Notice of intention to prosecute

[Stemack]

Hi,

I was wondering whether or not you could help or give me advice on what to do, as I have just received a letter titled ‘Notice of intention to prosecute’ from the Railway Prosecutions Department. On the 28th February 2015 I traveled on a return journey from LONDON KINGS CROSS to STEVENAGE station. I bought a ticket using my Young Persons Railcard from a manned ticket office without any problem, expecting this ticket was valid. On my return journey a ticket inspector requested to see my ticket and my railcard, at this point the inspector pointed out that my railcard was out of date.

I was asked if I was able to pay a £37 penalty fee, I informed him that I was unable to pay this at the current time due to commitments of paying my bills and unaware how much money I had in my account at this point in time. I was therefore informed that I would receive a penalty fare notice through the post that could be either a lower or higher figure than what is currently requested.

I was asked a number of questions and I provided all these truthfully and I had my railcard and ticket taken off of me and handed a slip of paper allowing me to continue my journey.

I don’t want to ruin my career as a ‘Criminal Record’ would result in losing my job for certain. I just don’t understand why I was informed I’d be able to pay later on when I receive a penalty fare notice but I am actually in possession of a notice of intention to prosecute letter? This was an honest mistake and I have never been in trouble with the police or rail companies before and I am happy to pay the penalty that I need.

This morning I called up the Prosecutions Department and tried to provide my side of the story but they didn’t understand and told me that if I had paid the penalty fare on the train I wouldn’t have received the letter that I have, this is completely different to what the inspector told me about being able to pay later on.

The alleged offences I am being written to about are;
• Entering a train for the purpose of traveling without a ticket entitling travel.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

 

[najaB]

I was asked if I was able to pay a £37 penalty fee, I informed him that I was unable to pay this at the current time due to commitments of paying my bills and unaware how much money I had in my account at this point in time.

I'm not sure why the penalty fare amount was £37, I make that it should have been £27.80*, but in any case you were liable for a PF since your railcard was out of date.

I don’t want to ruin my career as a ‘Criminal Record’ would result in losing my job for certain...

The alleged offences I am being written to about are;
• Entering a train for the purpose of traveling without a ticket entitling travel.

Now for some good(ish) news - that language is from the Railway Byelaws, which are non-recordable offences. That means that even if you were found guilty, the conviction would not show up on a criminal records search.

This was an honest mistake and I have never been in trouble with the police or rail companies before and I am happy to pay the penalty that I need.

From the way that you write it does sound like you got caught out by an oversight. My advice would be to write to the TOC concerned and tell them what you have told us - that it was an error on your part to not check the expiry date of your railcard, that you are sorry to have caused them to spend time and money correcting your mistake, and that you would like to take the opportunity to save them even more time and money by paying the outstanding fare and a contribution to the costs they've incurred so far rather than taking the matter through to the courts.

*Edit: Would it be £38 as twice the cost of the return ticket?

 

[222007]

The alleged offences I am being written to about are;
• Entering a train for the purpose of traveling without a ticket entitling travel.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Sadly the offence is not alleged as you admit to having held an out of date railcard. This invalidates your ticket. If you can get an out of court settlement likely to be the outstanding fare plus there cost's id recomend taking this option as going to court would be far more costly

 

[furlong]

I was therefore informed that I would receive a penalty fare notice through the post that could be either a lower or higher figure than what is currently requested.

Are you sure you remembered this accurately and you weren't also told that other things (like prosecution) were likely to happen?

Were you also asked questions under caution ("You do not have to say anything but...") ?

 

[najaB]

On my return journey a ticket inspector requested to see my ticket and my railcard, at this point the inspector pointed out that my railcard was out of date.

Can you remember how much past the expiry date the card was? The answer won't make a prosecution go away, but it could be used as a mitigating factor.

 

[DaleCooper]

Does the person issuing the ticket not have a duty to check that the railcard is valid, if so would this also be a mitigatng factor.

 

[najaB]

Does the person issuing the ticket not have a duty to check that the railcard is valid, if so would this also be a mitigatng factor.

While most will, I'm not aware that they are obliged to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Genuine question: Is it now the rule that a Penalty Fare may only be paid on the spot?

The Penalty Fares Rules:
https://www.ircas.co.uk/docs/SRA - Penalty Fare Rules 2002.pdf

seem to say otherwise. Or (to the OP) did you decline to pay anything, i.e. refuse it rather than ask to pay it later?

 

[najaB]

Genuine question: Is it now the rule that a Penalty Fare may only be paid on the spot?

My understanding is that the rules haven't changed. However I suspect (and it is just a suspicion) that some guards/RPIs routinely treat "can't pay" as "won't pay".

 

[DaleCooper]

My understanding is that the rules haven't changed. However I suspect (and it is just a suspicion) that some guards/RPIs routinely treat "can't pay" as "won't pay".

Perhaps a person in that position should offer to pay as much as they can, and make sure they get a receipt.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps a person in that position should offer to pay as much as they can, and make sure they get a receipt.

They have to pay at least the cost of an Anytime single ticket.

 

[DaleCooper]

They have to pay at least the cost of an Anytime single ticket.

I did of course mean with agreement to pay the remainder within whatever time scale is required.

 

[najaB]

I did of course mean with agreement to pay the remainder within whatever time scale is required.

The requirement is that the remainder be paid within 21 days of the date that the PF was issued.

 

[DaleCooper]

My understanding is that the rules haven't changed. However I suspect (and it is just a suspicion) that some guards/RPIs routinely treat "can't pay" as "won't pay".

The requirement is that the remainder be paid within 21 days of the date that the PF was issued.

My thinking was that it would remove the assumption of "won't pay".

 

[najaB]

My thinking was that it would remove the assumption of "won't pay".

The suspicion that I mentioned earlier is that when the passenger says "I don't have £40", the guards/RPIs hear "I don't have £40 for a stupid fine" and don't go on to explain "Well, you can pay £20 now and the rest within 21 days."

 

[DaleCooper]

The suspicion that I mentioned earlier is that when the passenger says "I don't have £40", the guards/RPIs hear "I don't have £40 for a stupid fine" and don't go on to explain "Well, you can pay £20 now and the rest within 21 days."

Well apart from the bit about being penalised for the guard/RPI's poor hearing that is pretty much what I suggested.

 

[Stemack]

From the way that you write it does sound like you got caught out by an oversight. My advice would be to write to the TOC concerned and tell them what you have told us - that it was an error on your part to not check the expiry date of your railcard, that you are sorry to have caused them to spend time and money correcting your mistake, and that you would like to take the opportunity to save them even more time and money by paying the outstanding fare and a contribution to the costs they've incurred so far rather than taking the matter through to the courts.

Thank you NajaB for your advice, I haven't sent a letter off with my explanation but I shall put one together with your recommendations taking into consideration. So even if this went to court I would never get anything put on my CRB check?

Are you sure you remembered this accurately and you weren't also told that other things (like prosecution) were likely to happen?

Were you also asked questions under caution ("You do not have to say anything but...") ?

Nothing about prosecution was mentioned to me by the inspector just that if I couldn't pay I would receive a penalty fare letter in the post allowing me to pay it at a later date. Yes I was cautioned by him.

Can you remember how much past the expiry date the card was? The answer won't make a prosecution go away, but it could be used as a mitigating factor.

It was a month out of date, I use to use the railcard regularly to commute for work into London but since getting a job closer to home I didn't check it when showing it to the ticket issuer.

Thank you for the help from everyone so far, as I mentioned initially I am happy to pay the penalty if that's what they are after.

 

[najaB]

So even if this went to court I would never get anything put on my CRB check?

To my eye, no. The phrase "Entering a train for the purpose of traveling without a ticket entitling travel." pretty much matches Railway Byelaw 18.1 word for word. Byelaws prosecutions don't show up on a DBS search.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I was asked if I was able to pay a £37 penalty fee, I informed him that I was unable to pay this at the current time due to commitments of paying my bills and unaware how much money I had in my account at this point in time. I was therefore informed that I would receive a penalty fare notice through the post that could be either a lower or higher figure than what is currently requested.

This is not the first time I have seen this on this forum. IIRC it was the same TOC involved....


*goes to search the forum*

EDIT: found it... http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2083656&postcount=1

Hi everyone, I'm in a bit of trouble with Govia Thameslink Railway.

On the 1st of December I was travelling from Hatfield to King's Cross with the purpose of going to Euston Station to travel back to Wolverhampton with my standard ticket. I didnt realised at that time that I was sitting in the First Class area during my journey from Hatfield. I only realised this mistake when a Revenue Protection Investigator approached me to check my tickets.

When the train stopped at King's Cross (police were also present at the station), I cooperated with him and gave him my details. He was very insistent of confiscating my standard ticket which would have caused me to missed my Euston to Wolverhampton train but I refused. He also said I had the choice to pay a penalty fare which I was willing to pay. However I did not had much cash left on my debit card. I was told that I would be able to pay once I receive a letter from them and if I disagree I could appealed later on. I was also told to give a statement and sign it.

Months gone by I thought the matter was forgotten and dropped. To my surprised today, I received a letter from GTR with a Notice of Intention to Prosecute. For the office of "Remain in a reserved seat, berth or train without an appropriate ticket". Obviously, this came as a shock as I was expecting only a £20 penalty. I rang their prosecution office and asked for the manager. I politely explain everything I mentioned above and was told to "put it on paper so they can make a decision".

I acknowledge my mistake as an accident and I'm willing to pay the penalty but am I not allow to pay for the penalty fare first before they intend on prosecuting me? I'm currently very anxious as I'm in the process of applying for a postgrad place and do not want to lose it because of a criminal record. Can you guys give me some advice?

NB this doesn't excuse you from being liable for the charge that has been laid against you or from paying any out of court settlement you agree to with GTR, however I do believe that you have a customer service case as it appears that at least one RPI is giving incorrect advice

 

[jon0844]

They say it to avoid conflict, as by the time you realise that they've given up on the PF and reported you, they're gone (or should I say, you've gone).

 

[Spurs]

They say it to avoid conflict, as by the time you realise that they've given up on the PF and reported you, they're gone (or should I say, you've gone).

Hmm... Wonder if it's okay for me to lie to railway staff to avoid conflict :roll: Sounds like total disdain for passengers just trying to pay the fare.

 

[timbo58]

Well playing devils advocate a TOCs staff could argue the 'avoiding conflict' card*, however a passenger having been caught for an offence giving false details is a criminal offence, so argue the 'avoiding conflict' card if you wish but it wouldn't work IME/IMHO.

*I personally don't think it's disdain, however I didn't like staff giving the wrong impression about 'what happens next' on PF's and UPFN's and certainly trained my staff when an inspector manager to tell the truth even if it was simply 'that'll be the prosecutions office decision I am afraid'.

I disliked/dislike intensely the sort of staff who merely avoid conflict by shoving their problems onto other staff, and that includes station staff that put drunks etc onto trains to get rid of them (I would have never done the same in return!) or by bull****ting that someone could get a PF sorted out later down the line.

 

[Fare-Cop]

*I personally don't think it's disdain, however I didn't like staff giving the wrong impression about 'what happens next' on PF's and UPFN's and certainly trained my staff when an inspector manager to tell the truth even if it was simply 'that'll be the prosecutions office decision I am afraid'.

I disliked/dislike intensely the sort of staff who merely avoid conflict by shoving their problems onto other staff, and that includes station staff that put drunks etc onto trains to get rid of them (I would have never done the same in return!) or by bull****ting that someone could get a PF sorted out later down the line.

I couldn't agree more.

Passing the buck and saving up grief for colleagues and travellers alike is not the way to deal with such things.

 

[cjmillsnun]

They say it to avoid conflict, as by the time you realise that they've given up on the PF and reported you, they're gone (or should I say, you've gone).

Not good enough. It's lying. Yes the passenger was in the wrong and should pay, however two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not good enough. It's lying. Yes the passenger was in the wrong and should pay, however two wrongs don't make a right.

Indeed. The policy should always be honesty. If that honesty is putting staff at risk, then the railway need to rethink the actual policy so it doesn't rather than staff finding it necessary to lie about it.

If, for instance, it's PF now or possible prosecution later, it might be that someone with no money in their bank account might phone someone to have some money BACSed to them so the PF can be paid on the spot. Though I remain of the view that if the inspector thinks a PF is correct, this should be honoured for the specified time period provided it is paid on time, and same for an UFN. A PF should not be issued if prosecution is being considered, in my view, and an UFN should not trigger prosecution purely because the fare was not paid on the spot in mistake-type cases (rather than simple "no ticket" or obvious fraud cases) provided it is paid within a specified time period.

 

[Flamingo]

Well playing devils advocate a TOCs staff could argue the 'avoiding conflict' card*, however a passenger having been caught for an offence giving false details is a criminal offence, so argue the 'avoiding conflict' card if you wish but it wouldn't work IME/IMHO.

*I personally don't think it's disdain, however I didn't like staff giving the wrong impression about 'what happens next' on PF's and UPFN's and certainly trained my staff when an inspector manager to tell the truth even if it was simply 'that'll be the prosecutions office decision I am afraid'.

I disliked/dislike intensely the sort of staff who merely avoid conflict by shoving their problems onto other staff, and that includes station staff that put drunks etc onto trains to get rid of them (I would have never done the same in return!) or by bull****ting that someone could get a PF sorted out later down the line.

If one wants to avoid conflict, it's hard to have a row if sitting in the bunkroom or TGS with a cup of tea

TOC's as a whole will not recognise that a certain amount of conflict will go with the job, because to do so would be to open a whole can of worms about their liability, training, staffing and equipment. It is much easier to issue instructions that can be twisted to make it the member of staff's fault for doing anything other than walking away at the first hint of confrontation. It is easier to be able to blame an incident on poor judgement by staff than to admit that incident would not have occurred in the first place if correct procedures were in place and followed by ALL staff, not just the last (or first) person to come in contact with the passenger. Take into account also that some complaints are downright lies (and don't forget, they post lies on here as well - I have seen posts on here where I have spoken to the staff involved and it was a very different scenario that actually occurred).

Under the current system, if I'm assaulted by a fare-dodger or drunk or anybody else engaging in anti-social behaviour on a train, it's going to be twisted by certain managers my fault for approaching him, not the TOC's fault for not having barriers in place at night to refuse these people access to the network, or the station staff or BTP for allowing him (or her) to get on the train in the first place. My instructions are ALWAYS walk away and call BTP for attendance - but NEVER delay the train. Nobody has ever managed to square the circle on that one for me.

As far as telling people "appeal it, you'll be fine", when issuing a UFN there is a bit we are required to tell the passenger about their right to appeal within ten days. I always read this word for word out to them. How many of them interpret this as "I'll get away with it as I'm special" I have no idea, but I'd say a large number do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. The policy should always be honesty. If that honesty is putting staff at risk, then the railway need to rethink the actual policy so it doesn't rather than staff finding it necessary to lie about it.

If, for instance, it's PF now or possible prosecution later, it might be that someone with no money in their bank account might phone someone to have some money BACSed to them so the PF can be paid on the spot. Though I remain of the view that if the inspector thinks a PF is correct, this should be honoured for the specified time period provided it is paid on time, and same for an UFN. A PF should not be issued if prosecution is being considered, in my view, and an UFN should not trigger prosecution purely because the fare was not paid on the spot in mistake-type cases (rather than simple "no ticket" or obvious fraud cases) provided it is paid within a specified time period.

Revenue Inspectors are the only staff who can issue Penalty Fares. They are as rare as Hens Teeth on certain lines (London to Reading, for example). A UFN can only trigger prosecution if it is not paid within the ten day period. It is only an invoice to pay the Anytime fare, nothing else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Revenue Inspectors are the only staff who can issue Penalty Fares. They are as rare as Hens Teeth on certain lines (London to Reading, for example). A UFN can only trigger prosecution if it is not paid within the ten day period. It is only an invoice to pay the Anytime fare, nothing else.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[najaB]

If, for instance, it's PF now or possible prosecution later, it might be that someone with no money in their bank account might phone someone to have some money BACSed to them so the PF can be paid on the spot.

Splitting hairs, I know, but BACS payments take two (three?) working days to clear, you're thinking of faster payments.

In any regards, that wouldn't help if the customer has an online debit card or no debit card at all.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Thanks for clarifying.

It is also worth noting that even in areas where Penalty Fares can be charged, not all inspectors automatically have the authority to issue them

The Penalty Fares Rules (2012) make clear that, in order to be able to issue a PFN, a person must also be an Authorised Person within the meaning of the PF Rules defined by the Railways Act. That person must also be able to show their authorised person photo identity badge, which is of an approved design, at the time of issuing such a notice so it is never possible to 'send a penalty fare notice through the post later' as some have claimed.

An opportunity to resolve a disputed issue by administrative process, or settlement might later be sent by post, but not a Penalty Fares Notice.

These rules specifically allow for the situation where, if after the 21 day period the penalty fare has not been paid or successfully disputed, the PF Notice may be cancelled by the rail operator and where considered appropriate, prosecution of an offence can be commenced.

 

[Stemack]

Thank you everyone for your advice.

I sent the letter to attempt to settle out of court but I received a response this morning along the lines of;

"Having considered the points you have raised I am writing to inform you this department will be going forward with the case. A summons to attend magistrates court will be sent to you in due course."

As people have mentioned, is this going to most likely be regarding the byelaws and if so does this appear as a DBS/CRB conviction?


Thank you for all of your help.