TFL - Interview Under Caution (after interview at station)

[ace4ever86]

Hi All,

 

In short I have been caught using a Freedom Pass ticket of my father.

I have a auto top up Oyster card which I kept in the same place as my dad's Freedom pass.

 

The holders of the two cards were the same on the outside and at a certain point in time i must have picked up the freedom pass without realising

and went on normally using that in my everyday life.

(I never actually open the holder to check cards as mine is auto top up).

My dad travels abroad as he has a house in Europe and doesn't regularly use the card therefore was not aware.

 

This was completely my fault and I have admitted to this when the officers carried an interview on me at the station when they stopped me.

 

 

Since then I received the letter stating that I might be prosecuted

where I followed the forums advise and apologised asking to pay all costs + admin explaining the events.

 

2 months later (today) I receive another letter inviting me to another interview under caution

for historical offences being investigated on the oyster card.

I assume these where the trips carried out by me when I was thinking I was using my normal card.

 

I am very confused by this letter and I was worried about the consequences.

The questions I have for which I would appreciate any help are:

 

1) Is it safer to take a solicitor? From the point of view that I want to limit any damage.

 

2) Since the history they probably have on file of my travelling on various occasions is valid and I am willing to pay the fine,

if they decide to prosecute what is the worst that can happen in court given that I have a clean record

and I raise my hand up that I did a mistake?

 

3) How one would respond to the letter received?

Do I ask about the historical offences they are referring to?

Should I again try and negotiate an out of court settlement?

 

4) They say I have 7 days to respond.

Is this upon receipt of the letter?

 

5) What would be your recommended next steps?

 

Apologise if this topic was discussed but I haven't found a thread discussing the same situation.

 

Many thanks in advance.

[king12345]

What did you say to the ticket inspector?

Did you admit knowing you had your father's pass?

Did you tell them you had an auto top up card?

Did you read the notes taken by the ticket inspector?

[ace4ever86]

I said that I must have confused the cards and that my father is out of the country at the moment.

 

It was a surprise to me when I got stopped and when I searched my bag I discovered my other Oyster card which I showed to the inspector.

 

In my shock I do not remember if I mentioned the auto top up.

 

I did read the notes, maybe in my stress I missed something but in general seems to be ok.

[king12345]

It's strange that they've invited you to a second interview.

They must have seen a consistent pattern that they can pin to you.

How long did you use your father pass for?

[ace4ever86]

The consistent pattern is probably me going to work and back within zone 1 or other small trips like that.

 

This is what I am not sure about. It might have been for a few months that I was using this in total ignorance.

 

I want to pay even the last penny and whatever else, this is how much I did not mean to cause any trouble.

I live in London for 10 years and nothing like this has ever happened to me.

[king12345]

I guess that if this has been going on for a few months,

you would be kind of inclined to go for the interview with a solicitor or someone with good knowledge.

Sorry to say, but it doesn't look good

[ace4ever86]

thanks for your advise.

 

 

Can you clarify what you mean by doesn't look good?

 

 

I think I have accepted the fact that I might be prosecuted but does this mean a fine and criminal record? worse?

[dx100uk]

did make reference at all to the time scale that you might have used the card for?

 

 

this interview is probably for them to question you upon the time scale of usage

and to check 'it was you'.

 

 

best idea is to BE HONEST

 

 

if / if not a solicitor is a good idea is not my speciality

 

 

however, at the end of the day, it is 'one' mistake.

 

 

you unwittingly used the card for 'xx' period

 

 

you did not do it on purpose, neither with malice.

 

 

my pers view is you do not need one

you don't need to limit the damage

 

 

you simply didn't realise you were using the card.

 

 

it is an honest mistake, over however long a period

 

 

couple that with the fact that your card in auto top up

why would you have checked it wasn't your card.

 

 

I'd go in there and admit whatever they claim.

now if you 'could' naildown when you think you started using it

that might well go in your favour.

 

 

as to if you'll be taken to court

I think that is down to how honest you come across.

 

 

if they believe you did it with malicious purpose then yes they'll proceed to court

if you are honest , pers I think they'll take it as 'well it happens'

and will settle out of court.

 

 

other will hopefully pop in too.

 

 

its worthy to note

abuse of freedom passes is not treated lightly

however in your case, it might be different as it was an 'honest' mistake with defrauding intent.

 

 

 

 

HTH

 

 

dx

[BazzaS]

Hi All,

 

In short I have been caught using a Freedom Pass ticket of my father.

I have a auto top up Oyster card which I kept in the same place as my dad's Freedom pass.

 

The holders of the two cards were the same on the outside and at a certain point in time i must have picked up the freedom pass without realising

and went on normally using that in my everyday life.

(I never actually open the holder to check cards as mine is auto top up).

My dad travels abroad as he has a house in Europe and doesn't regularly use the card therefore was not aware.

 

This was completely my fault and I have admitted to this when the officers carried an interview on me at the station when they stopped me.

 

 

Since then I received the letter stating that I might be prosecuted

where I followed the forums advise and apologised asking to pay all costs + admin explaining the events.

 

2 months later (today) I receive another letter inviting me to another interview under caution

for historical offences being investigated on the oyster card.

I assume these where the trips carried out by me when I was thinking I was using my normal card.

 

I am very confused by this letter and I was worried about the consequences.

The questions I have for which I would appreciate any help are:

 

1) Is it safer to take a solicitor? From the point of view that I want to limit any damage.

 

2) Since the history they probably have on file of my travelling on various occasions is valid and I am willing to pay the fine,

if they decide to prosecute what is the worst that can happen in court given that I have a clean record

and I raise my hand up that I did a mistake?

 

3) How one would respond to the letter received?

Do I ask about the historical offences they are referring to?

Should I again try and negotiate an out of court settlement?

 

4) They say I have 7 days to respond.

Is this upon receipt of the letter?

 

5) What would be your recommended next steps?

 

Apologise if this topic was discussed but I haven't found a thread discussing the same situation.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

As others have noted, freedom pass abuse is usually prosecuted.

 

"I have a auto top up Oyster card which I kept in the same place as my dad's Freedom pass.

 

The holders of the two cards were the same on the outside and at a certain point in time i must have picked up the freedom pass without realising

and went on normally using that in my everyday life. "

 

Tell us more. How is it that they were in identical wallets in the same place, allowing you to accidentally pick up the wrong one.

 

If you knew they were in identical wallets why put them in the same place?.

 

Were they in the wallets they were issued in?

[ace4ever86]

Tell us more. How is it that they were in identical wallets in the same place, allowing you to accidentally pick up the wrong one.

 

If you knew they were in identical wallets why put them in the same place?.

 

Were they in the wallets they were issued in?

 

My father left me his freedom pass when he was leaving which I put in my work briefcase alongside my oyster wallet.

 

Why I put them in the same place? Didnt really think about it to be very honest.

 

They were both in black wallets, not sure what they were issued in.

[ace4ever86]

@dx100uk - thanks for the advice

[BazzaS]

My father left me his freedom pass when he was leaving which I put in my work briefcase alongside my oyster wallet.

 

Why I put them in the same place? Didnt really think about it to be very honest.

 

They were both in black wallets, not sure what they were issued in.

 

The problem you will face is that TFL's staff hear that as an excuse repeatedly.

 

The wallets Freedom Passes are issued in allow them to be distinguished from ordinary PAYG Oysters.

 

That the Freedom Pass should be placed in an identical wallet to your PAYG Oyster without explanation would appear suspicious.

 

That the Freedom Pass would be removed from its (distinguishable wallet), then the 2 identical wallets would be placed together, one containing a Freedom Pass that then gets accidentally picked up and used (without other explanation) : the likelyhood is vanishingly slim, and far exceeded by how often TFL's staff (and the Courts) hear this as an excuse.

 

Here are some other threads where people have claimed that the passes "got mixed up", but haven't been particularly convincing on how passes from distinguishable wallets got transferred to 2 identical wallets, that then got placed together, that the Freedom Pass one got picked up accidentally without being checked, or the user not noticing that they had the wrong pass / no money was being charged to it ......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354702-Caught-using-someone-else-s-Freedom-pass-convicted-leave-to-appeal-granted

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387106-Freedom-pass-problem

 

I'm not accusing you of lying. However, if TFL do so, how would you persuade them or a court otherwise?.

 

 

I'm sure that someone, somewhere had had their homework eaten by their dog. However, "the dog ate my homework" was never a particularly useful excuse as it was heard with a frequency disproportionate to its actual occurrence.

How are you going to persuade TFL that you were one of the few whose "dog actually did eat their homework"?

[king12345]

The problem you will face is that TFL's staff hear that as an excuse repeatedly.

 

The wallets Freedom Passes are issued in allow them to be distinguished from ordinary PAYG Oysters.

 

That the Freedom Pass should be placed in an identical wallet to your PAYG Oyster without explanation would appear suspicious.

 

That the Freedom Pass would be removed from its (distinguishable wallet), then the 2 identical wallets would be placed together, one containing a Freedom Pass that then gets accidentally picked up and used (without other explanation) : the likelyhood is vanishingly slim, and far exceeded by how often TFL's staff (and the Courts) hear this as an excuse.

 

Here are some other threads where people have claimed that the passes "got mixed up", but haven't been particularly convincing on how passes from distinguishable wallets got transferred to 2 identical wallets, that then got placed together, that the Freedom Pass one got picked up accidentally without being checked, or the user not noticing that they had the wrong pass / no money was being charged to it ......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354702-Caught-using-someone-else-s-Freedom-pass-convicted-leave-to-appeal-granted&highlight=

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387106-Freedom-pass-problem

 

I'm not accusing you of lying. However, if TFL do so, how would you persuade them or a court otherwise?.

 

 

I'm sure that someone, somewhere had had their homework eaten by their dog. However, "the dog ate my homework" was never a particularly useful excuse as it was heard with a frequency disproportionate to its actual occurrence.

How are you going to persuade TFL that you were one of the few whose "dog actually did eat their homework"?

 

I agree 100%.

That's why I think it's best to see a solicitor who can look at all evidence and help you.

Btw, what evidence did they sent you?

i.e. Witness statement, copy of freedom pass, freedom pass history, etc.

As said it will take good skills to convince TfL that you're innocent.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

For a second interview, I tend to take the view that a lawyer might be useful. If you're not sure, you could have a look for local solicitors and ring a couple to see what they say about your case.

 

Have a look on the Law Society website and their Find a Solicitor facility. Look for a local criminal lawyer and try to find ones who have experience of fare evasion cases.

 

HB

[ace4ever86]

@ All

 

Thank you so much for the information. No Evidence is provided in the letter.

 

I rang a couple of solicitors today. The quotes i got for just helping with the interview are ~£1000 which seems extortionate?

 

This is where I am considering whether paying that fee is even worth it.

 

In terms of timeframe I was using the wrong card I think its been 4-5 months....which is my main worry. Looking back at it I should have been checking my autotopup status or opening the wallets but in the busy life in London I never thought of doing these simple things - I guess i took stuff for granted.

 

I am not interested in persuading anyone, I am just interested for this to be over. I totally accept how I am at fault,

 

My main concern here is the criminal record and obviously the possibility of imprisonment? What is the likelyhood of the latter as from what I read, the first, is almost a given.

 

What I still do not understand is the worse case scenario of me attending the interview alone and consecutively pleading guilty if TFL do not accept to settling this out of court.

[ace4ever86]

I am also planning to respond to the letter in the first instance via email before i formally send a letter. I plan to send the below

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Thank you for your letter dated 5th of January with regards to case

 

I would be grateful if you could please share any information that you are investigating around historical offences for my reference as well as the purpose of this interview.

 

Furhtermore, I am in process of seeking legal advise after which I will be responding formally with a letter to your invitation to this interview.

 

Looking forward to your feedback.

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I'm not sure they have to provide you with information at this stage. They just might if there's a lawyer involved, but I can't swear to that, I might be thinking about benefits cases.

 

In terms of prison, I can't remember anyone from this forum who received a custodial sentence. TfL do often prosecute though and you can't rule out a criminal record.

 

Only you can decide whether a lawyer would be worth the money.

 

HB

[BazzaS]

@ All

 

Thank you so much for the information. No Evidence is provided in the letter.

 

I rang a couple of solicitors today. The quotes i got for just helping with the interview are ~£1000 which seems extortionate?

 

This is where I am considering whether paying that fee is even worth it.

 

In terms of timeframe I was using the wrong card I think its been 4-5 months....which is my main worry. Looking back at it I should have been checking my autotopup status or opening the wallets but in the busy life in London I never thought of doing these simple things - I guess i took stuff for granted.

 

I am not interested in persuading anyone, I am just interested for this to be over. I totally accept how I am at fault,

 

My main concern here is the criminal record and obviously the possibility of imprisonment? What is the likelyhood of the latter as from what I read, the first, is almost a given.

 

What I still do not understand is the worse case scenario of me attending the interview alone and consecutively pleading guilty if TFL do not accept to settling this out of court.

 

"I am not interested in persuading anyone, I am just interested for this to be over. I totally accept how I am at fault,

 

My main concern here is the criminal record and obviously the possibility of imprisonment? What is the likelyhood of the latter as from what I read, the first, is almost a given."

 

If you aren't interested in persuading them : are you now accepting that you intended to avoid your fare?

 

I wouldn't normally advise anyone plead guilty for convenience, yet if you intend to plead not guilty to intending to avoid your fare (or obtaining an out of court settlement) ; you may NEED to persuade people, so saying you "aren't interested in persuading people" may be counter-productive.

 

You can't go to prison for a Bylaw 18 conviction.

You can't go to prison for a S5 RRA 1889 conviction for a first conviction : prison is only a possiblity on a second or subsequent conviction.

[rambo]

TBH, I don't believe the OP.

[Old-CodJA]

For clarification: The National Railway Byelaws (2005) were most recently updated and confirmed in that year and the most recent Transport for London Railway Byelaws were made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and were confirmed by authority of the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 September 2011.

The TfL Railway Byelaws apply to London Underground, Docklands Light Railway and London Overground services and regulate the use and working of, and travel on, the railway and railway premises and the conduct of all people while on those premises. Railway services operated by other train operating companies are subject to the National Railway Byelaws.

In practice, Byelaws 17 & 18 in each are the same in both documents and whereas Byelaw 17 deals with persons travelling in a Controlled Ticket Area (CTA), Byelaw 18 deals with travellers on all other areas of the Railway.

From that explanation onwards I suggest that a prosecution under the Byelaws for the offence identified by the OP is incredibly unlikely unless an additional charge of 'transferred ticket' is considered as part of a 'belt & braces' process.

 

 

The primary offence seems almost certain to be charged as an allegation of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and that legislation applies to both National Rail and TfL.

The OP would have been well advised to have taken a solicitor with them to that PACE compliant interview in my opinion, but as they didn't, we can only wonder about what additional information the prosecutor may have gleaned from the session.

Whether or not the fees being asked for representation are worthwhile, only the OP can make that judgment, but it seems very likely that conviction and the subsequent fine and criminal record remain the most likely outcome in this case.

[citizenB]

A few posts have been unapproved - can we please stop with the bickering.

[BazzaS]

For clarification: The National Railway Byelaws (2005) were most recently updated and confirmed in that year and the most recent Transport for London Railway Byelaws were made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and were confirmed by authority of the Secretary of State for Transport on 6 September 2011.

The TfL Railway Byelaws apply to London Underground, Docklands Light Railway and London Overground services and regulate the use and working of, and travel on, the railway and railway premises and the conduct of all people while on those premises. Railway services operated by other train operating companies are subject to the National Railway Byelaws.

In practice, Byelaws 17 & 18 in each are the same in both documents and whereas Byelaw 17 deals with persons travelling in a Controlled Ticket Area (CTA), Byelaw 18 deals with travellers on all other areas of the Railway.

From that explanation onwards I suggest that a prosecution under the Byelaws for the offence identified by the OP is incredibly unlikely unless an additional charge of 'transferred ticket' is considered as part of a 'belt & braces' process.

 

 

The primary offence seems almost certain to be charged as an allegation of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and that legislation applies to both National Rail and TfL.

The OP would have been well advised to have taken a solicitor with them to that PACE compliant interview in my opinion, but as they didn't, we can only wonder about what additional information the prosecutor may have gleaned from the session.

Whether or not the fees being asked for representation are worthwhile, only the OP can make that judgment, but it seems very likely that conviction and the subsequent fine and criminal record remain the most likely outcome in this case.

 

OCJ : the OP's "first interview" was at the train station, when stopped.

 

They have been invited to a subsequent formal interview, which hasn't yet happened. Many people would call that "the first interview", so might you have thought that the formal (tape-recorded?) interview has already happened?

 

So, for "The OP would have been well advised to have taken a solicitor with them to that PACE compliant interview in my opinion" - not many people would have a solicitor with them when first stopped, but at least the OP can see your advice re: their next (& still pending) interview, though they have already said the cost is putting them off. At least they can reconsider that decision in the light of your advice.

 

If they decide not to engage a solicitor, can one generalise on a best approach?

a) decline to attend??

b) attend but give a prepared statement only?

c) attend, but with a low threshold to reply "no comment"

d) attend and answer all questions, being aware of the risk of "hanging oneself" with an incautious answer?

Or is it so unpredictable, from the facts stated so far, that they is why a solicitor is desirable?

 

I've made no comment as to the summons TfL will likely persue : my reason to mention both S5 RRA 1889 and the Bylaw was to confirm for the OP re: their question regarding prison if convicted - that prison is only a sentencing option for a second or subsequent conviction, for the RRA 1889 offence.

[Old-CodJA]

Having read those posts that have been unapproved by the mods I had wrongly assumed that the second interview had taken place.

 

 

The OP would be well advised to attend any second interview with a Solicitor well-versed in criminal law and railways legislation.

[ace4ever86]

@OCJ & Bazza thank you for the information

 

I have decided to seek legal advice on the matter and I respinded to the letter to request some time until I can arrange this.

 

OCJ from your responses I am a bit unclear on what the prosecution would be as well as the likely sentence. From what Bazza said prison is not possible, is that your understanding?

 

Also, the historical offences would be bundled up under the same prosecution I assume?

 

Finally, I am very worried about the criminal record, for which I was wondering if there is any flexibility at all but tfl or understanding where a career is involved or any other personal matter.

 

Again many thanks.

[Old-CodJA]

@OCJ & Bazza thank you for the information

 

I have decided to seek legal advice on the matter and I respinded to the letter to request some time until I can arrange this.

 

OCJ from your responses I am a bit unclear on what the prosecution would be as well as the likely sentence. From what Bazza said prison is not possible, is that your understanding?

 

Also, the historical offences would be bundled up under the same prosecution I assume?

 

Finally, I am very worried about the criminal record, for which I was wondering if there is any flexibility at all but tfl or understanding where a career is involved or any other personal matter.

 

Again many thanks.

 

 

It appears to me that you do recognise your guilt and I have to say that I agree with Rambo (post 19) on this one

 

 

You seem to have used your father's Freedom Pass over a period of time, otherwise why would you be referring to 'various' other journeys.

 

 

This is a very serious offence in respect of avoidance of fare. It has already been pointed out that Freedom Passes are provided for persons in genuine need and paid for from the public purse. Accordingly, prosecution for the abuse of such passes is very much the norm.

 

 

You appear to have admitted this already and it is absolutely essential that you are wholly truthful in any further interview. If you are not and then get caught out under questioning in Court it will not help your case at all.

 

 

The most likely charge will be that on the specified date 'you did travel on a railway without a valid ticket and did use a Freedom Pass issued for the sole use of another person with the intention of avoiding payment of your fare contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889]'.

 

 

Other journeys that are identified where you used your father's pass to avoid fares by the same process may be listed 'to be taken into account' separately.

 

 

If this goes to Court and if you have no previous convictions for a similar offence, you will not be sentenced to custody.

 

 

The maximum penalty for a first offence is a fine of up to £1000, but the Magistrates Sentencing Guidelines recommend that they start at the level of the assessed average national weekly wage, which is currently £400. If you enter a guilty plea at the first opportunity this will be reduced by about a third. It depends on how TfL decide to deal with any other offences (previous journeys), but they will probably be satisfied with recovery of the total of fares and just prosecute the one specimen charge. If so the Magistrates could find the offence aggravated by these factors and impose a higher fine.

 

 

You would probably be ordered to pay the fine, all of the unpaid fares, the prosecutor's costs and a victim surcharge. It is impossible to be any more accurate than that, but you are probably looking at a total figure of around £600 to £700 to be paid to the Court if convicted, plus any legal costs that you have incurred privately.

 

 

If you attend the PACE interview with a Solicitor the very best that you can hope for is an out of Court disposal that will require you to make a very substantial payment.

 

 

TfL do not have to allow this and whilst it may seem harsh to you, they do not have to consider the effect on any alleged offender's future career.