"Intent to avoid payment" - should I bother fighting?

[akc4000]

I just received a letter from c2c Rail Prosecution Dept informing me that legal proceedings have now commenced against me.

They state that I was travelling between West Ham and Basildon without paying the fare due and "contend that the intention of [me] was to travel on the railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof". Naturally they want money: £110 (contribution towards prosecution costs) + £7.90 (the unpaid fare). Or I can pay £65 (admin fees) + £7.90 (the unpaid fare) to settle the matter without prejudice.

I accept that I was travelling without a valid ticket (though I believed I was due to incorrect advice from station staff - see below) but not that I had any intent to avoid paying (I tried to pay several times as soon as I was told I didn't actually have a valid ticket). Should I bother fighting this prosecution or should I go against all my natural instincts and just pay the settlement fees?

In (sort of) brief - I was travelling from London to Basildon, a trip I make about twice every year. I usually go via Barking but the Gospel Oak-Barking line is currently closed so I went via tube (using my PAYG Oyster Card) to West Ham and caught the c2c from there to Basildon.

At the changeover there's an Oyster tap in/out post and I tapped twice (out and then in, it wasn't very clear so I took a belt 'n braces approach) and went up to the platform. As I stood there I remembered that at Barking you have to tap out with your Oyster, buy a c2c ticket to Basildon and then go back through the same barrier with the new ticket. It seemed likely that despite the Oyster in/out post, I should do the same for this journey.

So I went back into West Ham station and went to the Assistance booth where two members of staff were sitting/standing. I told them I was transferring to National Rail from the tube and asked them if I should tap out, buy a new ticket and come back.

*I should note here that I am particularly scrupulous about this as 4 years ago I changed from the tube to National Rail at Kentish Town and was told at St Albans (along with 5 or 6 other similarly confused passengers) that my Oyster wasn't valid so I had to pay the penalty fare. (I guess that's why c2c have gone straight to prosecuting me.) It's hard to keep track as TfL are increasing their Oyster validity zones all the time so I always ask if I'm in any doubt.*

They told me I didn't have to do that as my Oyster Card was valid at Basildon. I asked them if they were sure and they said yes. I replied that TfL must have increased their Oyster Zone since I last travelled there in May, and went back to the platform - tapping in again for good measure.

When a ticket/Revenue Inspector (they were working as a gang and in plain clothes but I'm not sure what type they were) on the train asked for my ticket and I blithely showed him my Oyster Card, he looked at me as if I were mad. It turns out that I was correct and the two members of staff at West Ham station were incorrect. My Oyster Card was NOT valid at Basildon. Hence this morning's letter from c2c.

I filed a complaint with TfL that same day and they are currently looking for CCTV footage of me asking the members of staff about the ticketing procedure (though as I doubt there's sound I suppose I could have been saying anything to them).

I have (of course) written an indignant letter to c2c objecting in the strongest terms to their accusations of criminal intent on my part, which I consider defamatory, explaining the situation and informing them of the TfL complaint and CCTV evidence. I enclosed a cheque paying for the ticket.

However, I'm not sending the letter until Monday as I want to get proof of postage, and in the meantime I'm wondering if I should bother. I know that legal justice is often different to actual justice but I'm furious they've accused me of intent to avoid payment and feel that if I settle it's an admission that I did something intentionally criminal, which I did not.

I wondered if anyone here has had a similar experience and if so whether they could advise me whether I should storm the barricades or just lie down and hand over the money and seethe about it privately.

Thanks!

 

[MikeWh]

That's a difficult one. I'm assuming that you were checked after Upminster so the Oyster card was completely invalid. I know that there are quite prominent posters on many C2C trains explaining where travelcards and Oyster PAYG can be used. Taking your description at face value you are saying that you travelled without a ticket on the say so of staff of another company, albeit one that operates at a common station between the two.

I'm not a lawyer, but in your situation I would certainly be considering sending a letter along with a cheque for the fare due. You will need to include details of the complaint to TfL, reference numbers and any responses received so far. Explain that if they do not accept your cheque in final settlement you will defend the matter vigorously.

I would keep the letter concise and to the point. Focus on what happened on the day. Stress that you are an infrequent traveller. Feel free to post a copy of the letter for proof reading.

 

[najaB]

I'm not a lawyer, but in your situation I would certainly be considering sending a letter along with a cheque for the fare due. You will need to include details of the complaint to TfL, reference numbers and any responses received so far. Explain that if they do not accept your cheque in final settlement you will defend the matter vigorously.

If it was me, I would send two cheques - one for the fare due, and the other for the £65 admin fees in hope that they will see sense and only cash the one for the fare.

While the case might be defendable, £65 isn't a lot in the grand scheme to make the matter go away.

 

[richw]

Unfortunately the staff member said isn't adequate defence if it goes to court. £65 as above is probably better than a court punishment. Google search prosecutions, loads have made lasagna cal news website and typically £300-400

 

[sheff1]

Unfortunately the staff member said isn't adequate defence if it goes to court.

If true, then the process is flawed. How can the truth be inadequate ?

If someone travels based on advice from a member of staff, having specifically asked whether the Oyster card they held was valid for the journey they wished to make, then where is the "intent to avoid payment" ?

 

[Simon11]

It is very challenging as staff should have this knowledge, however with modern technology it only takes a few seconds to look online to check whether it is valid and it appears that this person was unsure before he made the move to travel on c2c with an Oyster to Basildon. A quick search online would have given the correct answer.

 

[najaB]

If true, then the process is flawed. How can the truth be inadequate ?

If someone travels based on advice from a member of staff, having specifically asked whether the Oyster card they held was valid for the journey they wished to make, then where is the "intent to avoid payment" ?

The truth is good enough, but the problem is proving what the staff member actually said.

 

[akc4000]

Thanks for all your advice and views.

I think I'll start by sending a letter and paying the fare, though I do like the idea of enclosing a second cheque for £65 as backup though not sure how I would phrase that in the letter ...

As you kindly offered to proofread my letter I'm pasting it here. It's probably still too long though!

TO: c2c Rail Prosecution Department

I utterly refute the accusation within your letter of the 29 November 2016 that on 24 November 2016 I was travelling on the railway “with intent to avoid payment thereof". While "intentional fare evasion" may be a criminal matter, I did not intend to evade any fare, and to be accused of such is not only unfounded but also defamatory.

In fact, as the result of advice given to me by station staff at West Ham, I believed I was travelling with a valid ticket: that is my PAYG Oyster Card.

I transferred from the Underground to Network Rail at West Ham to continue to Basildon. I have never used this route before, so was not certain whether I could use my Oyster Card or needed to tap out with my Oyster Card and purchase a ticket to re-enter the station and transfer onto the National Railways.

I asked this of two members of staff in a booth marked 'Assistance' next to the platform entrance - they both said to me that I did not have to do this as my Oyster Card was valid at Basildon. I asked if they were sure and they assured me they were

This is what I told your inspector who then informed me that I had been given incorrect advice. This was the first time I realised I was travelling without a valid ticket. It is also the first time that I realised the staff I spoke to at West Ham were specifically TfL staff.

I had already lodged an official complaint with TfL regarding the incorrect information that I was given (Ref: ##### being dealt with by *****) and they are locating CCTV footage of my conversation with the station staff to show that I tried to follow the correct fare procedure and was definitely NOT trying to evade paying for my travel.

I accept that I was travelling without a valid ticket between West Ham and Basildon but not that I intended to avoid payment. I cannot see grounds for any prosecution for “intent to avoid payment” and therefore no grounds for your demand of payment of £110.

I enclose a cheque for £7.90 in relation to my fare between West Ham and Basildon. I hope you will accept this in final settlement of the matter, though I am prepared to vigorously defend my position against your accusation.

 

[richw]

If true, then the process is flawed. How can the truth be inadequate ?

If someone travels based on advice from a member of staff, having specifically asked whether the Oyster card they held was valid for the journey they wished to make, then where is the "intent to avoid payment" ?

Prove the staff member said it. Chance is slim

 

[najaB]

The truth is good enough, but the problem is proving what the staff member actually said.

Prove the staff member said it. Chance is slim

Thinking about it some more, you don't need to prove that the staff member allowed you to travel, just introduce reasonable doubt that they did.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thinking about it some more, you don't need to prove that the staff member allowed you to travel, just introduce reasonable doubt that they did.

As they are using RoRA I agree with you. However they could change tack and use a byelaw if it went to court which is a slam dunk. Personally I would pay with two cheques as you originally mentioned as well as including all TfL complaint correspondence. I suspect the cheque for £65 would end up being banked though.

 

[najaB]

Thanks for all your advice and views.

I think I'll start by sending a letter and paying the fare, though I do like the idea of enclosing a second cheque for £65 as backup though not sure how I would phrase that in the letter ...

As you kindly offered to proofread my letter I'm pasting it here. It's probably still too long though!

To my eye it's a little more confrontational than ideal. I'd go with something a bit more convivial, like

TO: c2c Rail Prosecution Department

I write in response to your letter of the 29 November 2016 stating that on 24 November 2016 I was travelling on the railway “with intent to avoid payment thereof". I understand that intentional fare evasion is a criminal offence and that robust revenue protection helps to keep fares low for all passengers, however I did not intend to evade any fare and feel that the allegation is unfounded for reasons I explain below.

On the day, as the result of advice given to me by station staff at West Ham, I believed I was travelling with a valid ticket: that is my PAYG Oyster Card. As such, I hope it is clear that I had no intent to evade paying for my travel.

I transferred from the Underground to Network Rail at West Ham to continue to Basildon. I have never used this route before, so was not certain whether I could use my Oyster Card or needed to tap out with my Oyster Card and purchase a ticket to re-enter the station and transfer onto the National Railways.

I asked this of two members of staff in a booth marked 'Assistance' next to the platform entrance - they both said to me that I did not have to do this as my Oyster Card was valid at Basildon. I asked if they were sure and they assured me they were

This is what I told your inspector who then informed me that I had been given incorrect advice. This was the first time I realised I was travelling without a valid ticket. It is also the first time that I realised the staff I spoke to at West Ham were specifically TfL staff.

I had already lodged an official complaint with TfL regarding the incorrect information that I was given (Ref: ##### being dealt with by *****) and they are locating CCTV footage of my conversation with the station staff to show that I tried to follow the correct fare procedure and was definitely NOT trying to evade paying for my travel.

I accept that I was travelling without a valid ticket between West Ham and Basildon but not that I intended to avoid payment. I cannot see grounds for any prosecution for “intent to avoid payment” and therefore would like to resolve the matter amicably.

I enclose a cheque for £7.90 in relation to my fare between West Ham and Basildon. I hope you will accept this in final settlement of the matter. I have also included a cheque of £65 as outlined in your letter for admin fees, though I am hopeful that you won't cash it as you accept that only the fare is in fact due as I didn't attempt to evade paying it in the first place.

 

[furlong]

Obtain a print out of the Oyster card transactions. What touches does this show at West Ham and does this support your claim?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is it your position that the words of the staff amounted to authority to travel with the ticket you held? Assuming they can be identified, which seems likely, they could provide witness statements.

 

[najaB]

If C2C cash the cheque for £65, make reimbursement part of your complaint with TfL.

 

[furlong]

(Send a friend to go and ask them the exact same question?)

 

[AlterEgo]

Just read najaB's redraft. Looks good. Much better in terms of tone - remember you're dealing with personalities here as well as just the facts.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Just read najaB's redraft. Looks good. Much better in terms of tone - remember you're dealing with personalities here as well as just the facts.

Agree - good letter najaB

 

[cuccir]

Are they definitely attempting a prosecution under the Regulations of the Railways Act (RoRA)? The word 'intention' would imply this, but it would be good to confirm, because that seems strange. The RoRA prosecution, requires proof of intent to avoid a fare to a succeed, whereas they could chose to use the railway Bylaws, which simply require you to not have a valid ticket, regardless of intent. Clearly, you'd be guilty of the latter and would be best advised to settle; but on what you've told us, not of the former.

What confuses/concerns me is why C2C think they might have evidence of intent. What was the discussion between you and the RPI on the C2C train? Try and think back what you said - did you say anything to suggest you were deliberately evading the fare?

I'm not questioning your story, just adding a word of concern as if this is a RoRA prosecution, then either:
*C2C are making a bit of an error.
*C2C have something that they think shows evidence of intent to avoid a payment.

If it is the latter, then you should be aware that a successful prosecution under this legislation can lead to a criminal record. From what you've told us there doesn't seem to be the evidence to support such a prosecution, but we are not lawyers and we do not have access to the evidence that C2C have.

 

[najaB]

I'm not questioning your story, just adding a word of concern as if this is a RoRA prosecution, then either:
*C2C are making a bit of an error.
*C2C have something that they think shows evidence of intent to avoid a payment.

Remember, intent is determined by action. Presenting an Oyster card on a train that has left the Oyster zone, having boarded at a station inside the Oyster zone can be construed as short faring.

 

[akc4000]

Many thanks najaB for a great rewrite. I know it's always better to try and remove the personal emotion from this sort of letter and you've done it really well. I'll definitely use your version.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
According to the letter they are using "Section 5,3,a of the Regulations of the Railways Act 1889, as amended by The Transport Act 1962 The British Railways Acts Section 35(5) 1965, 1970 and Section 18 1977"

I've been wracking my brains but I really don't know why c2c think they have grounds for accusing me of the intent to avoid payment. The Inspector seemed to accept from the start that I had asked advice at West Ham because he suggested that perhaps the staff there had mixed up Barking for Basildon. I was calm throughout (because to my mind I was confident that I was innocent of any wrong doing), so I didn't lose my temper or start ranting so I can recall pretty much the whole lengthy process.

I don't think I said anything other than I was under the impression that my Oyster Card was valid on the train on the say so of the staff at West Ham station. As soon as he told me it wasn't I tried repeatedly to pay for the journey. I did say that the reason why I specifically checked with staff before boarding the train was because I remembered that the tapping out and ticket-buying is what I had to do when I came to Basildon via Barking in May. Perhaps that's it?

Seems pretty slim to me if it is: that on my other journey to Basildon 6 months previously and via a different route and travelling with people who are regular travellers on that route, I had followed the correct procedure and therefore this time I must have known that I had to do the same and I'm just lying about checking with station staff at West Ham?

 

[cuccir]

NajaB is right to point out that the act of obtaining a ticket for part of a journey and then travelling further is often taken as evidence of deliberately evading a fare. This has been applied to Oyster in court. The other journey isn't too relevant here, but yes: essentially the assertion is/would be that the conversation in West Ham is something you've invented, to cover your attempt to avoid the fare.

It is rather slim evidence when combined with your statements on the day and your claims since then, but before rejecting the offer to settle now you should be aware that is is at least something around which a prosecutor familiar with railway legislation may be able to make a case.

 

[akc4000]

If C2C cash the cheque for £65, make reimbursement part of your complaint with TfL.

That's a great idea - thanks!

 

[akc4000]

I sent off the redrafted letter (courtesy of najaB) and the cheques for the fare and the admin charge (thanks cjmillsnun for that idea). Today I received a reply from the c2c Prosecution Dept.

It said they had "looked again at the Inspector's report, which does not contradict anything you tell me in your letter. I am pleased to inform you that we will accept payment of the fare, and waive any other fee. I return one of your cheques."

HURRAH!

I am obviously extremely pleased they chose not to cash the £65 admin fee cheque but really I am happier that justice has been done.

I homestly don't think I would have managed to get to this outcome without the generously given help of this forum's members. Thank you all so very much! I really appreciate the sage advice I was given.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS!!

 

[AlterEgo]

Good result. Nice one.

 

[najaB]

Excellent news. Thanks for letting us know.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Puffing Devil]

Great News!

 

[rs101]

It's great news, but it's also indicative of shocking behaviour by the TOC. It shows that they had no evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare whatsoever - if they had, there's no way they'd have not at least also cashed the admin fee cheque.

 

[A Challenge]

There definitely was use to fighting it! Good News, and well done for not just paying it, so that c2c don't just do it again.

 

[najaB]

It's great news, but it's also indicative of shocking behaviour by the TOC. It shows that they had no evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare whatsoever - if they had, there's no way they'd have not at least also cashed the admin fee cheque.

Sorry, but I don't follow the logic. They had all the evidence they needed to proceed with a RoRA prosecution as intent is determined by action, not by the content of the mind.

Look at it the OP's actions objectively. They tapped in and boarded a train in the Oyster zone, then alighted and tapped out still in the Oyster zone, so fare paid for the journey taken so far. They then tapped in and boarded a train that exited the Oyster zone without purchasing a paper ticket when facilities were available, so no fare paid.

Their actions would have supported a charge of fare evasion, however the TOC have considered the evidence and mitigated factors and decided that, on balance, a prosecution isn't merited in this case.

 

[rs101]

Intent is not necessarily determined by action. For example, if I fall asleep on a train journey and am woken by staff after the ticket I have is valid, how can anyone definitively state I intended to travel beyond the ticket.
In the case on this thread, the decision to threaten a RoRA prosecution should only have been made if they could show the OP intended to travel without a ticket. They've admitted they had no evidence to contradict the OP's claims.

I also notice your summary of their actions omits any of the interactions with TOC staff. Those actions clearly don't show an intent to avoid payment. Unless you're discounting those claimed interactions as there's no proof they happened?