Rather large out of court settlement

[LateThanNever]

Although in this case there is a ticket office there, the passenger just chose not to use it.

Fair enough - but the principle still stands up!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Surely as a private company, fare evasion would be something they need to take seriously since their "million pounds" would rely on it. A company is not going to deliberately allow themselves to lose revenue.

Unless of course the cost of policing is less than the cost of the fair evasion, which makes for a very difficult decision...

 

[bigdelboy]

I guess the key point may be that by coming to an arrangement he avoided a criminal conviction for fraud .... and that may help his ongoing employment position somewhat ... which might otherwise have been at risk. And if you are caught without tickets the going rate is the full return fare .... though perhaps they calculated a first class season.

I somewhat have a view that a Hemel Hempstead plus bus ticket will get you anywhere 85% of the time ... and leave you in deep poo for the remainder of the time ... especially wrt a Southern RPI manager

I suspect the guy had also overprinted a blank ticket or possibly a faded one ... there is likely more to this than was reported.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Interesting clash of views here:-

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

Theyve done right in this case - getting money back from a case like this is certainly better for the TOC than a prosecution.

It is a massive amount of money but stuff like this has been going on for years since the introduction of Oyster. Ive mentioned before some large amounts being recovered at a previous TOC.

If I was advising the Company, I'd have to favour the settlement.
What would be the grounds for advising "thowing the book at them" (by which I'm reading that the Company exercises it's authority to prosecute a Criminal Offence) ?

 

[yorksrob]

If I was advising the Company, I'd have to favour the settlement.
What would be the grounds for advising "thowing the book at them" (by which I'm reading that the Company exercises it's authority to prosecute a Criminal Offence) ?

Isn't the whole "point" (for want of a better word) of a criminal offence, that it is deemed to be an offence against society, therefore the authorities should pursue it on that basis, regardless of whether it is convenient for the victim (the TOC) ?

If not, (as someone else has pointed out) why is it a criminal offence at all and why are everyday Tom's Dick's and Harry's routinely threatened with a criminal prosecution for it.

 

[richw]

If it went to magistrates court, maximum fine imposed would be £5000, or a percentage of income (max of 500% weekly net pay).

On this basis southeastern have got the bigger settlement than possible from court, and then in court there is the need to proof he made the same journey every day for 5 years. I therefore see this as the best possible outcome,

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Isn't the whole "point" (for want of a better word) of a criminal offence, that it is deemed to be an offence against society, therefore the authorities should pursue it on that basis, regardless of whether it is convenient for the victim (the TOC) ?

. . . .

Well, I won't argue with that. But in this circumstance, it's not "the authorities" ( those responsible for issues in the relationship between individuals and the state) who are pursuing it, but is a private Company.
Why would a private, commercial, Company pursue "an offence against society"? (actually, it would be easier for us to claim that it was an offence against the Company, but perhaps that side-steps your point).

What interests me here, is to learn what criteria a private Company would have used to choose to put in the time and effort and accept the risks in pursuing a Criminal Offence (which doesn't come cheaply, is to little benefit to themselves, especially when we consider the potential benefit of taking a commercial approach seeking to recover their losses, whether through general commercial Law), or through specific Railway legislation.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I won't argue with that. But in this circumstance, it's not "the authorities" ( those responsible for issues in the relationship between individuals and the state) who are pursuing it, but is a private Company.
Why would a private, commercial, Company pursue "an offence against society"? (actually, it would be easier for us to claim that it was an offence against the Company, but perhaps that side-steps your point).

What interests me here, is to learn what criteria a private Company would have used to choose to put in the time and effort and accept the risks in pursuing a Criminal Offence (which doesn't come cheaply, is to little benefit to themselves, especially when we consider the potential benefit of taking a commercial approach seeking to recover their losses, whether through general commercial Law), or through specific Railway legislation.

Should it be a private company pursuing criminal offences at all.

If it's serious enough to be a criminal offence, surely the the authorities in the form of the BTP perhaps, should be given the resources to pursue it on behalf of the state. Alternatively, perhaps it should be settled as a civil matter.

Either way, it seems unsatisfactory that someone can buy their way out of trouble for a massive fraud when other people are prosecuted for the same offence for smaller sums simply because they don't have the financial means to cough up.

 

[user15681]

The official line as for why this was settled out of court is that it allowed Southeastern "to recover the sum owed to us very quickly without incurring the additional costs or uncertainty associated with pursuing the matter through the courts".

 

[LateThanNever]

Well, I won't argue with that. But in this circumstance, it's not "the authorities" ( those responsible for issues in the relationship between individuals and the state) who are pursuing it, but is a private Company.
Why would a private, commercial, Company pursue "an offence against society"? (actually, it would be easier for us to claim that it was an offence against the Company, but perhaps that side-steps your point).

What interests me here, is to learn what criteria a private Company would have used to choose to put in the time and effort and accept the risks in pursuing a Criminal Offence (which doesn't come cheaply, is to little benefit to themselves, especially when we consider the potential benefit of taking a commercial approach seeking to recover their losses, whether through general commercial Law), or through specific Railway legislation.

Well as Tesco would doubtless conclude that is one of the costs of business. But they would be very happy to get the restitution as they have a much more onerous criminal law for their wrongdoers.
Time for a change of the Railway strict liability Criminal Law at least, I suggest - not to mention the million quid salaries of the railway MD's!

 

[Clip]

Should it be a private company pursuing criminal offences at all.

If it's serious enough to be a criminal offence, surely the the authorities in the form of the BTP perhaps, should be given the resources to pursue it on behalf of the state. Alternatively, perhaps it should be settled as a civil matter.

Either way, it seems unsatisfactory that someone can buy their way out of trouble for a massive fraud when other people are prosecuted for the same offence for smaller sums simply because they don't have the financial means to cough up.

Are you still claiming that people who may not be as rich as this person have never been offered to settle out of court?

You dont even know how this person was approached by SET and wehther or not they did threaten him with court or and out of court settlement yet you have a fixed firm opinion that the rich can get away without going to court and those who are not riuch do not and never have this option!

Both of which is complete rubbish. Im pretty sure that if he didnt cough up the money they would have no option of going to court.

 

[yorkie]

The official line as for why this was settled out of court is that it allowed Southeastern "to recover the sum owed to us very quickly without incurring the additional costs or uncertainty associated with pursuing the matter through the courts".

I think Southeastern wanted to get some publicity, and the best way to do that is to quote a very large sum. As others have said, that will make anyone else doing this worried and put them off.

If it had gone to court, there's no guarantees that Southeastern could prove it was a regular act for 5 years, and the level of fine would likely be far lower.

The extreme left are wrong to suggest that poor people cannot settle out of court. They're obviously not experienced in this area. Some people who have come to ask us for advice have admitted their guilt and a prosecution would be incredibly easy, but nearly all that I'm aware of have settled. In some cases the amounts have been as low as £20. In a similar case to the one described, the sum was 'only' a 4-figure sum, and there was probably no less evidence available to the TOC (Greater Anglia) in that case than this one.

As for the certain media, they've made so many mistakes and got PAYG and Travelcards mixed up. I think they're guessing and have got different hypotheses mixed up into one! Anyone who knows anything about such matters knows its nonsense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

..., it seems unsatisfactory that someone can buy their way out of trouble for a massive fraud when other people are prosecuted for the same offence for smaller sums simply because they don't have the financial means to cough up....

You're mistaken. Remind me at the Leeds meal and I'll give you several examples of outcomes. Some of which are posted on this forum; you just have to look through the Disputes section to find the ones where the outcomes were posted.

It's annoying when people don't post the outcomes. Sometimes I find out via PM (either by the original poster, or in some cases by other parties!). But, I would say this: it's rare for the outcome to be a prosecution, if the defendant was prepared to reach a settlement, in the cases I've seen.

 

[jon0844]

The only people that seem to go to court are those that ignore every letter. We can see that nearly always a settlement is offered.

 

[47513 Severn]

For those wondering why he didn't use a travelcard on oyster rather than pay the maximum fare, I imagine such a usage pattern on a travelcard (regular incomplete journeys starting or ending in zone 1) would immediately flag up as suspicious and be investigated. Better to use an unregistered payg card (or, if he's clever, several cards) perhaps interspersed with some legitimate journeys.

As to the rich/poor law nonsense, settling out of court is pretty much the norm for all TOCs for much the same reasons as Southeastern did it in this case. Northern's £80 scheme is a perfect example. The media are just making a meal of it as he vaguely falls into the category of a 'banker' and you can't go wrong vilifying a banker these days. Lazy journalists love easy outrage.

47513

 

[yorksrob]

I think Southeastern wanted to get some publicity, and the best way to do that is to quote a very large sum. As others have said, that will make anyone else doing this worried and put them off.

If it had gone to court, there's no guarantees that Southeastern could prove it was a regular act for 5 years, and the level of fine would likely be far lower.

The extreme left are wrong to suggest that poor people cannot settle out of court. They're obviously not experienced in this area. Some people who have come to ask us for advice have admitted their guilt and a prosecution would be incredibly easy, but nearly all that I'm aware of have settled. In some cases the amounts have been as low as £20. In a similar case to the one described, the sum was 'only' a 4-figure sum, and there was probably no less evidence available to the TOC (Greater Anglia) in that case than this one.

As for the certain media, they've made so many mistakes and got PAYG and Travelcards mixed up. I think they're guessing and have got different hypotheses mixed up into one! Anyone who knows anything about such matters knows its nonsense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're mistaken. Remind me at the Leeds meal and I'll give you several examples of outcomes. Some of which are posted on this forum; you just have to look through the Disputes section to find the ones where the outcomes were posted.

It's annoying when people don't post the outcomes. Sometimes I find out via PM (either by the original poster, or in some cases by other parties!). But, I would say this: it's rare for the outcome to be a prosecution, if the defendant was prepared to reach a settlement, in the cases I've seen.

I don‘t doubt that other cases have been settled out of court, but for a crime committed totalling thousands of pounds ?

It‘s hard to imagine fraud or theft of this magnitude being let off in any other circumstance. I can‘t imagine an employer or a shop not pursuing such an action, as much for the deterrant effect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My conclusion on this is that criminal prosecutions are a matter of public interest, and I‘m not at all convinced that a private company, beset with commercial considerations, is in any position to judge what is in the public interest.

 

[richw]

I don't see why public interest comes into it, the company are the only people impacted by the offence so should have a right to recover the loss to them in anyway they feel appropriate.

 

[DJL]

For those wondering why he didn't use a travelcard on oyster rather than pay the maximum fare, I imagine such a usage pattern on a travelcard (regular incomplete journeys starting or ending in zone 1) would immediately flag up as suspicious and be investigated. Better to use an unregistered payg card (or, if he's clever, several cards) perhaps interspersed with some legitimate journeys.

As to the rich/poor law nonsense, settling out of court is pretty much the norm for all TOCs for much the same reasons as Southeastern did it in this case. Northern's £80 scheme is a perfect example. The media are just making a meal of it as he vaguely falls into the category of a 'banker' and you can't go wrong vilifying a banker these days. Lazy journalists love easy outrage.

47513

I used to have a travel card on oyster and 99% of the time I would touch in or out but not both.
My home station has no barriers and touching has no effect on how much I pay so why would I bother?

 

[Haywain]

It‘s hard to imagine fraud or theft of this magnitude being let off in any other circumstance. I can‘t imagine an employer or a shop not pursuing such an action, as much for the deterrant effect.

I think that you will find that HMRC settle tax evasion cases in this way on a very regular basis.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It‘s hard to imagine fraud or theft of this magnitude being let off in any other circumstance. I can‘t imagine an employer or a shop not pursuing such an action, as much for the deterrant effect.

HMRC routinely settle tax cases in this way, and the Serious Fraud Office are heading that way with financial fraud cases. These are both for the same reason as with this: it is very difficult to prove intent.

The Americans have used civil settlements to deal with banking fraud for years.

Surely as a private company, fare evasion would be something they need to take seriously since their "million pounds" would rely on it. A company is not going to deliberately allow themselves to lose revenue.

Unfortunately, the TOC isn't as reliant on the additional revenue as you'd think, given that most franchise agreements have "cap and collar" arrangements. Essentially reduced income equals reduced franchise payments, and increased revenue sends more money back to the Government. The Government take most of the revenue risk, so why would the TOC care about fare evasion?

 

[redbutton]

I admit I only skimmed the thread, but I'll point out that a fraud conviction, or even the mere mention of his name alongside the word "fraud", would likely bar this person from financial industry employment.

Therefore, it was clearly in his best interest to settle the matter anonymously at any cost (even 43k is a meager sum compared to his jeopardized future earnings), and SE still gets their costs recouped and a triumphant "fare evasion doesn't pay" news cycle.

A win-win, I'd say.

 

[LexyBoy]

I admit I only skimmed the thread, but I'll point out that a fraud conviction, or even the mere mention of his name alongside the word "fraud", would likely bar this person from financial industry employment.

[...]

A win-win, I'd say.

Well, you could say that there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services, in which case it's not a win from that perspective.

 

[GingerSte]

Just out of curiosity, I understand that the TOC will have dropped the private prosecution (I assume), but does this prevent the possibility of the police/CPS taking up the prosecution for themselves? Some sort of public interest thing (if the accused works in financial services)?

Obviously the TOC wouldn't be interested in pushing this themselves, but I imagine they would be compelled to testify as a witness in court, confidentiality agreement or no.

 

[anme]

I admit I only skimmed the thread, but I'll point out that a fraud conviction, or even the mere mention of his name alongside the word "fraud", would likely bar this person from financial industry employment.

Therefore, it was clearly in his best interest to settle the matter anonymously at any cost (even 43k is a meager sum compared to his jeopardized future earnings), and SE still gets their costs recouped and a triumphant "fare evasion doesn't pay" news cycle.

A win-win, I'd say.

I tend to agree - as long as TOCs will accept an out of court settlement for any less serious offence as well (which will be virtually all ticket offences).

This was serious and deliberate fare evasion, presumably repeated many hundreds of times over the course of several years. It's much more serious than any case I've read about on these forums. If a TOC was prepared to accept an out of court settlement in this case, they should accept one in almost any other. After all, it's not only hedge fund managers who might lose their career if they get a criminal record.

I'm not sure it's really in society's interests to deprive someone of their livelihood for a ticketing offence.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well, you could say that there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services, in which case it's not a win from that perspective.

Ah yes. Just as we'd never employ any thiefs in the Police, employ disturbed people in mental health, employ philistine aetheists in the Church or employ veggies and vegans in a butcher.
[stereotypes used deliberately for effect]

I'm sure this isn't the only professional in financial services who thinks nothing of a 'scam' or two. In fact, I know it isn't!

 

[reb0118]

They'd never have got that much money in court.

Or, dare I say it, if he had paid the correct fare in the first place?

 

[Deerfold]

Ah yes. Just as we'd never employ any thiefs in the Police, employ disturbed people in mental health, employ philistine aetheists in the Church or employ veggies and vegans in a butcher.
[stereotypes used deliberately for effect]

I'm sure this isn't the only professional in financial services who thinks nothing of a 'scam' or two. In fact, I know it isn't!

I'm not sure what you're saying here? I've read it as "If we can't catch all the fraudsters working in financial services (criminals amongst the police...), it's unfair to catch and ban some of them" which I can't agree with.

If that's not the point you're making, please correct me.

 

[Pumbaa]

Unfortunately, the TOC isn't as reliant on the additional revenue as you'd think, given that most franchise agreements have "cap and collar" arrangements. Essentially reduced income equals reduced franchise payments, and increased revenue sends more money back to the Government. The Government take most of the revenue risk, so why would the TOC care about fare evasion?

Because money from out of court settlements isn't subject to 'cap and collar' or whatever it's proper name is, and so the TOC rakes it all in?

 

[redbutton]

Well, you could say that there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services, in which case it's not a win from that perspective.

I agree. I meant it's a win-win for the two parties involved (the fraudster and SE).

 

[PermitToTravel]

Just out of curiosity, I understand that the TOC will have dropped the private prosecution (I assume), but does this prevent the possibility of the police/CPS taking up the prosecution for themselves? Some sort of public interest thing (if the accused works in financial services)?

Obviously the TOC wouldn't be interested in pushing this themselves, but I imagine they would be compelled to testify as a witness in court, confidentiality agreement or no.

A police force could charge the individual concerned, but I suspect that the CPS might find it not in the public interest to prosecute after the money has been repaid.

 

[bigdelboy]

Well, you could say that there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services, in which case it's not a win from that perspective.

I am somewhat of the opinion if the employer of said person knows of this if would perhaps be prudent of them to review his past activities .... or they may be open to failure to pay due dillegence by the FCA. All in the chain who know but do nothing may lay themselves open to be being dragged in as well. Personal opinion only.