train fines and wrong addresses

[Wriggler7]

Many people finding themselves on the sticky end of an accusation of fare avoidance get very 'twitchy', most, I am told, have no previous experience of the legal process.

 

A person with 'no previous convictions' will be treated as such. The justice, or otherwise, of how they are treated will cause much confusion, and many will feel that the potential penalties are very harsh.

 

The 'generally good person' probably has a job. As such, the Court will start to consider a level of fine at the declared weekly income. The result is that the 'generally good' often end up with a fine that is much more than the unemployable habitual offender.

 

The 'well known offender' from last Wednesday is quite likely to end up having his fines 'remitted' (squashed) whilst he serves time for either the offence for which he has a suspended sentence already, or the offence for which he is about to be committed to the Crown Court.

 

And he will cost you and I rather a lot to feed and water whilst he is 'inside'.

 

Life, I fear, is simply not fair. However, penalising 'good' people is possibly (Probably?) more to do with sending a message to all of the other 'good' people that they know to 'stay good' than it is to do with changing the generally bad folk that I meet too frequently.

 

I wasn't born 'cynical', life has just pushed me that way.

[AvAn]

Thanks Codja and Wriggler. I see your point.

I have received forms from the TOC, it does not say about a fine or about a court hearing- just requests my version of events. Is this a good sign or just general procedure? I feel a glimmer of hope that maybe it could be settled out of court...if the TOC do agree that I pay a fine outside of court would that generally always be less than you would have to pay at the magistrates (out of interest)?...as my employment is fairly low paid...how would arrangements to pay be settled- or would it all have to be paid in a lump sum? (I might be jumping the gun in being hopeful here but would appreciate any info!)

[AvAn]

....and the fact that the letter came so quick- is this a good or bad sign? (like, is there a priority list of letters for '*******s that we will probably prosecute' or is it just random?)

[Old-CodJA]

Like Wriggler7 (and from the other side of the 'discussion') life has made me more cynical, but I try to remain as fair as is possible in reading and assessing these things.

 

In a very general sense, the letter giving opportunity for you to put your version of events, is a good sign, but no more than you should expect having been reported for an alleged offence.

 

You know what you did and from your original post here, I suggest that the best thing that you can do is to express remorse, apologise for all the work that your uncharacteristic action has caused for the TOC staff and ask to be allowed to make payment of the fare and all of the reasonable costs that the TOC incurred as a result. If you have no previous warnings or other convictions, stress that you are very worried that a conviction for this lapse might pose a disproportionate effect on your future employment and in an effort to maintain your good name, you are asking the rail company to take this into consideration.

 

They may not agree, as I have already made clear, giving false details in order to avoid a liability is a serious matter, but there is a chance and you can only maximise that by being truthful in responding promptly.

 

If the TOC agree it will almost certainly be an agreement to pay their admin costs ( probably around £150 + ) plus the unpaid fare, which will need to be paid in a lump sum in fairly short order. Whatever the sum agreed, it will be likely to total considerably less than that imposed by Magistrates if convicted.

[Wriggler7]

From discussions with and observations of railway prosecuting folk, they have more work than they can properly cope with. As such, the 'trick' seems to be to make it more easy for them to accept an out of court settlement than it is for them to prosecute the case.

 

Reply to their letter. Most cases that my local line prosecute are the ones where the passenger simply ignored the 'process', which can be a bit like grannies old mangle. It will keep going, and if you get caught in it, it will slowly just pull you in.

 

A reply which makes it clear that the 'passenger' is not taking the case seriously will cause the report to be thrown onto the 'pile' of work for 'court', a reply that makes it clear that 'settling' is going to be a long process will cause them to think '20 minutes to sort out the summons or 40 minutes to work through a system to recover the fares in installments?'.

 

My local 'bloke' has several objectives with each case. In the main, they are to show that the passenger now knows that what they did was 'wrong', to recover fares that have been avoided and to cover the costs of the time involved in dealing with the case. He also does have a 'need' to prosecute a 'good' number of cases, but for you, the 'good news' is that there is no shortage of work, so unless there was an 'aggravating feature', that is to say 'unpleasantness' towards staff, he would then look for the 'quickest' way to move the report from the 'in tray' to the 'finished tray'.

 

One thing that will almost certainly ensure a prosecution is a 'high handed letter' reminding him that last Whit Monday the train was late and you think that their service is rubbish, along with a comment on the line that 'I will not pay a penny towards your rediculous costs'. I would also not be pleased to have to try to rescue a case after such a position has been taken.

 

For 'the accused', the thought process needs to be along the lines of looking for the least painful solution. Different train companies will have different 'costs', a normal out of Court settlement with my local company will often be much less than £100.00, but if they have been obliged to spend time trawling through CCTV or ticket machine records, they will look to recover the costs of the staff time.

 

If the case does end up in Court, the costs will normally be awarded in full, and my local line will normally ask for £110.00, that is in addition to any fines or compensation for the fares 'avoided'. If the case took longer to prepare, the costs claim will 'go up'.

[AvAn]

Thanks for the replies. The one thing I am still slightly confused about is why I didn't receive a Penalty Fare? I checked out the TOC's policy and they do penalty fares and it covers that line. Shall I mention that in my reply? Do I take a strictly apologetic 'I was in the wrong' kind of line in the letter or can I state some of the things that confuse me about the situation? (the fact I had money to pay, asked for a ticket straight away, was not penalty fared even though it is a penalty fare line...) Obviously the false address part is something that cant be excused

[RPI]

you probably would have only been issued a PF had you not given false details, as soon as false details are given a more serious offence is committed, hence why you were reported. I'm guessing it was London Midland?

[AvAn]

yeah, it was london midland...that's what confuses me, the conductor didnt give me a penalty fare, I asked if i could buy a ticket when the conductor approached, they refused and said they would have to fine me- no figures were spoken, I asked how much it would be and they said it would be sent in the post- it was then that i paniced and made the stupid mistake of giving the false details as I thought as no figures were mentioned that the fine would be hundreds of pounds. When I first mentioned it, people on this site said it was probably a company that doesnt do penalty fares but I now know that it IS a company that issues penalty fares! Should I make a big point of this in my response to the letter or will this just aggravate them and make them more likely to prosecute?

[Stigy]

yeah, it was london midland...that's what confuses me, the conductor didnt give me a penalty fare, I asked if i could buy a ticket when the conductor approached, they refused and said they would have to fine me- no figures were spoken, I asked how much it would be and they said it would be sent in the post- it was then that i paniced and made the stupid mistake of giving the false details as I thought as no figures were mentioned that the fine would be hundreds of pounds. When I first mentioned it, people on this site said it was probably a company that doesnt do penalty fares but I now know that it IS a company that issues penalty fares! Should I make a big point of this in my response to the letter or will this just aggravate them and make them more likely to prosecute?

The staff are not obliged to offer a Penalty Fare for any ticketing issue, and can report the facts straight to their Prosecutions Dept if they so desire. With that in mind I would refrain from mentioning the fact that no PF was offered.

[AvAn]

What parts of the incident shall I mention then?? Just a brief explanation of not having a ticket and trying to pay? surely the false address element looks even worse if it seems like I supplied it in response to a standard penalty fare? (or is it one of those things where the crime cancels out the context in which it was committed?)

[Wriggler7]

Unlike my normal posts, brevity in your letter may be a good thing. State 'remorse' for the incident, promise that it will not happen again, offer to pay reasonable costs. They 'know' what happened, ok, they have their inspector's report, so I see little point in telling them the story again.

[Maxwell TM]

I know that London Midland have a robust policy on fare evasion and often have teams of PF trained inspectors on their system. The OP says 'ticket collectors' and if this is the case, he was probably dealt with by one of these squads. As pointed out above, PFs are a civil remedy, designed to combat low level ticketing irregularities. They are not designed to counter potentially more serious matters.

 

With regard to conductors:- due to the safety critical nature of their jobs, guards are often precluded from PF issue. However, all railway staff can report suspected ticket misuse and associated issues to the Revenue Protection department for possible further action. In cases such as these, the option of a PF is not then offered by RP staff.

 

LM also publish the names and addresses of those convicted. These are displayed prominently on stations, usually on large posters.

[AvAn]

Yeah, there was a squad of 3 of the collector types. The letter does not mention the whole false addresses issue, does that mean I should avoid mentioning it and just say I tried to get a ticket on the train and was fined and then be apologetic, offer to pay fine and admin costs etc (as like Wriggler says they already know what happened etc) or will this seem like a further dishonest move, by not stating it will it seem like I am acting like it didnt happen?

[Stigy]

Yeah, there was a squad of 3 of the collector types. The letter does not mention the whole false addresses issue, does that mean I should avoid mentioning it and just say I tried to get a ticket on the train and was fined and then be apologetic, offer to pay fine and admin costs etc (as like Wriggler says they already know what happened etc) or will this seem like a further dishonest move, by not stating it will it seem like I am acting like it didnt happen?

I would imagine the charges will be clear in the letter, therefore if the false details haven't been mentioned, I for one wouldn't be reminding them! The charges would more than likely be those of a 5.3(b) and 5.3© if they did use the false details, as this would clearly display intent to avoid payment in the eyes of the law.

[AvAn]

The letter does not set out any charges, it's quite deadpan really, hence why I am in a quandary as to how to best reply! It basically states " A person giving this name and address was questioned by a member of rail staff about the payment of a rail fare" and then states that before they proceed further with the investigation of the matter they would like to give me the opportunity to respond with an explanation....

[Stigy]

The letter does not set out any charges, it's quite deadpan really, hence why I am in a quandary as to how to best reply! It basically states " A person giving this name and address was questioned by a member of rail staff about the payment of a rail fare" and then states that before they proceed further with the investigation of the matter they would like to give me the opportunity to respond with an explanation....

It's a tricky one then...You could explain yourself in more detail, mentioning the false details and risk telling them something they didn't already know, or you could just explain the situation, and don't mention the incorrect details, which could turn the tables a little...

[AvAn]

Thank you everyone for the helpful advice given. I sent a humble apologetic letter and received correspondence back saying they would settle if I pay the five pound ticket plus fifty five pounds admin fee. Probably the best result given the circumstances. Thank you all for taking the time to correspond to my enquiry and tolerating my occasional incredulous outburst!

[Stigy]

Thank you everyone for the helpful advice given. I sent a humble apologetic letter and received correspondence back saying they would settle if I pay the five pound ticket plus fifty five pounds admin fee. Probably the best result given the circumstances. Thank you all for taking the time to correspond to my enquiry and tolerating my occasional incredulous outburst!

Good result then!

 

Thanks for coming back and letting us know the outcome!