TFL Fare Evasion- Formal Warning

[Ms Siri]

I was caught using a child's ticket by TFL

(although my friend who is 2 years older wasn't stopped at the same station...)

 

after received a letter about it,

telling me to write back to them and tell my version of events.

 

I wrote back a pathetically grovelling letter of apology and have received a letter in response telling me I will receive only a formal warning if I pay £254.90.

 

An extortionate amount, but I can pay (thank you student loan) and

 

my question is

- would a formal warning show up on a criminal record?

 

I study PPE and hope to possibly enter the realm of politics so that wouldn't bode well for me.

if anyone could help and tell me whether this would show up on a check, that'd be great.

[BazzaS]

It certainly seems more expensive than just paying your fare, but that is the risk you chose to take.

 

You want to be a politician?. What will you do if asked if you have ever evaded your fare?

[king12345]

It's an internal formal warning from TfL.

It won't show on your criminal record ever.

You've done the right thing by putting your hands up and writing a good apology/begging letter to them.

Unfortunately you were caught and this should be a lesson learnt.

I would pay and be grateful.

Looking at lots of other threads here, it seems to be a standard "admin" charge to avoid going to court.

[Ms Siri]

Yeah I thought that'd be the best option, thanks king12345. I'm just grateful I have the money to pay the fine!

 

Also to the others asking, just because I want to work in politics doesn't mean I wish to be a politician in the public eye hahah. If I really was asked (however unlikely that may be), I'd probably just be honest and admit it but also express how admittedly stupid it was!

[Ruleoflaw]

So I was caught using a child's ticket by TFL (although my friend who is 2 years older wasn't stopped at the same station...) and after received a letter about it, telling me to write back to them and tell my version of events. I wrote back a pathetically grovelling letter of apology and have received a letter in response telling me I will receive only a formal warning if I pay £254.90. An extortionate amount, but I can pay (thank you student loan) and my question is- would a formal warning show up on a criminal record? I study PPE and hope to possibly enter the realm of politics so that wouldn't bode well for me. if anyone could help and tell me whether this would show up on a check, that'd be great.

 

The way I understand law, it's either a criminal matter, ie fine, and or a civil matter, ie usually damages (compensation) for losses.

 

It sounds like to me that there is no prosecution against you, meaning it's a claim for civil damages.

 

It's the police and CPS (the prosecution) incidentally who investigate crimes which lead to conviction and fines.

It's the courts (civil) who award compensation (ie you pay X person for Y losses).

 

If you're weren't fined, it means there was no crime committed,

so no criminal record unless you accepted a caution by the police at any point.

 

TFL offering you a formal warning unless you pay £254.90,

is therefore likely a civil claim,

meaning you do not have to pay them.

[honeybee13]

Yes, but if the OP doesn't pay now, this is likely to go to court with a possible criminal conviction.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

doesn't work like that openlaw...

[BazzaS]

The way I understand law, it's either a criminal matter, ie fine, and or a civil matter, ie usually damages (compensation) for losses.

 

 

It sounds like to me that there is no prosecution against you, meaning it's a claim for civil damages.

 

 

It's the police and CPS (the prosecution) incidentally who investigate crimes which lead to conviction and fines.

It's the courts (civil) who award compensation (ie you pay X person for Y losses).

 

 

If you're weren't fined, it means there was no crime committed,

so no criminal record unless you accepted a caution by the police at any point.

 

 

TFL offering you a formal warning unless you pay £254.90,

is therefore likely a civil claim,

meaning you do not have to pay them.

 

 

Except if the OP doesn't agree the administrative settlement, or if TfL change their mind before the OP has paid the settlement, TfL can prosecute

(under Railway Bylaws or Regulation of Railways Act 1889).

 

Not all prosecutions are by the CPS, the railway companies being the main other body that prosecutes (whilst other bodies, such as the HSE, can also do so, under specific legislation) .

[Ruleoflaw]

the 1889 act at section 5 doesn't appear to cover the wrong ticket for the distance travelled...just saying

 

"5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.E+W+S+N.I.

 

(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale] level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale[level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale][level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months].

(4)The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

 

[(5)In this section—

(a)“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and

(b)“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]"

[king12345]

the 1889 act at section 5 doesn't appear to cover the wrong ticket for the distance travelled...just saying

 

Nothing to do with this case.

The op travelled using a child ticket which is not valid if the user is over 16 so 5.3.a applies.

Also the toc can prosecute under bylaws subject to the strict liability standard.

Impossible to get out of it.

Pay up and forget about it

[BazzaS]

"5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.E+W+S+N.I.

 

(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale] level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

 

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

 

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale[level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale][level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months].

(4)The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

 

 

[(5)In this section—

(a)“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and

(b)“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]"

 

Precisely.

 

Buying a child's ticket when not entitled can be used to show intent.

Paying the child's fare as an adult means "not having previously paid his fare", or only paying for a shorter distance than travelled.

 

Not difficult for the TOC to get a RRA 1889 s5 prosecution, and a conviction if they can show intent.

 

"The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him." just means that on conviction the TOC can recover the fare evaded as well.

[Ruleoflaw]

Nothing to do with this case.

The op travelled using a child ticket which is not valid if the user is over 16 so 5.3.a applies.

Also the toc can prosecute under bylaws subject to the strict liability standard.

Impossible to get out of it.

Pay up and forget about it

 

 

There are two issues here - The Magistrates convicts not the TFL; 2) TFL is clearly not interested in prosecuting as it would have done so already. So, in my view, TFL is using its powers like a cash cow. It is potentially an abuse of power, therefore. Criminal Procedure rules 'Over-riding Objective' is to be fair, and in my view, TFL are clearly not being fair. I underlined section 5 (3) because it was the nearest provision I could find. However, the OP paid for their ticket, whereas section 5 (3) states did not pay for their ticket. Under the rules of statutory interpretation the law is read in everyday terms. Thirdly, we do not know if there was 'intent' as this is not a specifically strict liability offence (ie guilty on the act alone, ie the actus reus). Furthermore, Parliament clearly separates any losses which are potentially recoverable (section 5 (4), from 'fine.' In my view, TFL are putting undue pressure on the OP to pay the £254 which does not go to the Magistrates but into their pockets. I think this is a case for the London Mayor or a public authority ombudsman.

 

 

We need more information, ie what was the entire version of events, for instance, did the OP pay the extra for the ticket when requested to do so? Did the Op offer to pay the difference but the train staff (conductor) didn't accept? Have TFL acted in accordance with Criminal Rules of Procedure October 2015 as amended, probably not, as aforesaid. We need to know why the OP and not her friend, whom being 2 years older, was not formally threatened as the OP was.

[king12345]

Clearly you're not familiar with fare evasion procedures.

I mentioned bylaws offences because TfL does not need to prove intent if they decide to prosecute under them.

It's a matter of having a valid ticket or not.

The op didn't have a valid ticket.

If prosecuted under strict liability bylaw the intent will not be part of the equation.

The only question asked will be: "did you have a valid ticket?"

The answer is NO.

Convicted.

There's no space for ifs and buts with bylaws offences.

All toc are entitled to charge reasonable admin fee when fare evasion occurs.

It's up to the suspected fare evader to accept this settlement and avoid court or indeed proceed to court and risk higher fine and conviction which shows on their record.

Considering that the op admitted using a child ticket to travel, despite not being a child, his/her chances of being found not guilty are nil.

That's why we suggested and recommended to pay up and consider the matter a tough lesson.

[BazzaS]

There are two issues here - The Magistrates convicts not the TFL;

 

But TfL choose to prosecute or not.

 

2) TFL is clearly not interested in prosecuting as it would have done so already. So, in my view, TFL is using its powers like a cash cow. It is potentially an abuse of power, therefore.

 

If all Tfl were interested in was prosecuting, they would have done so. They have given the OP an opportunity to give their side of the story, to decide if a prosecution is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

If the OP doesn't agree to pay the administrative settlement, and/or TfL decide to prosecute before the OP pays the admin settlement, Tfl can seek those admin costs in court (as well asd the evaded fare) ; that money would go to TfL, unlike any fine and victim surcharge, which goes to the courts ....

 

Criminal Procedure rules 'Over-riding Objective' is to be fair, and in my view, TFL are clearly not being fair. I underlined section 5 (3) because it was the nearest provision I could find. However, the OP paid for their ticket, whereas section 5 (3) states did not pay for their ticket.

 

They paid for a ticket. A child's ticket. They paid for a child's ticket, not "their fare"

 

Under the rules of statutory interpretation the law is read in everyday terms. Thirdly, we do not know if there was 'intent' as this is not a specifically strict liability offence (ie guilty on the act alone, ie the actus reus).

 

Not hard for the prosecution to establish intent if the OP can't explain how they accidentally bought a child's ticket what with them being an adult .....

 

Furthermore, Parliament clearly separates any losses which are potentially recoverable (section 5 (4), from 'fine.' In my view, TFL are putting undue pressure on the OP to pay the £254 which does not go to the Magistrates but into their pockets. I think this is a case for the London Mayor or a public authority ombudsman.

 

For the reasons above, you think wrong

 

 

We need more information, ie what was the entire version of events, for instance, did the OP pay the extra for the ticket when requested to do so? Did the Op offer to pay the difference but the train staff (conductor) didn't accept?

 

Both irrelevant. The offence is "not having previous paid" ; it can't be avoided by offering to pay only once caught!.

 

You refer above to 'statutory interpretation'. If there is any doubt as to interpretation, the courts rule on it. Statute can't be read in isolation from subsequent case law clarifying it.

Corbyn v Saunders shows why you are wrong (or, rather, again wrong!).

http://swarb.co.uk/corbyn-v-saunders-1978/

 

"payment of the proper fare before he begins his journey"

 

So, buying a child's ticket when not a child, gets the OP a ticket, but not "payment of the proper fare", and offering to pay once stopped isn't "before he begins his journey".

 

You are so "way off base' that you appear to have next to no understanding of the issues.

If what you believe was to be true it'd be hard for the TOC's to ever prosecute anyone for fare evasion, and the fact that they can, and do, shows you are just wrong.

[Ruleoflaw]

Clearly you're not familiar with fare evasion procedures.

I mentioned bylaws offences because TfL does not need to prove intent if they decide to prosecute under them.

It's a matter of having a valid ticket or not.

The op didn't have a valid ticket.

If prosecuted under strict liability bylaw the intent will not be part of the equation.

The only question asked will be: "did you have a valid ticket?"

The answer is NO.

Convicted.

There's no space for ifs and buts with bylaws offences.

All toc are entitled to charge reasonable admin fee when fare evasion occurs.

It's up to the suspected fare evader to accept this settlement and avoid court or indeed proceed to court and risk higher fine and conviction which shows on their record.

Considering that the op admitted using a child ticket to travel, despite not being a child, his/her chances of being found not guilty are nil.

That's why we suggested and recommended to pay up and consider the matter a tough lesson.

 

 

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

[king12345]

You haven't got a clue about law.

I understand you studied law, but did you ever sit an exam???

TfL doesn't have to prosecute under rra 1889 just to please you.

They can prosecute under bylaw and your great (not) defence will crumble like a sand castle in a hurricane.

Get it in your head, TfL has a choice of what legislation to apply (rra1889 or bylaw).

[honeybee13]

You haven't got a clue about law.

I understand you studied law, but did you ever sit an exam???

TfL doesn't have to prosecute under rra 1889 just to please you.

They can prosecute under bylaw and your great (not) defence will crumble like a sand castle in a hurricane.

Get it in your head, TfL has a choice of what legislation to apply (rra1889 or bylaw).

 

Hopefully the OP has extracted the advice they think will help and replied to TfL. It would be nice if they let us know how they get on.

 

In the meantime, I think it would be helpful not to continue the discussion on this thread. Thank you for everyone's advice.

 

HB

[Daqueen16]

Hello,

 

I am currently in the same situation. used my brothers 16+. I am so embarrassed and apologetic and would never do this again had i been aware of the consequences. Should I talk to them by phone or email. I dont even know how to express my apologies. Please help.

[dx100uk]

hi ya Daqueen16

you need to start a new thread

of your own please

 

 

dx

[Old-CodJA]

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

 

 

Firstly, there is no 'Railways Act 1889'. The Railways Acts date from the 1990s and subsequent amendments.

 

The correct title for this legislation is The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and the Section 5(3)(a) charge will be correct in this instance.

 

For the relevant guidance in relation to the charge and determination of intent from an Appeal Court precedent you need to look no further than Browning & Floyd (1946)

 

Browning held a ticket that was not valid for his use despite it being valid on the route travelled.

 

The Appeal Court ruled that although the railway may not have lost any money, Browning had not previously paid HIS fare.

 

The same applies in this case,

 

The OP is not a child and therefore, having previously paid only a child fare when an adult fare is due, the OP has not previously paid THEIR fare

 

Prosecution is not restricted to Police & CPS

 

Having successfully prosecuted countless similar cases in the past I can confirm that it is entirely a matter for the TOC.

 

They can either proceed to prosecution, or exercise discretion and allow an alternative disposal via an administrative settlement.

[Old-CodJA]

To clarify the matter of 'intent', the ruling in Browning acknowledged that he had presented the invalid ticket intending to avoid paying HIS fare

 

The same applies in this case, the allegation would be that the OP paid only a child fare with intent to avoid paying the actual fare due

 

In Oscar Chess (1957), former Master of The Rolls Lord Denning and others made clear that the judiciary is not to be a mind reader, but that a person will be judged on their words and actions

 

The OP admits buying only a child ticket and was 'caught' knowing that an adult fare was due. That satisfies an allegation of 'intent'