TFL Fare Evasion Prosecution. HELP

[Saul Goodman]

So they have your name and your cousin's address and they are aware that you were using your cousin's card. Is that correct?

If I'm reading it correctly, he got caught, gave his name and his cousin's address. The name was checked against the address and came back as legit, because his cousin's dad has the same name, so the letters are, technically, being sent to his uncle.
Is that right, lazim ?

 

[lazim]

If I'm reading it correctly, he got caught, gave his name and his cousin's address. The name was checked against the address and came back as legit, because his cousin's dad has the same name, so the letters are, technically, being sent to his uncle.
Is that right, lazim ?

yes thats correct but surely its not legit. my cousins dad is near 50 and the dob i provided is 2001 making it 18. surely that shouldnt have been verified

 

[cupid_stunt]

I'm fairly confident that isn't how last known address is being defined tbh

Courts take a very dim view of people giving false addresses, and if that false address is that of a family member, I would bet on them considering that the papers have been served.

Allowing giving a false address as a 'get out of card jail' would be bonkers.

Plus, he has committed an additional offence by giving a false address under section 5 [3- c] of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 - "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 needs to seek proper legal advice, and ignore some of the frankly bonkers advice on here.

 

[Spymaster]

yes, my cousins fathers name is exactly the same bar his middle name

Right. So you're being advised by some here that the letter should be ignored. What will happen is that they will keep writing and escalate it to get a response. I don't know what will happen eventually and I doubt anyone else here does either. They are unlikely to just forget about it though. Perhaps they will eventually just enter a "not guilty" and proceed with a prosecution which will entail cost and hassle and is unlikely to look good on either of you when this all comes out in the wash. What's clear is that they are currently 50% incorrect but it really won't take Sherlock Holmes to unravel it. They have the name and address of the card holder because they issued him the card, and they know that it was his cousin (you) who was using it. At the moment they've just made a mistake in who they've addressed the letter to.

I completely disagree with LBJ and Tidy that a solicitor would advise everyone to keep silent. I think he'd advise you and your cousin to contact them and clarify whats going on, point out that you're are saving them a lot of time and effort, and ask that you be able to pay a penalty rather than be prosecuted. That would be sensible given that they already have all the information they need but just haven't figured it out yet.

I could be wrong. Take legal advice before doing anything.

 

[skyscraper101]

At a guess I bet TFL would settle out of court. Those lawyers I linked to will have previous knowledge on this.

 

[Spymaster]

At a guess I bet TFL would settle out of court.

I think so too, which is why it makes more sense to deal with it rather than hoping it'll go away.

 

[Pickman's model]

Right. So you're being advised by some here that the letter should be ignored. What will happen is that they will keep writing and escalate it to get a response. I don't know what will happen eventually and I doubt anyone else here does either. They are unlikely to just forget about it though. Perhaps they will eventually just enter a "not guilty" and proceed with a prosecution which will entail cost and hassle and is unlikely to look good on either of you when this all comes out in the wash. What's clear is that they are currently 50% incorrect but it really won't take Sherlock Holmes to unravel it. They have the name and address of the card holder because they issued him the card, and they know that it was his cousin (you) who was using it. At the moment they've just made a mistake in who they've addressed the letter to.

I completely disagree with LBJ and Tidy that a solicitor would advise everyone to keep silent. I think he'd advise you and your cousin to contact them and clarify whats going on, point out that you're are saving them a lot of time and effort, and ask that you be able to pay a penalty fare rather than be prosecuted. That would be sensible given that they already have all the information they need but just haven't figured it out yet.

I could be wrong. Take legal advice before doing anything.

Lbj is as well informed on this matter as he is in his opinion council tenants are not exploited, which is to say not at all

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

fwiw if you want an Australian e-visa for tourist or business purposes it doesn't even ask if you have a record. If you are after a working type visa just say no to any questions regarding criminal records.

 

[lazim]

i just spoke to a solicitor, he said it is a very ordinary situation and it could exploit my cousins side to some hassle. however he did say that it is possible to come to an opt out settlement

 

[Spymaster]

i just spoke to a solicitor, he said it is a very ordinary situation and it could exploit my cousins side to some hassle. however he did say that it is possible to come to an opt out settlement

So what did he advise as a course of action?

 

[lazim]

So what did he advise as a course of action?

he said if my cousin have already pleaded then it complicates the situation, he said he can compose an email to come to a settlement but i have to go in to his office with my cousin and his dad tomorrow. was really not that helpful but im hoping tomorrow we can come to a conclusion

 

[Spymaster]

he said if my cousin have already pleaded then it complicates the situation, he said he can compose an email to come to a settlement but i have to go in to his office with my cousin and his dad tomorrow. was really not that helpful but im hoping tomorrow we can come to a conclusion

Makes far more sense than ignoring it. Good luck!

 

[Spymaster]

And buy valid tickets from now on, scrote.

 

[lazim]

i have just got news that it is not a conviction, its a byelaw

 

[keybored]

i have just got news that it is not a conviction, its a byelaw

Who told you that?

 

[Spymaster]

i have just got news that it is not a conviction, its a byelaw

 

[Puddy_Tat]

you may want to try the 'disputes and prosecutions' forum at railforums - there are some fairly well informed people on there. although they will want detail of what bit of law they are threatening you with.

from my (relatively limited) understanding, it can be pursued as a criminal matter (in which case it will show up on criminal records checks - although offences become 'spent' after a time - it's a sliding scale where the more serious the penalty, the longer it takes to be spent) or it can be pursued as a bye-law thing, which does not lead to a criminal record, it's more like a parking ticket.

a few people have mentioned 'penalty fares' - i very much doubt this will apply here, as these are more for over-riding or where there's some benefit of doubt to be applied. using someone else's pass is more likely to be seen as a deliberate attempt to defraud.

some train operators will accept an 'out of court settlement' - I don't know what TFL's policy is towards these things.

as for the 'it's only £ 3' or whatever argument - broadly speaking transport operators don't see it like that if a passenger (or staff member) is caught fiddling once - they assume that individual does it regularly and just that this time they have got caught. they also take the approach that if the worst that can happen to someone who's caught without having paid is that they get politely asked for the lowest plausible fare for the point at which you're caught, then there's not much encouragement to pay a fare.

 

[lazim]

.....

 

[cupid_stunt]

.....

Looks like you got lucky, if prosecuted under TfL byelaw it's not a recordable offence, whereas you could be getting done under the Railways Act 1889, which would result in a a criminal record.

I reckon you need to take that bit of luck & deal with it, subject to legal advice, and avoid them waking-up to the fact you gave them a false address, which is an additional offence under the Railways Act 1889, that could result in an additional conviction & a criminal record.

 

[lazim]

Looks like you got lucky, if prosecuted under TfL byelaw it's not a recordable offence, whereas you could be getting done under the Railways Act 1889, which would result in a a criminal record.

I reckon you need to take that bit of luck & deal with it, subject to legal advice, and avoid them waking-up to the fact you gave them a false address, which is an additional offence under the Railways Act 1889, that could result in an additional conviction & a criminal record.

i could just plead guilty and only have to pay a fine as this wont show on DBS checks due to it being byelaw right?

 

[cupid_stunt]

i could just plead guilty and only have to pay a fine as this wont show on DBS checks due to it being byelaw right?

Firstly, as I keep saying, get legal advice on this, Citizens Advice Bureau or solicitor, some offer a free initial half hour.

I am no expert, but a friend who knows a bit about these things has told me that a conviction under the TfL bylaws is not a 'recordable offence', it's still a criminal offence, but is not recorded on the Police National Computer, so there's no record as such to show up on any DBS check. He thinks its because there's no provision for jail terms under the bye-laws, whereas there is under the Railways Act.

He sent be the link below, which seems to confirm what he says:

Fare evasion & single justice procedure notice - please help

Dear all, I would be thankful if you can please help with your expert advice on my 2 questions. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS August 2018 - I am an adult and I was travelling from Stratford to Bond Street using incorrect day travel card by mistake. When I touched out, it alarmed and revenue inspector...

www.railforums.co.uk

Oh, they have a complete guide on there, this bit confirms the advice given in that link above.

A person found Guilty of an Offence (other than a breach of a Byelaw) will have their details entered on the Police National Computer (PNC) and will therefore appear on a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS - formerly known as Criminal Records Bureau - CRB), this is generally referred to as a "C.R.B. Check". An Offence of fare evasion (under Section 5 of the RoRA) in the PNC will be treated as a crime of dishonesty.

A person found Guilty of a Byelaw Offence will not have the fact recorded on the PNC (unless the Court makes an administrative error).

Persons found Guilty of either category of Offence will have the fact revealed during a National Security Vetting or Developed Vetting (DV) search, which is the level of background checking applied to persons working with Official Secrets in Government and with certain sensitive information in the armed forces, MoD and defence contractors. A Railway ticketing Offence will not appear on a Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) as applicable to staff in some Government Departments nor would it appear on a Counter Terrorist Check (CTC).

RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 8 - Legal

Section 8 - Legal Contents 8.1 History 8.2 Current Framework - Railway Specific Legislation 8.2.1 Legislation 8.2.2 Byelaws 8.2.3 Case Law 8.2.4 Penalty Fares 8.2.5 Penalties 8.2.6 Policing and other powers 8.2.7 Process 8.3 Current Framework - Other Procedures and Relevant...

www.railforums.co.uk