Consequences???

[GWRUSER]

Hopefully you might be able to give me a bit of help / advice

I am a rail commuter on the GWR network and recently travelled from my home station, which we shall call station A, to my work station, which we shall call station C. Both are penalty fare stations and a ticket is required.

My monthly season ticket had expired, there was a long queue at my home ticket station where the ticket machine was out of order, so i naturally assumed i would be able to buy a day ticket from the train manager after boarding. Unfortunately, the train was too busy that the manager couldn't move up and down the train to check or sell tickets. On arrival at my destination (station C) i went to buy a ticket, but unfortunately I had a moment of madness and told the inspector i had actually travelled from station B, in order to pay a reduced fare. Station B is nearer my final destination than my home station (A).

I was then referred to a revenue protection officer who after a brief discussion realised I lied and had actually travelled from station A (my home station). The officer then opened a little black book, cautioned me and asked me to confirm and sign all the details and advised I would receive a letter shortly. I was told i will be asked to explain my actions.

My worry and concern with this is - do you think this scenario would typically allow itself for an out of court settlement, avoiding prosecution and the possibility of a criminal record? I am more than happy to pay for the ticket, GWRs expenses and compensation for this stupid decision on my part - but how much might this amount to?

 

[najaB]

What you have described is short-faring, and is an offence contrary to the Regulation of Railways Act.

If you are found guilty you may be fined up to one thousand pounds and the conviction will appear on a standard DBS check for one year.

You may well be able to avoid a conviction by engaging with gWr's prosecutors at any and all opportunities that present themselves.

 

[gray1404]

Although what you did was wrong, from what I have read on here, FGW often offer first time offenders the chance to settle with an out of court settlement. If they write to you and ask for your version of events, then you need to make it clear that you are truly sorry for your actions, you realise what you did was wrong and assure them that it will not happen in the future. You should then offer to pay to them the fare due plus their costs involved in dealing with this matter.

Until then though you can do nothing other then wait for the letter to arrive in the post. There is no assurance however that you will be offered this option - moreover that you admitted to giving the Inspector incorrect information - but wait and see.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's an unfortunate fact of railway life that hundreds of passengers a day do this. It is remarkable to compare the number of sold tickets from small stations close to large city centres with the head count of passengers using those little stations. And that's just those that have the chance to pay at their destination.
It's been a big problem for over a century, which is one of the reasons for special clauses in railway legislation to criminalise deliberate attempts to avoid the proper fare.

So, what I'm preparing you for is the probability that you will not be treated with quite the same speedy and lenient resolution that is offered to a one-time first offender travelling with no ticket, but will likely be considered for prosecution for the intentional attempt to avoid the fare due. I'm sorry that this isn't what you will be wanting to hear, but as far as the company is concerned, what you did 'in a moment of madness' might as well be something you did as often as you could (and might even have lied to the Guard on board if you were buying a ticket during travel and had already passed the intermediate station). If you are prosecuted, then it WILL be for a 'recordable' offence.

But there is always the possibility of an Out of Court settlement, but in your case having deliberately attempted to defraud the company, it might require some persuasive argument, perhaps more likely from a local Criminal Defence solicitor.

 

[furlong]

GWR has a clear (and sensible) policy that you can read here.

In summary, that company treats prosecution as a last resort after other methods of settling the matter fail.

Page 26:

We’ll do our best to settle out of court
Prosecution can have serious consequences on your personal and professional life. So if you don’t pay your fare, we’ll do everything we can to avoid taking you to court.

Deciding to go to court
Prosecution is normally a last resort and we look at every case individually. But there are times when we prosecute without trying to settle out of court first. This is usually when a customer has been reported to our Prosecutions department before. We never take our decision to prosecute lightly. We’ll only go ahead if there’s a good chance of a conviction and it’s in the best interests of justice.

 

[Greenback]

I think that you have a good chance of being able to settle this matter without going to court. As Dave says, though, it's not guaranteed, and GWR may wish to make an example of you. It seems unlikely to me, provided you haven't come to their attention before. If you have, then I'm afraid that prosecution is far more likely.

Should you attempt to settle, I would offer the fare that is due, plus an amount to cover the costs of dealing with your case. Plus a lot of apologies. GWR may tell you how much they need to make the matter disappear, though.

 

[jon0844]

Why is GWR so lenient?

I remember when I was at college and had friends who thought it fine to illegally claim benefits, on the basis that if you got caught the worst that would happen is you were made to sign off there and then. No court action.

So, on that basis, it was considered fine to do something until caught - and THEN abide by the law.

If GWR says it will try to avoid court, isn't that giving a green light to people to offend until caught?

 

[najaB]

If GWR says it will try to avoid court, isn't that giving a green light to people to offend until caught?

No. Because they'll offer a settlement first, and take it to Court if the settlement is refused. They never said they would turn a complete blind eye to offences.

 

[jon0844]

But you'd surely accept the settlement, and do what people did with TV licenses - pay when challenged.

It's clearly better for GWR because it gets all the money, so I suspect that's the real reason. In fact, I wonder if they'd even offer a settlement for a repeat offender on occasion?

 

[najaB]

But you'd surely accept the settlement, and do what people did with TV licenses - pay when challenged.

But hopefully the passenger will start to buy tickets, rather than risk another big financial penalty.

It's clearly better for GWR because it gets all the money, so I suspect that's the real reason.

There may be an element of this, but I think it's got to do with the fact that courts are less inclined to award cases where there's been no attempt to settle before bringing a prosecution.

In fact, I wonder if they'd even offer a settlement for a repeat offender on occasion?

I doubt it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . .

My worry and concern with this is - do you think this scenario would typically allow itself for an out of court settlement, avoiding prosecution and the possibility of a criminal record?

If GWR says it will try to avoid court, isn't that giving a green light to people to offend until caught?

There may be an element of this, but I think it's got to do with the fact that courts are less inclined to award cases where there's been no attempt to settle before bringing a prosecution.

One of the tests that a Criminal Prosecutor must apply to a potential prosecution is the 'public interest test'. i.e. is it in the public interest to prosecute. Now it is generally claimed that fare evasion is in the public interest, but in many specific instances this may not be the assessment.

It is true that in Civil disputes, then there is clear guidance (in the Civil Procedure Rules, CPR) that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be explored thoroughly, and Courts are unimpressed by litigants who have made little effort to resolve their differences, but in Crimnal investigations, there is not the same sense of two parties at loggerheads but instead there is a question of fact and of law - does the evidence persuasively prove that the stated offence was committed - yes or no? Even if that question is answered out of court (and if the answer is 'yes') it is hardly grounds for a Court to be dissatisfied that the offence is brought forward.

 

[jon0844]

It does seem that TOCs like out of court settlements. As we've discussed before, it's not always clear that they'd actually take things to court if you refused - but who would?

I'm not actually against them, as penalty fares are stupidly low, but I am surprised a company would openly state that they'd like to settle, as the deterrent factor is greatly reduced.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . it's not always clear that they'd actually take things to court if you refused - but who would?

It's perfectly clear to me!
And many do refuse, though possibly more through a disinclination to engage with the Company, or through some belief, than from a balanced assessment of the options. Which is why, GWRUSER, I am proposing that you seek that option - and take it, to achieve the outcome you're looking for.