Take me to court before offering even a settlement??

[Georgiaemily1]

Hi,

I am posting on behalf of my partner.

He was travelling on the train from Redhill and did not have time to get a ticket as the train was pulling in. You can normally buy a ticket at the other end which is never usually a problem. I know that he should’ve been More organised and he will get a verbal slap!!

Anywho, on the other end he spoke to the RPI who took his details and said they’d send a letter (rather than him buy a ticket/pay a fine there and then). He agreed and we waited for the letter, assuming this would probably ask for a version of events and follow this up with a settlement charge which we would pay and it would go away.

We received a letter asking him to explain what happened with the header ‘NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PRESCHTE’ (is this standard for these letters?)

We responded with basically how I explained above, and a paragraph at the end explaining we understand it was wrong and will not happen again and are willing to accept a charge.

We have received another letter today and they’ve said thank you for the letter but they still intend to prosecute and will follow up with a court date?

Is this standard procedure? We were never offered a settlement figure and we didn’t deny it or argue it.

Any advice would be really helpful please as we can do without this right on top of Christmas

 

[Georgiaemily1]

I’d also like to add my partner is in his early 20’s with no criminal record or history and works in financial insurance so a record would affect his ability to work.

 

[najaB]

Is this standard procedure? We were never offered a settlement figure and we didn’t deny it or argue it.

There's no entitlement to a settlement.

 

[Georgiaemily1]

There's no entitlement to a settlement.

I understand this, I just wasn’t sure if there was a reason I had been refused this option or is this more likely to be their own company policy?

 

[najaB]

I understand this, I just wasn’t sure if there was a reason I had been refused this option or is this more likely to be their own company policy?

There may be a reason but ours is not to know why.

You may still be able to achieve a settlement. Write back to the TOC asking again for the matter to be put aside, offering to compensate them for costs and the fare due. Failing that, turn up to court early and speak with the TOC's solicitors on the day.

 

[Georgiaemily1]

I’m just really worried now that any letter I write will incriminate me - if we are going to be taken to court I was always told not to correspond directly anymore - though I’m no expert here and happy to be told I’m wrong.

How would you word the letter? Obviously I would much prefer to settle outside of court as I appreciate we are highly unlikely to come out better off having been through the courts!

 

[falcon]

Does any of the documentation allege what offence has been committed?

 

[najaB]

I’m just really worried now that any letter I write will incriminate me - if we are going to be taken to court I was always told not to correspond directly anymore - though I’m no expert here and happy to be told I’m wrong.

If it's a Byelaw prosecution then it's not possible to for your partner to incriminate themselves any further as it's a strict liability offence. This means that you are guilty the moment you board the train without a ticket (as long as it was possible to buy before boarding).

Edit: 'Possible' in this context just means that there were facilities available to purchase. So you can board without a ticket at an unstaffed station with no ticket office/machine (or even if there's a ticket machine if it can't sell the ticket you need).

 

[Georgiaemily1]

Does any of the documentation allege what offence has been committed?

The letter states
Failing to present a ticket (correct)
But also ‘exiting through the barrier in an incorrect manner’
This is what i am confused about - he spoke to the RPI before passing through the barrier who he gave his details to and was told to wait for a letter. So he passed through when instructed to - is the letter suggesting he tried to get through without speaking to the RPI?

Sorry to sound so silly this is just all foreign to me - I can’t even remember the last time I used a train!! Haha

 

[Georgiaemily1]

If it's a Byelaw prosecution then it's not possible to for your partner to incriminate themselves any further as it's a strict liability offence. This means that you are guilty the moment you board the train without a ticket (as long as it was possible to buy before boarding).

Edit: 'Possible' in this context just means that there were facilities available to purchase. So you can board without a ticket at an unstaffed station with no ticket office/machine (or even if there's a ticket machine if it can't sell the ticket you need).

Thank you, this makes perfect sense.

 

[falcon]

The letter states
Failing to present a ticket (correct)
But also ‘exiting through the barrier in an incorrect manner’
This is what i am confused about - he spoke to the RPI before passing through the barrier who he gave his details to and was told to wait for a letter. So he passed through when instructed to - is the letter suggesting he tried to get through without speaking to the RPI?

Sorry to sound so silly this is just all foreign to me - I can’t even remember the last time I used a train!! Haha

The barrier offence looks as though it is being misused. It is used in case were people jump the barrier or tailgate someone else. That wants dropping.

Failing to produce a ticket is a simple Bye law offence. They are not alleging dishonesty .

 

[najaB]

The barrier offence looks as though it is being misused. It is used in case were people jump the barrier or tailgate someone else. That wants dropping.

I agree, unless the starting station was barriered - in which case they would have had to misused the barrier in some way in order to board. But, absent positive evidence, they shouldn't really be prosecuting for that.

 

[shredder1]

It says "exiting" though, not entering ?

 

[najaB]

It says "exiting" though, not entering ?

The actual legislation (Byelaw 9.2) doesn't make a distinction:

(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner.

 

[shredder1]

The actual legislation (Byelaw 9.2) doesn't make a distinction:

Enter or Leave, thats interesting, thanks

 

[trentside]

Is the OP sure there’s not more to the story regarding the offence under Byelaw 9.2? It may sound a daft question but sometimes there’s things that people don’t like to tell us. If your partner became aggressive with the RPI or, for example, pushed through the barriers it might make obtaining a settlement a little more difficult.

Not saying this is the case, but I need to check so we can offer advice on the whole picture.