Accussed of Altering Carnet Ticket

[sarahj]

Many moons ago i used to buy a book of tickets for my commute up north. It was not worth getting a season as I used to get a lift into work, and also stay at my grans on the thursday night in town and get the metro into work. You would fill in the date. Back then testing for changed ones would be 'does it have tippex on it'. I did once put the wrong date and used tippex to fix it. i got the 'right' from the guard, who thankfully believed me. I guess if not, it might have been a case of using a new one, or the dreaded UFN. (these were pay trains, no ticket machines, or offices except at 3 stations on the line, might still be the case.)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . .

I realise DaveNewcastle does not wish the OP to be confused, but I think it's relevant to know what the likely "false positive rate" of the court system is in the following situations:

• 
  [ . . . three categories of scenarios . . . ]

You are quite correct, that this sub-forum's rules require me to post only that which is relevant to the OP's question (and I wouldn't want to do otherwise), and I would only want to address the OP in my contributions.

But, as I expect that Drwhoru has become so distracted by the hypothetical discussions on here, that I will reply with two facts about the outcomes from other passengers' investigations:-

1.

Chances are most time an RPI mentions "forensics testing", it ends up inducing a confession. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

I can't comment on 'most times'. I doubt that anyone with access to that analysis would be willing or able to publicise the results. But it is my experience from a very tiny sample, that the passenger has confirmed that they had altered the ticket in an attempt to take advantage of the carnet to the loss of the railways.

2.

. . . what the likely "false positive rate" of the court system is . . . .

I can't help you with that. I doubt that anyone, anywhere could. That sort of analyisis is unlikely to have been undertaken. Even if it had been, then how could anyone apply it to the number of passengers apprehended with possible altered carnets while disregarding the those with altered carnets who are undetected?​

Isn't this consideration of a small minority which is unlikely to be available for analysis the hard way of evaluating the impact of fare evasion, while the simpler, traditional and reliable techniques continue to bear fruit and are updated every day?

 

[drwhoru]

Hi all

I have received notice of intention to prosecute for enterin a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel

And

Altering a ticket with intent

I've been asked to tell them what happened from my point of view.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well, we probably expected this would be the next you would hear about the matter.

The letter you have received will give you no indication of the quality of the evidence against you. As some on here have already hinted, it is sometimes seen as an opportunity for the dishonest passenger to incriminate themselves further, or at least to change their story, placing them under even more suspicion!

I can only suggest one course of action, with two variants. That you reply with the absolute truth, which I hope would be compltely consistent with the statement you made on the day and the facts of that day. You could either do this yourself, or ask a solicitor at a local law firm to assist you. The latter might be an attractive option even if you had no wish to allow it to be contested in Court - the solicitor would be well placed to attempt the negotiated settlement on your behalf in due course, if you felt you will lack the confidence to do it yourself, and they would be better placed to do so if they had been givent he opportunity to discuss it with you before you wrote back.

Only you will know if you want to incur legal costs - an initial interview would probably be free and might help you decide.

If you would rather reply without legal representation then that is fine. Don't at this stage take the bait of challenging the quality of their evidence against you (as others on here have suggested). There may be a time for that later, but at present, just stick to the facts.

 

[drwhoru]

Well, we probably expected this would be the next you would hear about the matter.

The letter you have received will give you no indication of the quality of the evidence against you. As some on here have already hinted, it is sometimes seen as an opportunity for the dishonest passenger to incriminate themselves further, or at least to change their story, placing them under even more suspicion!

I can only suggest one course of action, with two variants. That you reply with the absolute truth, which I hope would be compltely consistent with the statement you made on the day and the facts of that day. You could either do this yourself, or ask a solicitor at a local law firm to assist you. The latter might be an attractive option even if you had no wish to allow it to be contested in Court - the solicitor would be well placed to attempt the negotiated settlement on your behalf in due course, if you felt you will lack the confidence to do it yourself, and they would be better placed to do so if they had been givent he opportunity to discuss it with you before you wrote back.

Only you will know if you want to incur legal costs - an initial interview would probably be free and might help you decide.

If you would rather reply without legal representation then that is fine. Don't at this stage take the bait of challenging the quality of their evidence against you (as others on here have suggested). There may be a time for that later, but at present, just stick to the facts.

my wife has been urging me to fight it and i am now tempted to go down this route, as i know i've done nothing wrong. from the point of view of my statement i agree by and large with the events they described, they make no mention of any evidence (do they need to supply this to me in advance of a court appearance) or any specific statute that the offence is in reference to.

the bases of my defence is that in writing out the date on the ticket the pen i used was not suitable for writing on the shiny surface of the ticket, therefore i had to over write a couple of times, though the date was clear and there is no way i could have re-used the ticket. my recollection of the events prior to the inspection are hazy (as at the time i didn't realise they would be important later).

should i mention at this point that i don't believe the inspector retained the ticket in a way as to prevent any further contamination (he put it in his shirt pocket!). additionally i asked the inspector to show me some ID which he refused to do (i don't know if this is relevant but i've read elsewhere that it may be).

thanks for your advice.

 

[maniacmartin]

additionally i asked the inspector to show me some ID which he refused to do (i don't know if this is relevant but i've read elsewhere that it may be)..

It's not relevant to your case, but I would consider bringing this up in a separate complaint after this case has been dealt with.

 

[Tetchytyke]

should i mention at this point that i don't believe the inspector retained the ticket in a way as to prevent any further contamination (he put it in his shirt pocket!).

As you've been advised, keep it factual. "The inspector took the ticket from me and placed it straight into his shirt pocket" would be factual. "The inspector didn't prevent further contamination" would not be.

 

[jon0844]

The mere fact that FCC gives out free pens to write on the date confirms they know full well that a biro will more often than not fail, and force you to try again. Do that a few times and the orange peels off, immediately giving rise to suspicion of some form of tampering.

Staff knew about this too, telling me to write the date clearly on the back too. Not an official policy by any means, but at least an additional way to help. Mind you, they could still argue that you used it more than once.. first with no problems, then tampering to make it look suspect, and writing the date on the back.

My fix was simple. I stopped buying them. I had a couple of tickets that were damaged and effectively rendered useless, and they weren't that cheap. In fact, the tickets I was unable to used wiped out the saving on buying the carnets.

The ONLY advantage to me was that I didn't have to queue up to buy, or collect tickets pre-ordered, and potentially miss a train because of a rather tight bus connection to the station. It's always annoying to miss a train because you didn't have enough time.

 

[arabianights]

Any update on this, OP?

 

[455driver]

The last time they were on here was 29 September 2014 so dont hold your breath for an update.

 

[arabianights]

The last time they were on here was 29 September 2014 so dont hold your breath for an update.

This is true, and to tell the truth on most forums I would not bother requesting for this reason - but since I have signed up here I have been getting an email at midnight every day about every thread that I have posted in that has had a reply. Since there's no way I would have put those as my settings if I had been asked, I assume they're the default, so I thought it was worth a punt as most casual users are not going to bother changing the settings and consequently it's reasonable to assume there's a good chance the OP will get an email about this thread, and so they may come back to it.

But yes I do agree, it probably won't work. Never know though

 

[krus_aragon]

but since I have signed up here I have been getting an email at midnight every day about every thread that I have posted in that has had a reply.

Have a look in your User Control Panel, on the Edit Options page. Under Messaging and Notifications, you can change the Default Thread Subscription Mode to something that suits you.

 

[yorkie]

want2lukatpics - Please do not 'bump' old threads unless there is a significant development to add.

If you wish to contact someone to ask for an update, firstly try sending them a PM. If their PMs are not activated, you can ask a forum administrator (via PM) if they would consider sending a PM to the original poster.

I have sent a PM to drwhoru

 

[drwhoru]

good morning all!

first of all thank you to everyone who offered advise and opinion on this, and apologies that i did not post a response on the outcome.

after receiving a court summons i contacted the FCC prosecutions department directly and discussed the options. they suggested they would resolve the issue if i offered a settlement in line with the ticket cost and penalty fare, which given my concerns over court proceedings i decided to accept (and would have effectively been the same costs as attending court to defend myself).

i also would say that the prosecutions department were very reasonable and helpful.

thanks to all, and if anyone is interested in more information then please feel free to PM me.

 

[Clip]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know - I guess the prompt from a poster alerted you to it via email.

However, I am unsure about what I have just read. You were adamant about not being in the wrong yet you settled with FCC anyway? Thats an admission of guilt.

 

[bb21]

Good to hear. It's not the best possible outcome but it could be worse.

If I were you I would steer well clear of these Carnets. The potential for arguments is just too big for my liking after hearing all the horror stories. If you really want to use it, get yourself a sharpie permanent marker or similar writing instrument which does not scratch the surface of tickets. It will be a worthy investment.

 

[jon0844]

A foolproof way to avoid all potential problems is indeed not to buy them at all.

I seem to recall a similar conclusion at the end of War Games...

 

[Mojo]

If I were you I would steer well clear of these Carnets. The potential for arguments is just too big for my liking after hearing all the horror stories. If you really want to use it, get yourself a sharpie permanent marker or similar writing instrument which does not scratch the surface of tickets. It will be a worthy investment.

Capital Connect used to have posters at the stations advertising that they would offer free carnet pens. I'm not sure if Great Northern Trains still do this.

 

[jon0844]

I haven't seen carnet tickets advertised for some time. In my case, with Oyster acceptance hopefully coming this year, I won't have to worry about buying paper tickets for the majority of my journeys ever again.

(And those that I will need paper tickets for will not be trips that a carnet would be any use for anyway).

 

[Tibbs]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know - I guess the prompt from a poster alerted you to it via email.

However, I am unsure about what I have just read. You were adamant about not being in the wrong yet you settled with FCC anyway? Thats an admission of guilt.

Discretion is the better part of valour.

 

[maniacmartin]

OPs may have settled 'without prejudice' which is not an admission of guilt.

 

[Clip]

Well lets hope so because any indiscretion again and it could end up costing a whole lot more.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thanks for coming back and letting us know - I guess the prompt from a poster alerted you to it via email.

However, I am unsure about what I have just read. You were adamant about not being in the wrong yet you settled with FCC anyway? Thats an admission of guilt.

Is it?

 

[Clip]

Is it?

To me it is yes. If I am adamant that I have not done anything wrong then why would I pay what they are asking for a settlement in the case in mention?

 

[arabianights]

To me it is yes. If I am adamant that I have not done anything wrong then why would I pay what they are asking for a settlement in the case in mention?

So if you were accused of multiple murder, but could get the whole charges dropped for 20 pence you would take it to trial?

If not, then you are only drawing the line in a different place to the OP. Assuming the OP is innocent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If I am adamant that I have not done anything wrong then why would I pay what they are asking for a settlement in the case in mention?

Then you're in a minority. Most people will settle where the cost of settling is less than the cost of fighting.

Taking court action is always a risk, even if you know you're in the right. And there's no point in going to court to fight a £100 settlement when it'll cost you £150 to go to court and defend yourself.

If anything, the offer of such a low settlement figure shows that FCC knew they were in the wrong.

 

[jon0844]

Yeah, they quite likely did or certainly didn't think they had much of a case. But they can of course bluff, just as you could call them on it - but sometimes it's just not worth it.

 

[SickyNicky]

And there's no point in going to court to fight a £100 settlement when it'll cost you £150 to go to court and defend yourself.

Hmmm. If I were sure I was in the right I'd be mighty tempted to spend the extra money simply on principle.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hmmm. If I were sure I was in the right I'd be mighty tempted to spend the extra money simply on principle.

I know where you're coming from, but even if you're 100% certain you're right/innocent there's always a risk that the court will find against you. Courts have found against plenty of innocent people in the past (and in favour of guilty people, for that matter). In these situations the cards are always stacked against the defendant too- the TOC has a lawyer and the defendant doesn't, for one thing.

When you factor the cost of defending together with the risk of losing, sometimes it simply isn't worth the battle. I had a dispute with the parking agent that runs my flat's car park and ended up paying them £15 just to make them go away- the hassle and cost of fighting them was more than £15. It doesn't mean I was in the wrong.

In most areas of law the party in the wrong will play on that cost/benefit analysis with their offers of settlement. I doubt the TOCs are no different.

 

[SickyNicky]

I know where you're coming from, but even if you're 100% certain you're right/innocent there's always a risk that the court will find against you. Courts have found against plenty of innocent people in the past (and in favour of guilty people, for that matter). In these situations the cards are always stacked against the defendant too- the TOC has a lawyer and the defendant doesn't, for one thing.

I should certainly take legal advice, and representation if necessary. I would hope that the judge would award costs, but if it were a matter of principle, I would resist paying them a penny and take it as far as I could afford.