Help please, very bad situation

[bigfluffy]

Hello, I am new to this forum and joined today.I have a bad situation at the moment. his is quite a long one but sorry.

 

I normally cycle into central from wood green to uni and back but if it rains i get the long, bendy bus 29. I am new to London so was not too familier with how transport and oysters work. I got on the bendy bus once about a month ago, was on the phone at the same time and put my wallet onto the card machine which had my card in, not paying too much attention to what was happening. I heard a few beeps but it was because it was other people doing it aswell. 1 stop later the icket man came and checked my card, and i had 40 p less then the price. he was quite rude to me and took my details and stuff away. i then said i will go back to the tube station, which was 20 seconds away and out money on to cover the cost, and someone can even come with me and do it. this happend before and somebody let me do it, but he did not, and then sent a letter which means i have to go to court.

 

Since then i have always put enough money to travel on, but today it happened again! I had 2 pounds on my card, and went onto the bus. I was on the phone, but this time it was a serious conversation to my mum (who i dont live with, i am a student). The conversation was about my father who was hospitalised 2 days before so i really was not paying attention to anything else, the bus was very busy and i stretched out to hit my wallet on the card reader but again heard more then 4 beeps, as other people were doing it too and i was not looking, due to the fact i had to stretch my arm out and i am quite short so could not see as the bus was very crowded. I continued on the journey, and got stopped by a ticket man at Warren Street. He said I had not used my card since augest 1st (as i have been away and normally cycle that is true). I said i had money and he took my card, then asked for i.d (which in hindsight i should not have given). I kept saying i will tap my oyster card there and then but he refused to let me. I know for a fact that other inspecters have let other people do it and seen it happen. I kept saying ill do it, at which point he got right into my face and i nearly fell out of the doors!

 

Anyway, i dont know whats happening with that but i assume ill get another letter and have to go to court, either 2 seperate times or once for both. Both of these were a geniune mistake which i asked to rectify straight there and then, which got refused. What happens now? I am a student, with no job (as i am quite dyslexic and it takes me a while to go about things) and a father who has just lost his business and is now in hospital for a suicide attempt and mental illness and paranoia, and my student loan just about covers my rent. I refused to do a out of court settlement for the 1st because they said its 250 pounds you have to pay straight away and i cannot afford it. A lady from tfl emailed me saying about how the costs wi be reduced and the fine will too if i show financia proof which i can do. Can i please get some answers from anyone who has been in the same situation or somebody on here who knows there stuff, Its stressing me out so much.

 

Also do these ticket people work on commish? And why can we not touch the card on if we had made a mistake and have got money but it hasnt registrered?

 

Regards, BF

[bigfluffy]

also i have literelly no money to my name, cannot borrow any of my parents as my mum is supports 4 children, 3 of which who go to university! The only money i get is basically for my rent and i honestly cannot afford any more expenses, and my dad certainly cant deal with the stress. is there an option to do some form of unpaid work to pay back the fine or something? what are the options for everything?

[Stigy]

Okay, has the first alleged offence been to court yet? If not, they could do both on the same day to save time. If it's happened once before and a settlement was offered, regardless of whether or not it was accepted, chances are they wont be too quick to do the same again. At the end of the day you committed the same offence twice in, I'm gathering, quite a short time from each other. They'll be of the opinion that if you've been reported for this offence one before already, you should know to pay more attention to what's occuring when tapping in on future journeys, such as this one. In hindsight, why would you not have given them any ID? They are doing their job, and unfortunately, you broke the rules, however unwittingly it was. I don't believe RPIs work on commission either.

[tidon]

Let me get this right..! you have been issued with a court summons to appear before a court of law over 40p? and they wanted you to pay a £250 out of court settlement they wish to claim for you been 40p under the fare?

is it 40 pence or 40 pounds? as i find this hard to believe that you could actually be served with a summons to appear in a magistrates court because as i see it, its not a criminal offence its a civil offence and if you have a summons it must be for a small claims court?

how much all together on both times were you short and on the summons does it say magistrates court or county court?

[Stigy]

Let me get this right..! you have been issued with a court summons to appear before a court of law over 40p? and they wanted you to pay a £250 out of court settlement they wish to claim for you been 40p under the fare?

is it 40 pence or 40 pounds? as i find this hard to believe that you could actually be served with a summons to appear in a magistrates court because as i see it, its not a criminal offence its a civil offence and if you have a summons it must be for a small claims court?

how much all together on both times were you short and on the summons does it say magistrates court or county court?

You'd be wrong. It's heard at a Magistrates' Court and is a Criminal Offence under TfL (?) Byelaws. Also, it's an Oyster Card, therefore the shortfall in the fare wont be what's being prosecuted, it'll be the whole fare, as the Oyster Card is a means with which to carry electronic credit, therefore unless the customer taps out with enough credit on their Oyster Card, no fare has been paid. It won't be the same as a paper ticket, whereby somebody has over-travelled, and therefore might only owe the difference of this 40p or so. Even so, this is a private case, and being non-CPS the public interest doesn't come in to it, only the TOC or TfL's interest, therefore they can seek to prosecute to their heart's content!

Edited August 19, 2011 by Stigy

[Old-CodJA]

You're not going to like this and I have no doubt that I'll be castigated for saying some of what I have to say, but there comes a time when we all have to recognise that we need to learn from past experiences.

 

Personally, I am very sympathetic in respect of your father's condition, I lost my own father at a very young age, but although Prosecutors & Magistrates may individually have some sympathy, quite often stressing these things in response to rule breaking can be counter productive. It can be seen as 'attempting emotional blackmail' and designed to deflect attention from the incident itself. By all means refer to it in mitigation, but do concentrate on why you didn't have enough money on the Oyster or why you didn't have a valid ticket when travelling.

 

As you say it was a very crowded boarding, I am surprised that you were on the phone and not concentrating when trying to get on to a bus, which can be dangerous in itself with people all crushing to get on.

 

Having recently been reported for a similar matter, I am also surprised that you should not be checking your Oyster has enough credit for your intended journey before attempting to travel. Breach of Byelaw is a strict liability matter, we are all obliged to comply. The recent unresolved case in your name serves as a warning and I would be surprised if TfL do not prosecute

 

No, inspectors do not receive any commission from prosecuting people. Yes, Stigy is of course correct, these are summary offences summonsed to be heard by Magistrates in criminal Courts.

 

Although these are private prosecutions, brought by TfL in this case, or by the Rail Companies as appropriate, ALL prosecutors are obliged to consider the CPS 'public interest' test in bringing these cases.

 

Extracts from the guidelines say

 

"Fare Evasion is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport. The fact that it is widespread is a relevant public interest factor and we must also take account of the general principles covering prosecution for all offences of dishonesty. Such offences will involve using a variety of statutory offences dating back to the 1840's" and these notes go on to say "There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion and ticketless travel.."

 

The amount of the fare is not the relevant factor, the fact that it has gone unpaid when opportunities were available to pay the fare before travelling is relevant.

 

The opportunity to accept an administrative penalty as an alternative to Court action is a privately considered civil remedy. It is not encumbent on the transport operator to offer it ( if the operator demands a high charge it could be counter productive ) and the alleged offender is not forced to take up the chance.

 

It is the transport operator who decides whether the case goes to Court or not.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Old-CodJA
corrected typo

[Engelbert]

Even so, this is a private case, and being non-CPS the public interest doesn't come in to it, only the TOC or TfL's interest, therefore they can seek to prosecute to their heart's content!

 

The criminal courts do not exist to allow private companies to exact vengeance. They exist to uphold the law in the public interest. If one thinks that a private prosecution is not in the public interest one can apply to the CPS to take over and halt a private prosecution. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#stop

Edited August 19, 2011 by Engelbert

[Grotesque]

The courts do not exist to allow private companies to exact vengeance. They exist to uphold the law in the public interest.

 

If a railway company believes it is owed money it has a right and a duty under its franchise agreement to GET IT BACK. Regardless of how insignificant the amount. And that is not vengance, that is protecting revenue.

[Engelbert]

bigfluffy, regarding the cost of an out of court settlement, maybe my experience can offer a little (false?) hope. I was recently the subject of a criminal prosecution by First Capital Connect under railway byelaw 18(2) for travel without a valid ticket (I had a ticket, but using a railcard which I hadn't realised had expired). Rather than writing a grovelling letter and offering to pay several hundred pounds of costs for an out of court settlement (which seems to be the standard advice here), I stood my ground, pointing out how they had breached the penalty fare rules in varied and repeated ways, had not followed the correct procedure for taking a statement under caution, and various other legal arguments (details of my case that probably won't apply to you). After much correspondence, including a 7 page letter drafted by a trainee solicitor friend of mine, which included an offer to resolve the matter by a penalty fare, FCC offered to drop the prosecution in exchange for £20, which I accepted.

 

What I take from this is it is like a game of poker, with a lot of bluffing. If you can persuade them that you have a strong case and give them the impression you have incurred thousands of pounds of legal costs which they are likely to have to pay if you are found not guilty (or have the case dismissed as an abuse of process which was my argument), they will fold.

 

I intend to post details of my experience in the future when I have the time.

 

Best wishes, and keep your spirits up. Don't let them get you down

[Engelbert]

If a railway company believes it is owed money it has a right and a duty under its franchise agreement to GET IT BACK. Regardless of how insignificant the amount. And that is not vengance, that is protecting revenue.

 

Indeed, if you don't pay your fare the railway company has a right to collect it. But if the sole concern is to collect the correct fare, why not allow the passenger to pay when the mistake is realised? Or sue for damages in the civil court? By bringing criminal charges they are seeking to impose serious additional punishment on top of recovering the lost revenue and for this the public interest must be considered.

 

I would also add that "Revenue Protection Inspector" can be a rather ironic name. Due to FCC's action, I now boycott FCC trains, so they have lost a lot of potential revenue!

[Old-CodJA]

What I take from this is it is like a game of poker, with a lot of bluffing. If you can persuade them that you have a strong case and give them the impression you have incurred thousands of pounds of legal costs which they are likely to have to pay if you are found not guilty (or have the case dismissed as an abuse of process which was my argument), they will fold.

 

Englebert is right in parts - perhaps sometimes it is like a game of poker

 

Yes, you could try that. In most cases it results in receipt of a Summons. Lots of people write in complaining that they have been subjected to all sorts of horrors to deflect attention from the real matter in hand. We get many, many such letters every week.

 

Those prosecutors who do know their stuff and have made sure of the evidence beforehand are never fazed by such threats.

 

If you go down that route you could then go to Court, plead 'not guilty' and if acquitted of the summary offence you can apply to the Court for your 'thousands of pounds of legal costs', which you will have to evidence of course. Unless you have taken the risk of engaging an expensive representation, you will get your out of pocket travel expenses (usually paid by central funds) and you could try taking out a civil action for any loss of earnings.

 

Prosecution offices vary, but the acquittal rate is less than one in a hundred and administrative settlements probably average 10 - 15%.

 

Abuse of process? I honestly have never had experience of that formally levied at cases dealt with by our offices. People often waive this 'flag' in correspondence, but not before a Court in my experience.

 

I cannot remember hearing of one anywhere in recent years, but that's probably because, like the vast majority of prosecutors who are engaged in this line of work, there are so many 'deserving to be summonsed' cases it isn't necessary to look for borderline stuff to fill a list. In fact, most would prefer a lighter workload.

 

In practice, settlements may sometimes come about because a prosecutor might be looking at managing Court loading. I'm one of those who don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but there are so many cases being reported it isn't unusual to hear colleagues on other areas say something along these lines:

 

'If issuing a summons means that complete pain in the proverbial is going to drag out a session with a lot of clap-trap, even if I know it will result in conviction, I'm not bringing witnesses off revenue earning duties and putting other cases to another day just to let that twit have his day in court. We'll offer him an easy settlement and mark the file record. If he pays, well so what, if he doesn't we can show the court we've made every effort to resolve it and we have a record of a previous warning on file if he comes to notice again.'

 

Now, you might think that suggests being a 'pain' is a good way to go. Pretty risky I'd say......

 

It's a matter for you.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[tidon]

WOW....! all this over 40p.? and for that reason.. i'm out.!

[Grotesque]

It's NOT over 40p. It's over an UNPAID FARE. I have no idea why that concept is so difficult for sme people to grasp.

[Stigy]

It's NOT over 40p. It's over an UNPAID FARE. I have no idea why that concept is so difficult for sme people to grasp.

Indeed, the 40p doesn't come in to the equation here, and even if it did, it would be 40p that is owed!

[tidon]

It's NOT over 40p. It's over an UNPAID FARE. I have no idea why that concept is so difficult for sme people to grasp.

 

 

I find it quite easy to grasp as I'm talking about the first time when she said "1 stop later the ticket man came and checked my card, and i had 40p less then the price"

So when i said "WOW....! all this over 40p." she is already been taken to magistrates court for the amount of been 40p short so to me all these hundreds of pounds thats going to be spent taking her to court over 40p then yes, i'm sure they is a better way to recover the debt and incur a small fine rather than going through all that.?

 

In the second paragraph she got caught over a UNPAID FARE but i were not on about that so no need to dis me man..!!

[Stigy]

I find it quite easy to grasp as I'm talking about the first time when she said "1 stop later the ticket man came and checked my card, and i had 40p less then the price"

So when i said "WOW....! all this over 40p." she is already been taken to magistrates court for the amount of been 40p short so to me all these hundreds of pounds thats going to be spent taking her to court over 40p then yes, i'm sure they is a better way to recover the debt and incur a small fine rather than going through all that.?

 

In the second paragraph she got caught over a UNPAID FARE but i were not on about that so no need to dis me man..!!

Being an Oyster Card, it would be the price of a full single journey fare that's being prosecuted, because as I said earlier, being 40p short, or 5p short is irrelevant as the card would have been read by the reader as invalid so no fare has been paid OR part paid.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, exactly so Stigy.

 

In really simple terms it is the same as going to a ticket machine intending to make a journey where the fare is £5.00 and only having a total means of £4.60 with you.

 

The machine will not issue the ticket because you don't have enough money.

 

In that instance the fare that is due is £5.00 not 40p and that is the same here

[tidon]

Yes, exactly so Stigy.

 

In really simple terms it is the same as going to a ticket machine intending to make a journey where the fare is £5.00 and only having a total means of £4.60 with you.

 

The machine will not issue the ticket because you don't have enough money.

 

In that instance the fare that is due is £5.00 not 40p and that is the same here

 

Well now you've explained it like that then yes it makes sense and basically no matter what she says she is going to have to take it on the chin and pay what she owes.. simple..!

[rambo]

No sympathy.........

[Enchiridion]

I have looked on the TfL website about Oystercards. Nowhere could I find any warning about the consequences of having insufficient credit on the card to pay the full fare. In the old days when I travelled on London's buses (more than 40 years ago; they were proper Routemasters then) you got on the bus and waited for the conductor to come round. You said where you wanted to go and he told you the fare. If you didn't have enough money, you would tell him how much you had and he would sell you a ticket for that amount. You would then ask him to tell you where you had to get off. You would then walk the remainder of your journey for which you didn't have the fare.

 

It seems to me that Oystercards are being presented as electronic cash so that people think that they will behave as cash used to do with conductors on buses. But they actually have a very nasty bite, which you aren't told about in advance. It's really rather like swimming off the Seychelles: the sharks are prowling, ready to tear your leg off (or worse) while the management are telling you everything's fine and please keep on using our service. In fact, it's worse than swimming off the Seychelles, because it's the management who have put the sharks in the sea.

 

What actually happens, as bigfluffy has found out, is that management has written a nasty set of rules. These specify that if you haven't got enough credit on your Oystercard when you touch out, you are deemed to be a "fare dodger" and are prosecuted. Never mind that you might have enough cash to pay the balance. They have written the rules so that all that they need to prove is that you didn't have enough credit on your Oystercard for your journey (this is what "strict liability" means). They conveniently ensure that it is the poor who will suffer because those with more money will have set up an auto top-up for their Oystercard or will have a smartphone and the ability to top-up using a credit card where they are, without the need to exit the barrier in order to reach a place where they can top-up. Of course, there is no indication in the guff about auto top-up that it provides this protection: it's just nice of TfL management to ensure that the sharks won't bite those who might be effective in complaining about the shark-infested waters.

 

Note that TfL management could prevent pay-as-you-go users from falling into this trap. They could impose a minimum balance of £8 before you could use the Oystercard. Then if you had enough credit to touch in, you would have enough credit for whatever journey you made. I wonder why they don't.

 

So, bigfluffy, I regret to advise you that the sharks have tasted your blood and they want more. It's grossly unfair, but then fairness is not what the law (at least this law) is about. It's a money-making exercise, pure and simple. You are prey and they have caught you. Although it won't help you directly, write to your MP, explain what has happened and complain about the lack of warning as to what happens if you haven't got enough credit on your Oystercard for the journey you are making.

[Nystagmite]

Note that TfL management could prevent pay-as-you-go users from falling into this trap. They could impose a minimum balance of £8 before you could use the Oystercard. Then if you had enough credit to touch in, you would have enough credit for whatever journey you made. I wonder why they don't.

 

Because it's your responsibility to check that you have enough money - not TfLs.

[Grotesque]

It seems to me that Oystercards are being presented as electronic cash so that people think that they will behave as cash used to do with conductors on buses.

 

Actually you're right; they an electronic (means of carrying) cash. To continue your analogy, this seems to be a situation where someone ran out of fare... but didn't walk the rest of the way.

 

They already have a system in place which does "impose a minimum balance": If you do not have sufficient credit on your PAYG Oyster, you cannot touch in. If you have sufficient credit to pay the minimum fare you can travel; and your balance will be put in the negative; you can still touch out, and be in a minus, thus having to 'top-up' next time you enter the system.

 

You seem to have not noticed that the OP (no disrespect personally) has boarded a bus twice in two (?) months without a ticket and been caught. You are presumably aware that even on buses it is a responsibility of the passenger to ensure (s)he has a valid ticket. That was exactly the same, by the way, as when you caught your beloved RM's 40 years ago. You would have still got prosecuted if you had travelled without a ticket or the means to pay for one... In 1971.

 

However you are right for a third time (I know, I couldn't believe that myself), in that it is unlikely any MP will find it within his powers to over-turn laws which are mildly older than the privatisation of the railways.

 

BTW, on that note, you claim in your post that "it's a money-making exercise, pure and simple" so I would like to know: for whom?

[SRPO]

The main problem with oystercards is that if you are found to be errant when using one, it all depends on who deals with the matter as to the penalty.

TFL charge the max fare,or if you get spoken to by an inspector you may get charged £20 or prosecuted. Its someting that really should be sorted out.

[Old-CodJA]

The main problem with oystercards is that if you are found to be errant when using one, it all depends on who deals with the matter as to the penalty.

TFL charge the max fare,or if you get spoken to by an inspector you may get charged £20 or prosecuted. Its someting that really should be sorted out.

 

That's exactly the same with rail tickets and the TOCs. It depends on who detects the fact that the traveller hasn't got a ticket. In many cases if it's a train manager/conductor/guard then the traveller may be given an opportunity to pay the fare, but if it's a Revenue Inspector then a report is more likely. In fact, so far as railways are concerned, the remedy might be described as even more piecemeal, some have a penalty fare scheme and some do not.

 

The one common fact is that if an intending traveller does not have a valid ticket, or acceptable means to pay if facilities were not available, then that person does not have a right to use the train/bus to travel. It seems that the real problem is that far too many people will accept no responsibility for their own actions these days and are always looking for a way to blame others for their shortfall.

 

Nystagmite hit the nail fairly on the head in answer to Enchiridion.

 

Because it's your responsibility to check that you have enough money - not TfLs.

[Enchiridion]

As will be clear from my previous post, I don't have any experience of Oystercards, least of all on buses (I prefer walking in zone 1 to using public transport). On the tube the impression which I have is that you can't get onto the platform without going through a barrier and the barrier only opens if you touch in with at least the minimum fare. On one-man-operated buses you used to have to pay the driver on entry or show him your pass. Is it the case that with Oystercards that you now board the bus, the doors close and then you are meant to touch in? If so, this is obviously a fail-dangerous system for passengers, especially when the bus is so full that it's hard to reach the touching-in point.

 

Is TfL trying to run a transport system in which it collects the revenues which are its due or is it trying to get extra revenues by providing traps for the unwary? Mobile phones have caused hotels to lose their revenue stream from overpriced telephone calls. Few people now fall for the $10 soda in minibars. But TfL and the railway companies seem to believe that they can run a business in which they charge £250 to travellers who make mistakes.