Fare Evasion - Freedom Pass

[Dtys]

Hi,
My husband travelled with my mum's freedom pass a few times(maybe 3 to4) and was caught. He has always been on the right side of the law but this is because I handed the pass to him thinking it's not a big deal. It's my fault and his too ofcourse and we are feeling really bad. The RPO just took the details from him and asked him to wait for the letter. When the RPO said that this has also been used a few times before going to the same station - my husband said that he must have used it. He did not want to make matters worse, so he owned up to it.

I have not been able to sleep or eat as he works in financial services and the conviction can hurt his job, leave us homeless as he pays the mortgage and we have small children. We are also worried what example we are setting in front of the children.
We are going to hire a solicitor for sure, but does anyone know any good ones who come highly recommended. Also, is there a possibility of out of court settlement in this case .we are deeply sorry, there is no excuse and I am kicking myself thinking that it's all my fault. I am too stressed out to eat/sleep and this is impacting me majorly.
Still haven't received the letter, how much time does it take?

Thanks

 

[londonbridge]

Did your mother know your husband was using the pass? In similar cases which have been previously discussed it amounts to either theft of the pass (if she didn't know) or, if she did, the pass holder also facing problems for knowingly allowing an unauthorised person to use it

 

[Dtys]

No, she wasn't aware at all. Thanks for responding.

 

[najaB]

When the RPO said that this has also been used a few times before going to the same station - my husband said that he must have used it. He did not want to make matters worse, so he owned up to it.

Good. Lying rarely, if ever, helps.

Also, is there a possibility of out of court settlement in this case

It's not impossible but TfL are known to take a hard line on Freedom Pass misuse. You can expect any settlement amount to be quite high (due to the the costs involved in the investigation and the higher potential losses).

Still haven't received the letter, how much time does it take?

They have a maximum of six months to decide if they want to bring charges or not, but typically it will be between three and six weeks before first contact.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If it is any consolation, in all likelihood a letter will be sent within 1-2 months. In theory, the relevant authority (presumably TfL) has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to start proceedings in the Magistrates' Court - and in all but the most exceptional of cases they will have had correspondence with the person being prosecuted before then.

It is possible your husband may be offered an out of Court settlement straight off, but it is more common for a letter to be sent asking for your husband's version of events. If this happens, it is usually best to write an accurate account and, in cases like this where there is no question of whether the person written to is in the wrong, to apologise, promise that it will not happen again, and offer to pay all costs incurred in the investigation (plus the fares evaded).

If you receive any letter come back here for further advice. But for the moment all we can advise is to sit tight. If a prosecution is brought under the relevant Byelaws then that would not be a recordable offence - i.e. there would be a fine but no criminal record. If a prosecution is brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, that would incur a similar fine but unfortunately also would constitute a recordable offence, meaning your husband would have to declare it, when asked, for one year after conviction.

Obviously it is often best to be upfront about things like this to employers - as they will probably see it as a less serious matter if you are upfront about what has happened. A criminal conviction need not mean that you immediately lose your job - it depends very much on the conviction and the job.

 

[najaB]

If a prosecution is brought under the relevant Byelaws then that would not be a recordable offence - i.e. there would be a fine but no criminal record. If a prosecution is brought under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, that would incur a similar fine but unfortunately also would constitute a recordable offence, meaning your husband would have to declare it, when asked, for one year after conviction.

I would be quite surprised if they bring a prosecution under the Byelaws since they have all the evidence needed to successfully prosecute under the Regulation of Railways Act. Travelling on somebody else's concession pass (which bears their name and/or picture) clearly demonstrate an intent to avoid paying the fare due.

 

[Dtys]

I am very worried as it will have a spiraling effect on the whole family. I will update once we receive a letter. If there are any recommended solicitors, please let us know. Thanks for giving me your valuable suggestions.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I am very worried as it will have a spiraling effect on the whole family. I will update once we receive a letter. If there are any recommended solicitors, please let us know. Thanks for giving me your valuable suggestions.

Going to a Solicitor is only likely to be an exercise in incurring additional cost to no actual effect. The best case scenario given the information presented is they offer you an out of court settlement and you pay it. Best save the £ for that.

 

[30907]

I am very worried as it will have a spiraling effect on the whole family.

You and your husband accepting that you have done wrong, making amends appropriately, and being given a fresh start, would actually be an excellent example to the next generation.

 

[AnkleBoots]

Obviously it is often best to be upfront about things like this to employers - as they will probably see it as a less serious matter if you are upfront about what has happened.

Really? You would tell an existing employer when they would not otherwise have found out?

 

[AnkleBoots]

Good. Lying rarely, if ever, helps.

Admitting to a previous journey when the RPO was not even asking a question about that?

 

[najaB]

Admitting to a previous journey when the RPO was not even asking a question about that?

Did you read the same post that I did?

 

[AnkleBoots]

Did you read the same post that I did?

I guess so. The husband owned up to previous journeys, when the RPO was not asking about these.

 

[najaB]

The husband owned up to previous journeys, when the RPO was not asking about these.

From the OP:

When the RPO said that this has also been used a few times before going to the same station - my husband said that he must have used it.

What are you suggesting the husband should have said?

 

[AnkleBoots]

The RPO just took the details from him and asked him to wait for the letter. When the RPO said that this has also been used a few times before going to the same station - my husband said that he must have used it. He did not want to make matters worse, so he owned up to it.

I would have said "I'll wait for the letter then".

 

[najaB]

I would have said "I'll wait for the letter then".

And in reply to the question/comment about the prior journeys?

 

[AnkleBoots]

I don't think there was a question.

Personally I wouldn't have replied to the comment other to confirm my understanding about the letter.

 

[najaB]

I don't think there was a question.

Personally I wouldn't have replied to the comment other to confirm my understanding about the letter.

It's pretty clear from the OP that the RPO was enquiring about the prior use of the pass. In any case, it would be a trivial matter for them to find out the recent journey history.

 

[Silverdale]

Would the journey history prove that the pass had been used fraudulently, though?

Journeys between the same stations are suggestive of use by the same person, but there could still be reasonable doubt.

No mention in the OP about a caution being read before the questioning about previous journeys, so what the OP's husband admitted to might not be admissible as evidence.

 

[najaB]

Would the journey history prove that the pass had been used fraudulently, though?

Prove? No. But it's highly suspicious.

No mention in the OP about a caution being read before the questioning about previous journeys, so what the OP's husband admitted to might not be admissible as evidence.

If the RPO was a police officer, then I'd agree.

 

[TheSel]

Q: Would the journey history prove that the pass had been used fraudulently, though?
A: Prove? No. But it's highly suspicious.


Especially if they read this thread and in particular the opening comments:

My husband travelled with my mum's freedom pass a few times(maybe 3 to4) and was caught. [my underlining / italics]

To freely accept "... he was caught ..." sort of implies that he knew it was wrong from the outset.

 

[Silverdale]

Even if the RPO was not a police officer, he should have been trained in PACE and the need to issue a caution.

Failing to do that before eliciting admissions would be contrary to PACE.

If PACE is not complied with, it can affect the admissibility of such admissions as evidence.

 

[najaB]

If PACE is not complied with, it can affect the admissibility of such admissions as evidence.

Even if the statement isn't used, the husband would still need to be able to explain the journey history - are you suggesting that he should lie?

 

[AnkleBoots]

Even if the statement isn't used, the husband would still need to be able to explain the journey history

This forum generally serves to help the person posting rather than the TOCs.

The general advice here is to respond in writing to the TOC, being careful not to incriminate oneself.

Given that the Freedom Pass had been used by more than one person, immediately owning up to all previous journeys without having time to check where he/she was on a particular day, seems unwise.

I think there's a middle ground between lying and immediately "owning up" to all previous journeys.

This is not to say of course that I agree with mis-using the Freedom Pass.

 

[Haywain]

This forum generally serves to help the person posting rather than the TOCs.

I think as a forum we seek to provide advice that allows the poster and the TOC to reach a solution that is satisfactory to both parties where the poster is in the wrong, and to assist posters when the TOC is in the wrong.

 

[Silverdale]

I think as a forum we seek to provide advice that allows the poster and the TOC to reach a solution that is satisfactory to both parties where the poster is in the wrong, and to assist posters when the TOC is in the wrong.

In posting here, I do so having read the "Please read..." thread at the top of the Disputes & Prosecutions forum.

That states the purpose of the forum and the aims, which are:

1. Establish the facts of the case
2. Ensure the correct process was followed by the rail official dealing with the issue
3. Check the OP understands what has happened
4. Explain the options available to resolve the matter to the OP

Nothing there about allowing the OP and the TOC to reach a solution which is satisfactory to both. In some cases the correct advice may be that the outcome will be one which the OP does not find satisfactory.

Advising an OP whether they (or, as in this case, their husband) should or shouldn't make admissions goes beyond merely understanding the facts and explaining the options. A solicitor, or other qualified person appraised of all the facts, might give that advice. It could become highly problematic, if a forum like this, which can only be aware of the OP's understanding of the facts, should step into that territory.

 

[najaB]

The general advice here is to respond in writing to the TOC, being careful not to incriminate oneself.

Which is fine. You still haven't said what else the OP's husband should/could have said to the RPO about the additional journeys that wouldn't have been dissembling at best, or an outright lie at worst.

 

[Silverdale]

Even if the statement isn't used, the husband would still need to be able to explain the journey history - are you suggesting that he should lie?

For the reason I explained in #26, I make no suggestion to the OP's husband as to what he should say in the event he elects to give evidence in his own defence.

 

[najaB]

For the reason I explained in #26, I make no suggestion to the OP's husband as to what he should say in the event he elects to give evidence in his own defence.

Which is a reasonable position to take. However @AnkleBoots seems to think that to OP's husband was wrong to admit that he made additional journeys when the RPO enquired about them:

Admitting to a previous journey when the RPO was not even asking a question about that?

I'm interested to know what alternative answer he could/should have given while remaining truthful.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm interested to know what alternative answer he could/should have given while remaining truthful.

Well, "no comment" or "I'd like to take legal advice before answering questions" would be two options!