Notice of intention to prosecute for train fares - Please Help!

[hayo]

I boarded FCC train on the 14th April, 2011 at 10:14 from Radlett station to Cricklewood station with a return ticket on a discounted young persons rail card which I always carried with me in my wallet.

 

I produced my ticket on demand by the RP inspector en route near Mill Hill Broadway and also produced my young persons railcard on demand only that I realized my young persons railcard had expired some days before the day I travelled with it on the notification of the inspector.

 

I apologised immediately to the inspector and explained that I hardly use the railcard and had thought my railcard expires in April ending since the time I renewed it last year. The rail inspector explained to me that it was my obligation to always check my rail card before boarding the train and I further apologised and explained that it was an error on my part and I would rectify it as soon as possible but the inspector demanded a £20 penalty charge on the spot.

 

I explained to the inspector that I did not have £20 on me and only had about £2 left on me after buying my ticket. He was filling a form to take the money from me and that I would pay the rest later which I complied with, he then took and checked my details and took a statement from me to explain myself on the form which I also did.

 

The inspector then seized my expired railcard and my ticket for the day. He tore a slip with a number 071292 and told me to expect a letter within 14days to pay up the fine only that I am now receiving a letter after 14days with a notice of intention to prosecute.

Please Help!

[Stigy]

It sounds as if you were not Penalty Fared in the end, but were reported for an offence instead. If you were Penalty Fared you'd have received a notice with instructions on how to pay etc, of which you clearly haven't received from the RPI. He should really have been clearer in what he inetnded to do to be honest. Unfortunately, assuming you have been reported, the only thing you can do is reply to FCC and apologise profusely to them, explaining that a criminal record would severely affect your life and that you would prefer not to go to court. I advise you offer to pay their reasonable admin chrages in order to keep the matter from court, too. They don't have to accept, but at least you can say you tried!

 

What offence are they charging you with? I assume it's a Byelaw? It should be clear on the notice you received!

[hayo]

Thank you for quick reply stigy. they didnt specify the offence charge but they wrote in their letter 'We always ask that the courts impose the maximum penalty for offenders. which can include the following:

 

A criminal Record

fine of up to £1000

Prison sentence

Suspended sentence

Community service

Seizure of any computer Equipment (If involved)

Compensation

Costs

[Wriggler7]

With all these stories, there tends to be 'good news' and 'bad news'.

 

Unless you are an habitual criminal, please forget any ideas of going to prison for this. Not sure why they mention siezure of computer equipment, but I guess that it is a 'coverall' letter, and maybe if you regularly use your laptop to purchase dodgy tickets on line, then it may be an option, but what we are discussing here is a 'minor matter'. That was that 'good news'.

 

The bad news is that when asked, you failed to show a valid ticket. I think that the evidence would support a charge under Byelaw 18(2) of the National Rail Byelaws. I do not think that the evidence supports the more serious charge under section 5,3,a Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Or, more to the point, I think that there is a clear defence to that charge.

 

As such, if the matter were to progress to Court, you could expect financial penalties which could add up to £250.00 to £300.00, although, for 'defendants' of limited income, it is often a lot 'cheaper' on a guilty plea.

 

If the railway are willing to settle out of court, it is often the least painful way forward.

[Stigy]

Unless you are an habitual criminal, please forget any ideas of going to prison for this. Not sure why they mention siezure of computer equipment, but I guess that it is a 'coverall' letter, and maybe if you regularly use your laptop to purchase dodgy tickets on line, then it may be an option, but what we are discussing here is a 'minor matter'. That was that 'good news'.

I would imagine it's to do with producing tickets, and possibly selling them...

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, as Wriggler7 surmised, it is a template letter that covers all eventualities, including forgery! Perhaps a bit on the heavy side in my view, but indicates the seriousness with which FCC view these matters.

 

In my opinion, the Byelaw 18(2) offence is the only one that they are likely to be able to make stick in this instance and I suggest that you write with a clear apology for forgetting to check the expiry date of your railcard, stress that it was a one-off and ask if you can be allowed to settle the matter without troubling the Courts, by paying the costs incurred by FCC and the outstanding difference of fares.

 

If you have renewed your railcard, include a clear photo-copy of your new card too.

 

Good luck

[terriersaregreat]

If I've read this right you had a ticket but paid less because you had a young persons railcard. I understand the bit about the railcard being out of date. How long out of date? What was the saving? If you were offered to be fined on the spot was this a verbal contract?

 

Have you looked at any articles relating to this on the web? I've just checked a few and there are some interesting, helpful comments. I think you should do a bit of research before you decide what to do, but I am not legally qualified.

[terriersaregreat]

Check out FCC Penalty Fares info. No harm in emailing them with your problem and apologies. Seems from their website there has been a mess-up.

[Wriggler7]

A person checking tickets, on finding an 'irregularity', in this instance a 'third' discount without a current supporting document, may have various discretionary methods of dealing with the matter.

 

If he was an 'authorised collector of penalty fares', he could have issued one, but did not have to. It seems that he chose to 'report' the matter. There may be many reasons why a penalty fare notice was not issued, and they do not mean that 'reporting' was wrong.

 

Old Codja and I seem to agree on a potential charge, Byelaw 18. No doubt some others would suggest reasons why a charge contrary to Section 5, Regulation of Railways Act 1889 could be used, but I feel that there is a defence to such a charge.

 

I feel that Old Codja is spot on with the advice to write, apologise, send copies of Young Person's cards.

 

I have seen a few letters to railways in which a passenger has written to prosecutors stating 'the inspector got it wrong, he should have issued a penalty fare. Check the website!'.

 

Rail prosecutors will attach the letter to the file, they might reply, the reply might be in the form of a summons. I see the work of my local, and very small, rail prosecution team. I get the feeling that they know their very narrow piece of law very well. They will see any irrelevant references to other legislation as exactly that. Irrelevant.

[terriersaregreat]

I was not suggesting that there isn't a problem, but find it difficult to understand why the on-spot fine was offered. FCC website seems to only refer to prosecution in the case of sitting in 1st class without a 1st class ticket. There are references to persons forgetting their season tickets, railcards receiving fines on the website and also no ticket receiving fines.

 

I agree not to argue that the amount should be paid but we seem to be looking at a criminal record for an oversight! The instances quoted by FCC on their website do not give this alternative except in the 1st class situation!

 

What was the balance owed due to the saving of the railcard?

 

This just seems to be bureaucracy gone mad again or using fines to raise money exactly the same as parking fines. There is a lot of reference to FCC out there.

 

LOGIC, LOGIC, LOGIC!

[Wriggler7]

Last point first, it comes up many times. The 'prosecution' of an alleged offender through a Court might, financially, break even, I do not think it makes a 'profit'. What it does do is focus the minds of people who are not already a criminal into paths of behaviour that keeps them out of Court.

 

In my mind, an independant scrutiny of the alleged 'offence', be it a crime or a breach of byelaw (tried in a criminal court but not recorded on the criminal record), is a 'better' thing than granting powers to varied authorities to levy penalties. Both the offence and the pracices of the prosecuting authority are then subject to scrutiny. I am sure they exist somewhere, but I have never met a Magistrate who can be 'bought' to support a dodgy case.

 

Most prosecuting authorities will exercise some discretion, and consider whether a case deserves to go the whole distance or should be settled in some other way. With rail fares, most railways will accept some form of payment to 'stop' the action, unless there are features to the case that are compelling.

 

Magistrates Courts deal with rafts of minor offences, some of which are much more 'petty' than non payment of the correct rail fare, but mainly to do with the good running of a society in an overcrowded environment. If there was no sanction against fare dodging, our public transport system would collapse. One of our current train operators pulled out of an operation in Australia purely because of 'endemic fare evasion'.

[terriersaregreat]

Sorry Wriggler7 do not agree. I did not mean that the court made money, I meant that all too often fines are used for raising money as in parking etc.

 

I also can not agree with the comment about magistrates, it does of course very often, unfortunately depend what club(?) you belong to, and yes I have had personal experience of this.

 

Surely if there was rationale the courts would not be clogged up with insignificant matters and have more time for the real criminals. This was accidental, and the OP did buy a ticket but the railcard was out of date.

 

Unfortunately all too often the word "LOGIC " is ignored, there can be no logical argument if there is no logic.

[SRPO]

Sorry Wriggler7 do not agree. I did not mean that the court made money, I meant that all too often fines are used for raising money as in parking etc.

 

I also can not agree with the comment about magistrates, it does of course very often, unfortunately depend what club(?) you belong to, and yes I have had personal experience of this.

 

Surely if there was rationale the courts would not be clogged up with insignificant matters and have more time for the real criminals. This was accidental, and the OP did buy a ticket but the railcard was out of date.

 

Unfortunately all too often the word "LOGIC " is ignored, there can be no logical argument if there is no logic.

 

 

Utter tosh.

 

As an aside, the courts are apparently under used according the the MoJ & therefore cannot 'be clogged up with insignificant matters'.

[Maxwell TM]

If I've read this right you had a ticket but paid less because you had a young persons railcard. I understand the bit about the railcard being out of date. How long out of date? What was the saving? If you were offered to be fined on the spot was this a verbal contract?

 

Have you looked at any articles relating to this on the web? I've just checked a few and there are some interesting, helpful comments. I think you should do a bit of research before you decide what to do, but I am not legally qualified.

 

Without a valid supporting discount card, the entire ticket is invalid. In such cases, front line staff are instructed to issue a new ticket without discount of any kind, or to report the 'offender.' Penalty Fares can be issued at the discretion of PF trained staff. It is up to the prosecutions department to decide which route to pursue, should an 'offender' be prosecuted. (Wriggler7 has years of experience in Magistrates Courts working on such cases and is of course 'legally qualified').

[Old-CodJA]

I have seen a few letters to railways in which a passenger has written to prosecutors stating 'the inspector got it wrong, he should have issued a penalty fare. Check the website!'.

 

Rail prosecutors will attach the letter to the file, they might reply, the reply might be in the form of a summons. I see the work of my local, and very small, rail prosecution team. I get the feeling that they know their very narrow piece of law very well. They will see any irrelevant references to other legislation as exactly that. Irrelevant.

 

Sometimes, the traveller who protests too strongly saying, 'I should have been given a Penalty Fare notice', does themself no favours whatsoever.

 

Frequently this leads both revenue staff and prosecution staff down the road of thinking, 'maybe this wasn't an oversight at all'.

 

Maybe the traveller had rationalised the likelihood of being caught out, thought that the Penalty Fare was a worthwhile risk....a sort of insurance policy....and when that happens, he can almost always be assured of receiving a summons following the inspector's report.

 

As so many of pointed out, a Penalty Fare is only one tool by which revenue losses can be managed, it is not a sanction against fare evasion and breach of Byelaw. Where PF regimes exist an inspector might occasionally resort to issuing one in these circumstances, but there are clear rules that state the remedy in these matters.

 

If a traveller fails to produce a valid ticket and railcard he/she may be required to pay for a new ticket at the full undiscounted fare, or may be reported.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Old-CodJA
spelling error

[terriersaregreat]

This is becoming a bit of a silly illogical argument. The OP stated quite plainly that he was expecting to pay a penalty fine. However he received a letter telling him that he was being prosecuted.

 

I agree that it is true that magistrates courts are being closed due to under use as a result of FIXED PENALTY FINES whish are usually settled out of court. So what made this case different?

 

I suggested checking FCC's own website. I suggested communication.The OP was prepared to pay the fine where is the LOGIC in the present action?

 

Please note the fact that I am not legally qualified does not indicate my contacts, qualifications or life experience. Are we trying to help the OP or point scoring? Enough!

[Wriggler7]

I felt that this thread had said everything worth saying by post #6. After that it does seem to me that a red herring was introduced, and dealt with. Most of us offer help, guidance, pointers or facts drawn from written law and practical experience.

 

As regards the clubs that Magistrates are members of, it must be the first time that the working mans institute has been accused of fostering corrupt practices.

 

The finances of prosecuting fare avoiders do not make rail operators rich. It may be that speed cameras have generated surplus revenue for local authorities, but if you don't want to pay, perhaps you should comply with the laws drafted by a democratically elected Government for the benefit of all. Law breakers may have finaced my lifestyle for a rather long time, but collectively, they cost society a dissproportionate amount. Raking a few quid back seems like an eminently sensible idea, albeit a futile one.

[terriersaregreat]

Hayo- please let us know the outcome!

 

NB. It is important to read posts properly before attacking others. This is a public forum!

[vb44]

Hi wriggler7,

 

Sorry to bring this up again but I have received a letter from South West Trains Prosecuting Office saying they are reviewing my case and I have 14 days to provide any mitigating circumstances. "My Case" is being on a train without a ticket due to the machine not working. I didn't buy one at the interchange and so although not happy about it, I am willing to accept that I am guilty. My concern comes over whether I will have a criminal record at the end of this i.e. what is the full extent of the prosecution? I can deal with a fine but really don't want to have criminal record. Is a criminal record standard or is it likely I will only be issued a fine?

 

Thanks,

vb44

[Old-CodJA]

Hi wriggler7,

 

Sorry to bring this up again but I have received a letter from South West Trains Prosecuting Office saying they are reviewing my case and I have 14 days to provide any mitigating circumstances. "My Case" is being on a train without a ticket due to the machine not working. I didn't buy one at the interchange and so although not happy about it, I am willing to accept that I am guilty. My concern comes over whether I will have a criminal record at the end of this i.e. what is the full extent of the prosecution? I can deal with a fine but really don't want to have criminal record. Is a criminal record standard or is it likely I will only be issued a fine?

 

Thanks,

vb44

 

 

 

This will depend on what charge they actually put before the Court.

 

Only conviction for 'intent to avoid a fare' ( RRA Section 5. (1889)) will be likely to have a detrimental effect as an enhanced CRB check will disclose it

 

If you are charged with breach of National Railway Byelaw 18 (2005), this is a strict liability matter and much easier for the prosecution to prove, conviction is what is known as 'non-recordable' and the fine will also be correspondingly lower.

 

If there were genuinely no facilities available to get a ticket before you were checked you should say so and ask the company to accept payment of the fare only.

 

If there were facilities to get a ticket before you were checked and you accept that you are guilty of the breach of Byelaw, you could try writing to the rail company and ask if they will consider an out of Court disposal. The main points of your letter should be as follows:

 

i) Offer an unreserved apology to the company and staff concerned,

 

ii) Stress that this was an out of character action for which you are genuinely sorry

 

iii) Explain that if you are prosecuted and convicted this will have a wholly disproportionate effect on your future employment .

 

iv) Offer to pay any unpaid fare/s and all of the reasonable costs incurred by the company in dealing with this matter , all of which you recognise arise as a result of your actions

 

v) Give a written undertaking not to travel without a valid ticket on any journey in future.

 

The company are not obliged to accept your offer, but will give your letter consideration.

 

The prosecution costs applied for in any successful prosecution are normally in the region of £120 - £150 so you might consider making an offer based on that knowledge.

 

If they agree this will need to be paid in full immediately.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[richardjsouth]

Hello - this is to Hayo, but anyone on the thread, I was wondering what the outcome of this was, if we know at all? Would be grateful to find out. thanks

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

As this thread dates back to 2012, it seems we weren't told the outcome by Hayo and we don't really have a means of finding out. S/he may get an email notification of your post and come back to tell us.

 

HB