Notice of Intention to Prosecute Letter

[OFFWHITE]

Hello everyone

I could to with your wise advise , I received a letter from Govia Thameslink Railway "Notice intention to prosecute" in bold letters at the top for fare evasion .They say "I had entered a train with a purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling to travel" The letter is asking for my response in 14 days.

What happened is I had valid ticket with me for the entire journey(I have the receipt) but during the course of the journey I decided change my stop and get off at the next station , a journey of 4 minutes and it costs £2.40 , It was between my original station and the next station(new stop) that the revenue protection inspector came and asked for my ticket.I explained to him I changed my mind when I was on the train that I will get off the next stop but he said I should have gotten off and went to buy another ticket, which is correct but I thought he was going to offer me to pay the fare but he refused and he took my details and this is where we are .

I don't want to have criminal record on my file CRB, DBS etc also I would like to avoid going to a magistrate court.Is Govia Thameslink usually open to out of court settlements or they always take it to prosecution


One other thing they misspelled my surname on the letter and possibly in their records.

What should I do in this case especially regarding this threat of prosecution?

 

[mikeg]

What was the ticket held, the origin station, the point of interchange and 'new' destination?

 

[OFFWHITE]

What was the ticket held, the origin station, the point of interchange and 'new' destination?

I was travelling from Haywards Heath to Wivelsfield on Thameslink but then decided to get off at the next stop which is Burgess Hill,I’m not sure if he took the ticket but I have a copy of the ticket as I used an app to buy I can retrieve the ticket

 

[furlong]

It's a bit confusing - what ticket did you actually hold - single or return and what type and what price was it? Did the train you were on stop at Wivelsfield, but you didn't get off and stayed on beyond the destination you had paid for?

The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 says:

5(3)If any person—
...
(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;
...
he shall be liable on summary conviction...

Were you formally asked some questions at the time, with your answers written down?

 

[furlong]

(Depending on the ticket held, the additional fare due might have been zero. What is the £2.40 you mention? Did your complete journey *start* at Haywards Heath?)
Do you have any evidence that will explain why you "changed your mind"?

 

[OFFWHITE]

It's a bit confusing - what ticket did you actually hold - single or return and what type and what price was it? Did the train you were on stop at Wivelsfield, but you didn't get off and stayed on beyond the destination you had paid for?

The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 says:


Were you formally asked some questions at the time, with your answers written down?

Apologies for not being clear ,I had anytime day return between Wivelsfield & Haywards Heath

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Apologies for not being clear ,I had anytime day return between Wivelsfield & Haywards Heath

Did your train stop at Wivelsfield?

 

[some bloke]

They say "I had entered a train with a purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling to travel"

That's a byelaw offence, not involving dishonesty. So it won't normally appear on a DBS check (unless court administrative staff enter it wrongly).

Edit: The above refers to a basic DBS check.

 

[some bloke]

What exactly did you tell the inspector about whether or how you were intending to pay the excess?

 

[OFFWHITE]

Just checked the actual fare from Wivelsfield to Burgess Hill is £1.90 ,I be disappointed if I’m to have criminal.But anyway this is my case.

 

[OFFWHITE]

Did your train stop at Wivelsfield?

Yes it stopped but the next train to Burgess Hill was in half an hour and didn’t want to get off and buy a ticket and wait also not many trains stop here.

 

[OFFWHITE]

What exactly did you tell the inspector about whether or how you were intending to pay the excess?

I didn’t say anything ,I was simply told I don’t have a ticket for this journey,I offered to pay the fare but he refused and took my details.

 

[OFFWHITE]

The reason I changed The stop was my mate had texted me saying he was in Burgess Hill and we could meet for drinks so instead of me getting off at my stop I proceeded to the next stop which has barriers and would offer to pay the fare there.

 

[some bloke]

So what might you say about intending or not intending to pay it?

Edit: Cross-posted with the above.

 

[furlong]

I don't think the fundamental question is why you didn't get off at Wivelsfield to buy the additional ticket - that's easy to understand.

Was this at a time when Haywards Heath ticket office was open (daytime/early evening), so they can easily argue that you should have bought the extra ticket before boarding?

You mention you used an app to buy the ticket. Was that an app capable of selling you an electronic type of ticket that could be used directly on the device without needing to be collected from a machine, so they can argue you could have bought and activated (if required) the extra ticket on the app before leaving Wilvelsfield station?

Why did you "change your mind" about your destination after boarding and not before? What evidence do you have of that that might assist a court in accepting that explanation? (E.g. a text message received on the train telling you that you need to travel further?)

 

[some bloke]

They are keen on prosecuting serial offenders. The text explanation lets them see that you're less likely to be in that category. It isn't completely unreasonable to want to pay the extra 45p on arrival.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I didn’t say anything ,I was simply told I don’t have a ticket for this journey,I offered to pay the fare but he refused and took my details.

From the letter they have sent, the wording (unless it also includes something like "with intent to avoid payment of the fare") indicates they are considering an offence under Byelaw 18(1) of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

This Byelaw makes it an offence to board a train without a valid ticket, if there were facilities at your boarding station to obtain a ticket. A conviction under the Byelaws is not a conviction for dishonesty, and would be spent after one year (although there is some debate over whether or not a record would be held of the conviction, and whether or not it would need to be declared for job applications, insurance quotations etc.).

However, the precise offence captured by the Byelaws is entering the train without a valid ticket. Your ticket to Wivelsfield was a valid ticket when you boarded the train, and accordingly you didn't commit an offence under Byelaw 18(1).

It will therefore be a question of whether GTR will attempt to prosecute an offence under Byelaw 18(2) - which captures failing to present a ticket for inspection and verification of validity (you would have committed this if you simply said "I don't have a ticket" rather than "here's my ticket") - or perhaps alternatively under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA). This latter offence is a far more serious offence than any Byelaw offence, and is as outlined by @furlong - it is an accusation that you have avoided payment of the correct fare.

Because the mere account of a defendant is not always trusted as being the whole truth, the circumstances of any incident are taken into account when determining whether or not there was intent to avoid payment. Boarding a train with a ticket valid for only part of your intended journey, where you could have bought a ticket valid for your entire journey, could be suggested to be evidence of this intent. Of course, if you can provide sufficient evidence - e.g. a text from a friend or family member saying you now need to travel till Burgess Hill - that you only changed your intended destination once onboard, then this could rebut such a suggestion.

The issue that comes to a head is that, at the moment, they are considering an offence you haven't committed. However, if you respond to them and say "well, I didn't commit the Byelaw 18(1) offence ..." then they may turn around and realise that it's easy enough to prosecute under either Byelaws 18(2) or RoRA. They are probably more likely to agree to a settlement in relation to what they are considering as a Byelaw offence rather than a RoRA offence - and accordingly, it may still be the best choice to try and negotiate an out of Court settlement, even if it's for an offence you haven't actually committed.

Ultimately the choice is yours but at least you are now aware of your position W.R.T. the different offences they might consider prosecuting under.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The reason I changed The stop was my mate had texted me saying he was in Burgess Hill and we could meet for drinks so instead of me getting off at my stop I proceeded to the next stop which has barriers and would offer to pay the fare there.

Did your friend text you this before or after you got on at Haywards Heath? Do you still have the text message you were sent?

 

[OFFWHITE]

Did your friend text you this before or after you got on at Haywards Heath? Do you still have the text message you were sent?

Yes I have the text message ,I was on the train when I got the message.

 

[some bloke]

then they may turn around and realise that it's easy enough to prosecute under either Byelaws 18(2) or RoRA.

Is it certain that those would be easy enough, if Offwhite presented a ticket and has the text explanation to provide reasonable doubt about dishonesty?

 

[furlong]

(Misspelling is easily corrected and won't matter.)
How did you get through the barrier at your destination? Were you given paperwork for this, or did you actually buy a ticket?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is it certain that those would be easy enough, if Offwhite presented a ticket and has the text explanation to provide reasonable doubt about dishonesty?

Well, perhaps easy enough is not what I meant. More that, if there is any hint of intent to avoid payment such as what might be seen to be "short faring" in this case, TOCs will usually not shy away from going for a full RoRA prosecution. Neither will they, in our experience of the kinds of cases we see here, simply back down as soon as you point out one particular kind of prosecution is absolutely inappropriate (Byelaw 18(1) in this case).

 

[some bloke]

Could it make a difference that Offwhite travelled beyond the origin station?

 

[OFFWHITE]

(Misspelling is easily corrected and won't matter.)
How did you get through the barrier at your destination? Were you given paperwork for this, or did you actually buy a ticket?

The barriers were open,I don’t remember getting anything I will look around but I doubt ,I remember giving out my details.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Could it make a difference that Offwhite travelled beyond the origin station?

In which sense? The type of ticket held and whether the station overtravelled from makes no difference in this context. I suppose the fact that the ticket was bought from Wivelsfield might, if it was a Day Return, help to reinforce a defence narrative of the OP intending to go home (if this is the case), but then being asked by their friend to meet up at Burgess Hill.

 

[some bloke]

Perhaps overtravelling beyond the origin might be viewed more like starting a new journey than in the case where someone stays on beyond the outward destination.

 

[OFFWHITE]

I intend to reply back and accept that I travelled without a ticket between Wivelsfield and Burgess Hill but also provide them with the evidence that I had a ticket for the original journey between Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield.I will ask them if they can consider to settle out of court as most members here suggest.

Is this the right way to do it?

 

[mikeg]

The settle out of court part, yes, but please don't try to justify yourself with the first ticket. You must hold a ticket or valid combination of tickets for your whole journey before you get on the train. As stated in the regulation of railways act, overtravelling without previously paid the correct fare is a criminal offence. It matters not that you had a ticket for part of your journey, what matters is that you overtravelled with intent. If anything having your ticket for only part of your journey is part of what makes up the offence.

Be factual and apologetic, reassure them you won't do anything like this again and offer to pay any outstanding fare (if they suggest the full fare so be it) as well as any investigatory, legal and administrative costs they may have incurred. Then await the reply.

 

[OFFWHITE]

The settle out of court part, yes, but please don't try to justify yourself with the first ticket. You must hold a ticket or valid combination of tickets for your whole journey before you get on the train. As stated in the regulation of railways act, overtravelling without previously paid the correct fare is a criminal offence. It matters not that you had a ticket for part of your journey, what matters is that you overtravelled with intent. If anything having your ticket for only part of your journey is part of what makes up the offence.

Be factual and apologetic, reassure them you won't do anything like this again and offer to pay any outstanding fare (if they suggest the full fare so be it) as well as any investigatory, legal and administrative costs they may have incurred. Then await the reply.

Many thanks for your advise,so I should not provide an evidence that I had a ticket of some form ?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Perhaps overtravelling beyond the origin might be viewed more like starting a new journey than in the case where someone stays on beyond the outward destination.

No, it's not viewed as a new journey for the purposes of any relevant law here.

As stated in the regulation of railways act, overtravelling without previously paid the correct fare is a criminal offence.

There's a crucial element missing here, which is that you must intend to avoid payment of the fare. Mere overtravelling is not an offence.

It matters not that you had a ticket for part of your journey, what matters is that you overtravelled with intent.

Even intentionally overtravelling (as opposed to overtravelling because, for instance, you are unable to get off before the doors shut) is not itself an offence. It is knowingfully overtravelling with the intent of avoiding payment of the correct fare.

If anything having your ticket for only part of your journey is part of what makes up the offence.

The only relevance it has is that someone might try to say that holding a ticket for only part of the journey constituted short faring. If, however, the OP can show the text message they were sent, and that it was sent after they got on the train, I think there is a reasonable case to be made against that.

Be factual and apologetic, reassure them you won't do anything like this again and offer to pay any outstanding fare (if they suggest the full fare so be it) as well as any investigatory, legal and administrative costs they may have incurred.

Whilst this is of course the approach to take if you simply want a settlement, it means that if they turn around and refuse a settlement, you have needlessly incriminated yourself. The OP needs to be very careful before making any such statements to GTR.

I intend to reply back and accept that I travelled without a ticket between Wivelsfield and Burgess Hill but also provide them with the evidence that I had a ticket for the original journey between Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield.I will ask them if they can consider to settle out of court as most members here suggest.

Again, it really depends on if you can show that text that your friend sent you, and whether you can show it was sent after you had boarded the train. If you can show those things, I would feel reasonably confident that you could rebut a suggestion of intent to avoid payment. And the risk of sending an apology etc. is that you may be incriminating yourself, meaning you are effectively ruling out a 'not guilty' plea if they decide to prosecute.

Whatever you reply, assuming the text and timing thereof can be proven, it will be relevant not only to point out that you did hold a ticket upon boarding, but that you intended to trav to Wivelsfield at the point you boarded.