Court Summons for Fare Evasion

[traintraintra]

Hello,

I'm in a bit of a mess. In summary I arrived at station A from station B and asked the ticket man at station A for a ticket which was at a shorter journey than I had actually travelled. So I knowingly attempted to buy a ticket for a journey shorter.

I have had two letters from TiL saying I could be prosecuted under Regulation of Railways Act (1889), and have responded stating how apologetic I was, how I know what I did was wrong and how I was willing to make financial amends and reach a settlement out of court.

However, I have now received a court summons letter with three options:

1)Accept evidence, plead guilty and ask court to deal with case in my absence.
2) Accept evidence, plead guilty and attend court.
3)Plead not guilty .

I do not want a criminal record - this is very important to me. I am at university and will be applying for jobs in a year's time.

I was wondering if there was any advice on how I could still possibly reach an out of court settlement.

Thank you

 

[yorkie]

Contact the train company directly.

 

[traintraintra]

Contact the train company directly.

Contact Arriva? Is it still in their hands now?

 

[najaB]

I was wondering if there was any advice on how I could still possibly reach an out of court settlement.

The only way to achieve an out of court settlement is to contact the TOC and/or TIL directly.

 

[traintraintra]

The only way to achieve an out of court settlement is to contact the TOC and/or TIL directly.

Right, so do you know who I would contact?

 

[najaB]

Right, so do you know who I would contact?

The same address that you've used previously.

 

[yorkie]

Right, so do you know who I would contact?

The prosecutions department of whichever train company who is prosecuting you. We don't know which train company it is, other than it being one of the Arriva owned ones.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If you've received one, the prosecution office address will normally appear on a summons

 

[Paul1]

Right, so do you know who I would contact?

Just checking back to see what was the outcome of your case?

 

[6Gman]

Hello,

I'm in a bit of a mess. In summary I arrived at station A from station B and asked the ticket man at station A for a ticket which was at a shorter journey than I had actually travelled. So I knowingly attempted to buy a ticket for a journey shorter.

I have had two letters from TiL saying I could be prosecuted under Regulation of Railways Act (1889), and have responded stating how apologetic I was, how I know what I did was wrong and how I was willing to make financial amends and reach a settlement out of court.

However, I have now received a court summons letter with three options:

1)Accept evidence, plead guilty and ask court to deal with case in my absence.
2) Accept evidence, plead guilty and attend court.
3)Plead not guilty .

I do not want a criminal record - this is very important to me. I am at university and will be applying for jobs in a year's time.

I was wondering if there was any advice on how I could still possibly reach an out of court settlement.

Thank you

They seem to have rejected your request to settle out of court. Which is probably unsurprising since "short faring" shows clear intent (unless there are extraordinary circumstances). If you plead Not Guilty what defence will you offer? Pleading Guilty is therefore the only realistic option - not attending would be cheaper; attending would allow you to offer some mitigation (first offence, very contrite, won't do it again) which may reduce the penalty but won't overturn the conviction.

I believe any conviction will only remain on your record for DBS purposes for a year in most cases so might well be "off" by the time you're applying for jobs.

 

[najaB]

I believe any conviction will only remain on your record for DBS purposes for a year in most cases so might well be "off" by the time you're applying for jobs.

That should be the case.

 

[Paul1]

They seem to have rejected your request to settle out of court. Which is probably unsurprising since "short faring" shows clear intent (unless there are extraordinary circumstances). If you plead Not Guilty what defence will you offer? Pleading Guilty is therefore the only realistic option - not attending would be cheaper; attending would allow you to offer some mitigation (first offence, very contrite, won't do it again) which may reduce the penalty but won't overturn the conviction.

I believe any conviction will only remain on your record for DBS purposes for a year in most cases so might well be "off" by the time you're applying for jobs.

Regarding the DBS bit are there any exceptions for examples my daughter wants to pursue teaching so will it still be on her record after 1 year and how would this affect her car insurance? She hasn't passed yet but hopefully will be in the next year or two

 

[AlterEgo]

Regarding the DBS bit are there any exceptions for examples my daughter wants to pursue teaching so will it still be on her record after 1 year and how would this affect her car insurance? She hasn't passed yet but hopefully will be in the next year or two

A teacher will need an enhanced DBS, so it will show as additional information even when spent.

Car insurance doesn't require a DBS check but you may need to disclose it while it is unspent if the insurer asks (they often do). Not something you have to worry about if her passing her test is more than a year off.

 

[najaB]

A teacher will need an enhanced DBS, so it will show as additional information even when spent.

However, it's worth noting that employers are, generally speaking, reasonable and as long as the offence isn't (a) recent; or (b) egregious it wouldn't stop a well-qualified candidate from getting a job.

 

[30907]

A teacher will need an enhanced DBS, so it will show as additional information even when spent.

Wearing a school governor hat, provided she declares it if asked in her application, I doubt I would be too worried about a one-off, but I might ask a follow-up question about upholding school values, which would give her a chance to say "I've learnt my lesson!"

 

[najaB]

...provided she declares it if asked in her application...

This, more than anything. In my previous job we employed many people who had were honest about spent convictions, and fired many people for not declaring them.

 

[Need2]

This, more than anything. In my previous job we employed many people who had were honest about spent convictions, and fired many people for not declaring them.

Sorry if I misunderstand but, are you saying you should declare spent convictions?

 

[najaB]

Sorry if I misunderstand but, are you saying you should declare spent convictions?

If the job application form requires it, then yes. If they don't ask then you don't need to mention them.

 

[Need2]

If the job application form requires it, then yes. If they don't ask then you don't need to mention them.

Gotcha! I Thought I was reading it wrong :roll:

 

[Greenback]

I think that some people worry far too much about DBS checks. They were brought in with the intention of protecting us all from those who have serious convictions which would otherwise not have been disclosed.

I'm confident that if soemone is good enough to be on the point of being offered a job, a conviction for something like fare evasion, like parking or traffic offences, would make no difference at all for the majority of roles.

 

[philthetube]

I think that some people worry far too much about DBS checks. They were brought in with the intention of protecting us all from those who have serious convictions which would otherwise not have been disclosed.

I'm confident that if soemone is good enough to be on the point of being offered a job, a conviction for something like fare evasion, like parking or traffic offences, would make no difference at all for the majority of roles.

As stated earlier, providing it is not hidden if asked about.

 

[soil]

If the job application form requires it, then yes. If they don't ask then you don't need to mention them.

That's wrong, it is not relevant what the form says - what is relevant is whether the job is one for which is exempt from convictions becoming spent.

If it's just a normal job, and they ask if you have spent convictions, you should say 'no'. They cannot count them against you, now or in the future.

There are various jobs which are exempt, such as work with children, offenders, vulnerable people, law, and others

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ata/file/519060/Guide_to_eligibility_v8.1.pdf

 

[Merseysider]

I think that some people worry far too much about DBS checks. They were brought in with the intention of protecting us all from those who have serious convictions which would otherwise not have been disclosed.

I'm confident that if soemone is good enough to be on the point of being offered a job, a conviction for something like fare evasion, like parking or traffic offences, would make no difference at all for the majority of roles.

Quite.

I know of someone who beat up the school bully as a 16 year old and got an official reprimand from the police, fingerprints taken, file created etc.

Declared it for the enhanced DBS and it didn't even show up. Nor were his potential employers bothered about anyway it after his honesty.

I do not want a criminal record - this is very important to me. I am at university and will be applying for jobs in a year's time.

For a much less serious crime involving fare evasion, I'm hard pressed to think of any job where this alone, as a one off, would prevent employment.

 

[najaB]

That's wrong, it is not relevant what the form says - what is relevant is whether the job is one for which is exempt from convictions becoming spent.

Hence the use of the word requires as opposed to 'asks for'.

 

[Need2]

Hence the use of the word requires as opposed to 'asks for'.

I was under the impression that unless the job you were applying for was exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act (or whatever it's called!) then you cannot be asked for a declaration of spent convictions.
It doesn't matter if its required by the employer or not, it shouldn't be asked for.

 

[najaB]

I was under the impression that unless the job you were applying for was exempt from the rehabilitation of offenders act (or whatever it's called!) then you cannot be asked for a declaration of spent convictions.

(a) Yes, anyone can ask though not everyone is entitled to an answer; and (b) I'm speaking of jobs for which enhanced disclosure applies.

 

[Need2]

(a) Yes, anyone can ask though not everyone is entitled to an answer; and (b) I'm speaking of jobs for which enhanced disclosure applies.

Thought you meant that.

 

[6Gman]

Quite.

I know of someone who beat up the school bully as a 16 year old and got an official reprimand from the police, fingerprints taken, file created etc.

Declared it for the enhanced DBS and it didn't even show up. Nor were his potential employers bothered about anyway it after his honesty.

For a much less serious crime involving fare evasion, I'm hard pressed to think of any job where this alone, as a one off, would prevent employment.

Revenue Protection Officer with a TOC?

 

[Merseysider]

Revenue Protection Officer with a TOC?

Without wanting to go too far off topic, I can think of at least one London TOC's revenue protection for whom a proven track record of ignoring rules is probably a plus...

 

[Elecman]

Without wanting to go too far off topic, I can think of at least one TOC operating out of London's revenue protection for whom a proven track record of ignoring rules is probably a plus...

And I can think of one NOT London based that would almost certainly be the case.