Rail fare - penalty notice

[richardjsouth]

Hello,

 

I was recently stopped by ticket inspectors for inadvertently travelling one zone beyond that which my monthly travelcard covered.

 

I was stopped and told about the fine; when I tried to explain it was an accident, the inspector walked me over to his more senior colleague, who immediately started taking down my details.

 

I soon realised the second inspector wasn’t interested in hearing my side (which, naively, is what I first thought was happening) but instead started to write me up and take down details, and reading me a caution.

 

I asked several times why this was happening (was ignored), and I then offered – again several times – to pay the on the spot fine, sensing whatever was going to happen was going to be more trouble than it was worth. I produced my bank card to show I had means to pay.

 

I was also accused of giving a false address just because the inspector couldn’t find me on whatever system he was accessing – which I soon disproved by showing a tax bill addressed to me, which he accepted.

 

The whole exchange got quite heated, primarily because the inspector was refusing to accept payment for the on the spot fine, and also accusing me of trying to give false details, which was never the case.

 

From what I can tell from initial research, it’s completely up to the discretion of the First Capital Connect’s prosecution department whether or not to accept an appeal, accept payment/admin costs, or just take the whole thing straight to court.

 

I’m perfectly willing to accept I’m in the wrong and need to pay something; but I was wondering if anyone had any advice on the likelihood of this being taken further – i.e. to court – straight away. I’ve never fare dodged before in 15 years of commuting, this was an honest mistake, and I tried very hard to pay the fine after the initial conversation, but the inspector seemed very intent on taking it further.

 

Any advice?

 

thanks

[rebel11]

Hi Richard

 

Welcome to CAG

 

We have some industry experts who can advise on the matter, try not to worry.

 

Thread moved to correct forum.

[JohnSwansea]

In a week or two you will probably get a letter saying notice of intention to prosecute and asking if there is anything you would like to say about the incident.

 

If you write back acknowledging your mistake and apologising for not making sure you had a valid ticket for your entire journey and ask if they would be willing to settle without court proceedings, there is a good chance they will be willing to do so. You should offer to pay the fare and a contribution to their costs, and you can expect to be asked to pay in the low hundreds.

 

The fact it got heated is not ideal. Before offering an out of court settlement the prosecution dept usually check in with the inspector and if he says you were aggressive they may choose to prosecute. They may do that anyway, but more often than not where there are no aggravating factors an out of court settlement is offered.

 

I can understand your frustration, as your circumstances do sound like they would often result in a penalty fare rather than a report to prosecution dept, but unfortunately train cos don't have to offer a PF and the law does allow them to successfully pursue criminal cases for inadvertent ticket offences, some of which are so called strict liability and therefore do not require any proof of dishonest intention, only that you did not have a valid ticket for your journey

[richardjsouth]

thanks John, appreciate the reply although not very reassuring...it just seems crazy that something so innocuous as a £20 fine could escalate so quickly into court proceedings/hundreds of pounds in fines/possible criminal proceedings. I suppose my main bone of contention is that I was perfectly willing to pay the £20 fine and just wasn't given a decent opportunity to do so at the time...

[JohnSwansea]

Yep, very frustrating but that is the way it is. And although letting your frustration show at the time was understandable, my advice would be to apologise for that too. You could say something along the lines of 'unfortunately the discussion with the inspector became heated as I did not understand why I was not offered the chance to pay a penalty fare which I was willing to pay immediately, and also because the inspector thought I had given him a false address when he was not able to verify it. I had in fact given my correct address as soon as I was asked. In any even I appreciate that letting my frustration show was not helpful and I would like now to apologise for doing so'.

It's the best way to try to get this closed down as quickly and cheaply as possible, annoying though it is.

[richardjsouth]

thanks John - I'm sure you're right of course. Just to clarify, there was no abusiveness or threats or anything like that - just general annoyance and anger. But I'll take your advice.

 

Could it work in my favour to get that response in early, i.e. write to them before the letter? or is it much more sensible to wait their response?

[rebel11]

Hi richard

 

You'll need a reference number that will be on the letter they send you.

 

thanks John - I'm sure you're right of course. Just to clarify, there was no abusiveness or threats or anything like that - just general annoyance and anger. But I'll take your advice.

 

Could it work in my favour to get that response in early, i.e. write to them before the letter? or is it much more sensible to wait their response?

[JohnSwansea]

In similar cases when q of whether to wait to hear or write in straight away has come up the consensus has been that it is best to wait to hear from train co first.

There always a chance they will never get round to it (unlikely but possible), also you can respond to precisely what they say, and if you write in unprompted it is more likely that your letter never gets properly matched with their case notes. So on balance best to wait.

Appreciate that having this hanging over you is a worry but you can be quite hopeful it will get closed down quickly for a payment. I am slightly nervous about mentioning numbers as settlement amounts vary so much, but if forced I would say good chance in a simple case where you have not come to their attention previously, and assuming inspector does not put the boot in, £100-200.

[richardjsouth]

thanks Rebel

[Old-CodJA]

I did not understand why I was not offered the chance to pay a penalty fare which I was willing to pay immediately.

 

 

Whilst JohnSwansea is correct in the general suggestions that he has made as a method of dealing with something like this, I would suggest that you might take care when using phraseology such as the quote above.

 

TOCs prosecution departments are well-versed in dealing with 'opportunist fare evasion' and making clear that you knew it was wrong, but were willing to pay a penalty 'if caught' can be counter-productive.

 

It would be far better in my experience to say 'I had no intention of avoiding my liability to pay the fare due'.

 

The TOC staff are never obliged to apply or levy a Penalty Fare.

 

 

 

Could it work in my favour to get that response in early, i.e. write to them before the letter? or is it much more sensible to wait their response?

 

It is far better to await the TOCs letter, you will then know exactly who is handling your case and the unique reference number allocated to it. Quoting this in your response will ensure that it is dealt with efficiently.

[richardjsouth]

thanks Old-CodJA. Is it still worth, though, apologizing for the mistake made / for not checking the zones more carefully? i.e. "i had no intention of avoiding liability to pay for my fare, and I sincerely apologise for the mistake made and would be fully prepared to pay both the original fine plus any costs incurred?"

 

I suppose I want to admit some fault so as not to appear arrogant or challenging, but like you say don't want to give the impression I was intentionally trying to get away with it

[Old-CodJA]

thanks Old-CodJA. Is it still worth, though, apologizing for the mistake made / for not checking the zones more carefully? i.e. "i had no intention of avoiding liability to pay for my fare, and I sincerely apologise for the mistake made and would be fully prepared to pay both the original fine plus any costs incurred?"

 

I suppose I want to admit some fault so as not to appear arrogant or challenging, but like you say don't want to give the impression I was intentionally trying to get away with it

 

 

 

Yes, that's an excellent response.

[JohnSwansea]

Oldcodja makes a very fair point - in particular if your home address is near the station you 'mistakenly' went out of zone to they may be suspicious that it was a 'mistake' you make all the time, and if you complain that you weren't asked to pay PF that might suggest you knew what you were doing and how you expected to close matter down immediately if you were challenged .

Your suggestion above reads fine to me.

[richardjsouth]

thanks all. When, in a few weeks time, I get the opportunity to draft a full response, I may share it on this board if that's okay.

[rebel11]

That's fine, leave out names and ref numbers.

 

thanks all. When, in a few weeks time, I get the opportunity to draft a full response, I may share it on this board if that's okay.

[honeybee13]

thanks all. When, in a few weeks time, I get the opportunity to draft a full response, I may share it on this board if that's okay.

 

Yes, of course.

 

HB

[richardjsouth]

Hi all - thanks again for your helpful comments. I've actually thought this matter through some more, and have considered employing a solicitor to handle this for me, so worried I am about this leading to a criminal conviction. I've actually contacted one already just to get some initial advice.

 

I don't doubt that a solicitor would be much better than me at knowing the law and responding accordingly. However, I would like to ask the forum: in their experience, can hiring a solicitor make things worse? Could it look like the response of someone who is guilty? The solicitor himself said no, quite the opposite, and that it would deter the train company from wanting to go to court themselves. But he would say that I suppose. What are you thoughts?

thanks

[Old-CodJA]

I don't doubt that a solicitor would be much better than me at knowing the law and responding accordingly. However, I would like to ask the forum: in their experience, can hiring a solicitor make things worse? Could it look like the response of someone who is guilty? The solicitor himself said no, quite the opposite, and that it would deter the train company from wanting to go to court themselves.

 

 

 

Yes, you are absolutely right, the Solicitor will say that because it is in his interests to do so. I don't believe it can make matters worse in a general sense, badly briefed solicitors can do.

 

More than 30 years experience in this lead field me to conclude that if the rail company have a good case, being faced by a defence solicitor in Court holds no terrors whatsoever for an experienced prosecutor.

 

It may be that the best a solicitor can achieve is to ask for and agree an out of Court settlement on your behalf. If you feel really unsure of your legal position then it will give you peace of mind to have a lawyer handle the matter for you. If that is by settling out of Court then you will have two lots of costs to pay. The amount of any agreed settlement plus the solicitors' fees.

 

If your defence case is strong, a good solicitor will advise accordingly and will be an advantage in presenting your case if you enter a 'not guilty' plea.

 

Your posts suggest to me that you are rational and articulate enough to seek an administrative settlement by writing to the company yourself, but only you can decide what is best for your own peace of mind.

 

 

Good luck.

[firstclassx]

If FCC go for the Byelaw 18(1) approach, the very best a solicitor could do is try and identify some sort of procedural error- which, at Magistrates' Court level isn't always fatal to a case anyway.

 

The Byelaws create strict liability offences, and, in the case of Byelaw 18(1), there are only 3 defences which would enable a court to find you "not guilty", these are:

 

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or

validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,

he began his journey; or

(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey

permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or

(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a

valid ticket.

 

If you cannot avail yourself of one of these 3 defences, a solicitor is going to have to try and find a major error by the prosecution- and- for such a relatively straightforward and trivial criminal case such as this, I would not be too optimistic!

 

Wait for a letter, offer to pay their administrative costs, along with an apology, assuming it's your first "offence", pretty likely to be case closed AND without solicitor costs!