Penalty Fare - Notification of alleged Fare Evasion

[crystalgeek]

Hi All,

 

This might be lengthy so I apologise. I'll start of by explaining my journey and what I've done since and hopefully see what advice there is. I'm feeling bullied and treated like a criminal for what ammounts to a mistake i rectified as soon as possible.

 

I took an early train from London st pancras to london gatwick (airport) at around 3:30am

Tapped in with oyster card at st pancras

Got to the other end and asked the staff where to tap out - got taken to a inspector and told I had to pay a penalty as I was 1 stop outside the oyster zone. I explained I couldn't pay the £20 and I had a flight to catch and couldn't he just sell me a ticket from the last stop. He said that's what he was saying and I could simply pay the minimum £5 single fare and deal with the rest on appeal.

 

Took my penalty slip, caught my flight, thought nothing more of it, got back a few days later and due to my accommodation (hostel) I managed to misplace most of my paper work, which meant re-printing flights etc but thats a seperate matter. Unfortunately I didn't have the fare letter.

 

Fast forward to a few weeks ago and I now have a 'Final Notice' that I avoided my fare and had admin costs etc to pay. I wrote back, explaining the situation that I believed I was going to a london station, paid the remainder of my journey on arrival and had no chance to do otherwise.

 

I'm now facing a 'Notification of Alleged Fare Evasion' and a fee to pay of £55 (£20 fare, £40 prosecution, -£5 already paid)

 

The letter states 'I therefore contend that the intention of crystalgeek was to travel on the railway without having previously paid and intent to avoid paying' which is completely untrue - the ticket inspector checked my oyster card and saw I had tapped in.

 

What do I do now? Will I have to go to court and if yes, what chance do I have to prove I was travelling without having payed and intending not to pay

 

The letter quotes

Section 5.3a of the Regulation of Railways Act

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I hope the guys will be along with advice for you over the course of the day. I have a couple of comments, but I'm not a rail expert.

 

This doesn't seem to be at the court stage as long as the amount they want is paid. From what I've read here, court is rather more expensive than £60.

 

But I can see you feel there's been a misunderstanding and the guys should be able to help you untangle this.

 

My best, HB

[RPI]

Your options are to pay up or go to court, you have missed the opportunity to appeal as you failed to do so within the allotted 21 day period.

[crystalgeek]

What are my chances in court to have this thrown out?

[markl1987]

As said by RPI the only real option you have is to pay up or go to court, Not sure of the exact costs but it will be a lot more expensive at court.

 

Doesn't sound like my company (ex-company) as I know that our RPO's don't start work before 7am unless on particular jobs, it would seem too that you have misunderstood what the RPO has said, if he has taken a part payment of the penalty fare then it is down to you to pay the rest within the allotted time, and where he has said deal with the rest on appeal, this would mean pay up and send your appeal at the same time, not appeal the difference.

 

In relation to what are your chances of it being chucked out of court . . . probably none. Regardless of whether you meant to or not, you only covered yourself up to boundary zone 6 and not all the way to Gatwick, therefore you are liable for the penalty fare. Whatever reasons/excuses you can give it will still come down to the fact you were in an area without a valid ticket for that station, there can be the argument that you didnt intend to fare evade etc but you were still there without a ticket that covered you for the journey, you will have admitted and signed for this too on your penalty fare slip.

 

I'll look around for a post that has the rough estimates of possible court costs/fine and link it in after this but in all honesty I would pay up what you can now and avoid court.

 

Here is a link to a guide to railway law created by Firstclassx who has tonnes of experience and as you will see is a very seasoned member on here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?364265-The-First-Class-Guide-to-Railway-Law

 

And also a section I found in another post relating to prosecution under section 5.3 . . .

 

"The Law

 

Various legislation exists to combat fare evasion.

 

For deliberate fare evasion, such as the actions which you describe, it is often appropriate to use Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. In your case, the offence would be Section 5(3a).

 

A conviction will earn you a full criminal record, (which could cause problems with visas), a fine of up to £1000, (usually £400-£500), and costs of around £100-£150."

 

So as I said before, best bet is to pay up now while its still not too expensive

Edited October 2, 2012 by markl1987

[Old-CodJA]

Firstly, I sympathise to some extent, but if you are intending to use an Oyster card to travel then it is your responsibility to ensure that the station you intend to travel to and from are locations at which Oyster is acceptable, or for which your Oyster covers the intended travel zones that are being traversed by your journey.

 

A quick look at the zonal map displayed all over the place on LRT, in trains and within the TfL area would have sorted that.

 

If you did not pay the single fare due, the Penalty Fare Notice that you were handed (and presumably signed ) will have had printed on it the instruction that, if not paid or successfully appealed within the 21 days allowed, prosecution might result.

 

After the 21 days period for appeal expired you would probably have been sent at least one 'reminder' letter before issue of a Summons. You will have had ample time to resolve this so far as a Court is concerned.

 

The TOC will say that Crystalgeek;

 

i) did not hold a valid ticket for the journey made

ii) was given opportunity to pay the fare at the time of travel and did not do so,

iii) was given opportunity to appeal, but did not do so

iv) was sent a reminder, but did not respond

 

The rail company will contend that the traveller did not intend to pay the fare due. The maximum possible fine for a first offence is £1000

 

If convicted, this is an offence of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889][

 

If you do not respond to the Summons the Court will prove the case in your absence and will impose a fine at 'entry level' of Band 'B' on the Magistrates guidelines and this is £400.

 

They may order you to pay all the prosecution costs (probably around £125, plus compensation of the £5 fare and a £15 victim surcharge that is imposed on all persons fined by a Magistrates Court

 

If you plead guilty the fine will be likely to be reduced by a third and there may be some reduction in costs although the compensation & victim surcharge figures will remain the same.

 

As a prosecutor with over 35 years experience working in the rail industry I must stress that it is never right to recommend offering a settlement, or pleading guilty if the alleged offender does not genuinely believe that they are guilty of the offence that is charged.

 

It is a matter for you whether you agree to the administrative closure that has been suggested by the TOC or whether you elect to defend the charge in Court.

 

If you have paid the single fare, but not the remainder of a Penalty Fare, the charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' has less chance of success in a criminal Court than I have of marrying the Pope before Christmas!

 

A Penalty Fare is a 'civil remedy', if the TOC wish to pursue that they will have to pursue a charge of an unpaid debt through the County Court process. This is NOT a criminal matter.

 

Good luck whatever you decide.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[firstclassx]

Although OldCodJA is indeed correct, he does not point out the possibility that they will simply rescind the Penalty Fare and prosecute (successfully) under Railway Byelaw 18 instead.

[Old-CodJA]

Although OldCodJA is indeed correct, he does not point out the possibility that they will simply rescind the Penalty Fare and prosecute (successfully) under Railway Byelaw 18 instead.

 

 

Not if the single fare was accepted at the time of travel. The Byelaw offence is disposed of when the fare is accepted.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[firstclassx]

Not if the single fare was accepted at the time of travel. The Byelaw offence is disposed of when the fare is accepted.

 

Ah yes, should have read it more carefully.

 

That said, doesn't the single fare becomes £20 automatically, just with the option to pay the lower single fare, £5 at the time? The £5 isn't the DUE fare, just a minimum amount that can be accepted at the time and option to pay the remainder of the "higher" fare later on.

 

The Penalty is just a higher priced fare, but is still the fare legally due. Therefore only paying £5 of the £20 fare legally due could constitute fare evasion as they have failed to pay the remaining £15 within a time period specified.

 

The £5 is not really relevant here as it is just a point of reference for determining the minimum payment towards the fare due, (£20).

[Old-CodJA]

Ah yes, should have read it more carefully.

 

That said, doesn't the single fare becomes £20 automatically, just with the option to pay the lower single fare, £5 at the time? The £5 isn't the DUE fare, just a minimum amount that can be accepted at the time and option to pay the remainder of the "higher" fare later on.

 

The Penalty is just a higher priced fare, but is still the fare legally due. Therefore only paying £5 of the £20 fare legally due could constitute fare evasion as they have failed to pay the remaining £15 within a time period specified.

 

The £5 is not really relevant here as it is just a point of reference for determining the minimum payment towards the fare due, (£20).

 

 

No, the fare due if a charge is laid under criminal legislation is always the single fare that should have been paid for the actual journey being made.

 

(I had used £5 as the example fare quoted by the OP. It is an irrelevant sum in this case)

 

If a single fare from A to B is £3.00 and is not paid, so a Penalty Fare Notice is issued, the civil remedy, if accepted as a disposal by the traveller is £20.00 under current Penalty Fare rules.

 

If that Notice remains unpaid and not successfully appealed, the Notice may be cancelled and a Summons may be issued alleging either:

 

1) a breach of National Railway Byelaw 18.1 whereby it is alleged that the traveller failed to abide by the strict liability requirement to pay £3.00 before travelling,

 

or

 

2) a breach of Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889] whereby it is alleged that the traveller intended to avoid the single fare of £3.00 if not identified and reported.

 

 

An unpaid Penalty Fare (£20 or greater if the single journey fare is more than £10) is only enforceable if pursued as a civil debt through the County Court process. There is no criminal element in that procedure.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[RPI]

the said £5 though can be refunded under the PF rules and start again.

[Old-CodJA]

the said £5 though can be refunded under the PF rules and start again.

 

 

You're absolutely right RPI, but this is another of those areas in current rules that is under very close scrutiny at present.

 

Unless there is a compelling reason in addition to the claim for unpaid single fare, how many Courts are likely to favour the prosecution in such a scenario.

 

Let's assume that Mr X has argued about a £5 fare, but the inspector collects that fare on a PF and the remainder of the penalty charge remains unpaid.

 

So, the TOC cancels the PF and refunds £5, but then charges Mr X with intent to avoid £5.........in the current climate I don't see too many Magistrates on side with the Prosecutor on that one.

 

You and I may well believe that Mr X intended not to pay unless challenged, but having accepted his fiver we have allowed him to dispose of that indebtedness

 

The alternative is, having accepted the £5 fare from Mr X, the TOC refunds the £5 to Mr X and then charges Mr X with a strict liability breach of Byelaw citing Mr X's failure to pay £5.............we are unlikely to win too many friends pursuing purely technical breaches in the current climate

 

I am a firm believer in the need for us to be beyond reproach when issuing Summonses.

 

( If Mr X really is a hardened opportunist offender, he'll give the inspector another bite at the cherry on another day for certain. )

Edited October 4, 2012 by Old-CodJA