Intention to prosecute

[Chriseg1234]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone can help. I have received a notice of intention to prosecute from Thameslink govia and I have 14 days to reply .They did not say what legislation they are prosecuting under, they did say the offence was "enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel." They say they will ask for maximum penalty which could include prison sentence, criminal record etc.

What happened was, I was travelling with a friend who had bought us a 2together Railcard and bought us tickets from Luton airport to London TERMINALS. I have never used this Railcard before or since. We got the train together, however when we reached London I forgot all about the Railcard and got off at St Pancras, my friend stayed on the train and got off at London bridge. I have photos of both our tickets and the Railcard.

I was unable to get through the barriers and explained the situation to the inspector there, he took a statement from me and said I would be contacted by them in writing.

He did not ask for me to buy a ticket or ask me to pay a penalty fare, this wasn't mentioned at all. The next thing was a received this very heavy handed letter threatening a prison sentence.

My question is are they really allowed to go straight to magistrates court over something so minor, or should they allow me to pay a penalty fare. Also how should I respond to their letter.

My main issue is the alleged offence didn't happen, I didn't board a train without a valid ticket, or try stay on a train without a valid ticket. The ticket was valid until I made the mistake of getting off one stop early, which was a genuine mistake.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[najaB]

they did say the offence was "enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel." They say they will ask for maximum penalty which could include prison sentence, criminal record etc.

That language is from the Railway Byelaws, which means the maximum penalty is a Level 3 fine (up to £1000), but neither prison nor a custodial sentence are possible.

What happened was, I was travelling with a friend who had bought us a 2together Railcard and bought us tickets from Luton airport to London TERMINALS. I have never used this Railcard before or since. We got the train together, however when we reached London I forgot all about the Railcard and got off at St Pancras, my friend stayed on the train and got off at London bridge. I have photos of both our tickets and the Railcard.

Unfortunately, the T&Cs say that both passengers must travel together so your ticket wasn't valid by itself. Your focus therefore should be on avoiding the case reaching court.

My main issue is the alleged offence didn't happen, I didn't board a train without a valid ticket, or try stay on a train without a valid ticket. The ticket was valid until I made the mistake of getting off one stop early, which was a genuine mistake.

I wouldn't get too hung up on this technicality since it's very easy for the TOC to make the case that you never intended to travel together to London Bridge and so the correct fare would have been an undiscounted single to St Pancras - which takes the case out of the realm of the Byelaws and you could find yourself facing a prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act for intentional fare evasion - which, on conviction, as well as a fine is a recordable offence.

 

[furlong]

Indeed, these details are very important - it might be tricky for them if you maintain that position. (Easy to prosecute your friend though - be careful.) I'd suggest a concise response restricted to the point they raise - presenting evidence that you did have a valid ticket when you entered the train. (They might argue because you didn't have a valid railcard at the St. Pancras barrier, that means, beyond reasonable doubt, that you mustn't have had a valid railcard when you entered the train.)

 

[furlong]

I wouldn't get too hung up on this technicality since it's very easy for the TOC to make the case that you never intended to travel together to London Bridge and so the correct fare would have been an undiscounted single to St Pancras

The technicality is the "requirement" to hold a valid ticket on the platform and in the station between the train and the gateline. To avoid problems, the friend should have accompanied the OP to the gateline and then used a separate ticket from St. Pancras to London Bridge.

The key part of the T&Cs is

4.4. Discounted tickets must be bought for both cardholders at the same time, and you must travel together.

Is walking along the platform still part of that "travelling" or not? Where is "travel" defined in a way that takes account of a gateline?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The technicality is the "requirement" to hold a valid ticket on the platform and in the station between the train and the gateline. To avoid problems, the friend should have accompanied the OP to the gateline and then used a separate ticket from St. Pancras to London Bridge.

The key part of the T&Cs is


Is walking along the platform still part of that "travelling" or not? Where is "travel" defined in a way that takes account of a gateline?

Indeed - and I, for one, would suggest that, had the OP's friend had a non-discounted ticket to travel onwards, OP would not be in any breach of any rule, other than of that to show the actual Railcard (presuming the friend had the Railcard and it wasn't a digital one that you can hold on two devices at once).

Furthermore, as has been discussed in relation to a previous case, there is certainly an argument to be had that, since the TOC cannot prove that the OP boarded without a valid ticket (after all, he had a valid ticket and a Railcard, and he was not stopped at that point), they cannot prosecute for any offence.

This is far from an open and shut case.

 

[najaB]

This is far from an open and shut case.

It isn't an open and shut case, so there's room to reach a solution (which may or may not require payment of some amount of money). However, a Regulation of Railways Act offence would actually be fairly easy to prove (since you didn't pay the correct fare for a single traveller from Luton to London Terminals).

 

[furlong]

Disagree - focus on the time and location of an alleged offence and you get sucked into (poorly-defined) technicalities.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It isn't an open and shut case, so there's room to reach a solution (which may or may not require payment of some amount of money). However, a Regulation of Railways Act offence would actually be fairly easy to prove (since you didn't pay the correct fare for a single traveller from Luton to London Terminals).

How would they prove that the OP had the requisite intent to avoid this fare? What if they only decided to exit early, without intending to avoid the correct fare (because they didn't realise the TOC considered them in breach of the conditions).

Offering a settlement may be accepted, but I am not convinced this is necessary.

 

[swt_passenger]

How would they prove that the OP had the requisite intent to avoid this fare? What if they only decided to exit early, without intending to avoid the correct fare (because they didn't realise the TOC considered them in breach of the conditions).

Offering a settlement may be accepted, but I am not convinced this is necessary.

The ticket here (if correctly described) was only valid to St Pancras. No one “exited early”; the friend apparently overtravelled but fortunately didnt get noticed.

 

[najaB]

The ticket here (if correctly described) was only valid to St Pancras. No one “exited early”; the friend apparently overtravelled but fortunately didnt get noticed.

London Bridge is also a member of the London Terminals group, and since it was possible to reach it without disembarking the ticket was valid that far.

 

[najaB]

How would they prove that the OP had the requisite intent to avoid this fare?

Intent is determined by action: they used a cheaper ticket than they should have for the journey they made.

 

[swt_passenger]

London Bridge is also a member of the London Terminals group, and since it was possible to reach it without disembarking the ticket was valid that far.

Not from the north though. See many earlier discussions. Difficult to enforce however given the slack barrier programming.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Intent is determined by action: they used a cheaper ticket than they should have for the journey they made.

Honest mistake is a clear defence to such an accusation. The mere fact that a cheaper ticket was used once does not indicate intent on its own. Other circumstances would have to exist.

 

[najaB]

Honest mistake is a clear defence to such an accusation.

If "honest mistake" was a clear defence then the Courts would be full of people who had made them.

 

[najaB]

Not from the north though. See many earlier discussions.

How is a ticket from Luton to London Bridge issued then, to U1?

Edit: Never mind, London Thameslink, of course.

 

[swt_passenger]

How is a ticket from Luton to London Bridge issued then, to U1?

Yes, or to London Thameslink. The problem is that all London Terminals apparently use the same mag stripe coding, and once their ticket is seen to work once I expect many passengers will assume it must be valid.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If "honest mistake" was a clear defence then the Courts would be full of people who had made them.

What a load of drivel. By definition, you cannot have intent to avoid any fare if you don't even realise that you are not paying the correct fare. It would be incumbent upon the TOC to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the OP had intent to avoid paying their fare. In the first instance, this requires them to show that the OP did it intentionally. Failing to pay a fare that you do not know is due cannot in any way, shape or form constitute intent.

Very few passengers would know that a) a ticket to London Thameslink is only valid to a limited subset of all the London stations that a Thameslink service calls at, and that b) they cannot finish their journey earlier than the other ticket holder, if using a Two Together railcard-discounted ticket.

It's a total red herring trying to bring intent into something like this.

 

[30907]

Very few passengers would know that a) a ticket to London Thameslink is only valid to a limited subset of all the London stations that a Thameslink service calls at, and that b) they cannot finish their journey earlier than the other ticket holder, if using a Two Together railcard-discounted ticket.

It's a total red herring trying to bring intent into something like this.

(a) the ticket was to London Terminals. The other traveller is not being prosecuted for travelling to London Bridge, so your point is irrelevant. In fact, they would have been liable under the terms of the Railcard even with a London Thameslink ticket.
b) it is reasonable to expect passengers to know the key terms and conditions of a Railcard which the purchaser has signed up to.

 

[Haywain]

There's a lot of waffle here that is largely irrelevant as far as I can see. The simple fact is that a Byelaw prosecution would easily succeed. The railcard-discounted ticket was produced without a railcard. That renders the ticket invalid. As per this forum's Fares & Ticketing Guide, Section 8, 8.2.2:

Failure to produce a valid ticket.
This may include: travelling on the wrong train with an Advance ticket; travelling with a Railcard-discounted ticket without the necessary Railcard; being unable to produce both parts of a two-part ticket.

These errors are captured by Railway Byelaw 18 (in a non-Compulsory Ticket Area) or Byelaw 17 (in a Compulsory Ticket Area). See Section 8.2.2
This is a 'strict liability' matter and there is no implication that the passenger had intended to avoid the proper fare.

 

[6Gman]

Very few passengers would know that a) a ticket to London Thameslink is only valid to a limited subset of all the London stations that a Thameslink service calls at, and that b) they cannot finish their journey earlier than the other ticket holder, if using a Two Together railcard-discounted ticket.

It's a total red herring trying to bring intent into something like this.

Do you not think there's a clue in the name "Two Together" ?

 

[Chriseg1234]

Do you not think there's a clue in the name "Two Together" ?

Yep we were together, from Luton to London st pancs, which was my whole journey

 

[Llanigraham]

But you were not "Two Together" when you got off the train.
Now if your friend had got off with you.................................

 

[6Gman]

Yep we were together, from Luton to London st pancs, which was my whole journey

On a Two Together it needs to be the whole journey for the two of you. Together.

 

[jon0844]

The clue is in the name.

 

[najaB]

What a load of drivel.

Ibid.

It doesn't matter whether the fare was issued to Thameslink or London Terminals. What matters is that the OP used a Two Together discounted ticket but made a different journey than his traveling companion: Fare evaded.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So your friend has gotten you into trouble by continuing his journey to London Bridge (and in possession of his 2together Railcard)

You exited "early" and alone (by the railway's definition)

How can the railway prove intent to defraud/evade the fare to a layman who believes it is acceptable to exit at a London Terminals station without understanding that he has exited "early" (i.e. before his friend)?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

On a Two Together it needs to be the whole journey for the two of you. Together.

The journey finished when they left the train.

 

[Darandio]

The journey finished when they left the train.

So I can buy two tickets from Newcastle for me and my friend with a Two Together railcard, one to Durham and one to Kings Cross. I can then disembark at Durham and the friend can continue to Kings Cross without penalty? I can also leave the station without penalty as well?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So I can buy two tickets from Newcastle for me and my friend with a Two Together railcard, one to Durham and one to Kings Cross. I can then disembark at Durham and the friend can continue to Kings Cross without penalty? I can also leave the station without penalty as well?

Let's try and stay in reality rather than hypotheticals. If you are using Two Together discounted tickets, you must obviously travel with someone else with whom you hold a Two Together Railcard. But there is no logic in suggesting that one passenger ought to be punished because their travelling companion won't get off the train.

As previously said, there is no fare evaded, there is no intent, and GTR are on a sticky wicket here.

 

[Haywain]

As previously said, there is no fare evaded, there is no intent, and GTR are on a sticky wicket here.

But there is a failure to present a valid ticket when requested.