help required regarding TFL prosecution - **SETTLED BEFORE COURT **

[sddxac]

Did you get all the evidence?

what evidence?

[sddxac]

The Prosecutor is not obliged to give any reason for rejecting a request by the defendant to settle out of Court.

 

If the prosecutor has good evidence of an attempt to avoid payment of a fare, then prosecution under the legislation already specified (Sect.5(3)(a) RoRA) is justified and if the company wish to prosecute that offence it is their prerogative to do so.

 

As rebel has said, I would strongly suggest the OP should consider seeking qualified legal advice, or at the very least attend the next listed hearing on time and put their plea in person

 

do you think a lawyer could help me to win? any recommand?

 

i also want to know difference between plead guity or not guity. can anyone help pls?

[Old-CodJA]

do you think a lawyer could help me to win? any recommand?

 

i also want to know difference between plead guity or not guity. can anyone help pls?

 

It is not the role of the forum to recommend any specific law firm

 

Yes, as I have said several times, you MAY benefit from seeking qualified legal advice, it is certainly worth a short initial consultation

 

If you plead 'not guilty' and are then found guilty at trial you may lose any credit that you would have been given by the Magistrates for making an early guilty plea.

 

If you plead guilty at the first hearing you will automatically be given some credit for having recognised your misdemeanour. However, you should NOT plead guilty just for expediency and if you say 'I am guilty, but didn't intend to offend' that will be considered to be equivocal and should not be accepted by the Magistrates as a guilty plea.

[sddxac]

i sent a complaint letter again to mike brown last might. mainly said lost my post, lack of communication, forward my first complaint letter directly to the prosecution manager who is the subject to complaint. i also think it is breach of duty of care. can i prosecute tfl for this?

[sddxac]

It is not the role of the forum to recommend any specific law firm

 

Yes, as I have said several times, you MAY benefit from seeking qualified legal advice, it is certainly worth a short initial consultation

 

If you plead 'not guilty' and are then found guilty at trial you may lose any credit that you would have been given by the Magistrates for making an early guilty plea.

 

If you plead guilty at the first hearing you will automatically be given some credit for having recognised your misdemeanour. However, you should NOT plead guilty just for expediency and if you say 'I am guilty, but didn't intend to offend' that will be considered to be equivocal and should not be accepted by the Magistrates as a guilty plea.

 

the credit here means amount of fine? how much could be the difference? any other difference?

 

also how much could a.lawyer cost roughly?

[Old-CodJA]

i sent a complaint letter again to mike brown last might. mainly said lost my post, lack of communication, forward my first complaint letter directly to the prosecution manager who is the subject to complaint. i also think it is breach of duty of care. can i prosecute tfl for this?

 

 

 

Yes, credit means the amount of any fine. I think that you really must go and see a Solicitor, get some qualified legal advice and act on that

 

An initial short consultation will not be terribly expensive, but you are asking the forum users to give you too much detail. We cannot quote solicitor's fees.

 

Without seeing both sides of any case and without having a full understanding of the process and legislation it is not possible for anyone to give you the precise answers you seem to be seeking.

 

Some of us have all the necessary experience, but cannot give case specific answers because we do not have sight of the file & evidence held by TfL, I do not doubt it, but we only have your word for what happened.

 

As for 'can I prosecute TfL for this?', given that you admit an offence and given that there has been a delay in answering mail, that delay does not negate the offence for which you have been charged, therefore the short, but accurate answer is No.

 

In not accepting an out of Court settlement, no-one has committed any offence. So far as dealing with paperwork is concerned, the company have up to 6 months to process any summary offence. I know it may be frustrating, but no law has been broken by not answering that letter promptly.

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

The Law Society have a search facility that helps you find solicitors in your area who have the right experience. OC will correct me if I'm wrong, I think you need a criminal lawyer. You should be able to ring in the first instance to see if they would be able to help you and if you think you can work with them.

 

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

Hello again.

 

The Law Society have a search facility that helps you find solicitors in your area who have the right experience. OC will correct me if I'm wrong, I think you need a criminal lawyer. You should be able to ring in the first instance to see if they would be able to help you and if you think you can work with them.

 

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/

 

HB

 

Yes, Honeybee is spot-on, you need to speak with a solicitor, preferably one who specialises in criminal law and who is known at the Court at which your Summons is issued to attend. They may be able to help negotiate an alternative disposal, but you do need to recognise that it is not guaranteed.

[king12345]

what evidence?

As said, you need to request all the evidence TfL will rely on.

Copy of the ticket, electronic statement, inspector notes and statement, etc.

Without these, even a good lawyer would struggle to defend you.

Your best bet is some problem with the evidence, i.e. inconsistency or missing.

You have to ask TfL for these asap and if they don't send them to you then the evidence would be inadmissible.

They can't show up in court and rely on surprise witnesses or evidence, it's not a Perry mason episode.

Unless you let them.

[Old-CodJA]

��

As said, you need to request all the evidence TfL will rely on.

Copy of the ticket, electronic statement, inspector notes and statement, etc.

Without these, even a good lawyer would struggle to defend you.

Your best bet is some problem with the evidence, i.e. inconsistency or missing.

You have to ask TfL for these asap and if they don't send them to you then the evidence would be inadmissible.

They can't show up in court and rely on surprise witnesses or evidence, it's not a Perry mason episode.

Unless you let them.

 

 

When you received the Summons there will have been a number of other papers in the envelope.

 

The relevant evidence including Witness Statement ( S9 / MG11 ) and a copy of any ticket / Oyster that the inspector retained along with a Statement of facts, a Plea Form, a Statement of Means (MG100) form and notice of the company's claim for prosecution costs (if any) that might be made if you are convicted, should have been served with the Summons along with other papers advising how the Court process works and what will happen if you fail to respond.

 

The ones that are materially relevant are the Witness Statement, copy of ticket, statement of facts and the Summons, which will need a Certificate of Service that is provided to the Court to confirm the date and how the company served the Summons on you to attend Court. You will not have a copy of that certificate, the fact that you received the Summons is self-evident because you have referred to it.

 

You should take all of these papers with you when you go to see a lawyer.

[rebel11]

Let's put aside any breach of Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The OP sent response letter as requested by TFL Special Delivery, he chased it up several times via email - nothing. He chased it up recently, they informed him that they lost it.

 

He has had to write to the CEO to get a response from TLF. It seems they wanted to prosecute him and weren't willing to consider his response at any stage. Maybe it is less to do with the 'breach' as such and more to do with, they think it will be 'an easy prosecution'.

 

I can't remember another case on these forums like this. (We are going by what the OP has said, we don't have access to the TLF files).

[king12345]

When you received the Summons there will have been a number of other papers in the envelope.

 

 

 

The relevant evidence including Witness Statement ( S9 / MG11 ) and a copy of any ticket / Oyster that the inspector retained along with a Statement of facts, a Plea Form, a Statement of Means (MG100) form and notice of the company's claim for prosecution costs (if any) that might be made if you are convicted, should have been served with the Summons along with other papers advising how the Court process works and what will happen if you fail to respond.

 

 

 

The ones that are materially relevant are the Witness Statement, copy of ticket, statement of facts and the Summons, which will need a Certificate of Service that is provided to the Court to confirm the date and how the company served the Summons on you to attend Court. You will not have a copy of that certificate, the fact that you received the Summons is self-evident because you have referred to it.

 

 

 

You should take all of these papers with you when you go to see a lawyer.

 

Apparently the op never got any copy of the evidence, unless I missed it along the lines.

I would be inclined to ask for all they want to rely on at trial.

Whatever they don't disclose would be inadmissible.

Or, leave things as they are and once in court, object to any evidence they come up with explaining that it's not been disclosed.

[Old-CodJA]

Let's put aside any breach of Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

 

 

Unfortunately rebel, we cannot put that aside as you suggest, the OP has said that he has received a Summons alleging that charge and that needs to be responded to. Yes, he might go to Court and say that he is in correspondence with the CEO, but the Court are only likely to grant a short adjournment whilst correspondence is addressed.

 

The allegation is a criminal matter and the OP needs to separate that issue from any issue of an administrative failure in order to minimise further risk.

[rebel11]

You need to put it aside to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying they are the same issue.

 

Why do TFL send out the letters asking for the OP's side of the story?

 

Why do they think it's not relevant in this case?

 

Why have they lost the OP's letter in this case, when it was signed for?

 

Why have they ignored subsequent emails?

 

Why has he been treated differently to other people

who didn't have the correct ticket but have communicated with TFL?

 

Unfortunately rebel, we cannot put that aside as you suggest, the OP has said that he has received a Summons alleging that charge and that needs to be responded to. Yes, he might go to Court and say that he is in correspondence with the CEO, but the Court are only likely to grant a short adjournment whilst correspondence is addressed.

 

The allegation is a criminal matter and the OP needs to separate that issue from any issue of an administrative failure in order to minimise further risk.

[Old-CodJA]

Why do TFL send out the letters asking for the OP's side of the story?

 

In order to give every alleged offender an opportunity to give their explanation and to be able decide whether there are grounds not to continue to prosecution.

 

Why do they think it's not relevant in this case?

 

It is clear that the OP knowingly committed the offence and has admitted so. Every case is treated on merit, we only have the benefit of the OP's explanation on here, it may be that the inspector's report contains clear evidence that indicates prosecution should continue.

 

Why have they lost the OP's letter in this case, when it was signed for?

 

They should not have, but we all know that sometimes accidents do happen. ( the offence with which the OP is charged is not an accident.) Unfortunate though the loss of a letter is, that fact does not make any fundamental difference to the charge.

 

Why have they ignored subsequent emails?

 

We have the OP's assertion that to be the case, perhaps a reply has gone to the OP's 'spam' folder. We have no hard evidence either way and therefore cannot comment, however it is normal for the prosecutor and the Courts to require responses by hard copy signed letter to ensure that there are no misunderstandings in any future action. Emails can be manipulated and are not generally considered secure in this respect.

 

Why has he been treated differently to other people

who didn't have the correct ticket but have communicated with TFL?

 

Aside from the admin failure in respect of a lost letter I don't believe that he has. TfL are at liberty to accept or reject any application to settle such matters administratively. We are not party to their evidence file and if they choose to reject the OP's request they are entitled to do so.

[rebel11]

I could respond, but lets see how the OP gets on.

[Old-CodJA]

I could respond, but lets see how the OP gets on.

 

Please do rebel, you make come up with something that could be of real use to the OP

[rebel11]

I'd only be going through your attempted answers against the questions I've raised, those questions are very relevant, but you don't seem to think so. I'd go as far as to say, TFL are responsible for wasting court time. They didn't do what we know they do 99.9% of the time, they didn't respond to his letter, they didn't respond to his emails, they lost his letter, etc. They took the matter to court, without considering his letter, it does defeat the object. ' The 'poor administration' is not easily dismissed, it has a relevance.

 

Please do rebel, you make come up with something that could be of real use to the OP

[Old-CodJA]

I'd only be going through your attempted answers against the questions I've raised, those questions are very relevant, but you don't seem to think so. I'd go as far as to say, TFL are responsible for wasting court time. They didn't do what we know they do 99.9% of the time, they didn't respond to his letter, they didn't respond to his emails, they lost his letter, etc. They took the matter to court, without considering his letter, it does defeat the object. ' The 'poor administration' is not easily dismissed, it has a relevance.

 

 

 

Rather than debate matters that will not make a difference to the material allegation that forms the basis of the Summons, I would hope that we users of the forum can give the OP some constructive help.

 

No matter how galling it might be, the TOC did not have to give any explanation other than to say something like, 'we have evidence that an offence has been committed and have decided to pursue prosecution'. They did that by issuing a Summons. It's not something I advocate, but they didn't have to write to the OP at all and could have gone straight to Summons.

 

I agree that it isn't ideal and yes, I know that it's frustrating that the OP says no reply was received, but by going off at a tangent and querying whether he could prosecute the prosecutor for failing in some perceived duty of care, the OP is concentrating on the wrong things in my view.

 

It MIGHT possibly be that TfL MIGHT consider there has been an administrative failure and MIGHT decide to allow an alternative disposal, but the odds are stacked in favour of a successful prosecution going by the ONLY account that we are party to. Unlikely I know, but if pressed they could actually say, 'We don't respond by email, we did consider an alternative disposal, but decided to prosecute and served a Summons.' Harsh, but factual and before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that's what they did or will say, just observing the information that we have.

 

TfL don't have much of a record of not proceeding in deliberate intent to avoid a fare cases.

 

I genuinely hope for the OP's sake they do make an exception, but he really will benefit from qualified legal assistance

[sddxac]

When you received the Summons there will have been a number of other papers in the envelope.

 

The relevant evidence including Witness Statement ( S9 / MG11 ) and a copy of any ticket / Oyster that the inspector retained along with a Statement of facts, a Plea Form, a Statement of Means (MG100) form and notice of the company's claim for prosecution costs (if any) that might be made if you are convicted, should have been served with the Summons along with other papers advising how the Court process works and what will happen if you fail to respond.

 

The ones that are materially relevant are the Witness Statement, copy of ticket, statement of facts and the Summons, which will need a Certificate of Service that is provided to the Court to confirm the date and how the company served the Summons on you to attend Court. You will not have a copy of that certificate, the fact that you received the Summons is self-evident because you have referred to it.

 

You should take all of these papers with you when you go to see a lawyer.

 

I do have this, but not those suggested by king12345. TFL are very hard to communicate so I don't think they will post me any evidence which are not good for them.

[sddxac]

Let's put aside any breach of Regulation of Railways Act 1889. The OP sent response letter as requested by TFL Special Delivery, he chased it up several times via email - nothing. He chased it up recently, they informed him that they lost it.

 

He has had to write to the CEO to get a response from TLF. It seems they wanted to prosecute him and weren't willing to consider his response at any stage. Maybe it is less to do with the 'breach' as such and more to do with, they think it will be 'an easy prosecution'.

 

I can't remember another case on these forums like this. (We are going by what the OP has said, we don't have access to the TLF files).

 

Now even the CEO starts to ignore my email... One whole day past and they still not reply to me. I have also spoke to some solicitor so far. If I go to court, not very likely to win because past communication showed I admited the offence... The fine could be between 500 and 1000 if I plead guilty...

 

No matter how unfair I was treated. TFL can still win the case easily. Feel really disappointed about them!

[sddxac]

Unfortunately rebel, we cannot put that aside as you suggest, the OP has said that he has received a Summons alleging that charge and that needs to be responded to. Yes, he might go to Court and say that he is in correspondence with the CEO, but the Court are only likely to grant a short adjournment whilst correspondence is addressed.

 

The allegation is a criminal matter and the OP needs to separate that issue from any issue of an administrative failure in order to minimise further risk.

 

It is already adjourned once so not likely to adjourn again. From my last court experience, I think the judge won't care about the bad commutation by TFL. All she ask is just a simple question whether I used other's ticket on that day, I can not and will not on court... So it is really easy for TFL to win if they don't want to settle!

[sddxac]

Rather than debate matters that will not make a difference to the material allegation that forms the basis of the Summons, I would hope that we users of the forum can give the OP some constructive help.

 

No matter how galling it might be, the TOC did not have to give any explanation other than to say something like, 'we have evidence that an offence has been committed and have decided to pursue prosecution'. They did that by issuing a Summons. It's not something I advocate, but they didn't have to write to the OP at all and could have gone straight to Summons.

 

I agree that it isn't ideal and yes, I know that it's frustrating that the OP says no reply was received, but by going off at a tangent and querying whether he could prosecute the prosecutor for failing in some perceived duty of care, the OP is concentrating on the wrong things in my view.

 

It MIGHT possibly be that TfL MIGHT consider there has been an administrative failure and MIGHT decide to allow an alternative disposal, but the odds are stacked in favour of a successful prosecution going by the ONLY account that we are party to. Unlikely I know, but if pressed they could actually say, 'We don't respond by email, we did consider an alternative disposal, but decided to prosecute and served a Summons.' Harsh, but factual and before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that's what they did or will say, just observing the information that we have.

 

TfL don't have much of a record of not proceeding in deliberate intent to avoid a fare cases.

 

I genuinely hope for the OP's sake they do make an exception, but he really will benefit from qualified legal assistance

 

I spent time on TFL's wrong doing because I don't think I could win this case on court. I really had hoped that we can reach a settle out of court.

[sddxac]

I'd only be going through your attempted answers against the questions I've raised, those questions are very relevant, but you don't seem to think so. I'd go as far as to say, TFL are responsible for wasting court time. They didn't do what we know they do 99.9% of the time, they didn't respond to his letter, they didn't respond to his emails, they lost his letter, etc. They took the matter to court, without considering his letter, it does defeat the object. ' The 'poor administration' is not easily dismissed, it has a relevance.

 

I can say all these on court but I don't know if the judge will care... There is a fact I can not deny that I did use my wife's card on the day.

 

I think I have tried my best to settle this matter with TFL. But given that no one communicate with me from TFL now and only one day left to the court date, I may have to go to court and be fined and get criminal record...

[sddxac]

I did try to ask a few solicitors today. No one seems to think I can win if I plead not guilty after my story about the whole case. Get solicitors to represent me before court could cost 1k+ which is even more than the fine I could get.