Court summons by Thames Link

[Capiediem]

Hi Everyone,

I am currently a university student commuting to university. I recently sent a letter by Thames link officially summoning me to court. I was first issued with a notice of intention to prosecute. I responded to this letter stating my version of events. The letter I sent can be seen below.


'On the morning of 1st August 2016, I was travelling to Elephant and Castle from Beckenham Hill station using the National Rail service. I arrived at Elephant and Castle station at approximately 9:00am. I was stopped by a ticket inspector who asked for my oyster. I immediately gave him my oyster. After scanning it, he (the Inspector) asked me to follow him which I did. He then proceeded to ask for my details (name and address), which I provided. I explained to him that I had not topped up my oyster because I was in a rush and the ticket machine at Beckenham Hill was not accepting oyster cards. I also explained that I could not buy a ticket at Beckenham Hill because I wanted the 8:37am train and did not have the time to walk 25 minutes to use the ticket machine at the next station. I offered to pay the adult fare for the full journey or the penalty fare. He told me not to worry and that the company would get in touch with me using the details I had provided. I asked the inspector for an identification document which he refused to provide. Another inspector agreed with him and stated that according to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, he was not entitled to provide me with any identification. They both then walked away leaving me completely bewildered.

I assumed that was the end of the matter as I was not given the opportunity to pay the fare or the fine. This is why I am surprised to receive a letter more than a month after the incident. I hope the explanation I have provided above is sufficient for this matter to be concluded. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me via post.'


Further informtion

After sending this letter I received the letter officially summoning me to court. I am being asked to pay a fare of £3.50 + £125 in court fees. There is also a possibility I will have to pay a fine if found guilty. At the time I was using a 16+ student oyster which I topped up everytime and would touch in at the beginning of my journey and tap out at my destination. On the day this incident happened, I had money on my oyster but not enough to cover the £1.25 fare cost. I had approximately £0.80p. I am a university student living in London, extremely strapped for cash. I am also studying a very intense and demanding course and I can't afford to miss lectures. I am afraid this issue may already be affecting my studies.

Preferred outcome

Ideally I would like to settle this outside of court and in the shortest amount of time. I don't have the funds to pay what Thames Link is asking for. I also can't afford to have a criminal offence as this will be detrimental for my career aspirations. I can afford to pay the fare and the anything up to £40. Anything above this and I wont be eating for a month. I would really appreciate your help with this matter. I have been under considerable stress and fear I may be close to breaking down.

Questions I have are:
1) Can this lead to a criminal conviction? I intend to go into finance after graduation so this is something I hope to avoid.

2) What can I do now?

3) Do I have to get a solicitor or can I represent myself? If so, Will I have to pay for a Soliciter?

4) How often do people win cases against Thames Link?


Thank you very much for taking the time to reply

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In your italicised paragraph you state that you HAD NOT topped up your Oyster card, and in the 'Further Information' paragraph that you HAD topped it up but had not touched in. I think the distinction may be important, because if you had travelled without the funds on the card to pay for the travel, then you would have committed an offence which, by implication of not having put the funds into the account, includes the intention to avoid payment. In contrast, if you HAD topped up the account, but had failed to 'tap in', then it is more likely that you are being investigated for a lesser offence that you would have committed - failing to present a ticket (an Oyster card having 'tapped in') - which does not include 'intention'.

But whichever offence is being investigated, it is probable that the cost of the investigation is realistically going to be close to the suggested figure of £125.

You are at liberty to attempt an Out of Court settlement, but that settlement will have to be a realistic one, and if £125 has been stated to take the matter to Court, then much of that will have been incurred already.

Other people may "win cases against Thames Link" but only where they have the evidence to the adequate standard of proof. In the circumstances you describe, the evidence seems to suggest that you would have no evidence in your favour and that the evidence demonstrates your guilt. I see little point in contesting it, though there is plenty to be gained by attempting an OOC settlement if it is realistic.

You are not obliged to be represented by a Solicitor, but if it does go forward to Court, and you choose to represent yourself, you should be very clear about your plea - making a 'not guilty' plea without the means to demonstrate that the prosecution's evidence is defective or unreliable will not lead to a 'not guilty' judgement, but it will remove the discount for an early plea of 'guilty'. What you can usefully do in Court is to present any mitigating circumstanes, such as your low income, which will be takne into account when determining the point within the range of fines that will be selected for your fine. Before deciding to do this without a Solicitor, it would be wise to aquaint yourself of the protocol and sequencing of a Criminal hearing in the Magistrates Court

 

[gray1404]

You start out by saying: the ticket machine at Beckenham Hill was not accepting oyster cards and that you could not walk the 25 minutes to the next station (which is totally reasonable). That lead me to believe that perhaps you had not had an opportunity to purchase because the TOC did not provide such a facility. But then as Dave has pointed out, you then go on to say that you did not tap in because you were in a rush.

Could you please provide some clarification?

 

[6Gman]

Hi Everyone,

After sending this letter I received the letter officially summoning me to court. I am being asked to pay a fare of £3.50 + £125 in court fees. There is also a possibility I will have to pay a fine if found guilty.

2) What can I do now?

Thank you

If the £125 + £3.50 is an opportunity to settle the matter without court proceedings then I would urge you to pay as quickly as possible.

It's the quickest and easiest way to make it all go away ... and possibly the cheapest.

Save hard; borrow from friends/family; go without for a few weeks. It would be worth it to avoid a conviction.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the £125 + £3.50 is an opportunity to settle the matter without court proceedings then I would urge you to pay as quickly as possible.

It's the quickest and easiest way to make it all go away ... and possibly the cheapest.

Save hard; borrow from friends/family; go without for a few weeks. It would be worth it to avoid a conviction.

It doesn't seem that's an out of court settlement being offered.

But it may do no harm to offer the sum anyway prior to court action.

 

[Capiediem]

You start out by saying: the ticket machine at Beckenham Hill was not accepting oyster cards and that you could not walk the 25 minutes to the next station (which is totally reasonable). That lead me to believe that perhaps you had not had an opportunity to purchase because the TOC did not provide such a facility. But then as Dave has pointed out, you then go on to say that you did not tap in because you were in a rush.

Could you please provide some clarification?

Yes. Sorry it for not being clear enough. On the day I had from what I can remember £0.80p on my oyster. The journey normally costs £1.25 so I had to top-up 45p, HOWEVER, when I tapped my oyster on the card reader of the ticket machine it wasn't recognising my oyster card. I stepped back to let other people tap their oyster to see if the fault was with my card and not the machine. Unfortunately, the machine did not read their cards either. At this precise moment the train was approaching the station. I had a choice of either walking to the next station to top-up my oyster there or purchase a new ticket. I only had enough funds on me at the time to top-up my oyster so couldn't purchase a ticket (not that I wanted to). The machine has been known to be faulty in the past. It had on occasion, refused to accept pound coins and some notes. I'm not sure if asking the station manager for a statement will help my plea?

I have tried to call the number for Thames link (Prosecutions department) but no-on seems to pick up. I think I will send a letter this week. I'm not sure if anyone else experienced this issue? I will definitely try and settle this out of court. Can anyone confirm if this can indeed lead to a criminal conviction??

Also on a side note, the Thames Link staff I have spoken on the phone with ( I initially had to call about 3 different places until someone finally give me the correct number) have been extremely rude and obnoxious. I wish I had the capabilities to record conversations because I even had one gentleman shout down the phone at me.

 

[najaB]

I am currently a university student commuting to university. I recently sent a letter by Thames link officially summoning me to court. I was first issued with a notice of intention to prosecute. I responded to this letter stating my version of events. The letter I sent can be seen below.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge discrepancy between your two versions of events. In the first you wanted to top up your Oyster card but the machine was out of order, in the second you intended to use your Oyster card (which had sufficient funds) but forgot to tap in.

Neither of these should result in a prosecution, so I suspect you have ended up in this situation due to your changing story.

It would be very helpful to those trying to assist you if we knew which of the two scenarios is closest to reality.

 

[Capiediem]

If the £125 + £3.50 is an opportunity to settle the matter without court proceedings then I would urge you to pay as quickly as possible.

It's the quickest and easiest way to make it all go away ... and possibly the cheapest.

Save hard; borrow from friends/family; go without for a few weeks. It would be worth it to avoid a conviction.

An out of court settlement has not been offered. I will however call and send a post asking for a possible settlement this week.

As others have pointed out, there is a huge discrepancy between your two versions of events. In the first you wanted to top up your Oyster card but the machine was out of order, in the second you intended to use your Oyster card (which had sufficient funds) but forgot to tap in.

Neither of these should result in a prosecution, so I suspect you have ended up in this situation due to your changing story.

It would be very helpful to those trying to assist you if we knew which of the two scenarios is closest to reality.

I've edited my post to add some much needed clarity. I hope this clears things up.


Let me know if there is anything if I need to clarify.

 

[Master29]

Having altered your statement it now shows you intended to travel without sufficient funds on your Oystercard. As NajaB also remembers you also stated you "forgot to tap out." It is important you stick to the facts and say no more as you are digging yourself a hole a bit here.

 

[gray1404]

Yes. Sorry it for not being clear enough. On the day I had from what I can remember £0.80p on my oyster. The journey normally costs £1.25 so I had to top-up 45p, HOWEVER, when I tapped my oyster on the card reader of the ticket machine it wasn't recognising my oyster card. I stepped back to let other people tap their oyster to see if the fault was with my card and not the machine. Unfortunately, the machine did not read their cards either. At this precise moment the train was approaching the station. I had a choice of either walking to the next station to top-up my oyster there or purchase a new ticket. I only had enough funds on me at the time to top-up my oyster so couldn't purchase a ticket (not that I wanted to). The machine has been known to be faulty in the past. It had on occasion, refused to accept pound coins and some notes. I'm not sure if asking the station manager for a statement will help my plea?

I have tried to call the number for Thames link (Prosecutions department) but no-on seems to pick up. I think I will send a letter this week. I'm not sure if anyone else experienced this issue? I will definitely try and settle this out of court. Can anyone confirm if this can indeed lead to a criminal conviction??

Also on a side note, the Thames Link staff I have spoken on the phone with ( I initially had to call about 3 different places until someone finally give me the correct number) have been extremely rude and obnoxious. I wish I had the capabilities to record conversations because I even had one gentleman shout down the phone at me.

So the TVM was not allowing you to top up. If so and there was not another TVM or a booking office at the station, then you did not have an opportunity to purchase before boarding.

You say you only had enough funds to top up your Oyster but not for a normal ticket. How much cash did you have on you? And what is the minimum amount you can top up your Oyster card with at that TVM?

 

[najaB]

I've edited my post to add some much needed clarity. I hope this clears things up.

Indeed it does - and also doesn't - it's a bit of a good news / bad new scenario.

The good news is that, since you attempted to top up your Oyster but could not due to the machine not working, you committed no offence in boarding the train.

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey

I'm not 100% on the rules around Oyster, but as I see it the bad news is that, by not tapping in, you did commit an offence by using the Oyster card in breach of the T&Cs.

1. The photocard holder must always touch in and out[ when using buses and trams, and touch in and out when using Tube, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground, TfL Rail, Emirates Air Line, River and most National Rail services in London.

(My bold)

As I understand it, you should have attempted to tap in and if the barriers(?) didn't open then spoken to station staff who should have allowed you to travel (or assisted you with the TVM). Since you didn't tap in or speak to staff, the fact that the TVM wasn't working is - as I see it - irrelevant.

Edit: The wrong section of the TfL T&Cs was bolded.

 

[Capiediem]

As others have pointed out, there is a huge discrepancy between your two versions of events. In the first you wanted to top up your Oyster card but the machine was out of order, in the second you intended to use your Oyster card (which had sufficient funds) but forgot to tap in.

Neither of these should result in a prosecution, so I suspect you have ended up in this situation due to your changing story.

It would be very helpful to those trying to assist you if we knew which of the two scenarios is closest to reality.

Indeed it does - and also doesn't - it's a bit of a good news / bad new scenario.

The good news is that, since you attempted to top up your Oyster but could not due to the machine not working, you committed no offence in boarding the train.

I'm not 100% on the rules around Oyster, but as I see it the bad news is that, by not tapping in, you did commit an offence by using the Oyster card in breach of the T&Cs.
(My bold)

As I understand it, you should have attempted to tap in and if the barriers(?) didn't open then spoken to station staff who should have allowed you to travel (or assisted you with the TVM). Since you didn't tap in or speak to staff, the fact that the TVM wasn't working is - as I see it - irrelevant.

There aren't any barriers per say at Beckenham Hill station. There are just card readers at the entrance to the station. The reason I knew I had to top-up my oyster was because I had tried to tap-in but the scanner beeped and turned red indicating I didn't have enough money on my oyster. I then walked to the Ticket machine which is on the platform my train arrived at. I guess I could have spoken to the station manager. But considering the time frame, I would have missed the train.

 

[gray1404]

Ok so to recap
1. OP does try to tap in
2. Red light shown
3. OP tries to top up but fault with TVM and no other facilities to pay
4. OP does not have opportunity to pay before boarding until they encounter a RPI
5. RPI incorrectly treats this as failure to touch in/not enough balance, does not provide opportunity to pay and incorrectly reports the passenger.
6. Now Thameslink/GTR are incorrectly trying to bring about legal proceedings against the passenger even though they have done nothing wrong.

 

[Capiediem]

So the TVM was not allowing you to top up. If so and there was not another TVM or a booking office at the station, then you did not have an opportunity to purchase before boarding.

You say you only had enough funds to top up your Oyster but not for a normal ticket. How much cash did you have on you? And what is the minimum amount you can top up your Oyster card with at that TVM?

There is only one ticket vending machine at the station and it is located on the platform my train arrived at. There is a booking office inside the station but you can't top-up oysters in there, only purchase train tickets.

I had £1 cash on me. The minimum you can top-up with is £0.10p. A normal adult fare is £3.60p.

Should I have been given the opportunity to pay a fine before being taken to court?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok so to recap
1. OP does try to tap in
2. Red light shown
3. OP tries to top up but fault with TVM and no other facilities to pay
4. OP does not have opportunity to pay before boarding until they encounter a RPI
5. RPI incorrectly treats this as failure to touch in/not enough balance, does not provide opportunity to pay and incorrectly reports the passenger.
6. Now Thameslink/GTR are incorrectly trying to bring about legal proceedings against the passenger even though they have done nothing wrong.

There is a ticket office inside the station but you can only buy train tickets not top-up oysters.

Once my above statement has been counted then yes those sequence of events are correct.

I think what doesn't help was I didn't mention to the Ticket Inspector that the Ticket machine was not working. I simply accepted my fault (not topping-up my oyster) and said I was running late and in a hurry. When I met the ticket inspector at the station I was still in a hurry and incorrectly assumed that no matter my explanation/back story I would still have to pay a £20 fine. I just gave him a quick explanation hoping I could be on my way and pay the £20 fine later.

 

[najaB]

I think what doesn't help was I didn't mention to the Ticket Inspector that the Ticket machine was not working. I simply accepted my fault (not topping-up my oyster) and said I was running late and in a hurry.

And that is the problem - you basically said "I couldn't be bothered tapping in."

You mentioned PACE in your original post. Were you actually given the full treatment - specifically "...it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."?

The reason I ask is because your original statement is enough to obtain a conviction and something as major as trying to top up is something that a 'reasonable' person could have been expected to mention at the time. You might only bring it up later because you subsequently found out that there happened coincidentally to be a machine fault that day.

I have no opinion either way, but I'm sure a prosecutor will see it in an unfavourable light.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok so to recap
1. OP does try to tap in
2. Red light shown
3. OP tries to top up but fault with TVM and no other facilities to pay
4. OP does not have opportunity to pay before boarding until they encounter a RPI

With you up to there

5. RPI incorrectly treats this as failure to touch in/not enough balance, does not provide opportunity to pay and incorrectly reports the passenger.

The statement that the OP made at the time didn't mention the machine fault, so I'm not sure about 'incorrect'.

6. Now Thameslink/GTR are incorrectly trying to bring about legal proceedings against the passenger even though they have done nothing wrong.

As above, the issue is that the statement that the OP gave at the time said that they did do something wrong.

 

[gray1404]

In light of the new information, yes OP didn't mention and so RPI didn't have full information to act upon.

I guess it still doesn't take away the fact there was still no opportunity to purchase. Can the OP continue to take that line.

 

[najaB]

I guess it still doesn't take away the fact there was still no opportunity to purchase. Can the OP continue to take that line.

They can, and GTR may relent. However, based solely on the statement made on the day they have a pretty strong case for a RoRA prosecution since "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

 

[MikeWh]

It is the card holders responsibility to ensure that the Oyster card has sufficient funds. TOCs are not required to provide top up facilities, they do as a convenience. If those facilities are not working then you need to make other arrangements. This might mean visiting a local shop or buying a paper ticket. The Oyster card is an electronic wallet in a similar way that a bank card allows electronic access to your account. If you have no money in your account then you have to pay another way.

I don't like the situation, but that is how it is at present.

 

[Capiediem]

And that is the problem - you basically said "I couldn't be bothered tapping in."

You mentioned PACE in your original post. Were you actually given the full treatment - specifically "...it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."?

The reason I ask is because your original statement is enough to obtain a conviction and something as major as trying to top up is something that a 'reasonable' person could have been expected to mention at the time. You might only bring it up later because you subsequently found out that there happened coincidentally to be a machine fault that day.

I have no opinion either way, but I'm sure a prosecutor will see it in an unfavourable light.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With you up to there
The statement that the OP made at the time didn't mention the machine fault, so I'm not sure about 'incorrect'.
As above, the issue is that the statement that the OP gave at the time said that they did do something wrong.

I honestly don't remember if I was given the full "anything you do not say may harm..." talk. Going to court was the last thing on my mind. I was totally oblivious to the fact that a court summons was a possibility. Had I known the seriousness of the situation, I would have definitely spent more time explaining the situation rather than giving a brief explanation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is the card holders responsibility to ensure that the Oyster card has sufficient funds. TOCs are not required to provide top up facilities, they do as a convenience. If those facilities are not working then you need to make other arrangements. This might mean visiting a local shop or buying a paper ticket. The Oyster card is an electronic wallet in a similar way that a bank card allows electronic access to your account. If you have no money in your account then you have to pay another way.

I don't like the situation, but that is how it is at present.

How do I go about settling this matter out of court?

 

[najaB]

How do I go about settling this matter out of court?

You write to GTR again expressing sincere apologies, demonstrate a true sense of contrition and offer to pay the fare plus the costs that they've incurred so far.

I know £128.50 is a lot of money but, to put it bluntly, that's your problem not GTR's. You can mention your limited income, but be prepared for them to expect payment in full.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It is the card holders responsibility to ensure that the Oyster card has sufficient funds. TOCs are not required to provide top up facilities, they do as a convenience. If those facilities are not working then you need to make other arrangements.

Agreed with the first bit but surely, TOC's are obliged to provide top-up facilities? Beckenham Hill is almost in the middle of nowhere and there are no shops reasonably close by that provide oyster top-up

But yes, perhaps the OP will be a bit more mindful next time and ensure (the day before) that he has enough money on his oyster. It's a shame that he didn't inform the RPI about the faulty machine, this could have probably avoided this mess completely.

If the OP feels he can put up a good defence in court, then that is up to him but as DaveNewcastle and others have pointed out, the OP did not give the RPI the correct information and changing stories in court would not probably go in his favour.

To the OP - borrow the money, give up beer for a couple of weeks and remember to keep your oyster topped up from now on

 

[najaB]

Agreed with the first bit but surely, TOC's are obliged to provide top-up facilities? Beckenham Hill is almost in the middle of nowhere and there are no shops reasonably close by that provide oyster top-up

No more than they are obliged to provide cash machines so that you can buy a paper ticket.

 

[Antman]

No more than they are obliged to provide cash machines so that you can buy a paper ticket.

The two things are hardly comparable.

If the OP didn't couldn't top up his oyster because the TVM wasn't working properly then I don't see that he has morally done anything wrong?

 

[gray1404]

I wonder if the fault was logged on the TVM record anyway and if this could still be checked going back to the date of travel.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

All very well and good but the court have already got the OP's version of events (even though he admits to not giving the RPI the correct information) and it would not look good in court if the OP gave a different story. He's done it now so will have to make the choic to either pay up or have his day in court

 

[najaB]

The two things are hardly comparable.

They are directly comparable. A PAYG Oyster card is a token used to represent a sum of money, same as a debit card is. The TOC is under no obligation to provide a means to turn your token into cash, nor to turn your cash into a token.

If the OP didn't couldn't top up his oyster because the TVM wasn't working properly then I don't see that he has morally done anything wrong?

There are two separate issues. They couldn't top up their Oyster card and so they wouldn't fall foul of the Railway Byelaws if they entered a train.

The second - and separate - issue is that according to the statement they provided at the time, they didn't tap in because they were in a hurry. This does put them foul of the legislation.

 

[bb21]

Can we move on from this technicality on the availability of top-up facilities please? MikeWh has already provided the definitive answer on this point as things currently stand, so I would rather we don't spend more time debating something that is not going to be of help to the OP.

If anyone wants to discuss in more details, then please do so in a separate thread. Thank you.

 

[island]

There's more holes in this story than a block of Swiss cheese.

The peak Oyster fare from Beckenham Hill to Elephant & Castle isn't £1.25, it's £2.80. Or £1.40 on a 16+ Zip card.

The minimum Oyster top up at a National Rail ticket machine is £5, so the OP, who said he had £1, did not have enough funds to top up. Even if he could have topped up £1, how was he to get home later? And even if the machine was not selling Oyster top up (which I don't pass comment on), this does not excuse the non-purchase of a ticket, and the OP would have needed to buy a paper ticket and apply for a goodwill refund.

Reading this as a whole, it would not surprise me if a prosecution for travelling on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid the payment thereof were to succeed.

 

[gray1404]

That crossed my mind too when I tried to look up the fare. Plus I know the minimum top up is £5.

I guess the best the OP can try to get the train company to agree to an out of court settlement. To achieve this they need to contact the train company and ask if they'll agree to this.

 

[MikeWh]

The minimum Oyster top up at a National Rail ticket machine is £5

Plus I know the minimum top up is £5.

I have to disagree most strongly on this point.

The buttons for set amounts start at £5, but the last button is "Other". If that is pressed then any amount ending in a round 5p can be entered. I routinely top up my son's zip card with £1.50, being all such a card needs off-peak.