Tfl, charged under s.17(1) TFL bye law - HELP !

[king12345]

Honey bee - Yes I probably am but I thought the notes actually WERE the witness statement? The witness statement is nothing more than a typed up version of our verbal conversation at the station. Wasn't I supposed to be offered to sign his notes or something ? Otherwise he could just write anything he wants AND in fact that is just what he DID do !

 

Whatever he wrote is irrelevant.

The undisputed fact is that you were in a compulsory ticket area without a ticket.

Unless you can prove that:

1. You had a valid ticket

Or

2. You were not in a compulsory ticket area

 

There is not much you can do apart from accepting their out of court offer and count yourself lucky of having avoided a criminal record.

Sometimes life is unfair and you need to accept a half way resolution.

[Didntdoit]

I see what you're saying Old Codja. However will you please consider this and by the way thank you for replying.

 

I see that the offence is a strict liabilty one which cannot be denied. BUT, it is not enough surely for TFL to ignore its own Policies when it comes to deciding to pursue someone? Otherwise that would be stupid.

 

In my case, TFL failed to abide by its own Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy as well as the Home Office Guidelines on the deterrence of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system. In particular, TFL failed to apply its policy on how to deal with "youths" (implying school age or young people) and the decision whether or not to prosecute. I am 18 and at the time of the alleged offence I was of compulsory school age (which was raised to 18 last year FYI). I was effectively a minor (up until July this year) and I still had to wait outside a corner shop if I'm wearing my school uniform as the shop owner only lets two in at a time (crazy I know) - otherwise there's a lot of adults wearing school uniforms around.

 

But that isn't even my biggest point. s8(2)(e) is as going through the barriers was unavoidable in the circumstances not to mention that my eyes were diverted from the small compulsory ticket signage by a massive McDonalds burger ad immediately, yes immediately at eye level as it was placed directly on the ticket barrier averting your eyes to it. You are right also, it is about principle. It would also not be in the public interest to pursue me because of all the above. Don't you agree ?

[Didntdoit]

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

[Didntdoit]

I have picture I can upload of the McDonalds signage if anyone's interested

[honeybee13]

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

 

It would help if you hit Reply with Quote please, DDI, it will help us know which post you're replying to.

 

We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

 

I wish you luck with this, because unless OC or one of the other knowledgeable people can come up with answers for you, I see this going to court.

 

I know you don't like reading, but I'm going to find you another thread where someone tried to fight TfL against advice here and you can see what happened to him.

 

HB

[honeybee13]

Here you go. Apologies to anyone who was trying to forget iambilly, here's his complete thread. He decided to plead guilty [i know his was a Freedom Pass case, you might be grateful that yours is only a byelaw one] and you'll see what happened.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?354702-Caught-using-someone-else-s-Freedom-pass-convicted-leave-to-appeal-granted/page7

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Honey bee - Yes I probably am but I thought the notes actually WERE the witness statement? The witness statement is nothing more than a typed up version of our verbal conversation at the station. Wasn't I supposed to be offered to sign his notes or something ? Otherwise he could just write anything he wants AND in fact that is just what he DID do !

 

That MIGHT be relevant if they were going for the more serious "intent to avoid your fare" charge.

 

 

You could then dispute the RI's version of events if you were claiming you had no intent to avoid your fare.

 

However, little point in doing so for the strict liablity offence, as, as has been pointed out to you a number of times already, the Magistrates will only be called upon look at if you:

a) were in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket, (and it appears you were), and

b) if so, do you have any of the statutory defences (and it appears you don't!).

 

If you wanted to dispute the RI's witness statement, you'd have to be aiming to dispute that you weren't in a compulsory ticket area, without a valid ticket and without one of the defences .... and that doesn't appear to be the case!

[Old-CodJA]

I see what you're saying Old Codja. However will you please consider this and by the way thank you for replying.

 

I see that the offence is a strict liabilty one which cannot be denied. BUT, it is not enough surely for TFL to ignore its own Policies when it comes to deciding to pursue someone? Otherwise that would be stupid.

 

In my case, TFL failed to abide by its own Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy as well as the Home Office Guidelines on the deterrence of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system. In particular, TFL failed to apply its policy on how to deal with "youths" (implying school age or young people) and the decision whether or not to prosecute. I am 18 and at the time of the alleged offence I was of compulsory school age (which was raised to 18 last year FYI). I was effectively a minor (up until July this year) and I still had to wait outside a corner shop if I'm wearing my school uniform as the shop owner only lets two in at a time (crazy I know) - otherwise there's a lot of adults wearing school uniforms around.

 

But that isn't even my biggest point. s8(2)(e) is as going through the barriers was unavoidable in the circumstances not to mention that my eyes were diverted from the small compulsory ticket signage by a massive McDonalds burger ad immediately, yes immediately at eye level as it was placed directly on the ticket barrier averting your eyes to it. You are right also, it is about principle. It would also not be in the public interest to pursue me because of all the above. Don't you agree ?

 

 

DDI, if you wish to do so you are of course completely at liberty to ignore all of the suggestions that have been given freely by experienced people who are aiming to help you.

 

Your perception of what amounts to 'young people' is not the same as the practical situation. A person who is 18 years of age on the day that a plea is required by the Court is factually an adult. ( in a commonly applied test by the average man in the street, one who is old enough to accept responsibility and vote )

 

The guidance in these matters given by the Ministry of Justice to Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecutors is that, because fare evasion is commonplace, prosecution is in the public interest.

 

That is not to say it is always necessary and from my reading of your posts an alternative disposal seems to have been offered to you, but you rejected that opportunity. That means it is effectively your choice to be prosecuted and fight your corner based on a matter of principle as you see it and a flawed logic.

 

There is a hoary old saying that goes around in legal circles that says 'an untrained man who defends himself in a Court of law has a fool for a client.' Now I accept that this may sometimes be seen as the profession's way of trying to protect their own interests, but arguing on a point of principle in a strict liability matter such as this without benefit of one of the statutory defences would be unwise when an alternative to avoid court action has been offered and rejected.

 

I really don't think that I can help you further

[TylerH]

Oh come on, don't be a plonker. You can't win this one and if you go ahead with this lazy (can't be bothered to read suggested helpful articles), arrogant (wishing to countersue, ha ha), attitude then you deserve the far higher fine you'll end up with.

 

You can argue all you like about your principles and all this "Hell No to TfL Bro" rubbish, but the facts are the facts. Don't be a naive kid all your life, time to grow up and accept you did NOT have a correct ticket. You ignored the signs. You argued back (and seems like you still are).

 

You were wrong mate. You say by accident but TfL have heard it all before. Freedom passes in the same wallet as an Oyster PAYG - ha, what a joke. No-one is going to believe you didn't know what you were doing. TfL take Freedom abuse very seriously and with suckers like you who try to fight back, it just shows that you were probably guilty anyway, but regardless, they'll throw the book at you for being so argumentative all the time when YOU WERE WRONG!

 

Pay up, accept it and move on. Live by the rules and don't argue back when you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

And perhaps be more grateful for those trying to help you.....

 

Yes that's what the Deputy Head of one crappy Sixth Form said to me recently. On that basis she never fought for anything, never stood for anything. She was gutless and unkind too (not that you are Honeybee).

 

I agree with you honeybee, life is unfair but that doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make it better and fairer. It doesnt mean we have to join in and follow cos you think nothing can be done about it. We have to stand apart, stand up and be counted and encourage others to do teh same. Say "Hell, No! to TFL Bro !"

[Stigy]

Hi didntdoit,

 

Not a great deal to add here,

 

just that being a Byelaw offence that's being charged,

this suggests that they only have evidence for this rather than that of fare evasion (contrary to more serious legislation),

therefore it unfortunately doesn't matter whether this was an honest mistake or not.

 

I suspect the RPI's suspicion was that it was deliberate, that's why he reported you.

However there's more than likely only evidence to prove the Byelaw offence which, as has been said, requires only proof that you didn't have a valid ticket etc. Which you didn't, otherwise you'd not have been spoken to.

I suspect if he believed it was an honest mistake, he'd have given you a Penalty Fare Notice.

 

What you have to bear in mind here is that TfL take Freedom Pass fraud extremely seriously as these passes often get abused.

 

I'm sure you would expect this, given your Grandfather has a Freedom Pass, which after all is a scheme that can be removed on a whim.

[Didntdoit]

Oh come on, don't be a plonker. You can't win this one and if you go ahead with this lazy (can't be bothered to read suggested helpful articles), arrogant (wishing to countersue, ha ha), attitude then you deserve the far higher fine you'll end up with.

 

You can argue all you like about your principles and all this "Hell No to TfL Bro" rubbish, but the facts are the facts. Don't be a naive kid all your life, time to grow up and accept you did NOT have a correct ticket. You ignored the signs. You argued back (and seems like you still are).

 

You were wrong mate. You say by accident but TfL have heard it all before. Freedom passes in the same wallet as an Oyster PAYG - ha, what a joke. No-one is going to believe you didn't know what you were doing. TfL take Freedom abuse very seriously and with suckers like you who try to fight back, it just shows that you were probably guilty anyway, but regardless, they'll throw the book at you for being so argumentative all the time when YOU WERE WRONG!

 

Pay up, accept it and move on. Live by the rules and don't argue back when you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

And perhaps be more grateful for those trying to help you.....

 

 

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

[king12345]

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

 

Are you sure that's the way it went???

Never heard of magistrate court letting someone off on those basis, especially under bylaw offences.

Did you actually go into the court and discuss your case in front of magistrates or just had a chat with prosecutor before entering court?

Anyhow, people on this forum dedicate their time for free to help others.

No bullying here that I can see, just a "wake up to reality" call.

I have my doubts that any magistrate ruled in this unprecedented fashion.

[BazzaS]

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted.

 

How did it get into court without a prosecution?

[spalding78]

If the OP is complaining about the magistrate's lack of impartiality, doesn't that suggest things didn't quite go as swimmingly as the sentence immediately beforehand was trying to claim?

[king12345]

How did it get into court without a prosecution?

 

The wonders of the legal system

[honeybee13]

It would be nice if DDI came back and told us how it went in court, firstly as a thank you to people who took the time to give advice. And secondly, if we know what happened it will help us to advise people in the future and the thread will also help others in the same situation.

 

HB

[king12345]

In his own way he already said thank you by claiming that he was bullied and we got it completely wrong.

He must have moved to fantasyland...

[Stigy]

OMG !! Just read this. Who is this person? Mr Bully Buffer fikko? Horrible person. Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! Bully Alert ! I thought this Forum was for civil people? I think you better get back to Facebook where your sort belong !

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I haven't been prosecuted. TFL suffered no loss and it wasn't in the public interest plus TFL actions were disproportionate in the circumstances..... or words to that effect.

It was interesting hearing all you people give me advice. I particularly liked the comment about my mum being "impartial" if she represented me in court. You never mentioned the lack of impartiality between magistrates and TFL - lol !! you people lol!!

You're welcome, by the way...

 

Oh, and I've taken it upon myself to correct your post to reflect what actually happened...

 

Anyway, just thought I'd check in to let you know that I've had my court hearing and I have been prosecuted. It was deemed in the public interest and I was told by the Magistrates to dry my eyes and stop being a plonker.....or words to that effect.