Train Prosecution

[Passengerr]

I am on work visa and she is on dependant visa...we dont know if it makes any issues on our visa applictions because the info on UKBA website is not clear. Also we spoke to SWtrains cust services and they were shocked after hearing the fine of £2322 they kept us n brief hold and the came back saying we have nothing to do with this speak to prosecutors...

[Grotesque]

...bet you told them about the Visas in the interview!!!

[Passengerr]

Ni i did not...but they asked me what impact criminal conviction will have on your job... and i said i might lose my job as i work in a financial insititution.

[Old-CodJA]

I have only just had time to read this thread properly and am sorry that I have come in late.

 

I have to say that although it is clear that you and your wife could be prosecuted, it is not the purpose of the service, whether actioned by CPS or by Private Prosecutors to impose exorbitant financial penalties in the way you describe. That is not to say that they cannot allow out of Court resolution because they can.

 

It is actually the rail company's responsibility to control and manage their prosecutors. If they use a private agency they cannot absolve themselves of all responsibility, but may review along with their agents and make an appropriate decision. That may be that they decide their agents can proceed accordingly, but this needs to be a transparent decision.

 

I suggest that if all is exactly as you have told us, you would be well-advised to contact the people who have set these terms, ask them to put this in writing exactly as you have described to ensure there are no misunderstandings. You could go and see a competent criminal defence solicitor specialising in these matters and explain the position, a short consultation will normally cost very little (a few pounds only) and if you have been absolutely accurate in what you have told us, and if my hunch is right, you may get a good one to offer pro-bono advice..

 

At the same time you might advise the prosecutors' office that you are taking legal advice on the matter and politely request that they allow you 14 days to make a decision on their offer. You may also advise the prosecutor's office that you will also be asking Passenger Focus to look at the justification for their action in imposing such a penalty.

 

Put on written record with them that you have not rejected their offer, but that because you have tight financial circumstances, a young family etc. you do need time to consider legal advice as to how and whether this payment can best be managed.

 

Let us know how you get on please. I am not saying that you have not been wholly accurate in your story, but you do need to be entirely truthful in order to get the best result from all of this.

 

Good luck.

[Passengerr]

Hello CodJA thank you for your time and reply. I made the payment on the 4th march i called few solicitors and they said they will call back and none of them called. I called passenger focus and london travelwatch but they said its legal matter they cannot handle it. But i have to say i called swt prosecutors and told them i can only manage £1525 coz thats the maximum i have left aside £100 for my gmdaughter. I literally begged but they were very cold. Their reply was we have reduced the amount considerably, pay or we will take you to court. Funally i made the payment after borowwing from friends. But thanks everybody for your help and time i really appreciate it.

[firstclassx]

£760 each to avoid court and a criminal record doesn't sound too bad really.

 

Considering a court would have probably fined £400-£500 each, added costs etc, you've probably paid the same penalty financially, albeit without a court appearance or criminal record.

 

I don't think it's a bad result considering the season ticket was bought in the first place with the sole intention that it would be shared between you two, SWT would seemingly have a very good case for "intent to avoid payment of your fare" and/or an inchoate offence such as aiding/abetting.

[Grotesque]

The OP makes it clear that it was well over £760 ea, and even that rate is- as we know- far above SWT's average for such cases. Which is why it stands out as an exceptional case, and one which presupposes other factors somewhere.

[firstclassx]

The OP makes it clear that it was well over £760 ea, and even that rate is- as we know- far above SWT's average for such cases. Which is why it stands out as an exceptional case, and one which presupposes other factors somewhere.

 

In that case I'm going to look into this a little bit further.

 

I do think that the out of court settlement should exceed (or at least match) what would happen in court, otherwise the deterrent factor is reduced.

 

I also wonder whether the OP has made all sorts of claims in the interview about paying '000s to avoid court, in order to appear remorseful etc and the TOC has called his bluff and asked for payment, which he only just about managed.

[Grotesque]

Good man. Something certainly seems to be curiouser and curiouser somehow!

[Stigy]

I have to say I tend to agree with Firstclass. This is a particularly expensive one, but as soon as a TOC requests a second interview with somebody their costs will spiral, due to the staff wages and time that goes in to arranging one etc. they likely wouldn't have got this amount in costs back at court as the court would award a contribution to these, but for a season ticket case, I don't think their offer was unreasonable. I'd also be interested to hear if the OP asked to pay in installments as he indicated earlier, as you'd be surprised how understanding TOCs are in this way.

[Grotesque]

Err... Sorry Stigy! -but no-one except you (post #8) has ever suggested it was the second interview.

It was the first and only interview.

[Stigy]

Err... Sorry Stigy! -but no-one except you (post #8) has ever suggested it was the second interview.

It was the first and only interview.

 

With the prosecutions office. The first interview would have been with the RPI when the OP was reported. Ordinarily, with any other TOC this would be an assumption on my part (albeit an educated one), but through knowing how this particular TOC works, that's what post 8 was based on.

[Old-CodJA]

It is unfortunate that the OP chose to pay, but need not be the last we hear of this matter

[Grotesque]

With the prosecutions office. The first interview would have been with the RPI when the OP was reported. Ordinarily, with any other TOC this would be an assumption on my part (albeit an educated one), but through knowing how this particular TOC works, that's what post 8 was based on.

 

It was only the second interview for the OP's wife; it was his first. By that logic, he should have been charged less!