Court Summons for Fare Evasion - HELP!

[Meg90]

Hello everyone, I am hoping you may be able to advise and help with my predicament...

I purchased a train ticket on the TrainLine.com mobile application on my phone which was issued as an e-ticket to the mobile app, which I have never had before. I followed the instructions provided on the confirmation e-mail and downloaded the ticket on my app as advised. When I was travelling to Cardiff Central train station I tried to open the ticket on the app and it came up with the error message ‘Ticket locked to another device’. On arrival at the station, I spoke to a staff member on the ticket desk and explained the situation and she asked to see my e-mail confirmation before advising me that I would have no problems travelling but just to inform the conductor and show him my e-mail confirmation when he asked for my ticket. They let me through the barriers and I proceeded to my train where I quickly spoke to the conductor who said he would come and speak to me later on in the journey. When he was doing his ticket inspections, I again explained the situation and he said that I needed to fill out a form providing them with my details so he could issue me with an paper ticket for the remainder of my journey, which I obligingly did. He advised the train company may be in contact with me to ask why I could not produce the e-ticket, never once mentioning prosecution and I continued my journey without any further issues. I’m sure you can imagine my shock when I received a letter 6 weeks letter stating they were proceeding with a court summons. I responded stating the situation and details and they replied saying that although my comments had been passed onto the prosecution team, they would still be issuing the court summons.

There was no dishonest intent at any point and since the train staff let me through the barriers and the train guard told me to board the train with full knowledge of my situation, I feel that I am being wrongly prosecuted since they told it would be fine to travel. Even though I had paid for a ticket, I appreciate that it is classed as not a valid ticket since I couldn't display it...but surely since it is due to a mobile phone application error that is out of control, that is classed as mitigating circumstances.

Furthermore, I work as cabin crew and hold a US C-1/D and B-1/2 Visa and I am scared that if does to go to court then this could jeopardise my job if it risks my Visa being revoked.

Should I try to settle out of court? And if I did what are the costs likely to be?

Or should I continue with my defence and hope that the CPS throws it out?

Worst case scenario if I am found guilty, what would the associated costs be? I'm guessing compensation, fine and administrative? And would it affect my work and Visa?

Any help and advice on my situation would be much appreciated and thanks in advance for any replies

Have a good one.
Meghan

 

[DasLunatic]

The visa question depends on what they're going after. If it's a byelaw, they won't show up on a normal scan, but if they're after a RoRA, it may. Someone else'll be able to elaborate on this a bit further down.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Regarding the VISA thing, it is my understanding that so long as you have never been convicted of a CRIMINIAL offence, there should be no problems with that angle. I know a couple of people who have been done for byelaws but still travel to and from the US often - of course, it may be advisable to inform your line manager or cabin crew super about what is happening. If you are in a union, they may be able to help you out with court costs or legal advice

 

[scotsman]

To help we'll need to know the train operators involved

 

[185143]

Surely if an authorised member of staff gave you permission to travel, there's no case whatsoever?

 

[221129]

Regarding the VISA thing, it is my understanding that so long as you have never been convicted of a CRIMINIAL offence, there should be no problems with that angle. I know a couple of people who have been done for byelaws but still travel to and from the US often - of course, it may be advisable to inform your line manager or cabin crew super about what is happening. If you are in a union, they may be able to help you out with court costs or legal advice

If the OP is prosecuted it would be for a criminal offence. Although a Bylaw offence whilst a criminal offence won't show on a DBS check. A conviction under the Regulation of Railways act would.

 

[455driver]

Surely if an authorised member of staff gave you permission to travel, there's no case whatsoever?

Prove it!

 

[221129]

Surely if an authorised member of staff gave you permission to travel, there's no case whatsoever?

I'm wondering if they were given a UPFN that then wasn't paid. And the problem is how can the OP prove they were given permission to travel?

To me it sounds like the guard told the OP to get on and he would come and sort it en route. Not the same as permission to travel?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

If the OP is prosecuted it would be for a criminal offence. Although a Bylaw offence whilst a criminal offence won't show on a DBS check. A conviction under the Regulation of Railways act would.

True... However, I was under the impression that very minor offences such as fare dodging and speeding/parking tickets do not count

I'm thinking here that, in this case, the TOC concerned is maybe in the right in that you had no ticket or booking confirmation to show upon request

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm unclear about a very important point here :-

Is the correspondence you've received from a Court, Summonsing you to appear in a specified Court, on a specified day, to answer a specified prosecution of a Criminal offence ?

Or is it a letter from a Railway Company, asking you to provide written information to a revenue investigator about your incident ? A letter which (as a matter of good practice) advises you that this is a serious matter which deserves your full attention, and then illustrates that point by explaining that one of the possible outcomes could be a criminal prosecution against you in a Court (if it did turn out that persuasive evidence of an offence was detected) for which you would receive a Summons in due course ?

I and others might be happy to advise you, but no advice can be appropriate or helpful without being clear about which of these two letters you have received.

. . . . I received a letter 6 weeks letter stating they were proceeding with a court summons. I responded stating the situation and details . . . .


. . . . I feel that I am being wrongly prosecuted since . . . .

Whether you are being rightly or wrongly prosecuted depends on two things :
1. The Law
2. The Evidence

As you may be aware, Railway Companies receive none of the the fines that are imposed on effenders following a successful prosecution - only their fare and their costs. So they're unlikely to bring an incident forward for prosecution unless, taking a balanced view of the Law and the Evidence, there was a persuasive reason to believe that the prosecution would succeed.
What we don't know, is that Evidence. You've given a very fair description from your point of view, but what I'm missing is the fair description of the Evidence you gave the Company, firstly during travel and then secondly in your initial reply. It seems to me that you must have given compelling reasons to imagine that a Court would confirm your Guilt. But you haven't shared that with us, which makes it almost impossible to assist you.

'Feeling' that you are being wrongly prosecuted is great, when that feeling is shared by the Magistrates who hear unconvincing evidence. But it is worthless if you have provided the compelling evidence which makes it worthwhile for a prosecutor to pursue it, knowing that all they'll gain from it is the fare due and the recovery of their costs in that pursuit.

 

[Realfish]

To me it sounds like the guard told the OP to get on and he would come and sort it en route. Not the same as permission to travel?

If the TM told the passenger to 'get on and he would come and sort it out en route', surely that is permission to get on the train and have the matter sorted out en route. i.e. travel

 

[221129]

If the TM told the passenger to 'get on and he would come and sort it out en route', surely that is permission to get on the train and have the matter sorted out en route. i.e. travel

Which is what has happened. I am saying it might be harder to use it as a defence.

 

[455driver]

If the TM told the passenger to 'get on and he would come and sort it out en route', surely that is permission to get on the train and have the matter sorted out en route. i.e. travel

And accept the UFN and pay for it later!

 

[Meg90]

Hi everyone, thanks for your quick responses.

Further details are;

Cardiff Central to Durham via Birmingham operated by Cross Country.

I spoke to the train line after the journey and they advised that because I some issues with my phone and had to restore it, meaning I had to redownload the app, it incurred the error even though it was the same phone. I had never used an e-ticket before so was unaware how they worked.

I was never given a penalty fare or a fine, or offered one! That's why I'm shocked it's escalated to this point so quickly. Transport investigations Ltd are the ones contacting me, I have not been issued with a summons but I quote "an issue of a summons has been authorised in this case". They are quoting bye laws however I argue that byelaw 18 (3) states that no person shall be in breach of bye law 18 if an authorised person gave you permission to Tavel without a valid ticket, which I am arguing they did by letting me through the barrier and onto the train.

I have a further 21 days to respond again but so confused as how to?

Thanks again, you've all been so helpful!

 

[221129]

Hi everyone, thanks for your quick responses.

Further details are;

Cardiff Central to Durham via Birmingham operated by Cross Country.

I spoke to the train line after the journey and they advised that because I some issues with my phone and had to restore it, meaning I had to redownload the app, it incurred the error even though it was the same phone. I had never used an e-ticket before so was unaware how they worked.

I was never given a penalty fare or a fine, or offered one! That's why I'm shocked it's escalated to this point so quickly. Transport investigations Ltd are the ones contacting me, I have not been issued with a summons but I quote "an issue of a summons has been authorised in this case". They are quoting bye laws however I argue that byelaw 18 (3) states that no person shall be in breach of bye law 18 if an authorised person gave you permission to Tavel without a valid ticket, which I am arguing they did by letting me through the barrier and onto the train.

I have a further 21 days to respond again but so confused as how to?

Thanks again, you've all been so helpful!

Were you given any documentation? What was the EXACT conversation you had with the first conductor on boarding the train?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I've already asked you about the evidence which the Investigating Officer must already have which makes this a compelling case to pursue against you, but . . .

. . . I argue that byelaw 18 (3) states that no person shall be in breach of bye law 18 if an authorised person gave you permission to Tavel without a valid ticket, which I am arguing they did by letting me through the barrier and onto the train.

. .what's your evidence of this persuasive rebuttal ?

 

[Meg90]

Were you given any documentation? What was the EXACT conversation you had with the first conductor on boarding the train?

I was given a little bit of card with 'no ticket: important information with you' and then some details, think I have attached it. And that was it! Before I boarded I gave him a brief summary of what happened including showing him the booking confirmation and error message on the app and he said something to the effect of "the train is about to leave, get on and I'll come and find you later" although this was back in August.

Hope that helps - cheers

 

[Meg90]

I've already asked you about the evidence which the Investigating Officer must already have which makes this a compelling case to pursue against you, but . . . . .what's your evidence of this persuasive rebuttal ?

CCTV? That would show me consulting ticket desk staff and then letting me yet through the barriers and then me speaking to the train guard prior to boarding...not sure whether it would be accessible and not sure what other evidence i could give apart from my word against their's! Obviously I sent screenshot of error message on app, confirmation e-mail and bank account as evidence of ticket purchase.

Thanks Dave!

 

[Meg90]

I apologise for the duplication of posts, must be the jet lag and I've never used a forum before!

 

[crehld]

I've already asked you about the evidence which the Investigating Officer must already have which makes this a compelling case to pursue against you, but . . . . .what's your evidence of this persuasive rebuttal ?

Clearly the testimonies of the ticket office staff, those who let the OP through the gates and the guard, which would all be considered authorised persons and who OP claims gave them permission to travel, would be worth mobilising?

 

[DaleCooper]

I apologise for the duplication of posts, must be the jet lag and I've never used a forum before!

You're probably suffering from "new member lag" it's quite normal for a new member's first few posts to be delayed.

 

[Meg90]

You're probably suffering from "new member lag" it's quite normal for a new member's first few posts to be delayed.

Haha do I get some delay repay then Dale? no worries, I'll be more patient with my posting in future!

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Would the person at the ticket office not have been able to issue a paper ticket and the TOC claim the fare back from thetrainline?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are you telling me that you have the CCTV evidence from August ? If so, then I agree with you.

But I doubt that you do have it. If you are asking if it might, 3 months later, be possible to request a copy of the CCTV sequences, then I guess you're being very optomistic, but there's nothing to be lost by asking.

 

[Llanigraham]

Would the person at the ticket office not have been able to issue a paper ticket and the TOC claim the fare back from thetrainline?

'Fraid not.

 

[island]

This is yet another reason not to use thetrainline, as if its booking fees and credit card charges, which are easily avoidable by purchasing direct from a train company, we're not enough.

 

[najaB]

This is yet another reason not to use thetrainline, as if its booking fees and credit card charges, which are easily avoidable by purchasing direct from a train company, we're not enough.

The problem faced by the OP could equally have happened with any other company's app.

 

[87 027]

Yes, they all seem to be written by the same developer (Masabi) and just branded for each TOC. Sadly the OP has learned the hard way that using an m-ticket is a one-time download and activation, and the small print of the T&Cs is clear that if you can't show an activated ticket on demand then you are treated as being ticketless. So if you lose/reset your phone/run out of battery, you're stuffed.

 

[trainophile]

I purchased a train ticket on the TrainLine.com mobile application on my phone which was issued as an e-ticket to the mobile app, which I have never had before. I followed the instructions provided on the confirmation e-mail and downloaded the ticket on my app as advised.

This reads to me as if the OP wasn't offered any other form of ticket when booking, and had to accept an e-ticket. If this is correct, surely a phone malfunction should be accepted in mitigation?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does being waved through the gateline not provide a degree of evidence regarding permission by an authorised person?

I would certainly say it does. If a member of staff giving verbal permission is no longer adequate, is it time to give "permission cards" to them so they can be issued as a means of giving that permission formally? The difficulty with verbal permission is proving it.

As for this guard, if he indeed gave permission to board then wrote up for a prosecution, that is very bad indeed. If he didn't intend to either accept the passenger or just sell them a ticket, he should have very clearly refused travel. And if he felt he might need to sell a new ticket, that possibility should have been made clear to the passenger, so they didn't board if they weren't going to have the means to buy one.

That, or we change the rules so that permission to board is only valid if in written form (e.g. a bit of paper with a station stamp), and make that clear on posters throughout all stations.