Rail caution/prosecution - one stop over on monthly season ticket

[MedStudentUK]

Hi there,

 

Like some advice please.

 

I am a mature medical student. Been abroad many years, and only since August back in the UK in a new area I've never been in before.

 

I have over-riden one stop on my train season ticket.

 

My aim was to attend a one-off academic event in the evening, being held one stop past my usual return destination after university.

 

I was late for my train and I saw no conductor on my journey, which didn't worry me as I assumed I could pay my extension to my season ticket at the destination. This is where my ignorance lies.

 

I asked railway staff if I could pay on my way out, I didn't try to make a dash. The amount would be under £2.

 

I had my monthly season ticket confiscated (worth over £80). I had to buy another monthly the next day.

 

I was questioned brusquely under caution.

 

A colleague from my medical course was screamed at and asked to leave the area by security, because she clarified a question by the Revenue Protection Officer that was unclear, and that I had misunderstood.

 

I acted reasonably and with complicity throughout, although I was a little guarded as we are trained not to accept police cautions as medical students.

 

I am awaiting a letter from the Prosecution Dept.

 

Yesterday (a day after the incident), I wrote a conciliatory email to the train company outlining my regret, my intention never to make the mistake again, and a request for leniency due to my medical student status. I kept to the truth and have an independent witness to corroborate my entire story, including the fact that it was always my intention to pay.

 

I am of the belief that it is sometimes possible to pay extension tickets at this station, for instance in rush hour.

 

I am intending to take some independent legal advice, either through CAB or via a CFA accredited solicitor. The cheaper option the better, for my student pocket.

 

It is my belief that it's unlikely they will take me to court (although they could), and that they will likely issue me with a fine.

 

My questions are thus:

 

1. What are the likely outcomes of this scenario? How much could I be fined?

 

2. Why would my season ticket be confiscated, as well as a prosecution considered? Is this normal?

 

3. I have been told that it is best to pay any fine, then go through the appeals process. Anybody have any views or

 

4. I am considering contacting my MP, as I feel my treatment was overtly aggressive and the company are abusing their power by implementing incongruous fines (e.g I could be fined £200+ for a

 

5. Are certain rail companies more aggressively pursuing fare-dodging than others? What is the rationale behind this and what effect is it having?

 

6. Are there a set of regulations or 'best practice' guidelines around penalty fares/prosecutions? What rail companies are signed up to these? Is there a level of consistency for certain offences?

 

7. If the case went to court, am I correct in thinking that the burden of proof is on the rail company providing proof that I intended to not pay my fare? What is my status here?

 

8. What reason would a Rail Company have for choosing not to issue a penalty fare, rather than going through this long-winded process? Would they really go to court for a fare this small?

 

9. Any further advice around my status as med student/prosecution status gratefully appreciated.

 

Thanks everyone for your time.

 

Ryan

[MedStudentUK]

Relating to question 3 above, should read:

 

3. I have been told that it is best to pay any fine, then go through the appeals process. Anybody have any views or experience on this process and its likely outcome?

[MedStudentUK]

Relating to question 3 above, should read:

 

3. I have been told that it is best to pay any fine, then go through the appeals process. Anybody have any views or experience on this process and its likely outcome?

[SRPO]

I acted reasonably and with complicity throughout, although I was a little guarded as we are trained not to accept police cautions as medical students.

 

Can you expand on this statement?

[MedStudentUK]

Sure.

 

During my first year at med school, I've become well well aware of 'fitness to practice' procedures and GMC guidelines for medical students. I'm therefore more cautious than most when it comes to being 'guilty by association'. What I mean by this is that I'll tend to avoid incidences where I might be offered a police caution, for instance if I went out with a group for a drink, and said group was drunk and disorderly, I might be cautioned for being part of that group even when I myself was sober.

 

I have heard cases of police falsely telling medical students that a caution will not show up on a CRB check when in fact it will. We are made aware of this so that we don't accept police cautions and conduct ourselves with extreme probity coupled with caution, until we have checked with one of the medical defence organisations (I am a member of two). A prosecution, even a police caution, can have serious 'fitness to practice' repercussions.

 

When a caution was read out to me, I didn't know if it was the same thing as a police caution, therefore I was enquiring as to the criminal status of this, to which I wasn't given a clear answer. I suggested that I might need to talk to the MDU to get advice on this, but made a decision to comply regardless, seeing as the police were not involved.

 

I think think the other bit is clear. Does this answer your question?

[RPI]

RPI's are classed as "persons other than police officers" under PACE, this means that they can carry out a PACE interview (as what happened with yourself) but they can only detain somebody under sec 5.2 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

Which TOC was this? may be able to give you an idea of their willingness to settle out of court.

[MedStudentUK]

That's interesting as I supplied my name and address and showed photo ID from the outset. Hence I didn't have to be detained and I was.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to go into specifics on this public forum, but are you able to outline which rail companies are perhaps more litigious?

 

Also if anyone has any other views on the other points that would be greatly appreciated.

[Old-CodJA]

I have added my specific comments re each question in bold.

 

Hi there,

It is my belief that it's unlikely they will take me to court (although they could), and that they will likely issue me with a fine.

 

My questions are thus:

 

1. What are the likely outcomes of this scenario? How much could I be fined?

If prosecution ensues and you are convicted after pleading 'not guilty', the maximum fine for a first offence can be up to £1000. In practice it will normally be around £350

 

2. Why would my season ticket be confiscated, as well as a prosecution considered? Is this normal?

Yes, the season ticket is material to any allegation of misuse and will be held in evidence

 

3. I have been told that it is best to pay any fine, then go through the appeals process. Anybody have any views or

The Rail Company do not have authority to impose 'fines'. This can only be done after conviction and only by the Magistrates. If you request, and are given an opportunity to settle out of Court, which you accept, this is a final resolution.

 

4. I am considering contacting my MP, as I feel my treatment was overtly aggressive and the company are abusing their power by implementing incongruous fines (e.g I could be fined £200+ for a

See my previous comment. You appear to be making an assumption, but have not been issued any 'fine', or demand for payment. The legislation passed by parliament governing the need to hold and show a valid ticket goes back to the 1840's. Any complaint regarding the actions of inspectors should initially be addressed to the Customer Relations department of the TOC concerned. If this happened at a railway station barrier in the last couple of weeks it should be relatively easy to retrieve CCTV footage to confirm your story.

 

5. Are certain rail companies more aggressively pursuing fare-dodging than others? What is the rationale behind this and what effect is it having?

Fare-dodging as you call it has always been targeted by railways revenue teams. It is a criminal act and offenders are dealt with by the Courts under legislation that has stood the test of time. Only you and the inspectors involved know whether what you did warrants action. Both sides of any story have to be assessed to determine whether any offence has been committed.

 

6. Are there a set of regulations or 'best practice' guidelines around penalty fares/prosecutions? What rail companies are signed up to these? Is there a level of consistency for certain offences?

The legislations governing how these offences are dealt with, and penalty fares where appropriate are outlined at the top of this forum. Please do not assume that a penalty fare must always be issued. Some TOCs do not have a penalty fare scheme and where they do, no inspector is obliged to issue a penalty notice if s/he genuinely believes that evidence suggests that other action is warranted.

 

7. If the case went to court, am I correct in thinking that the burden of proof is on the rail company providing proof that I intended to not pay my fare? What is my status here?

Not necessarily. If you are charged with a 'strict liability' Byelaw offence the company does not have to prove that you intended to avoid a fare. There are a number of Byelaws that are relevant to actions which may be reported by Revenue Protection Inspectors. For example; National Railway Byelaw 18.2 says that a traveller must show a valid rail ticket when asked. Byelaw 6.1 deals with unacceptable behaviour and use of offensive language. Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways act (1889) determines the charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' and only if this is charged does the company need to prove that you intended not to pay.

 

8. What reason would a Rail Company have for choosing not to issue a penalty fare, rather than going through this long-winded process? Would they really go to court for a fare this small?

Yes, many thousands of such cases are heard every year. From personal experience, the smallest fare I have ever had to succesfully pursue to conviction was 60p, but it was the actions & unacceptable behaviour of the traveller when challenged by the inspector that escalated the matter to a prosecutable case. There are many reasons why the rail company might decide to pursue it. Have a read through the Byelaws and relevant legislations.

 

9. Any further advice around my status as med student/prosecution status gratefully appreciated.

No particular employment status makes anyone exempt from prosecution. Each case should be assessed on individual merit and any mitigation that you put forward and which is relavent to the charge alleged should be taken into account before the decision to proceed to Summons.

 

Thanks everyone for your time.

 

Ryan

 

If the rail company prosecutor believes that there is evidence to support the case for prosecution this will be assessed against the guidelines given to the CPS by the Home Office and if the case passes the tests applied, a Summons may be issued

 

One of the tests is the 'public interest test and what the guidelines say about this is that prosecution is generally justified because fare evasion is a widespread problem.

 

Hope that helped.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

That's interesting as I supplied my name and address and showed photo ID from the outset. Hence I didn't have to be detained and I was.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to go into specifics on this public forum, but are you able to outline which rail companies are perhaps more litigious?

 

Also if anyone has any other views on the other points that would be greatly appreciated.

 

Two main points arise from this

 

1. Were you actually detained? Many people claim to have been detained when in fact they were asked to answer some questions under caution and in accord with P.A.C.E (1984) guidelines.

 

You were only 'detained' if you were arrested. Were you told you were under arrest?

If so, what offence was specified? If you were arrested a whole host of other legislations and rules kick-in, which must be complied with.

 

 

2. I don't think it is a good idea to post any lists of TOCs that might be considered to be more likely than others to prosecute anyone. There are such a wide range of prosecutable offences that any might choose to prosecute a particular offence having assessed any individual case on merit

 

All that you need to know is whether your case might result in further action and given that all TOCs cover a pretty big geographical area, there is nothing to lose by naming the actual company concerned in this instance. You will not be identified by simply saying I was on XXX train company or at YYYYYY station.

[MedStudentUK]

I have added my specific comments re each question in bold.

 

 

 

If the rail company prosecutor believes that there is evidence to support the case for prosecution this will be assessed against the guidelines given to the CPS by the Home Office and if the case passes the tests applied, a Summons may be issued

 

One of the tests is the 'public interest test and what the guidelines say about this is that prosecution is generally justified because fare evasion is a widespread problem.

 

Hope that helped.

 

This is terrific help thanks.

 

In many ways I'm more baffled than ever by the course of action taken in ny case. Yes, I know I'm making some assumptions, but the case I brought forward from the start was so straightforward I find it hard to believe I'm spending time worrying about this rather than study and upcoming exams.

 

FYI I had a response from the company and they said they had received my conciliatory email but it was too late and fine issued.

 

I fully comprehend the need to preserve revenue, and the need to prosecute genuine fare evasion. But targeting genuine customers who make mistakes seems to be more about revenue raising or hitting prosecution targets.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, I think you are making assumptions.

 

You say the company say you 'were too late and a fine has been issued'. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I doubt that to be the case.

 

As I said in an earlier post ONLY the Courts have authority to impose FINES.

 

By your own admission, you had travelled beyond the point to which you had paid for on your season ticket. I think that the rule regarding paying excess fares on season tickets before travelling is perfectly clear.

 

If you were spoken to at a station exit check two questions might be put before a Court. The first is "Did you show a valid ticket?" By your own admission the answer is 'No'. The second question would be "Where would the fare have been paid if the inspector hadn't been there?"

 

That might be relevant to a charge of intent to avoid a fare, but as you will be aware, that is not necessary to secure a prosecution in every case. The strict liability breach of Byelaw charges do not need to consider intent.

 

In more than 30 years of involvement in these issues I have never encountered any evidence of 'prosecution targets'. That goes for British Rail and the private companies since 1996. All cases are dealt with on merit.

[MedStudentUK]

Thanks for the advice Old-CodJA.

 

I understand what you're saying, but can I clarify one thing, which is: what you mean by each case being dealt with on its merit?

 

You seem to be implying some level of consistency in the penalties handed out by the RPO, that I alluded to in my earlier posts. And in most threads on here, honest errors seem to have been dealt with via penalty fares - and only the more serious/argumentative ones have ended up with prosecution. I do agree with you, that until I receive the letter I am making some assumptions. But the manner with which I have been dealt with so far have made me quite unsure as to what to expect next.

 

With regards to 'Where would the fare have been paid?' this was the question to which I had no answer when the RPO asked me! As I am new to the area, and been to the station only a handful of times, I had no idea if I would be coming out at gates or a bridge or whatever. This is what I tried to explain at the time after I had first attempted to pay.

 

With regards to the TOC reply, they did use the word 'fine' and they did tell me my response was too late and it had already been issued. This is part of their response, word for word, issued less than 48 hours after the incident in question:

 

* Unfortunately, the fine has already been issued and there is nothing further I am able to do. I have spoken with our Customer Relations Manager and would suggest that when you do receive the letter you pay it straight away which should prevent any court or legal proceedings and thereafter use the appeal process. *

[Old-CodJA]

deleted duplication

Edited October 24, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

I am sorry if this seems uncharitable, but to someone who is used to handling these matters, this seems to be becoming somewhat bizzare

 

Your first post says that you were cautioned. However, an RPI does not caution a traveller in order to issue a Penalty Fare Notice

 

Your latest post refers to you having received written confirmation that the TOC is referring to a 'fine'. Given that the TOC cannot impose a fine, but let's say they are referring erroneously to a penalty notice as a 'fine', I have to ask what happened to the paper notice which was issued to you and on what date did this journey occur? An answer to that question might make things clearer.

 

It is very straightforward I'm afraid. If you were not issued a printed & numbered form, you were not given a penalty fare.

 

If you were not issued a penalty fare, or unpaid fare notice, there is no demand for payment at this stage. It would appear that an allegation of an offence has been reported.

 

If an allegation of an offence has been reported, the TOC may issue a Summons for their evidence to be tested by a Magistrates Court.

 

Once you get the letter that your last post refers to, you will know what they intend to do.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Old-CodJA
corrected text

[MedStudentUK]

I'm confused by your response as I've never said I was issued with a penalty fare. I had hardly requested my extension before a caution was read out to me. I know what to expect from the letter. It just seems inappropriate given the extent of my mistake

[SRPO]

I'm confused by your response as I've never said I was issued with a penalty fare. I had hardly requested my extension before a caution was read out to me. I know what to expect from the letter. It just seems inappropriate given the extent of my mistake

 

My questions are thus:

 

1. What are the likely outcomes of this scenario? How much could I be fined?

 

2. Why would my season ticket be confiscated, as well as a prosecution considered? Is this normal?

 

3. I have been told that it is best to pay any fine, then go through the appeals process. Anybody have any views or

 

4. I am considering contacting my MP, as I feel my treatment was overtly aggressive and the company are abusing their power by implementing incongruous fines (e.g I could be fined £200+ for a

 

You posted the above, I cant see why you are confused by OC's response.

[MedStudentUK]

Hi SRPO,

 

I supposed I didn't understand why Old-codJA brought up the discussion of a penalty fare. I was quite clear I was not issued one and simply await a response from the prosecution department.

 

I said that I expected a 'fine' in that letter from the prosecution department because that's what I was told by the TOC.

 

So in this situation, you can see why I'm confused about my situation. All I can tell you is what I was told by the RPO/TOC about my situation, I don't know the process like you chaps obviously do.

 

The reason I came on here was to get some kind of clarity on what to expect with regards to this letter (when it arrives). I also wanted clarity on why the TOC would choose to instantly undertake this route rather than a simple penalty fare notice.

 

The reason I asked all this, is that it seems a very extreme thing for a TOC to do, for an honest mistake, of low revenue, when the repercussions could be so serious for the individual involved.

[MrGates]

Were you stopped at ticket barriers or as you were trying to exit the station? You have all ready mentioned that you didn't have an answer when asked "how would your fare have been paid?" The role of the RPO was to ascertain the facts of the situation and he obviously had sufficient infomation to report the matter, many people on a daily basis frauduently travel over distance on season tickets, your best sitting and waiting until the TOC writes and explains why exactly you were reported on that day.

[Engelbert]

 

When a caution was read out to me, I didn't know if it was the same thing as a police caution, therefore I was enquiring as to the criminal status of this, to which I wasn't given a clear answer. I suggested that I might need to talk to the MDU to get advice on this, but made a decision to comply regardless, seeing as the police were not involved.

 

It is not the same thing as a police caution, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution. What happened to you is a "statement taken under caution" (under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) which is essentially the reading of your rights "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?". The first might show up on a CRB check, the second won't.

 

In my experience, some RPIs are either ignorant of the difference, or purposefully let the passenger think it is the more serious 1st type of caution they are giving. (I was stopped for not having a valid ticket and told I must either pay the penalty fare immediately or be "cautioned". When I expressed surprise he had this power and asked if this was a caution like a police officer gives I was told "yes", which I later learned was wrong).

 

A "fine" can only be issued by the court (or some other agent of the state), not the train company. A penalty fare is not a fine. After issuing a notice of intention to prosecute sometimes the TOC will drop the prosecution if you pay them some money. This is not a fine either (though I do wonder if it counts as a bribe under the Bribery Act 2010!). I am rather puzzled that the letter from the TOC mentions a fine, though that may just be their imprecise wording. Does their letter make any mention of prosecution?

 

To add a few of my thoughts to Old-CodJA's already fairly comprehensive answers to your original questions:

 

It is my belief that it's unlikely they will take me to court (although they could)

I'm afraid your belief in the reasonableness of TOC prosecuction departments is misplaced and there is a fair chance you will be taken to court (and I share your thoughts about the OTT nature of it).

 

4. I am considering contacting my MP, as I feel my treatment was overtly aggressive and the company are abusing their power by implementing incongruous fines (e.g I could be fined £200+ for a

I think you should. The more MPs are made aware of the problem of aggressive TOC prosecutions the more likely something will be done about it.

 

5. Are certain rail companies more aggressively pursuing fare-dodging than others? What is the rationale behind this and what effect is it having?

Based on the threads on this forum (so not definitive stats!) First Capital Connect seem to be the most trigger-happy, with Southern in 2nd.

 

8. What reason would a Rail Company have for choosing not to issue a penalty fare, rather than going through this long-winded process? Would they really go to court for a fare this small?

A lot of it is down to the judgement of the RPI who stops you. Being human, I expect if the RPI takes a dislike to you you are more likely to get prosecuted. In my case I don't think he liked me treating him as an equal rather than a superior or that I took some time to get advice on the phone so rescinded the option of a penalty fare and went for prosecution. You being "guarded" sounds similar.

 

There are also some situations in which a penalty fare cannot be charged because of the minor nature of the ticket infraction (e.g. ticket used outside "published restriction" i.e. certain time/train). Rather perversely, this exception does not apply to the strict liabilty byelaw offences. But I don't think this applies in your case.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Engelbert

[MedStudentUK]

Thanks for your responses.

 

I had the letter through giving me 14 days to supply evidence. They're 'considering my case'.

 

In my last email to them, I offered to meet with them or accept any reasonable settlement, bearing in mind I had already lost revenue by having to purchase an additional season ticket.

 

Mr Gates - I left the train, and went up onto a footbridge. I was working out what exit to use from the station, as I said, I'd only been here a few times and only in the country since late August. Anyway, I saw a group of rail employees who I thought could give me my extension. So I walked up them asking them if I could pay. Since that time, a friend has told me I could have left the station directly if I'd just walked in the other direction, where there are no barriers (and at the time no employees blocking the exit). So 2 things: 1. I could have left without paying if that was my intention (although at the time I didn't know), and 2. My lack of knowledge of the station is apparent (i.e. I wasn't using a particular exit because of previous knowledge there was no 'gate').

 

Englebert - Yes I think the word 'fine' in their email replay was just poor word choice. But my being 'guarded' was just my questioning as to the legality of what process the RPO was going through. I was completely up-front and compliant and calm, and to be fair was on the back foot the whole way because of how it all escalated. The questioning style was very tough, and I felt threatened, I as if I was being forced to say things I didn't agree with (but they wanted to hear).

 

To set the scene, there were a number of people there, including a number of RPOs as well as a private security guard patrolling right in front of me, so the whole set-up felt very well-organised. The security guard there said to my friend they had been there all evening, and going through the same process with every other similar case - some of which were for smaller values than mine.

 

So as I've said before, this was just a one-off stupid error on my part. Humans are liable to do this all the time, especially with a lot on their plate. I noticed today that if you park illegally at the hospital where I work, you get clamped for £25. You could be getting in the way of an ill patient or slowing down some urgent care - but your penalty would be smaller than the one I've had already (my >£80 season ticket). On the other hand, my error might criminalise me for life.

 

And if it doesn't, I have had an extremely unpleasant and stressful experience when I'm having to study 14hrs + a day for my first set of exams.

 

Regardless of the outcome, I'll be travelling via other means in the future. So the TOC could take a settlement from me and still lose out on over £1000 a year.

[MedStudentUK]

Ok so to summarise and to give feedback to all the people who have assisted me above (thanks all).

 

I wrote a conciliatory letter to the TOC via special delivery, outlining my lack of knowledge, and the fact that I live where I live to use the train - hence my plan was always to have a good relationship with the TOC.

 

I also noted some mitigating factors and asked a few questions about what they meant by 'legal proceedings' and how my data would be used.

 

In response, the TOC stated that I had been reported for a 53b (in short, intending to override my season ticket and avoid paying). However, they were prepared to close my case for the payment of over £50 admin fee. They stated that they would not hesitate to take action if necessary in future.

 

I have paid, to avoid legal action and the case is closed.

 

However, I am still not happy with the situation, and herein I lay it out. I don't for a moment suggest I shouldn't have paid in advance - now I know that, I will never make that mistake again. But here are some of the other issues:

 

1. I could have taken an 'unguarded' exit at my destination, but I didn't. I went up to a member of staff and requested to pay. For this honesty, my season ticket was taken from me (no explanation) and I was treated like a criminal, my every word disputed and questioned over and over again for half an hour and a security guard patrolling right in front of me. I felt detained and extremely vulnerable. The assumption was that I did this every day, hence it was also prejudicial. Tell me another service industry that would treat it's customers like this?

 

2. My plan when moving to the UK was to use the train every day, which would have been over £1000 to the TOC. But now the risk too great. I need a clean record for my future career, and it's clear that an honest mistake is not dealt with on a human level - but by punitive measures by this TOC. Now I am 'known' to them, if I make a mistake (lose my ticket?) I'm in big trouble. Not worth it to me, so I no longer travel by train (which is not good for me, not good for the TOC).

 

3. All actions have consequences: Speeding. Parking outside school gates. Smoking in front of your children. However, none of these examples (unless extreme cases) pose the risk of prosecution and a criminal record. So my question is, why is it that train companies are able to take such punitive action against honest mistakes? If it is for the greater public good, then look at the examples I've just listed. These have far greater consequences than a loss of revenue to a train company!

 

4. Travelling by train can be confusing. This is not a defence, and I know a lot of the knowledgeable people on here have a tendency to pass the blame onto the customer for not knowing railway regulations. In a strict legal sense, they're correct. But it's pedantic. When I was questioned, I asked if I was being cautioned for a criminal offence, and the RPO/I didn't know. Why not? This is her job, and she didn't know the law. Yet I'd been in the country 2 months, and was expected to know railway regulations.

 

5. Finally, I believe my dealings have sinister undertones. While I'll not go into specifics here, I believe I may have been questioned in a way which was specifically intended to trick me into answering incorrectly and bring about a prosecution. When my colleague pointed out the question was vague and misleading, the RPO/I got agitated and shouted at my colleague then called for security to take her away. She has written a corroborating account of this and is the most concerning aspect of all.

 

Anyway, I am talking to a solicitor now about next steps, and am in consultation with a number of bodies about my case. What a welcome back to the UK! I am happy to update if anyone is interested?

[watchinginvestigation2011]

seeking legal advice.

 

You cant query it after paying a penalty and accepting a resolution sattis to them and you as you accepted it to avoid court, then want to carry it on.

 

You would have had the chance to bring these issues up in court, but you chose not to risk this for your own reasons !!!

 

No harm in writing and complaining I suppose but you accepted you were wrong in paying the penalty, what another person may have done as in diff exit or whatever is irrelevant to you.

 

Best to just forget about it and move on.

[MedStudentUK]

I have not paid a penalty. I have covered the admin fee in order to close the case and avoid prosecution. This was done on legal advice against a background of high risk to my future career, and is not an admission of guilt.

 

If you are the kind of person to accept the status quo then that is your prerogative.

[MrGates]

Im glad that for you that TOC decided it would allow you to settle out of court and has allowed you to put this in the past and for you to be able to move on with your life but why exactly are you planning on seeking legal advice? couple of points here in relation to your post, Your season ticket was confiscated of you as the RPI suspected fraudulent use and was fully entitled to do as the relevant ticket remains property of the TOC/railway at all times. You were not detained unless this was explained to you by the RPI and you were free to leave at any time you wished and i believe the RPI was right to tell your friend to leave as the matter didnt concern them.

 

I can see how the regulations of the railway can seem a bit daunting to most but as you pointed out ignorance is no defence, Most things in life have T&C's and national conditions of carriage are readily available at any ticket office, And as harsh as it sounds your situation was you travelled over distance on a season ticket, At what point did you not realise this may have been an issue and how it looks in the eyes of an inspector?

 

The question you were asked were more than likely standard question such as, Do you have a valid ticket? If you had not been stopped how would your fare have been paid? etc, you were asked questions to ascertain the facts of the matter. I hope you can see that you have a good result here and have come off quite lightly.

[watchinginvestigation2011]

I have not paid a penalty. I have covered the admin fee in order to close the case and avoid prosecution. This was done on legal advice against a background of high risk to my future career, and is not an admission of guilt.

 

If you are the kind of person to accept the status quo then that is your prerogative.

 

Admin fee fair enough, I mis read, but either way it is a penalty to you for what happened in one way or another. Your protected your career as anyone would want to, but they allowed you to avoid court and therefore you should be grateful and want to move on and just accept not to do it again.