First Capital Connect - Notice Intention to Prosecute - please help!

[circles100]

I've just received a 'Notice of Intention to Prosecute' from First Capital Connect and I am concerned as to what to do next / how best to handle this.

I booked my ticket in advance online and had it with me when I was cautioned. The reason that I was cautioned was because the network railcard that the ticket was bought to be used with had run out by about 10 days.

It was an honest mistake - entirely unintentional as I made clear to the officer. I've been shocked by the severity of treatment from FCC throughout this from the way they spoke to me on the train to the tone of the letter.

I've been asked for a statement of events from my perspective.

What do I do? I don't deny that I made a mistake but I'm worried by the penalties stated on the letter for a minor error.

Please can I have some advice?

 

[circles100]

I have receive the intention to prosecute letter from First Capital Connect.

I boarded at preston park (to travel to Shepherd's bush) with a valid ticket purchased in advance online. My network Railcard had expired about 10 days earlier though and this is why I was cautioned. I didn't realise that it was not valid - it was an honest mistake.

The FCC staff member filled in a form and read me my rights(!) I didn't understand so asked some questions during this. He took my ticket and railcard and issued me with a slip to get me to Clapham J.

I think I asked if I could pay the penalty fare but he said that wasn't possible.

Any advice with regards to my response would be gratefully received!

 

[bb21]

Can you explain what happened exactly on the train? What conversation took place exactly? What did the RPI ask you and what were your responses?

Edit: I have now seen your other post and have merged them. It would still be helpful to know what conversation took place.

Because your Railcard was out of date, your ticket was not valid. You could have been offered the option of paying a Penalty Fare, but that is not a right. The RPI decided that he would report you for prosecution, presumably because he did not believe that it was an innocent mistake. He is entitled to this course of action.

You would likely receive a letter asking for your side of the story in due course. They will then decide what happens next depending on your response.

 

[circles100]

The conversation was centred mainly around the questions he was forced to ask me. As you'd expect he asked me if it was my intention to dodge the fare and I answered that it certainly was not.

I was intimidated by the tone of the conversation and the caution. I asked questions relating to what he was doing. I didn't understand exactly what was going on. I thought it sounded like a criminal caution which he said it wasn't.

The whole thing was an honest mistake. Any advice as to what is best to put inn the response would be great. I'm really disappointed that a simple error on my part has resulted in this! It all seems way over the top.

As I say, any help wit a good response would be great.

 

[island]

Unfortunately for you it is a criminal offence to enter a train without having a valid ticket with you, and a ticket with a railcard discount is not valid unless you have the required valid railcard with you also.

You should provide FCC with an honest and concise summary of your side of the story. I would urge you to leave out any potential negative comments about the conduct of the revenue protection officer as this tends to muddy the waters and confuse the matter. You may also enquire as to whether FCC would be prepared to accept a financial settlement in lieu of taking the matter to court. Indications are that it generally is so prepared, but the settlement may well be in the region of £100.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The fact that your railcard was out of date is unfortunately, not a valid excuse.
Many RPOs see only black and white and show little or no empathy.

The "system" can be very harsh and unfair.

You should have checked your railcard was in date.

If you have received a "Notice of Prosecution" instead of a PF, then I believe it's a case of settling out of court - be prepared to pay quite a substantial sum of money.

 

[tony6499]

Was the railcard in date when you booked the ticket online ?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Was the railcard in date when you booked the ticket online ?

I don't think this matters. The railcard would have had to be in date on the day the OP was travelling, otherwise his ticket would have been valid and he wouldn't be in this situation

 

[circles100]

I guess I'm just a bit confused as to why they want prosecute and not just issue me with a penalty fare. They can see it was an honest mistake as I bought a valid ticket and my card had just run out - a simple case of oversight on my part.

There seems to be an unrestricted option open to them to ignore the policy they advertise ie, PF, and press for the maximum amount?

In your experiences do they ever show any kind of subjectivity or are they just robots out to extract as much money from the general public?

 

[najaB]

I guess I'm just a bit confused as to why they want prosecute and not just issue me with a penalty fare. They can see it was an honest mistake as I bought a valid ticket and my card had just run out - a simple case of oversight on my part.

Unfortunately, the ticket was not valid because the card had run out. That said, based on what I've read on this forum, it's more likely that they will offer you an out of court resolution than proceed straight to a prosecution.

 

[bb21]

As I said earlier, it is not a right to be issued a Penalty Fare.

It is not clear at all at the time of the incident that it was an innocent mistake. Perhaps the RPI did not believe that you were unaware of the expiry date of your Railcard, and that you were trying to "wing it" by pretending that you were not aware, in which case reporting you for prosecution would have been the correct course of action.

Unfortunate some train companies have gradually cottoned onto the fact that threatening prosecution can be far more financially rewarding than issuing Penalty Fares, so would appear to do it when given the chance.

 

[island]

There seems to be an unrestricted option open to them to ignore the policy they advertise ie, PF, and press for the maximum amount?

In your experiences do they ever show any kind of subjectivity or are they just robots out to extract as much money from the general public?

As most Train Operating Companies are privately owned, they of course would want to gain more money rather than less. It has been argued that the company's directors are legally obliged to run it for the maximum benefit of the shareholders. I am not sure whether this is correct.

 

[Haywain]

Unfortunate some train companies have gradually cottoned onto the fact that threatening prosecution can be far more financially rewarding than issuing Penalty Fares, so would appear to do it when given the chance.

Given that the likely penalty fare in this case would appear to be in the region of £40, by the time the costs of getting even to the current stage are taken into account, I doubt that FCC will be making much extra money out of this.

 

[londiscape]

As most Train Operating Companies are privately owned, they of course would want to gain more money rather than less. It has been argued that the company's directors are legally obliged to run it for the maximum benefit of the shareholders. I am not sure whether this is correct.

Since the 2006 Companies Act the directors are obliged to "promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members (i.e. shareholders) as a whole" BUT in doing so must "have regard" to other factors:

(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company's employees,
(c)the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

My bold to highlight what may be considered relevant to the railway's interactions with passengers.

 

[snail]

I'm tempted to ask why you didn't renew your railcard when it ran out? It's an obvious question for the RPI/Prosecutor to ask in these circumstances. And something I'm sure lots of people 'forget' to do so they can save a few quid.

Have you renewed your railcard since the incident?

 

[bb21]

Given that the likely penalty fare in this case would appear to be in the region of £40, by the time the costs of getting even to the current stage are taken into account, I doubt that FCC will be making much extra money out of this.

Aye. I think you have a point regarding this case, but I was more commenting on the general trend.

 

[circles100]

Hi all and thanks for you consideration of this.

@snail - I buy a card yearly and use it only a handful of times; as such I'm not particularly familiar with the date of expiry. Life is busy and we're all human and vulnerable to making simple mistakes like this! I renewed it on the day of the incident.

@Londiscape - thanks for this. I take a previous poster's point that my statement should not pick holes in the conduct of the officer and should simply lay events out from my perspective. Once this is over however, I am tempted to complain in some form or another as I feel that FCC's handling of this (completely disregarding their advertised procedure for invalid tickets plus their heavy-handed tone during the incident) contradict's the points you highlight.

@Haywain - I'd be interested to know roughly how much the out of court settlement might be. Do you have any knowledge of similar incidents and settlement figures?

 

[tony6499]

I don't think this matters. The railcard would have had to be in date on the day the OP was travelling, otherwise his ticket would have been valid and he wouldn't be in this situation

It does if the OP had checked his railcard when he booked his ticket and then seen it was out of date and needed renewing.

If it wasn't in date when the ticket was booked FCC may look at it more severely hence what is happening. Having spoken to FCC RPI's they do check this when going through

 

[Skimpot flyer]

It does if the OP had checked his railcard when he booked his ticket and then seen it was out of date and needed renewing.

If it wasn't in date when the ticket was booked FCC may look at it more severely hence what is happening. Having spoken to FCC RPI's they do check this when going through

Or, indeed, if the OP noticed his railcard was going to run out, between the date of making the advance purchase and the date of travel, then FCC could argue that he knowingly boarded/travelled with an invalid ticket...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I'd be interested to know roughly how much the out of court settlement might be. Do you have any knowledge of similar incidents and settlement figures?

It is not uncommon for out of Court settlements, (where they are accepted) to be in the order of £40 - £200 for a first offence, plus the cost of the fare due. But what makes each case different is compounded in yours by the uncertainty over whether or not you had been using the invalid Railcard on several other journeys.
A typical scenario is that someone who 'forgets' that it has expired realises that they had got away with it once or twice and so becomes more confident in continuing to use it, perhaps incurring hundreds of pounds worth of travel without the railcard to validate the tickets.

You may be unable to persuade the Company otherwise - much will depend on the evidence, including specifically the statement made at the time.

Where Prosecutors are confident that repeated and willful exploitation has occurred, (whether or not it began with an 'innocent mistake'), then OoC settlements are less likely, and where they are agreed, then they will reflect the higher suspected cost of unpaid fares.

As for the dissatisfaction at the 'heavy handed tone', then I really do advise letting that pass. If you had done no wrong, then I wouldn't comment, but as you clearly have been at fault, then there's really no point - the Railways suffer a massive loss of revenue through fare evasion every day, and attempts to investigate and recover losses will always leave some of us with a sense of indignation. That's how it is.

 

[Greenback]

It's possible, though admittedly not likely, that you were travelling on discounted tickets for 10 days without your ticket and railcard being inspected together.

I'm not saying that you had been, but that will be one of the factors the company will have considered in your case. I'm sure they will have come across many, many instances where the ;passenger had made a simple mistake by 'forgetting' or 'not noticing' their railcard had expired. I'm sure you can see how it may look to them.

 

[jon0844]

I can see how you might fail to notice when a railcard expires, but I can't see how the railway could ever tell the difference between an honest mistake and fraud.

Maybe you could have a recognised grace period of say 24 or 48 hours (10 days would be far too long), but a better solution is for your email address (which I think most railcard forms will ask for) is used to send an automated reminder - or a mobile number receives an SMS. I presume the cards sold online will already give a reminder - which makes sense, given it's encouraging the purchase of a new card.

That effectively solves the problem.

 

[Greenback]

It would help solve the problem of genuine forgetfulness, but I'm sure you would still find people hadn't received the reminder, forgot they had received one, hadn't had time to read it, forgot they need to renew before travelling, and so on.

I've no doubt they would feel they should be treated leniently despite the reminder!

 

[ValleyLines142]

As for the dissatisfaction at the 'heavy handed tone', then I really do advise letting that pass. If you had done no wrong, then I wouldn't comment, but as you clearly have been at fault, then there's really no point - the Railways suffer a massive loss of revenue through fare evasion every day, and attempts to investigate and recover losses will always leave some of us with a sense of indignation. That's how it is.

The OP may have been in the wrong (and they've stated that they accept this); however, at absolutely no point is it acceptable for ANYONE, regardless of who they are and what position they hold, to speak to anyone else in such a manner.

I highly doubt the OP needed to be belittled or spoken to in such a manner. Just because they made a mistake doesn't mean they can be spoken to like dirt and/or is against their human rights.

I'm certainly not siding with the OP, as they made the mistake of not renewing their discount, however it's true with regards to the RPI (or whatever he was).

If I made a mistake, then that is absolutely fine and I would do whatever it takes to resolve and finish the situation amicably, but if the person that was dealing with my mistake was rude or heavy-handed, then I would complain immediately.

Although certainly not your intention, I'm sure, it almost looks as if you're saying the RPI was correct to act in this manner.

NO ONE in this world deserves a lack of respect; it doesn't go down a miss.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's not just the OP who is indignant:

I highly doubt the OP needed to be belittled or spoken to in such a manner. Just because they made a mistake doesn't mean they can be spoken to like dirt and/or is against their human rights

I haven't a clue what this is about. All that the OP said was that they were intimidated by the tone of the questioning and the letter.

Perspective, please!

 

[Fare-Cop]

The OP may have been in the wrong (and they've stated that they accept this); however, at absolutely no point is it acceptable for ANYONE, regardless of who they are and what position they hold, to speak to anyone else in such a manner.

I highly doubt the OP needed to be belittled or spoken to in such a manner. Just because they made a mistake doesn't mean they can be spoken to like dirt and/or is against their human rights.

I am always fascinated how we get to a description of someone being 'belittled', 'spoken to like dirt' or that there is some discrimination 'against their human rights' when there is absolutely no evidence or even claim of such throughout the original post or subsequent replies.

The following are the relevant extracts from the OPs posts:

The FCC staff member filled in a form and read me my rights(!) I didn't understand so asked some questions during this. He took my ticket and railcard and issued me with a slip to get me to Clapham J.
I think I asked if I could pay the penalty fare but he said that wasn't possible.

The conversation was centred mainly around the questions he was forced to ask me. As you'd expect he asked me if it was my intention to dodge the fare and I answered that it certainly was not.

I was intimidated by the tone of the conversation and the caution. I asked questions relating to what he was doing. I didn't understand exactly what was going on. I thought it sounded like a criminal caution which he said it wasn't.

I take a previous poster's point that my statement should not pick holes in the conduct of the officer and should simply lay events out from my perspective. Once this is over however, I am tempted to complain in some form or another as I feel that FCC's handling of this (completely disregarding their advertised procedure for invalid tickets plus their heavy-handed tone during the incident) contradict's the points you highlight

Where in the foregoing is there any evidence of claims of serious misconduct?

The OP says nothing more than he felt the matter was a heavy-handed response by the rail company, that he was intimidated by the tone of the conversation and by being cautioned.

It appears that the OP had in fact confirmed that he held a valid Railcard that would cover the journey he intended to make. He says that he bought his ticket online, see below:

I booked my ticket in advance online and had it with me when I was cautioned.

In order to complete that booking and to complete the purchase the OP had to confirm the availability of a valid Railcard by press button choice. No valid Railcard was in fact held.

It seems that the inspector followed the correct procedure and cautioned, interviewed and reported the incidence of a travel irregularity as required.

I have to say that I agree with DaveNewcastle and unless there is some evidence of impropriety by the inspector, which has not been claimed to date, I cannot see much to complain about.

 

[londiscape]

I am always fascinated how we get to a description of someone being 'belittled', 'spoken to like dirt' or that there is some discrimination 'against their human rights' when there is absolutely no evidence or even claim of such throughout the original post or subsequent replies.

The following are the relevant extracts from the OPs posts:







Where in the foregoing is there any evidence of claims of serious misconduct?

The OP says nothing more than he felt the matter was a heavy-handed response by the rail company, that he was intimidated by the tone of the conversation and by being cautioned.

It appears that the OP had in fact confirmed that he held a valid Railcard that would cover the journey he intended to make. He says that he bought his ticket online, see below:



In order to complete that booking and to complete the purchase the OP had to confirm the availability of a valid Railcard by press button choice. No valid Railcard was in fact held.

It seems that the inspector followed the correct procedure and cautioned, interviewed and reported the incidence of a travel irregularity as required.

I have to say that I agree with DaveNewcastle and unless there is some evidence of impropriety by the inspector, which has not been claimed to date, I cannot see much to complain about.

I speculate, of course, but might this boil down to some people feeling very uncomfortable with officers of private companies behaving like police officers in the way they approach and deal with the public? RPIs are, let's face it, there to protect TOCs revenue and do not take an oath to serve society as a whole by upholding the law.

I'm sure most reasonable people, if stopped by an officer for (accidental) speeding and given a bollocking and a ticket, would say "sorry officer, won't happen again" and take the £60 fine or whatever it is these days. However I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to feel natural indignance and a sense of injustice when the same tone is adopted by an employee of a private company, even if said employee is doing their job as dictated by their employer and not actually being verbally abusive.

Not taking sides one way or another, as I said, just speculating.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

Back in 1992 life was so much easier, a simple letter and reminder. No excuse then

 

[jon0844]

I'm sure most reasonable people, if stopped by an officer for (accidental) speeding and given a bollocking and a ticket, would say "sorry officer, won't happen again" and take the £60 fine or whatever it is these days.

I'd hope so, but feel an increasing number would be equally outraged and then be on the various forums/websites looking for loopholes to avoid paying, while stating the usual things like 'didn't they have anything better to do?' where the answer was of course 'yes, but they had to waste time dealing with you'.

RPIs that are PACE trained have to do things by the book, even if they're not police officers (despite some having warrant cards that look remarkably similar). Yet the lack of respect towards them is probably not a great deal different to how some people speak to the police.

 

[ValleyLines142]

It's not just the OP who is indignant:
I haven't a clue what this is about. All that the OP said was that they were intimidated by the tone of the questioning and the letter.

Perspective, please!

I am always fascinated how we get to a description of someone being 'belittled', 'spoken to like dirt' or that there is some discrimination 'against their human rights' when there is absolutely no evidence or even claim of such throughout the original post or subsequent replies.

Where in the foregoing is there any evidence of claims of serious misconduct?

The OP says nothing more than he felt the matter was a heavy-handed response by the rail company, that he was intimidated by the tone of the conversation and by being cautioned.

It appears that the OP had in fact confirmed that he held a valid Railcard that would cover the journey he intended to make. He says that he bought his ticket online, see below.

It was the heavy-handed tone I was referring to, which can sometimes belittle people too.

Alright, so I've jumped to a conclusion a step further ahead, so what? Seriously let's not get carried away now!

Anyway, I hope the OP can fix this issue and let it rest