Jump to content


Freedom Pass Misuse Letter


Recommended Posts

Hey all, question from me.. when drafting the letters and referencing extenuating circumstances, do you also have to provide supporting evidence of those circumstances? Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi all,

 

Like many others, I have a friend who was caught using a family member's freedom Pass. They have received the letter from TFL to confirm their details and provide qualifying comments for the incident.

We are currently drafting this (lots of great examples on this forum), but have some questions.

 

The individual in question, has extenuating circumstances, carer for a parent with disabilities as well as general bread winner. Do we have to provide backing evidence for the extenuating circumstances? Medical records are sensitive information, and they don't feel comfortable sending this off to some admin at TFL.

 

Furthermore if the case is settled OOC, what is the typical range of the fine?

Thanks for all your help.

Edited by Nene243
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't indicate how many times it was used, but I'm not sure it explicitly refers to the freedom Pass. When drafting the letter I know we should only refer to the sole incident.

 

Sorry for the follow up, I just got a copy of the letter. It actually doesn't refer to the freedom Pass at all. It just says they have been reported for an offence and the facts are being considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Excerpt of the letter

On (insert date) you were reported to transport for London (TFL) for an offence(s) on the TFL public transport network. The facts of this incident are being considered and I must advise legal proceedings may be taken against you in accordance with transport for london's prosecution policy.

 

Then it goes on to the standard section asking for details to be emailed/posted within 10 days and failure to respond potentially leading to further escalation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Std new generic letter as all others here get 

 

No you don't at this stage need to Inc evidence etc 

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, and I presume there's no point denying the incident as this is strict liability from TFLs perspective?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to deny?

He has fraudulently and knowingly used a free pass paid for by the public purse on numerous occasions.?

 

The idea going forward is damage limitation by not telling them anything they don't already know .

 

The careful wording of the letter is crucial in this matter.

 

If there is a clear pattern of fraudulent use, as with the other 2 threads you originally posted on asking random questions , I think you understand what is needed 

 

How many times has he used it please?

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it really wasn't him/her who was caught with it* , then to deny it -> 100% likelihood they'll prosecute.

That'd be daft, and remove any chance of an administrative settlement. The aim here is damage limitation / mitigation, not denial

 

* If someone else got caught and gave their details, then yes, say "It wasn't me, so someone else must have given my details"

The TfL staff will have taken a description of the offender, may well have CCTV / body-worn camera footage, and a record of the checks they carried out on the details provided, so to pretend it wasn't them, if it was, would be foolish in the extreme. If TfL believe it is them and they plead not guilty, it'll go to court, and unless they have a very good explanation of why it was someone who looks exactly like them, when faced with the evidence in court, (and the Magistrates thinking "that is obviously them!")........ slam dunk guilty.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For misusing a Freedom Pass TfL very rarely settle out of court and I think your friend can look forward to prosecution. 

 

The "extenuating circumstances" you mention are nothing of the sort. Such circumstances or mitigation should be used to lessen the seriousness of the offence or provide some explanation as to why it was committed. Being a carer or a breadwinner does neither. I would not trouble providing evidence of those facts as it will not make the slightest difference to the outcome.

 

Depending on the circumstances the holder of the Freedom Pass may also be contacted by TfL (and possibly see action) because lending it somebody else is in breach of its terms and conditions.

 

Before doing anything your friend should wait for TfL to make further contact because at present he or she does not know what the allegation is.

 

Just as an aside:

 

3 hours ago, Nene243 said:

Like many others, I have a friend who was caught using a family member's freedom Pass.

 

I don't have any friends who have been caught doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They've had 'the letter'.

 

The OP noted:

"On (insert date) you were reported to transport for London (TFL) for an offence(s) on the TFL public transport network. The facts of this incident are being considered and I must advise legal proceedings may be taken against you in accordance with transport for london's prosecution policy."

 

It seems TfL have become almost as coy as the alleged offender(s), as the initial letter no longer seems to mention what exactly they are considering prosecuting, so it isn't clear from the initial letter:

a) if they already know about previous misuse, so single offence, or multiple occurrences

b) if they are looking at prosecuting under

i) Byelaw,

ii) RORA 1889, or even,

ii) fraud .....

 

But, I agree with you that being the sole carer, or working (or planning to work) in an occupation that requires an eDBS, or requiring a visa for (e.g. the USA), or looking at applications for ILR or UK citizenship shouldn't automatically invoke leniency. The prosecutor may decide that these shouldn't mean one shouldn't be prosecuted, and rather, why not hold people in positions requiring responsibility to the same or a higher standard, rather than "well, then, we shouldn't prosecute them".

The totality of each case should be considered on its individual merits.

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly as with many of these train pass threads, the OP's just don't realise they are doing anything wrong............

 

hey its a free pass , why does it matter who used it.......:frusty::crazy: 

 

they gave it away free to my xxxx , why can't i just use it.....i don't understand why i have been summons.

 

this appears to be a growing trend .

 

if it is true your seriously didn't believe you were doing anything 'wrong' , then that is a fault of the legislation.

and extenuating circumstances

 

imho is a valid reason.....

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect TfL to say:

a) The documentation that comes with the pass makes clear it isn't transferable,

b) Even if someone then claims limited understanding of English, such that they didnt understand the documentation ..... it also comes with a photo ID, so that the transferer and transferee should both be able to tell that it isn''t being used by the person whose photo is shown.......

 

That isn't then the "fault of the legislation", and trying to go down that route might backfire.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...