entire thing, i mentioned i had already had my summons, though you will probably be mildly pleased to know that a thoroughly sacrificed any pride i may have previously held (not a lot any way) and wrote a very apologetic letter pretty much the same as the template written above, (thank you for that by the way, though i have already sent he letter it reassured me i was on the right lines) though i have had the summons which may suggest my otherwise i think i could have come off much worse if i hadn't wrote the letter in way that i did.

 

thanks for decent and pretty helpful replies, me not being a lawyer (funny that, being 16 and all) i didn't really know where to start.

[Sean.Howson]

Apologies for this I most certainly wasn't using mine while writing my original message

[timbo58]

I know it's a bit off topic but the moped v motorbike issue:

I agree with you Sean that the word 'moped' has an unfavourable public viewpoint in comparison to 'a motorbike' per se.

However if you are 16 and ride a restricted motorcycle of 49.99cc or less it is legally classified as 'a moped' not as a motorcycle.

 

It's an arcane and incorrect description based on the 1970s regulations that demanded that all such machines be capable of being fitted & assisted by pedals hence 'mo-ped'.

The DVLAs regulation system has many such nuances that date back donkeys years, some are retrospective (ie fitting brake lights to machines never designed for them) some aren't.

 

However I'm not going to split hairs if anyone knows any better than I do, after all I've only been riding for 29 years, and as I prefer scooters, a lot of the general public call them 'mopeds' anyway, despite the fact I am doing 70+ on a good day! :!:8-)

[esmerobbo]

I think you and I are right. At 16 the moped/motorbike has to be 50cc or under and restricted to 31MPH. Although I believe there is a trend to retrofit a 70cc cylinder and de restrict them and pray you get away with it.

 

Mind you this has nothing to do with the OP. Then again he would be wise checking if it is indeed road legal. I dont think he needs any further trouble.

[Sean.Howson]

I know it's a bit off topic but the moped v motorbike issue:

I agree with you Sean that the word 'moped' has an unfavourable public viewpoint in comparison to 'a motorbike' per se.

However if you are 16 and ride a restricted motorcycle of 49.99cc or less it is legally classified as 'a moped' not as a motorcycle.

 

It's an arcane and incorrect description based on the 1970s regulations that demanded that all such machines be capable of being fitted & assisted by pedals hence 'mo-ped'.

The DVLAs regulation system has many such nuances that date back donkeys years, some are retrospective (ie fitting brake lights to machines never designed for them) some aren't.

 

However I'm not going to split hairs if anyone knows any better than I do, after all I've only been riding for 29 years, and as I prefer scooters, a lot of the general public call them 'mopeds' anyway, despite the fact I am doing 70+ on a good day! :!:8-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

legally,yes, though like the public i now associate the word moped with annoying yobs with loud scooters which if you ask me sound worse than my travel hairdryer (though i do believe it to sound better than the average yob scooter since i realized it was on the wrong voltage setting for the U.K. and that that was why there was a funny smell coming from it every time i turned it on)

 

however a good scooter like the one i should imagine you to ride, i have no problem with what so ever, i personally wouldn't have one but this is sheerly for my own personal practicality, and i just prefer my legs how they are on my bike, so i mean no offense to you by this.

 

not picking at all just making conversation now to be honest, would i be right to say mopeds originally where essentially bicycles with engines on the back wheel (i'd love one for the novelty) i live right near Shuttleworth collection (for those that know it) i quite often enjoy the wonders of some of the machine held within the hanger walls there. I'm not all that clued up on bikes in general and their history, but i'd like to think i know my own bike pretty damn well.

 

My bike is a 70 restricted to 50/49.9, so i often think of it as a bike, (it's a Susuki ts) so it's an off road bike hence why i also term it as a bike.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Sean.Howson

[Sean.Howson]

Though i was certain all aspects of my bike where completely legal (i'd be surprised if my parents allowed me on the road if not) i have checked with my father and the internet and my girlfriends step dad (a hairy bloke with a TL1000 and many years in riding) and it is completely fine.

I do however appreciate the concern.

[Stigy]

My bike is a 70 restricted to 50/49.9, so i often think of it as a bike, (it's a Susuki ts) so it's an off road bike hence why i also term it as a bike.

I would clasify that as a bike, too. As far as I'm concerned anything that isn't a scooter is a motorbike even is it does sound like a hair dryer (ie; Aprilia RS50 - 125?), lol. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'll shut up and get back on topic!

[esmerobbo]

Though i was certain all aspects of my bike where completely legal (i'd be surprised if my parents allowed me on the road if not) i have checked with my father and the internet and my girlfriends step dad (a hairy bloke with a TL1000 and many years in riding) and it is completely fine.

I do however appreciate the concern.

 

Hi Sean does it do more then 31MPH8-) The 50cc is ok but it should not be able to do more then 31MPH Although most of the strangled hair-dryers around my area do.

[Sean.Howson]

Hi Sean does it do more then 31MPH8-) The 50cc is ok but it should not be able to do more then 31MPH Although most of the strangled hair-dryers around my area do.

 

 

I could have done though i restricted the throttle when i got it (it could probably have managed 35 ish but i thought it was best to be safe)

 

yeah you'll probably find most of the hairdryers are all completely illegal in some way.

[Sean.Howson]

Ha nah i'm fairly sure this has become a chat about bikes until someone has something else to say about the topic.

*sniggers* I have a friend who had an rs125 his, him and his dad thought they'd spend the day, just for a laugh, knowing it would go wrong, putting a 400cc engine in it, unfortunately the bolt attaching the exhaust had only been hand tightened, when started, the entire exhaust pipe shot of and buried it's in the garage door, i do sincerely wish i had been there for this!

[Wriggler7]

If you don't get back on topic, Old Codja (On his Vinnie) and I on my RGS will come down there and teach you how to burn serious rubber. Question is, has Old Codja got a Comet, a Rapide or a Black Shadow?

 

This being an 'advice forum', I hope you won't mind an old git reminding you that there are two types of bikers: those that have fallen off and those that are going to.

[SRPO]

I bet mines bigger

[Grotesque]

See you on the Brighton run!

[infiniteseeker]

Edit 2 add:

To the OP:

It's total bull**** isn't it, no one actually loses anything by you travelling on the train that once without a ticket, but because they are a business motivated solely by profits and you were breaking their company policy they will now fine you a ridiculously excessive amount. Essentially they punish you for being poor by making you poorer, noone said the system was genius (or even works) but by golly we do believe in it.

 

Good luck!

Edited November 19, 2010 by infiniteseeker

[Wriggler7]

A person obtains a service, but doesn't pay for it. It is crime. Railways have to be paid for one way or another, and it is only fair that the people who use it pay for it. Why should an elderly lady in rural Norfolk with no railway pay a subsidy through her taxes so that other people can swan around without paying their way?

 

You came here seeking advice for free, you have been given much. Now you tell us that it is bull. I am afraid that you have just lost the sympathy vote, and any further pro bono that might have been up for grabs.

[Wriggler7]

Many years ago, at Billericay Magistrates Court, a woman, charged with no MOT & three defective tyres stated that she couldn't pay the fine. Now, let us face it, nobody lost money, not even a 'big business', ans she was quite noisy about how, being poor, she couldn't afford fines, new tyres and so on.

 

Chairman of Bench said "Sell your car."

 

Which is another way of saying 'face facts'. Accept your place in society, comply.