Ticket problems-please help.

[Podworthy]

Hi,

I have read some of the other posts about First Capital Connect and would really welcome some advice. I have received a Notice of Intention to Prosecute after accidentally travelling with an invalid ticket and am very worried. I think I have been misled by FCC staff and am not sure what to do.

On Monday 2nd August, I travelled back from Kings Cross to St Neots on the return half of a travelcard. When I arrived at St Neots, I was told my ticket was not valid on that train as it was an off peak one and that I needed to upgrade at the cost of £14. I had no money on me, and said that I would bring money back to pay the excess. I gave the inspector my details, who then said that returning would not be necessary, as ‘’they will send you a bill’’ for the amount, to my address. Having returned home, I did wonder whether to return the following day with the money, but decided against it, thinking that it may confuse the system that had been started. I had not been given any paperwork, so I then waited for the promised bill to arrive.

Upon receiving the Notice of Intention to Prosecute I returned to St Neots train station to ask what had happened. I spoke to the woman in the ticket office, who referred me to the inspector (not the original one) who told me that there is no such bill.

I feel very strongly that I have been dangerously misinformed throughout this process. I bought my ticket at the ticket office at St Neots in the morning and was not advised of any restrictions on travel. I asked for a return to London, covering the underground. It seems that the woman who works in the office always asks when you intend to return, but other employees do not necessarily do the same. I was absolutely not asked this. Furthermore, in the ticket hall at St Neots there is no notice advising on travel restrictions- there is one about penalty fares, but nothing to say when these restrictions apply. I was able to board the train at Kings Cross with no difficulty going through the barrier; had there been, I would have been alerted to a problem with my ticket. As it was, I was unaware that I should not be on the train.

I have never knowingly travelled with an invalid ticket and at no time have I tried, nor would I try to avoid paying my fare. Although I had no money on me, I would have certainly returned with it, or, had that been unacceptable, rung home to ask someone to bring it straight to the station. It did not occur to me that the information given to me would be incorrect, and lead to this situation.

I am still waiting to find out how to pay the £14 to upgrade my ticket. I want to settle the amount, and would have done so with haste had I not been misled.

I replied to the NoIP straight away explaining the situation but have now received a letter saying they intend to proceed. What should I do? I just want to pay my fare and sort this out, without getting into trouble.

[Old-CodJA]

An off-peak ticket will normally have the indication 'OFF PEAK' printed on it. If you still have a part of the ticket or a similar one, perhaps you can scan and post here.

[Podworthy]

Unfortunately I don't have the ticket- the ticket inspector kept it. I don't think there is any doubt that it was off peak, as I bought it and travelled to London around midday. The thing is, I didn't know about the restriction on the return times. I should not have travelled back between 4.30 and 7.00pm, but was unaware of that. I feel stupid not knowing, but have just finished uni and for the last few years seem to have been using open return tickets to the west country which didn't seem to have any restrictions except sometimes in the mornings. As my railcard couldn't be used until after certain times in the morning I didn't travel then. I know I was wrong travelling when I did (now) but it was a genuine mistake and I am very worried about how this might affect me. I am also upset that I seem to have been misled at the station, being told not to bother bringing the excess in as I would be sent a bill (her words!) I was simply waiting for an invoice or something so I could settle the amount outstanding.

[Old-CodJA]

In my experience, if a member of FCC staff had intended you to be given an opportunity to pay they would have issued an unpaid fare notice. If you were reported as your description suggests it would seem that you will have been questioned by an inspector and a written report made. Her notebook record, which she probably asked you to sign, will help in this instance.

 

It seems clear that if you were not given a Penalty Fare Notice, she must have made a notebook record, because that is where the details of the incident and your name and address will have been taken from for the company to have written to you.

 

Normally these tickets are marked OFF PEAK and either RESTRICTIONS ADVISED or SEE RESTRICTIONS. Unfortunately, ignorance of a rule isn't a defence and with the reminder printed on the ticket it is the travellers responsibility to check before boarding a train.

 

You may write and ask them to reconsider, but it seems they are likely to need convinging that it is in their better interests to settle without Court action.

 

There is a strict liablility requirement of railway Byelaws that says it is always the traveller's responsibility to ensure they have paid the correct fare and hold a fully valid ticket before travelling where facilities were available to them.

 

It seems that you are at a damage limitation stage. If you have not been reported previously and not had a penalty fare notice in the recent past, I would write a letter of apology and ask if the company will allow you to pay the admin costs plus the unpaid difference of fares as an alternative to Court action. They do not have to agree

 

You might choose to say this was a one-off error, that you offer an apology to the staff concerned and an undertaking to ensure that you always hold a valid ticket in future.

[Podworthy]

Thank you for your advice. If I write would it be a good idea to point out that I am an honest person, demonstrated by the fact that the day I travelled, I had left my YP railcard at home, so I bought a full price ticket and didn't use the ticket machine outside to try and get a reduced fare, or would that be irrelevant. Ironically enough, I have found that the only place at that station which lists the time restrictions on off peak tickets is a small notice on the ticket machines. I wish I had used one now as I might have seen it. (Still would have paid the full fare because I NEVER INTENDED TO DODGE PAYING!)

[Engelbert]

The afternoon peaks are an invention of the last few years on commuter lines into London that are poorly advertised (trying to find out when they are even when you know they exist from FCC's website is impossible), it's not a surprise you weren't aware of them.

 

When a ticket is invalid due to off-peak restriction such as this, the train company are not allowed to charge you a penalty fare, as a recognition this is a minor mistake. However, that they are allowed to and then choose to bring a criminal prosecution under the railway byelaws instead is peverse and cruel.

[Podworthy]

Thank you for your comments, I'm glad it doesn't just seem harsh to me. I'm still trying to get my head round the fact that I'm in trouble for not knowing something that seems to be something you wouldn't know unless you knew-if you see what I mean. However, I will write and apologise and see if FCC will relent. If not, well... Certainly rapidly going off train travel.

[Engelbert]

Yes, I think it's a good idea to take a conciliatory tone initially. At the same time, I would also encourage you to write to your MP about this. Another approach, should they continue with the prosecution, is to write to the Crown Prosecution Service and ask them to take over and halt the prosecution as it is not in the public interest. There are details of this at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/private_prosecutions/#an06. MPs and the CPS actually have power, so the more they are made aware of the FCC bullies the more likely something will be done about them.

[honeybee13]

Hello OP and Englebert. I have no idea about this Englebert, but do you think the CPS can take over the prosecution? I've never heard of this, but I know that you said recently that you rate the CPS over rail company prosecutors.

 

Some people don't rate the CPS, but I guess that's a different argument not for this forum.

 

My best, HB

[Engelbert]

They most certainly can, whether they will I don't know. In my case I had drafted but not yet sent a letter to the CPS when FCC dropped the prosecution.

[Podworthy]

I have written apologetically asking whether they will settle. If they won't and I have to go to court, presumably I have to plead guilty, as I am not saying I didn't have an invalid ticket. But if I do, will I be able to explain what happened and what the inspector said to me (about being sent a bill, for example).I have read the sticky thread about what happens which is helpful, but I don't want to make any more accidental mistakes!

[Podworthy]

Please help-panicking now. I sent a letter yesterday by special delivery asking if FCC would consider settling out of court, but it has crossed in the post with a summons for the week after next. Could they still change their minds?

Also, the summons has my date of birth wrong (I gave the right one, it shows on the copy of the report). Can this help? In addition, the comments on the report are not what I remember saying . They are paraphrased at least, and as I keep repeating, probably boringly, I was told I would be sent a bill. The report says I was told it would be reported. I signed it though, because of the bill comment. If I have to go, what do I do. I'm not not guilty because I had the wrong ticket, but how do I explain?

[Nystagmite]

I'm not not guilty because I had the wrong ticket

 

How does that work? You travelled with an invalid ticket.

[Engelbert]

How does that work? You travelled with an invalid ticket.

 

It works because you have failed to read what he said carefully "not not".

[Engelbert]

Podworthy,

 

Firstly, keep calm and try to keep your spirits up. I know it's a very unpleasant experience to receive a court summons (I got butterflies in my stomach for several days) but "illegitimi non carborundum". Yes, FCC can still drop the prosecution right up until you go into the courtroom (indeed I even went to court once for an initial meeting with them before they dropped it) but will need persuading.

 

I'm not an expert in the procedural matters, but i think the wrong DOB won't save you, it will just cause FCC a little bit of administrative hassle.

 

I'm not surprised the comments on the report are wrong, they made stuff up in my case too. The court summons should contain a photocopy of the inspectors report/witness statement which you both signed. Do you have this and does it look as you remember? I know that in the heat of the moment and under pressure from an authority figure it is very easy to sign things you shouldn't. If you have signed something that says things you now dispute that does make it trickier. I had signed something that was literally correct, but misleading in its implications and disputed the evidence as such.

 

The summons will likely also include a "Statement of Facts" which is their paraphrasing of the event which will be read in court if you plead guilty by post. They can lie as much as they want here and you can reject it easily as it is not primary evidence with your signature on it.

 

You could phone them up and let them know you've got a letter on the way and hope they offer to settle, and don't ask for a too extortionate amount of money to do so. But you need to plan what to do if they continue with the prosecution.

 

One options is to plead guilty, with the mitigation that you are an honest person who did not intend to buy an invalid ticket and was unaware of the afternoon peaks (do mention this, if the magistrates are similiarly unaware it will buy you sympathy). The bit about the inspector misleading you about the threat of prosecution might help a little too. The problem with this approach is FCC have got what they want, a guilty plea, and you are likely to get a criminal conviction. There is a (small) chance, having heard your mitigation, the magistrates feel nice and give you a discharge instead. There was a case involving a girl in Liverpool prosecuted under the railway byelaws for putting her feet on the seats who was given an absoulute discharge. It probaly helped that she was a pretty girl who helped disabled children in after school clubs.

 

If, like me, you really don't want a criminal conviction (the stain on reputation, difficulties with career, travel, CRB clearance for voluntary work etc.) and are prepared to put in time and effort (and possibly money too for legal help, a legal friend helped me pro bono) you can fight to avoid the case going to court. My summons included a form with 3 options

 

1. accept their evidence and plead guilty by post
   
2. accept their evidence and plead guilty in person
   
3. plead not guilty and appear in person later
   

I was not sure what to do as, like you, I disputed their evidence but recognised I was nonethless guilty. I asked the court which of these 3 options I should pick and did not get a satisfactory answer. It seems that by disputing their evidence I am assumed to plead not guilty. That seems to be a reflection of the adversarial nature of the British courts, the truth doesn't matter as much as A vs B. This means the case will be delayed and you will be asked if you wish to call witnesses. You have to think whether you wish to call the inspector as a witness: he will likely stick to FCCs story and be well-practiced at lying in court, whilst you are not. I decided I was most effective arguing my case in writing rather than standing up in court.

 

Back to the CPS angle. Just because you have technically commited an offence does not mean you should be prosecuted for it. To quote Sir Hartley Shawcross's classic statement on public interest "It has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". A Prosecution must only be brought if it satisfies the CPS's Full Code Test, details at http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html. This includes "Some common public interest factors tending against prosecution" such as 17.b. "the seriousness and the consequences of the offending can be appropriately dealt with by an out-of-court disposal which the suspect accepts and with which he or she complies" and 17.d. "the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding". These appear to apply to your case so I think it's definitely worth a shot.

 

Good luck!

Edited October 14, 2011 by Engelbert

[honeybee13]

Duplicate posts, Englebert.

 

My best, HB

[Old-CodJA]

Englebert is correct in the matter of procedural application in respect of the CPS and the 'public interest test', but THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT that any prosecution witness statement must be signed by the defendant before it can be admissible in court

 

The witness statement (MG11 or Section 9 in jargon) is the reporting officer's statement of what occurred. S/he will sign it as a 'true account' of what happened in detecting the alleged offence and signs to confirm that s/he understands that s/he 'may be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it, which I know to be false or do not believe to be true'

 

This statement does not need to be signed by the defendant

 

Where I believe Englebert is getting confused and to some extent 'muddying the waters', is in relation to the PACE Codes of Practice.(Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984.)

 

When a 'suspect', in this instance the rail traveller who des not hold a valid ticket, is interviewed under caution, there is a requirement that the reporting officer must read back his/her notes aloud and whilst allowing the suspect to read what has been written. At the end of this, if they both agree that the notes taken in a pocket book are a true record of the interview, then the officer must give the opportunity to the suspect to sign those notes. If the suspect refuses or fails to sign the notes this will not prevent action being brought, but the officer will record the refusal or failure at the end of the note, sign and date and get it independently witnessed if possible.

 

Where a full statement is given by a suspect under caution at a Police station, or other location where it is possible to make out a full statement by the alleged offender, then that statement does have to be signed by the person giving it and s/he will also be required to sign the acceptance of truth shown in bold in the second paragraph of this post.

 

In addition to the above, I think it very important to consider what the guidelines to CPS actually say about private prosecutions and to that end, the following two extracts from the instructions to CPS Lawyers should be read & noted:

　

1. When CPS should not take over a private prosecution

 

You should not take over a private prosecution if the papers clearly show that:

 

the evidential sufficiency stage of the Full Code Test is met; and

 

the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is met; and

 

there is no particular need for the CPS to take over the prosecution (either to stop or continue with the prosecution).

 

2. In general, the CPS will not take over a private prosecution because of misconduct or alleged misconduct by the private prosecutor. It is not the role of the CPS to discipline private prosecutors: it is for the courts to control private prosecutors. Where a court or a defendant asks the CPS to take over the case because of misconduct by the private prosecutor, you will examine the case to see whether it falls within one of the categories that would allow this course of action and take the case over only if it does.

 

I don't say that a ticket irregularity of the type referred to here always warrants prosecution, but there are circumstances in which it might. We are not party to all the information that might be relevant in this case, like all the other posts, we only get one side of the information.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Old-CodJA
added relevant information

[Engelbert]

but THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT that any prosecution witness statement must be signed by the defendant before it can be admissible in court

 

I never claimed there was, apologies if my point was not clear. I was simply saying that if you have signed a statement which is inconsistent with the story you now give, it's a harder case to fight.

[Old-CodJA]

The court summons should contain a photocopy of the inspectors report/witness statement which you both signed. Do you have this and does it look as you remember?

 

Yes, that certainly could be considered misleading.

 

As a matter of added assistance, another of the instructions to CPS Lawyers taken from their procedural guide might be noted too:

 

Fare Evasion

This is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport. The fact that it is widespread is a relevant public interest factor. Remember also the general principles covering prosecution for all offences of dishonesty.

 

.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Old-CodJA
spelling

[Engelbert]

Fare Evasion

 

Podworthy has NOT committed fare evasion. Fare evasion is the deliberate action of avoiding paying the correct fare. An honest mistake is not fare evasion, and is not a dishonesty offence. I'm rather disappointed an expert in the industry makes this mistake.

 

The following from the House of Commons Transport Committee's 5th report of 2007/8 "Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport" is pertinent:

54. Too much revenue is being lost through a failure of the transport operators to provide

the appropriate ticket sales facilities, to sell tickets on-board, and to carry out basic checks.

This is not the same as fare evasion. It is simply non-collection of fares.

[Old-CodJA]

You may be surprised Englebert, but I am not surprised that you continue not to read what I have posted and would rather continue to post irrelevant extracts, which are designed to continue muddying the water. The HoC report extract refers to people who have been unable to purchase a ticket, not people using invalid tickets.

 

You persist in giving what you suggest to be definitive advice based on only one side of the evidence however, I refuse to do that

 

For example; If a traveller purchases a cheap day return or other reduced fare ticket that is time restricted and is purchased in advance, with the intention of using it at a time when a higher fare applies, that is fare evasion.

 

The rule is clear in saying 'having not paid the correct fare or part thereof'

 

I am not saying that is what happened in this case, but I am not naieve enough to base all my responses on unverified information.

 

Yes, the general premis is 'innocent until proven guilty', but until I have seen BOTH sides of the case, I will not make any call other than outline the requirements as defined by law.

 

It may also surprise you to know that sometimes people say 'I didn't do it guv!' and the evidence proves otherwise.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[Engelbert]

that you continue not to read what I have posted

I had read what you wrote, even if I didn't respond to all the points.

 

The point of the House of Commons extract was to show "fare evasion" is only a subset of all ticket infractions (so perhaps your CPS quotes about fare evasion are "muddying the water").

 

Regarding the CPS not taking over prosecutions because of alleged misconduct, fair point, and that was never my suggestion. I suggested going for the approach of a failure to correctly apply the public interest test, notably 17b and 17d.

 

Yes, my posts are based on what Podworthy says. Maybe he is a liar, but his story seems eminently plausible to me and I see little point assuming otherwise, or prefixing every post with "Based on what the OP says...".

 

If the traveler purchases a cheap day return with the intention of using it at a time it is invalid, but is of the genuine belief it is valid, then there is no mens rea so no fare evasion. If FCC allege intent and the OP doesn't then he has to convince the court he didn't know about afternoon peaks. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and I would hope he succeeds. On the other hand, if you said you genuinely held the belief that the piece of paper with "ticket" scrawled on in crayon you bought from a guy in the car park for £1 was a valid ticket...

 

Let's see if he comes back...

Edited October 26, 2011 by Engelbert

[Old-CodJA]

The point of the House of Commons extract was to show "fare evasion" is only a subset of all ticket infractions (so perhaps your CPS quotes about fare evasion are "muddying the water").

 

Regarding the CPS not taking over prosecutions because of alleged misconduct, fair point, and that was never my suggestion. I suggested going for the approach of a failure to correctly apply the public interest test, notably 17b and 17d.

 

Yes, my posts are based on what Podworthy says. Maybe he is a liar, but his story seems eminently plausible to me and I see little point assuming otherwise, or prefixing every post with "Based on what the OP says...".

 

If the traveler purchases a cheap day return with the intention of using it at a time it is invalid, but is of the genuine belief it is valid, then there is no mens rea so no fare evasion. If FCC allege intent and the OP doesn't then he has to convince the court he didn't know about afternoon peaks. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and I would hope he succeeds. On the other hand, if you said you genuinely held the belief that the piece of paper with "ticket" scrawled on in crayon you bought from a guy in the car park for £1 was a valid ticket...

 

Let's see if he comes back...

 

In the main I actually AGREE with a great deal of what you have said Englebert, but you do give some odd offerings at times...

 

It seems it's OK for you to lead with 'my posts are based on what Podworthy says...', but not OK for me to say 'Based on what the OP says...' I'm confused.....I thought Podworthy was the OP...

 

no-one has alleged that Podworthy has been charged with 'fare-evasion' so far as I can see. You seem to have taken my quoted extract from CPS guidelines relating to prosecution of transport offences as a definitive charge against Podworthy.

 

Factually, neither of us know exactly what the OP has been charged with as it is not defined anywhere in the thread and therefore continuing to discuss a defence to a fare evasion charge isn't going to help much if the OP is charged with breach of Byelaw. That's why I don't make assumptions based on only one side of the story.

 

I'm not saying Podworthy is a liar, I'm saying I haven't seen evidence to support either view.

 

What I do know is that if the ticket inspector retained the ticket it should state on it whether or not it was an OFF PEAK ticket and it will normally carry the legend SEE RESTRICTIONS or RESTRICTIONS ADVISED. The TOC will likely produce this amongst their evidence and it will then be up to the Magistrates to decide after hearing all the evidence from both sides.

 

Yes, let's wait and see

[Podworthy]

Hi, just wanted to update and thank you for the advice given. This is finally sorted out. I wrote asking if FCC would settle, but this crossed with a date for the court hearing. I sent the papers back to the court, pleading guilty, but enclosing a letter explaining what had happened, two character references from family friends and another from my employer. The afternoon before the day of the hearing FCC called to say they would consider settling and would adjourn the hearing. Because this was such short notice I thought I had better go to the court the next morning, just in case, which turned out to be wise as the court didn't know of the decision and the FCC representative was late. She arrived just as my name was called. However, the case was then adjourned and she was actually helpful and pleasant. She advised me to offer the money due on the ticket and the costs to start with, which is what I'd already suggested, and to email the offer as an attachment to an email to her. Apparently they don't give out the email address for the person who makes the decisions (can't imagine why!). Anyway, that is what I did and they got back to me fairly quickly, accepting the offer, so I paid £124.50 and that was that. I am still very annoyed about the whole business, really because it is so galling to be treated that way when you had no intention of doing anything wrong and were also polite and willing to rectify the situation when the mistake was pointed out, but at least it is sorted out, and I will take care not to get caught out again. And thanks again for your help, it was much appreciated.

[Old-CodJA]

I am pleased it is resolved without a conviction and thanks for letting us know