Fare evasion case

[seoul100]

Morning all.

I got stopped by an inspector this morning at Totnes, having not paid for a ticket from Newton Abbot.

There are no excuses on my part. I was running late, there was a queue at the ticket machine, so I jumped on the train knowing that somebody from First Great Western would walk down the train, and I'd be able to buy a ticket from him/her at some point during the journey.

Nobody came, so I got off the train and tried to exit the station, and that's where I got stopped.

I'm not looking for any sympathy here. I understand that I have committed an offence.

I was interviewed by the inspector, and I was honest in my answers. I said it wasn't my intention to avoid paying the fare, but I wouldn't have paid it had I not been stopped at the exit.

She advised that a letter would soon follow.

I'm basically just looking for some peace of mind. Is a court hearing likely? Is a criminal record likely? Is there a chance of an out of court settlement?

Again, to reiterate, I'm not looking for any sympathy, I accept what I've done. Just want some advice really.

Thanks.

 

[island]

Unfortunately, not only have you committed an offence, but you have worsened the matter by admitting to intent to avoid paying the fare (by saying that you would not have paid had you not been stopped).

FGW is getting very hot on fare evasion in the West Country lately and whilst you cannot accomplish anything until the letter arrives, expect to pay around £100 to keep this out of court if they choose to offer you that option.

 

[seoul100]

Unfortunately, not only have you committed an offence, but you have worsened the matter by admitting to intent to avoid paying the fare (by saying that you would not have paid had you not been stopped).

Yep. Been thinking about this ever since I said it. In truth, I actually thought she was a lady I could've bought a ticket from, which is why I willingly approached her. But I failed to mention this when she interviewed me. Wonder if it's too late to make amends for that?

 

[gray1404]

Just wait for the letter to arrive in the post, given thats what she said will happen. When it does arrive you may be invited to write back explaining what happened. You can explain that you were in a rush (maybe to get to work or whatever) and it was your fault for not allowing enough time to get the ticket. Tell them that you are sorry for your actions and it is the first time it has happened (assuming it is) and that it will not happen again. Offer to reach a settlement with them. There is a chance FGW may write back asking for the fare plus an admin fee and that will be the end of the matter.

There is a chance they may wish to proceed with a prosecution. As you said "I wouldn't have paid it had I not been stopped at the exit" - or words to that effect they may proceed with this rather then giving you the change to settle out of court. It really was a silly thing to say. However, lets not think about that just yet and hope they offer to settle it out of court. You can't do anything now until the letter arrives in the post. So just wait.

I know you gave that comment to the lady about that fact you would not have paid if you had not been stopped, but then at the same time you say that you willngly approached her thinking you could buy a ticket from her. So, which one was it?

I've just had a quick look at FGW online, if the leaflet I was quickly able to view was correct, its a shame this could not have been dealt with by way of a PF but of course the TOC do not have to offer this.

 

[ainsworth74]

You will need to await the reply from the TOC but it seems quite likely they may opt to prosecute you under either the Regulation of Railways Act Section 5 or Railway Byelaw 18. However, from what you've said, it would seem likely that they will opt for a RoRA S5 prosecution as admitting that you were only going to pay if challenged is slam dunk prosecution material.

The next likely step will be that they will write to you asking for your version of events. It is up to you how you respond but it would be wise to tell the truth at this stage as lying is likely to make the situation worse. You can also consider replying stating that you're very sorry for your mistake, that you will never do so again, that you are willing to pay the fare outstanding and any administration costs they've incurred.

In our experience replying along the lines of the above may sometimes (but not always) enable you to avoid court and a potential criminal record.

If the TOC decide to prosecute you then you have a few options:

1) Defend your case in court by pleading not guilty. You'll need to be able to defeat the evidence that the prosecution will bring against you. Further if you're found guilty you'll not only face a fine and potentially a criminal record but also the other sides costs (you would also lose the advantage in sentencing of an early guilty plea potentially reducing the fine). I would suggest that your testimony to the inspector at Totnes means there is almost literally no way you could actually successfully defend against this charge.

2) Plead guilty and accept a fine and potential criminal record.

3) Write directly to the TOC apologising for your actions and offering to pay the fare outstanding and whatever costs they've incurred so far. They may opt to accept a payment from you directly and avoid court or they may wish to proceed to court.

Finally, and especially if they do take you to court, you should strongly consider seeking professional legal advice even if it's only a 30 minute free consultation. Whilst specialists in railway law are available they are not common and charge a great deal for their services. However, a local firm dealing in criminal law defence should be able to provide adequate assistance.

You may wish to consult the Legal section of our Ticketing Guide for more information and with particular reference to this section and this section.

 

[seoul100]

I never actually uttered the words "I wouldn't have paid unless I was stopped."

I was asked a yes/no question, in regards to would I have not paid had I not been stopped and I gave the answer "Yes."

My head was a bit of a mess and I was struggling to process the questions, perhaps if I explained that, that could go in my favour? After all, I am being genuine when I say that I thought I could get a ticket from her.

 

[bb21]

I never actually uttered the words "I wouldn't have paid unless I was stopped."

I was asked a yes/no question, in regards to would I have not paid had I not been stopped and I gave the answer "Yes."

No difference there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My head was a bit of a mess and I was struggling to process the questions, perhaps if I explained that, that could go in my favour? After all, I am being genuine when I say that I thought I could get a ticket from her.

You could, not that I think it will make much difference. Sorry.

 

[seoul100]

No difference there.

I'm aware of that, just wondering if it's something I could clear up in writing.

 

[ainsworth74]

I never actually uttered the words "I wouldn't have paid unless I was stopped."

I was asked a yes/no question, in regards to would I have not paid had I not been stopped and I gave the answer "Yes."

The effect of answering that question as yes is the same as if you had said 'I wouldn't have paid unless stopped'.

My head was a bit of a mess and I was struggling to process the questions, perhaps if I explained that, that could go in my favour? After all, I am being genuine when I say that I thought I could get a ticket from her.

You can certainly try but you have to consider how many people FGWs prosecutions department will deal with that say 'I thought I could buy a ticket from the inspector' or 'I was distracted/confused/scared/panicked and that's why I said what I said'. Why should they believe you over all the other people that say that and are still prosecuted (successfully).

Plus, you shouldn't have boarded the train at Newton Abbot without a ticket in the first place as there were working ticket facilities at that station. It doesn't matter that there was a queue that would have caused you to miss the train you still should have had a ticket before boarding the train. So, even if you could, somehow, defend against a RoRA S5 prosecution (where intent to avoid the fare is key) you would struggle to defend against Byelaw 18 prosecution (where the failure to have a valid ticket is key).

 

[seoul100]

My main concern, really, is the prospect of a criminal record.

Obviously you are all right in telling me that I should have bought a ticket.

I'd be more than willing to pay a couple hundred quid to settle this and put it behind me.

Not sure how likely that is...

 

[najaB]

I'd be more than willing to pay a couple hundred quid to settle this and put it behind me.

Not sure how likely that is...

Given what you say happened it will cost you that much at least, but it is more likely to be a court-imposed fine than a private settlement.

 

[tony6499]

I've just had a quick look at FGW online, if the leaflet I was quickly able to view was correct, its a shame this could not have been dealt with by way of a PF but of course the TOC do not have to offer this.

A penalty fare wouldn't be the correct option in this instance, a PF is for an honest mistake.

Or could you explain why you think it's a shame a PF wasn't the option ?

 

[RPI]

If you haven't been stopped before FGW will almost definitely offer you the opportunity to pay costs of £80 plus the fare.

 

[najaB]

If you haven't been stopped before FGW will almost definitely offer you the opportunity to pay costs of £80 plus the fare.

I know Northern tend to do a pretty standard £80 plus the fare, I thought FGW were less formulaic in their settlement amounts?

 

[gray1404]

A penalty fare wouldn't be the correct option in this instance, a PF is for an honest mistake.

Or could you explain why you think it's a shame a PF wasn't the option ?

I said that because I've known people be issued with a PF when they've got on the train without a ticket, because there was a que at the booking office and then not managed to get a ticket from the guard on board - wrong on their part I know. It would have been a nice way of settling the matter but, at the same time, I understand why the RPI didn't offer it in this case. I do not think any further discussion on this specific point would be helpful to the OP to be honest. All they can do now is wait for the said letter to arrive in the mail and go from there.

 

[jayne123]

I never actually uttered the words "I wouldn't have paid unless I was stopped."

I was asked a yes/no question, in regards to would I have not paid had I not been stopped and I gave the answer "Yes."

My head was a bit of a mess and I was struggling to process the questions, perhaps if I explained that, that could go in my favour? After all, I am being genuine when I say that I thought I could get a ticket from her.

I did this exact same thing when asked this question a few weeks ago, I was just being honest and also panicking, I wrote back admitting my mistake, offering to pay any costs incurred and stating I would never repeat the mistake again, I was offered an out of court settlement of 101 pounds. The letter you receive is quite frightening but don't panic just write your response and provided you havnt been caught before they will probably accept to settle out of court.

 

[gray1404]

I think this shows that for some people, it is better they don't go into detail as what they can end up saying can land them into more trouble. Better to just give your name and address then to let nerves get the better of you and start saying stuff that will get you into more trouble. (such as being led along a line of questioning and admitting you would not have paid unless stopped etc...) I am glad that you got a settlement and, unsless you say othrwise, shall assume this was with First Great Western also.

 

[Deerfold]

I think this shows that for some people, it is better they don't go into detail as what they can end up saying can land them into more trouble. Better to just give your name and address then to let nerves get the better of you and start saying stuff that will get you into more trouble. (such as being led along a line of questioning and admitting you would not have paid unless stopped etc...) I am glad that you got a settlement and, unsless you say othrwise, shall assume this was with First Great Western also.

If the RPI is still asking questions I doubt silence would lead to a better outcome.

 

[gray1404]

If the RPI is still asking questions I doubt silence would lead to a better outcome.

Sounds like a double edged sward. Dammed if you do say something because saying the "wrong thing" can land you in more trouble. But dammed too if you don't.

 

[island]

Sounds like a double edged sward. Dammed if you do say something because saying the "wrong thing" can land you in more trouble. But dammed too if you don't.

Of course there is the rather easier method of buying a ticket to avoid any damnation

 

[Clip]

Of course there is the rather easier method of buying a ticket to avoid any damnation

that would be too easy though

 

[Hadders]

Sounds like a double edged sward. Dammed if you do say something because saying the "wrong thing" can land you in more trouble. But dammed too if you don't.

A difficult one to get the balance right between passing the attitude test and not incriminating oneself.

If questioning gets difficult then you could say something like 'I wish to do-operate with your investigation however I do not wish to answer any further questions until I have sought advice'.

I used this when dealing with a potential offence at work and the issue eventually went away.

 

[seoul100]

I did this exact same thing when asked this question a few weeks ago, I was just being honest and also panicking, I wrote back admitting my mistake, offering to pay any costs incurred and stating I would never repeat the mistake again, I was offered an out of court settlement of 101 pounds. The letter you receive is quite frightening but don't panic just write your response and provided you havnt been caught before they will probably accept to settle out of court.

Thanks for this! I'll seek more advice from you when I receive the letter. Was this also FGW?

 

[tony6499]

A difficult one to get the balance right between passing the attitude test and not incriminating oneself.

If questioning gets difficult then you could say something like 'I wish to do-operate with your investigation however I do not wish to answer any further questions until I have sought advice'.

I used this when dealing with a potential offence at work and the issue eventually went away.

Comparing a work issue and a potential criminal case is hardly the same, if you refuse to co-operate with the RPI and his questions then if it reached court it would go against you. Also if you did seek to prevent it going to court you've done yourself no favours by saying the above IMHO.

 

[seoul100]

Hi Guys.

Received my letter today, and have been offered a without prejudice out-of-court settlement of £84.30.

Thanks for all your help and I've certainly learnt my lesson!

I'm a relieved gentleman!

 

[30907]

Thanks for the update.

 

[gray1404]

Hi Guys.

Received my letter today, and have been offered a without prejudice out-of-court settlement of £84.30.

Thanks for all your help and I've certainly learnt my lesson!

I'm a relieved gentleman!

I am glad you have out of court settlement and you can now settle this matter.

 

[34D]

Does it actually say 'without prejudice' on it?

This could actually be important

 

[Shempz]

Does it actually say 'without prejudice' on it?

This could actually be important

I would be extremely surprised if it didn't to be honest, as I would have thought this was standard practice when arranging out of court settlements.

 

[Agent_c]

I would be extremely surprised if it didn't to be honest, as I would have thought this was standard practice when arranging out of court settlements.

My understanding is that statement is a bit redundant anyway... Courts tend to presume good faith attempts to settle are without prejudice anyway, and anything that wouldn't actually qualify for being "without prejudice" on a letter where it is present is read as if it wasn't there.