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

[Old-CodJA]

I'm guessing the adjournment is so they can look into why they haven't responded to your initial letter, when they have clearly received it and signed for it.

 

I would think you are spot-on there rebel. I should think the file has been marked 'adjourned for review'.

 

Of course that review may show that a response was sent by TfL and perhaps the OP has not received that although from what we have seen posted here, it does seem unlikely in this case.

 

Any administrative difficulty will be addressed, but of course any failings in that area would not negate the original alleged offence.

 

The OP should notify the Court in advance of any dates s/he wishes to avoid so that if TfL do not agree settlement (they are not obliged to do so) the Magistrates Court can take those dates into account when setting the matter down for any further hearing.

[Old-CodJA]

rebel is right, you can telephone the Court office, but it is always best to also put something in writing as this will be added to the Court file and avoids all doubt about what might have been said on the telephone.

 

Very occasionally I have experienced cases where someone has later said that they have telephoned the Court to say they could not make a particular date, but that message has not reached the Court file and the case has been heard in absence. It is always best to try to avoid any such risk.

[Old-CodJA]

Let us know what they say. Get them to send you an email with the new date.

 

 

It is the Court who will confirm any adjournment date. TfL would have to apply to the Court for that, but it appears that it is the OP who is asking for adjournment, not TfL. If TfL don't have any reason not to proceed, they may not want to apply for adjournment.

 

 

I tried to call the court but I was told that the court date was not changed. Did TFL lie to me in such case? I think I will confirm with TFL again.

 

 

If you have definitely been told by the Court office that the date of hearing to which you are summonsed has not been changed, you should make absolutely sure that you respond to the Summons on or before the date that you have been given to attend. If you plead 'not guilty' by letter the case will be adjourned for a trial to take place. That will allow for all of these other issues to be assessed and possibly resolved before the new date.

 

You can respond to summons in writing or in person. If you are doing it in writing you are getting very near to the date of hearing and I suggest that you either deliver your letter by hand yourself, or send it by special delivery to make sure that it reaches the Court in good time. I suggest that it would be much better for you to attend if you can.

 

If you do not make sure that you have responded in good time, you may find that the Magistrates decide to hear the case in your absence and in absence of any submission from you, which is very likely to result in a conviction.

[Old-CodJA]

Would it be too late if I plead not guity to court now? I remember the court letter said I should reply at least 3 days before the court date.

 

I emailed TFL earlier today but have not got any reply yet.

 

 

No, you can attend Court on the day and plead 'Not Guilty' in person.

 

Today is 27th, if you cannot attend on 29th you need to fill in the plea form that you have received with the Summons then you can deliver that by hand to the Court office today or tomorrow, but I would not rely on the post now that you have left it so close to the hearing date.

 

If you deliver a plea by hand today or tomorrow, I would call the Court first thing on Wednesday morning and check that it has been passed forward to the relevant courtroom.

[Old-CodJA]

Would it still be good for me to attend on the day to meet the prosecutor to have a talk?

 

 

Yes, king12345 is absolutely correct. As I have previously said, for avoidance of doubt and risk, I would attend Court if I were you.

[Old-CodJA]

I think I will go to the court as you guys suggested and prepare the whole details about my case. If the TLF prosecutor has requested to adjourn the hearing, do I still need to tell everything to the judge?

 

 

It is best that you don't overcomplicate things before you get there.

 

Be prepared, take any papers that support your version of events and speak to the prosecutor before going into Court.

 

If you need to do so, the Legal Advisor at Court will give you guidance as to how to put your explanation if it is required.

[Old-CodJA]

I am a little confused by where this thread is going now.

 

If you have received a Summons to attend Court tomorrow you should have received with it a copy of the inspectors' statement which forms a major part of the evidence on which TfL intend to rely, an MG100 (Means Form) to declare your financial status and a number of other documents, which explain the legal process and will include a Plea Form, for you to enter your plea to the charge.

 

If you did not receive these, what did you receive to tell you that you have a Court hearing tomorrow?

 

TfL are not normally going to produce an Oyster record unless there is a history of offending that shows up on it.

 

If the defendant wants to introduce evidence of past history it would be up to the defendant to request that in advance of any trial.

[Old-CodJA]

TfL will always produce the transferred oyster in evidence along with the usage record.

That's the most important evidence proving that the op used it at that time and date.

 

 

 

Yes, I forgot that the OP had declared a 'transferred ticket' right at the beginning, nonetheless, as rebel says, what might be seen as contributory negligence hasn't helped the OPs case..

[Old-CodJA]

Don't send yet, see what others think.

 

 

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX,

 

On XXth XXXXXX 2014, an Inspector asked me to produce my ticket for the journey I had made. Unfortunately, on this occasion, I was unable to produce a valid ticket for inspection.

 

On the day of the incident, my wife told me that she felt very ill so I was very worried and concerned about her and wanted to see her as a matter of urgency, then I also had work commitments on that day too.

 

I can confirm, however, that I did purchase a new monthly ticket later on my Oyster Card, which would cover the whole of XXth XXXX 2014. I am confident that internal records you keep regarding my travel on TFL network using my Oyster Card will support this assertion.

 

Your internal records will show that I have a good top-up history (card number XXXX) for journeys made on the TFL network over a number of years. Further, I can provide my top-up receipts for those years if requested.

 

That said, I fully accept that I appear to have breached a Regulation of Railways Act 1889, section 5 (1), and understand, fully, that it is my responsibility to ensure that I produce on request a vaild ticket/card for my entire journey.

 

This incident has enabled me to fully appreciate the seriousness of failing to produce a valid ticket, and I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience I may have caused you.

 

I would like to thank TFL for the adjournment of the recent court date. I wrote to TFL numerous times on their request but TFL did not respond to my communications. This incident has disturbed my whole life over the last four months.

 

I would respectfully ask that in light of the above, this matter may be concluded by covering any reasonable administrative costs you may have incurred from my actions.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mr. XXXXXXXX

 

 

 

The reason why the amount you have offered has been removed, is it could be interpreted wrongly. Let them set the settlement figure.

 

 

 

 

I would just refer to 'The Regulation of Railways Act' and not any specific clause.

 

 

The Summons is very unlikely to be charging an offence against Section 5 (1), much more likely Section 5(3)(a), but just mentioning the Act is fine, leave out the clause reference.

[Old-CodJA]

Your going to have to attend court. If everything you say is correct, this is 'harsh'. Lets see what his reasons are.

Ultimately you have to decide how to plead. If you check the forum, you can see the costs attached to cases.

One thing don't panic.

 

 

 

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Old-CodJA]

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.

 

 

Unfortunately, that is exactly what I expected and have previously tried to make clear. TfL have not 'wasted Court time', their revenue staff have identified an offence, reported it and the prosecution unit have issued a Summons within the 6 month time limit allowed.

 

There is a remote chance that you may be able to get the Prosecutor to 'take a view', but the only chance you have in that respect is to go to Court at least 40 minutes before your case is timed to be heard and ask to speak with the prosecutor outside the courtroom and try to agree a settlement there.

 

I have to say that success seems unlikely, but make sure that you have cash with you in case they agree. If they do you will get a receipt for any payment.

 

When you speak to him or her, do not be distracted by only concentrating on the admin failures, that way is guaranteed to be unsuccessful for you.

 

Stress the likely effect for your future if convicted and I hate the word, but in effect you will need to 'grovel' a bit to see if you can appeal to their better nature. It may well not work, but as you have already been told by various solicitors, your chances of success by pleading not guilty are very low indeed.

[Old-CodJA]

i have not contacted CAB cos i have thought my case can not get free legal advice. i already asked solicitors directly.

 

i can give the above to court tomorrow. but would it help to reduce any fine for my case? i even want to prosecute tfl for breach of duty of care but feel not easy to get evidence and legal cost could be high..plus it can only be after tommorrow.

 

 

Please note that I do not mean to decry the usefulness of CAB in any sense, they do a really great job in helping the unfortunate and underprivileged in our society, but we must all remember that they, like the forums, are staffed in the main by volunteers.

 

It is unfortunate for someone in the OP's position, but in the case of conviction this is not a matter where a prison sentence can be imposed for a first offence and therefore it does not attract legal aid. That means that the duty solicitor at Court is extremely unlikely to assist unless s/he offers their services pro-bono and that is only likely if there appears to be any procedural error or the charge is manifestly wrong.

 

The OP says that he has already spoken to a number of solicitors about all of whom he says 'No-one thinks I can win if I plead not guilty'.

 

I would hate to think that the OP goes away and finds a solicitor who gives poor advice just because it's what he wants to hear (yes, unfortunately whether by design or misunderstanding, some do) and ultimately makes matters much worse.

 

Having read through this thread and unless I've missed it, I do not recall that the OP has ever said that TfL did not serve evidence with the Summons.

 

His argument seems to have been around a failure to reply to a letter and email. We really do not know what is in TfL's file. We only have the OPs description of what he recalls and TfLs failure to accept his offer to settle out of Court.

[Old-CodJA]

10AM tmr, but I will go there by 9am and will only have mobile internet on my phone. I can bring cash but dont know how much is enough... I can not show the cash to ask for settlement, so that they dont misunderstand my action...

 

tbh, after all of the past communacation, I don't think it is likely to settle...

 

 

 

The papers that you have received with your Summons ought to show how much the TfL costs application will be if they are successful in securing a conviction. You would be well advised to make sure that you have much more than that figure with you as a very minimum. The prosecutor might be prepared to call his manager by mobile if you put a convincing case, but please remember not to continue concentrating on what you perceive as their 'duty of care failures'. That will not work.

 

Exhibiting genuine remorse for committing the offence in the first place and any evidence that you can provide of the likely effect of a conviction MIGHT be persuasive, but that really is a long-shot at this stage. I agree, they appear unlikely to allow settlement, but you lose nothing by trying again.

 

Others have said 'pass a letter to the Judge'. This isn't a Crown Court case, it is very much more likely that you will face three Magistrates, occasionally a District Judge (formerly called Stipendiary Magistrates) may hear matters on his or her own, but this is a Magistrates Court hearing and will normally be a Bench of three (very rarely two) people.

 

If you have got something written out that you wish to rely on, you should hand a copy to the prosecutor before you go into Court and you should hand a further copy to the Court Usher who will pass it to the Legal Advisor for the attention of the Magistrates. The person who is actually running the Court process is the Legal Advisor and he or she may assist in explaining procedure for you.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, very well done. I'm pleased it worked out OK in the end and that the prosecutor on the day took a pragmatic view.