TFL Trouble!! ****Settled Out Of Court****

[rebel11]

Did you write to them? How do you know?

 

Hello Guys

 

Thanks for your replies. I have begged to be given an out of court settlement. But i still cant believe they will prosecute me for this simple matter. In my Opinion a fine would suffice. But lets see what happens now.

 

thanks

[BazzaS]

Hello Guys

 

Thanks for your replies. I have begged to be given an out of court settlement. But i still cant believe they will prosecute me for this simple matter. In my Opinion a fine would suffice. But lets see what happens now.

 

thanks

 

Since only a court can fine you, for there to be a fine there must be a prosecution.

 

You may feel that them seeking an administrative ("out of court") settlement is sufficient punishment, and you can try to persuade them not to prosecute, BUT if you used someone else's pass to avoid your fare : you can't really complain if they choose to prosecute.

[seekinghelp101]

Hello Guys

 

Thanks for the replies. I will do my best to get an out of court settlement and in the mean time i can only wait. Well to be honest i wouldn't do it again and a criminal record will damage my career, a prosecution for me is still far fetched as this is the first time i have been caught. I know it was wrong of me to use someone else's pass but I am a clean boy.

 

regards

[BazzaS]

Hello Guys

 

Thanks for the replies. I will do my best to get an out of court settlement and in the mean time i can only wait. Well to be honest i wouldn't do it again and a criminal record will damage my career, a prosecution for me is still far fetched as this is the first time i have been caught. I know it was wrong of me to use someone else's pass but I am a clean boy.

 

regards

 

It doesn't wash.

 

It being your "first offence" (or, at least, first time you've been caught) doesn't equate to "prosecution is far fetched".

They can prosecute you the first time you are caught, first offence or not. All you can do is stack the odds in your favour of an administrative settlement.

 

You also seem to be wanting to have your cake & eat it ; as you can't both be "a clean boy" and admit to deliberately avoiding your fare.

 

That wouldn't stop me adding to the excellent advice you've had in this thread, and it wouldn't make me berate someone who had done wrong, admitted their mistake and accepted responsibility for it (and the consequences!)

 

What you are (in effect) doing is saying :

I did wrong. I got caught. I don't accept that it is a criminal offence so they shouldn't prosecute me.

 

It is a criminal offence, so, if you took your chances on being caught and got caught : don't whinge that you shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

To insist that you MUST be allowed an out of court settlement is to say, in effect : fare dodging is to be allowed / condoned, and if caught you should be allowed to just "pay them off". There would be little disincentive against fare dodging then!

 

I'm also conflicted by the "let me off because a criminal conviction will affect my job / visa / citizenship" approach.

Whilst I agree no conviction should have a disproportionate effect, and that is a tack to take with the TOC : if you know you need a clean criminal record / eDBS - don't fare dodge.

This isn't a "I lost my ticket so couldn't show it on the train" Bylaw 18 scenario, you made a deliberate choice to evade your fare. You should by all means have access to the advice here, but at the same time : accept responsibility for your actions AND their consequences.

 

Advice? Don't let a whiff of "and you shouldn't be prosecuting me" appear in your letter to the TOC.

If I worked in prosecutions and I got that feeling from a letter, I'd

A) look at the case to ensure the respondent wasn't correct, and that prosecution was a justifiable option, while

B) if prosecution was justifiable, it'd harden my attitude towards prosecution.

 

Previous advice was to be contrite. That isn't the same as saying "I'm very sorry and understand my actions were wrong ........... but you shouldn't be prosecuting me because it was only a bit of fare dodging"

[king12345]

Bazza is right: Don't tell TfL that you shouldn't be prosecuted or they might take an harder line.

Begging for forgiveness is the only way to go.

TfL doesn't care if then you can't renew your visa or pursue the career of your choice.

At the end of the day I too wouldn't like to see someone become a police officer (for example) after they've deliberately committed an offence.

Same if someone becomes a politician, lawyer, accountant, bank manager etc. despite having a criminal record.

Some professions require the highest level of integrity for a reason, not just for administrative purposes.

[BazzaS]

Bazza is right: Don't tell TfL that you shouldn't be prosecuted or they might take an harder line.

Begging for forgiveness is the only way to go.

TfL doesn't care if then you can't renew your visa or pursue the career of your choice.

At the end of the day I too wouldn't like to see someone become a police officer (for example) after they've deliberately committed an offence.

Same if someone becomes a politician, lawyer, accountant, bank manager etc. despite having a criminal record.

Some professions require the highest level of integrity for a reason, not just for administrative purposes.

 

I agree, in part.

 

Convictions may NEVER become "spent" for some careers.

 

Yet, is it right that a foolish act aged 18 should haunt someone forever?.

Whilst fare dodging aged 18 might say to me "made a bad decision aged 18, might make a bad decision within a profession if admitted to that profession soon", I'd hope that if someone can demonstrate "I made a bad decision, but have learnt from it, so perhaps aged (say) 23 I can show how my behaviour has changed, as demonstrated by my actions over the last 5 years" : I don't see why a mistake aged 18 should be a permanent bar.

 

That brings me round to the OP. Them saying "it is far fetched for me to be prosecuted for a first offence" (No, it isn't), and "it isn't fair for me to get a criminal record / I am a clean boy" : (yes, it is, and no, you can't claim to be "a clean boy" whilst admitting evading your fare) leads me to conclude : perhaps they aren't yet ready for that profession where trust is key.

 

It seems to me entirely reasonable to prevent them from entering that profession currently. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to prevent them from doing so indefinitely.

[king12345]

I agree bazza, but the problem is: Where do you draw the line of "acceptable offences" that can be spent (I think under the rehabilitation act not sure)?

Wouldn't it be embarrassing for a barrister to question someone's integrity in court only to be answered that the same barrister was fare dodging at 18?

I remember a case of assault that went to trial and the only witness to the assault had been himself convicted of assault 20 years earlier.

The case was dismissed because the witness was seen as unreliable when his past was revealed.

Let's not forget that TfL prosecutes under rra 1889, but they could prosecute under the theft act 1978 (theft of service) which is a more serious offence to go on record.

Truth is, fare dodging is theft, especially when is persistent and pre-meditated like in this case.

Again, begging to settle out of court is the only way to go.

[BazzaS]

I agree bazza, but the problem is: Where do you draw the line of "acceptable offences" that can be spent (I think under the rehabilitation act not sure)?

Wouldn't it be embarrassing for a barrister to question someone's integrity in court only to be answered that the same barrister was fare dodging at 18?

I remember a case of assault that went to trial and the only witness to the assault had been himself convicted of assault 20 years earlier.

The case was dismissed because the witness was seen as unreliable when his past was revealed.

 

 

In the example you give (of the assault), the offence was never "spent" as far as the court being able to consider its effect was concerned, but the court could decide if it should be taken into account.

 

Similarly, I'm not suggesting that the ability of offences to never be spent and always revealed on an eDBS should be changed, but that the ability of employers / admissions tutors / regulatory bodies to say "that was them, this is now, they have changed and aren't the same person" should be reinforced.

 

Is the purpose of a conviction solely to punish / as a deterrent? Should there not be the prospect of rehabilitation?

 

If the fictional barrister you mentioned was challenged thus in court; replies:

a) "I'm not on trial, the accused is"

b) doesn't get embarrassed as it is something they prepared for

c) "I learnt from events, and paid my penalty / did my punishment, and it has helped me overcome what I did wrong"

d) returning to the issue before the court, perhaps the accused might too turn their life around once convicted, as I put it to you that the evidence leaves you with no course other than to convict ......

 

Sorted!

[king12345]

It would be embarrassing for the fictional barrister despite being not on trial I think.

I'm all for rehabilitation, but sometimes stupid things we do when we're young and naive hunt us down for ever.

Unfortunately that's life.

I didn't understand your last point, point d).

Can you rephrase it please?

[BazzaS]

It would be embarrassing for the fictional barrister despite being not on trial I think.

I'm all for rehabilitation, but sometimes stupid things we do when we're young and naive hunt us down for ever.

Unfortunately that's life.

I didn't understand your last point, point d).

Can you rephrase it please?

 

d) The fictional barrister would redirect the court's attention to the case at hand, rather than focusing on the barrister's record, and invite the court to find they had no alternative other than to convict the defendant.

[honeybee13]

Hello guys. Please could we keep this thread on track and wait for the OP to return and let us know how they're getting on?

 

HB

[seekinghelp101]

Hello

 

TFL have sent me a letter asking me to come in for an interview. It is said they would like to clarify with some discrepancies they have found regarding my case. Nothing else is mentioned. I honestly dont know what to do. Any suggestions on how to deal with this matter??

 

 

thanks

[rebel11]

I think you should attend but contact and take a solicitor with you, maybe one that specialises in such matters. It sounds like they want to clarify exactly what happened and how you came in possession of the travel card and why your friend reported it stolen. Do stay calm.

 

I'm sure OLD-CODJA will respond shortly.

 

Hello

 

TFL have sent me a letter asking me to come in for an interview. It is said they would like to clarify with some discrepancies they have found regarding my case. Nothing else is mentioned. I honestly dont know what to do. Any suggestions on how to deal with this matter??

 

 

thanks

[*RainbowTears*]

Hello

 

TFL have sent me a letter asking me to come in for an interview. It is said they would like to clarify with some discrepancies they have found regarding my case. Nothing else is mentioned. I honestly dont know what to do. Any suggestions on how to deal with this matter??

 

 

thanks

 

 

Did you tell the whole truth in your letter to TFL prosecution?

 

If yes, then I would suggest you go along & stick to the truth.

 

If no, then what did you say or omit to say in your letter?

 

I do agree with the other CAGgers in the respect that you should tell the whole truth.

 

As your "friend" appears to be leaving you in the c**p, esp as he is going to stick with his story! (which is a lie).

 

So someone is going to get caught out here!

 

Be it him, rather than yourself....

[Old-CodJA]

It may cost you a few pounds, but if I were you I would certainly seek the advice of a local solicitor who specialises in criminal law and IF you decide to go in for this interview, take him/her with you.

 

If you decide not to attend TfL may well simply continue with their action, but it may be that they don't have confidence in their case and hope that a PACE interview might provide that little extra

 

On the other hand, it may be that they may be considering an alternative disposal, but want further answers. A key point for you will be to ensure that you do not say anything that could make matters worse and to be open and honest regarding your 'friend's' part in the incident.

 

Either way, it is very easy for the unwary layman to incriminate themselves in such a situation and the trained eyes & ears of a lawyer will prove invaluable in my experience. Yes, like all professions there are some 'duds', but if you can use a firm that are well-versed in these matters and who are known in the locality where the case might be listed, so much the better.

[king12345]

Frankly I can only assume that TfL wants to put the last nail in the coffin by highlighting your inconsistency and 'crack' you.

Does it say in the letter that you will be interviewed under caution?

If yes you better go with a good solicitor or decline the invitation and save the solicitor for the trial.

If the letter doesn't mention a caution you would have a better chance of settling (again with help from a solicitor) and make sure you tell them that anything said will be without prejudice (not to be mentioned in court).

[seekinghelp101]

Hello Guys

 

 

Sorry I forgot to mention it, in the letter it does say interview under caution. and it is on the 17th. I am going to have a terrible christmas that is for sure. I will get hold of a solicitor. Do anyone know of a good one. I am so clueless on this. HELP!!

[king12345]

In that case you have two options:

1. Go in with a solicitor and let them negotiate

2. Avoid the interview and go to trial.

 

I bet any solicitor will advice to go to the interview to try stopping the court proceedings and I agree fully.

You will need a bloody good solicitor to convince them.

Good luck!

[rebel11]

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

You can use the link Rebel has posted to find local criminal lawyers in your area. Old-Codja always recommends someone who is local and preferable has experience of transport matters.

 

HB

[Sammy13]

Hello seekinghelp101

 

I was in a similar situation this year as you are. I used my friends discounted oyster card (I only used it once) and got caught. My friend also reported the card was stolen the next minute I informed him about his card. I still managed to settle out of court and TFL didn't even get back to me or my friend regarding the oyster being reported as stolen. So just don't say anything they don't know, but do tell them IF they bring it up

 

All the best

[seekinghelp101]

Hello guys

 

I went to the interview today by myself as a solicitor was to expensive. Well TBH I will need one in court. I tried Negotiating an out of court settlement and it failed. They are saying they may be prosecuting me under the 'theft act', As they have the evidence of my friend reporting the card being stolen. My friend is sticking to his story. And they showed me the travel history for a month and noticed my travel routes only for a month and his travel routes the previous month. I need serious help in how to deal with this matter.

[rebel11]

Did you take any proof of previous payments for your previous travel on the TFL network?

 

The TFL may have evidence from your friend reporting the card stolen, your defence should be' why was it reported 'stolen' shortly after you were caught using it? Why wasn't it reported 'stolen' during the month or so, that you were actually using it?

 

I take it you are awaiting a letter or Summons from them?

 

You need update the thread with what they decide to do.

 

Then you can consider writing to them again for an out of court settlement, a long shot, but worth doing. You are co-operating with

them and went to the interview which is good.

 

Hello guys

 

I went to the interview today by myself as a solicitor was to expensive. Well TBH I will need one in court. I tried Negotiating an out of court settlement and it failed. They are saying they may be prosecuting me under the 'theft act', As they have the evidence of my friend reporting the card being stolen. My friend is sticking to his story. And they showed me the travel history for a month and noticed my travel routes only for a month and his travel routes the previous month. I need serious help in how to deal with this matter.

[Old-CodJA]

Hello guys, I went to the interview today by myself as a solicitor was to expensive. Well TBH I will need one in court.

 

 

Sadly, you have just discovered why it was so important to seek legal advice first. If you had engaged a solicitor and gone to the PACE interview properly prepared, it might have avoided the forthcoming summons and therefore could have avoided the additional cost of representation at Court.

 

 

I tried Negotiating an out of court settlement and it failed.

 

 

I am afraid that does not surprise me given that you did not go in with the benefit of a legal advisor in a case such as this. I would not lose heart entirely, but it will certainly now be much more difficult for you to persuade the company to discontinue prosecution now.

 

 

They are saying they may be prosecuting me under the 'theft act', As they have the evidence of my friend reporting the card being stolen. My friend is sticking to his story.

 

 

That's a risky strategy for the prosecutor. They will need to prove first of all that you stole the pass. I expect that to be unlikely.

 

 

And they showed me the travel history for a month and noticed my travel routes only for a month and his travel routes the previous month.

 

 

Are the two journeys markedly different and as others have said, is there any evidence that your 'friend' reported the pass 'stolen' immediately after he last used it?

 

 

I need serious help in how to deal with this matter.

 

 

Do go and see a solicitor who specialises in criminal law who is local to the court where the case is likely to be heard immediately, be entirely truthful and act on his / her advice

[seekinghelp101]

Hello Oldcodja

 

Yes the journeys are marked differently. My friends statement was that as he did not need the pass for that month and he keeps his card in a pouch on his table and thought the card was in there the whole time he didn't give much thought but on that day he was looking for the card and couldn't find it and he was about to report it stolen and that is when I gave him a call. He also said that He no way gave me permission to use his card. But in my opinion they did believe his version more than mine.