Threatened with prosecution

[England]

With all due respect to the OP, they need to take on board the advice that has been given: the best option is to keep the matter out of court: relying on loopholes once you are in court is a much riskier strategy.

We can advise on how you should try to settle matters out of court. But we can be less helpful on loopholes in court. If nothing else, anyone planning to go down that road should remember that while the letter of the law isn't designed to convict innocent people, neither is it intended to let the guilty walk away. Broadly, if the magistrates think you are guilty, they won't read the law to your advantage. So if you are guilty and want to rely on loopholes, in practice you will need a clever (and expensive) lawyer.

We can't really help on loopholes. You will need a lawyer for that - and your lawyer probably won't welcome us telling them their job.

You’re right but how do I prevent showing that I am guilty when writing back

 

[6Gman]

You’re right but how do I prevent showing that I am guilty when writing back

But you are guilty.

No amount of quibbling around what the RPI did or didn't do will alter that fact.

The best you can hope for, in my view, is to achieve an out of court settlement and to avoid a byelaw or criminal conviction.

 

[skyhigh]

I then gave my correct address to which he checked out on the phone to an office and the address was correct

Does that suggest you gave an incorrect address at the first time of asking?

If so - as far as they're concerned:
You held tickets that didn't cover the full journey
You had a railcard discount without holding a railcard (and told them you'd left it at home, when they could check it was expired)
You gave a false address (at least how it sounds from my reading of your posts).

If it was an e-ticket, and the inspector scanned it with a mobile device, they'll have those details stored and will be able to check purchase history. In my role, I've completed TIRs with little more than details of the circumstances, an e-ticket number and description of the traveller, and in the long run it's resulted in a successful prosecution. There's no requirement to caution, otherwise I'd potentially have to caution everyone before inspecting their ticket in case they're doing something dodgy.

My advice - consider any evidence you have to support your 'assertions', such as poor eyesight. Consider what they will find when they check purchase history. If they write to you to ask your side, answer honestly. If they think you're trying to mess them about they'll be less willing to settle this outside of court.

 

[30907]

But I’m wearing face covering how can they prove it

AIUI WesternLancer is making the point that your A to B ticket is good evidence of where you started your journey, just like CCTV footage (even with an obscured face). They are not suggesting the train company will actually review the footage - IMO they have no need to.

 

[England]

Does that suggest you gave an incorrect address at the first time of asking?

If so - as far as they're concerned:
You held tickets that didn't cover the full journey
You had a railcard discount without holding a railcard (and told them you'd left it at home, when they could check it was expired)
You gave a false address (at least how it sounds from my reading of your posts).

If it was an e-ticket, and the inspector scanned it with a mobile device, they'll have those details stored and will be able to check purchase history. In my role, I've completed TIRs with little more than details of the circumstances, an e-ticket number and description of the traveller, and in the long run it's resulted in a successful prosecution. There's no requirement to caution, otherwise I'd potentially have to caution everyone before inspecting their ticket in case they're doing something dodgy.

My advice - consider any evidence you have to support your 'assertions', such as poor eyesight. Consider what they will find when they check purchase history. If they write to you to ask your side, answer honestly. If they think you're trying to mess them about they'll be less willing to settle this outside of court.

No I produced my name and address when asked

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

He was trying to scan it but stopped to ask me for my railcard. I don’t know if he did but he could’ve.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

AIUI WesternLancer is making the point that your A to B ticket is good evidence of where you started your journey, just like CCTV footage (even with an obscured face). They are not suggesting the train company will actually review the footage - IMO they have no need to.

He got to know this from my account number and sort code. He didn’t tell me anything I said could be used against me

 

[SuspectUsual]

I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise.

Is that possible with an app, or are they like TVMs and require the discount to be selected each time?

 

[England]

No it’s automatically on there if you want to buy another ticket

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

If I show continuous journeys travelled with swr in my letter will that help

 

[Hadders]

I'm not sure the train company would be able to trace other ticket purchases using your bank account details. Others will know better than me but under payment card regulations I don't think that retailers can keep details like card numbers, they can only be stored in an encrypted format. Also worth noting that when you buy a ticket online you don't give the sort code and account number, you quote the 16 digit card number, card expiry date and 3 digit security code from the rear of the card. I would expect the train company to be able to look up your account using your name and address and matching this to the tickets you showed them, it really isn't that hard for them to do it.

I believe the train company have a very strong case and they would be well within their rights to prosecute you. You would lose in court unless you could use a 'loophole' in your defense but this is an extremely risky strategy and not something I would recommend based on what you have disclosed on this thread.

Your best course of action is to try and agree an administrative settlement with the train company. You have no right to an administrative settlement and trying to argue that a loophole exists when engaging with the train company is highly unlikely to yield a positive result, in my opinion.

 

[WesternLancer]

But I’m wearing face covering how can they prove it

apols, but I have given my advice as to what you should do. I'm not going to get into theoretical questions like that. You have probably spent more time on this forum mulling over it than it would take you to draft up the apology letter and the offer to pay what you owe, by your own admission, in the hope you do not get taken to court. I'm starting to think you are more interested in discussing this here than actually acting on the advice given.

If you do get taken to court, see the recent thread where someone paid a £90 fee to an online lawyer who helped them settle their case (but IIRC they had a stronger case than you appear to me to have but I'm not a lawyer), as that may be the route you want to go down, but if you loose it will cost more than offering to settle this, which you could get on with doing fairly soon, and consider the court issues later, as I originally suggested.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

If I show continuous journeys travelled with swr in my letter will that help

It won't hurt, assuming you had valid tickets for the journeys concerned. But it might not help very much since your actions in this case were very different.

Good luck - but there is no further advice I can offer you.

 

[England]

apols, but I have given my advice as to what you should do. I'm not going to get into theoretical questions like that. You have probably spent more time on this forum mulling over it than it would take you to draft up the apology letter and the offer to pay what you owe, by your own admission, in the hope you do not get taken to court. I'm starting to think you are more interested in discussing this here than actually acting on the advice given.

If you do get taken to court, see the recent thread where someone paid a £90 fee to an online lawyer who helped them settle their case (but IIRC they had a stronger case than you appear to me to have but I'm not a lawyer), as that may be the route you want to go down, but if you loose it will cost more than offering to settle this, which you could get on with doing fairly soon, and consider the court issues later, as I originally suggested.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==


It won't hurt, assuming you had valid tickets for the journeys concerned. But it might not help very much since your actions in this case were very different.

Good luck - but there is no further advice I can offer you.

Thanks for your help I’ll take that onboard

 

[furlong]

The way this works is they choose the law(s) they are going to use, then present to the court the evidence they have that supports what they claim you did, according to well-established criteria about what sorts of evidence are needed for different types of offences. If any of that evidence wasn't gathered properly it can be challenged, and if the challenge is successful the court is likely to decide that that particular piece of evidence cannot be used. But that's all - the rest of the evidence can still be used. Cases collapse when essential evidence gets excluded. But what people are suggesting here is that, from what you wrote, there are likely to be multiple pieces of evidence available to them that are each sufficient separately for them to present their case and they will not need to rely upon any of the evidence that you believe wasn't gathered correctly. For example, imagine if they tell the court through a witness statement on oath that you did not present the valid railcard required to accompany a ticket you presented. How do you refute that if you don't even have a railcard that was valid at the time? They could make that argument without ever having to rely on the words you said at the time.

 

[England]

The way this works is they choose the law(s) they are going to use, then present to the court the evidence they have that supports what they claim you did, according to well-established criteria about what sorts of evidence are needed for different types of offences. If any of that evidence wasn't gathered properly it can be challenged, and if the challenge is successful the court is likely to decide that that particular piece of evidence cannot be used. But that's all - the rest of the evidence can still be used. Cases collapse when essential evidence gets excluded. But what people are suggesting here is that, from what you wrote, there are likely to be multiple pieces of evidence available to them that are each sufficient separately for them to present their case and they will not need to rely upon any of the evidence that you believe wasn't gathered correctly. For example, imagine if they tell the court through a witness statement on oath that you did not present the valid railcard required to accompany a ticket you presented. How do you refute that if you don't even have a railcard that was valid at the time? They could make that argument without ever having to rely on the words you said at the time.

That is true, thanks for helping me understand.

 

[furlong]

If you do get taken to court, see the recent thread where someone paid a £90 fee to an online lawyer who helped them settle their case (but IIRC they had a stronger case than you appear to me to have but I'm not a lawyer), as that may be the route you want to go down, but if you loose it will cost more than offering to settle this, which you could get on with doing fairly soon, and consider the court issues later, as I originally suggested.

That defence case was indeed completely different and, I think, arguable i.e. it clearly had some chance of succeeding to some degree though it was far from certain.

The difficulty in the current thread is that there is a sequence of separate mistakes that together suggest a picture of something bigger.

 

[England]

That defence case was indeed completely different and, I think, arguable i.e. it clearly had some chance of succeeding to some degree though it was far from certain.

The difficulty in the current thread is that there is a sequence of separate mistakes that together suggest a picture of something bigger.

What do you swr is likely to do since it’s my first time something like this happens

 

[furlong]

If you follow the same formula as already suggested higher up this thread and which you've probably now read in other threads too, SWR will often settle out of court if it's the first time and you apologise and co-operate. It's better for them to spend their limited resources trying to find more offenders and pursuing people who aren't co-operative and who might continue to cheat the railway out of more money in the future, rather than spending extra effort on someone who makes amends and now appears unlikely to do it again. (Settle out-of-court means they agree to let you pay them the missing fare plus their costs and in return you cannot be prosecuted for what happened unless new evidence emerges that undermines the agreement. An example of that might be someone who settled out-of-court on the basis that they had fravelled from station A, and then later it's discovered they had lied and really travelled from station B further away and should have paid more - the agreement then is unlikely to prevent a prosecution for travelling from B.)

 

[Hadders]

I suggest you follow my advice which @WesternLancer quoted further up thread and which I'll repeat below. When the letter arrived from SWR asking for your version of events it is very important that you engage with the process and reply to them in a timely manner. You might want to include the following in your reply:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Make sure your reply is short and concise, don't give a sob story - they've heard it all before. Most train companies are usually prepared to offer an administrative (commonly known as an out of court settlement) for people who engage with the process and who haven't come to their attention before.

 

[MotCO]

If I show continuous journeys travelled with swr in my letter will that help

But be aware that if these tickets were discounted for use with a railcard, then since the railcard had expired these tickets would not be valid, and you could be accused for underpaying more journeys.

 

[England]

But be aware that if these tickets were discounted for use with a railcard, then since the railcard had expired these tickets would not be valid, and you could be accused for underpaying more journeys.

This was at peak time so discount wasn’t applied

 

[SargeNpton]

This was at peak time so discount wasn’t applied

So why mention this in your original post?...

"I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise."

 

[30907]

So why mention this in your original post?...

"I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise."

If I had a railcard I would select the option and leave the computer to apply the discount or not as the case may be. Not suspicious at all.

 

[MotCO]

So why mention this in your original post?...

"I also had the 16 -25 railcard option automatically selected but it was a week out of date and I didn’t realise."

If you're buying on line, how does the on-line app automatically determine if the ticket is being used in peak or non-peak times? Unless you're buying for a specific train, can you not buy any type of ticket at any time?

He then said he can check if I had a railcard and at that moment I realised it was out of date and I replied with I can pay the excess and there's no problem since I was late for work.

This was at peak time so discount wasn’t applied

If you were travelling at peak time and the ticket was not discounted, why were you worried about your out-of-date railcard? These will be the sort of questions the TOC or agent will be asking, so you do need to be clear what the situation was.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

@England

I don't think there's any point in you trying to argue against, or find loopholes in your case. It's very clear cut; on the occasion you were caught, you did not have a valid ticket for your entire journey.

Just own up, take responsibility and pay up

Unless of course you can prove the evidence against you is wrong and are confident in winning in court...

 

[TheJester]

You’ve been caught bang to rights. I’d be more concerned with writing a letter to SWT than trying to find loopholes in their case.
The letter will be the cheapest (but not cheap option).

 

[England]

If you're buying on line, how does the on-line app automatically determine if the ticket is being used in peak or non-peak times? Unless you're buying for a specific train, can you not buy any type of ticket at any time?




If you were travelling at peak time and the ticket was not discounted, why were you worried about your out-of-date railcard? These will be the sort of questions the TOC or agent will be asking, so you do need to be clear what the situation was.

The ticket from b to c was discounted by £1.15

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Dec 2020 ==

But be aware that if these tickets were discounted for use with a railcard, then since the railcard had expired these tickets would not be valid, and you could be accused for underpaying more journeys.

This was when the railcard was valid but it’s for a different destination. I don’t think the rpi cared about the railcard he just wanted to see if I was doughnut if that’s what’s it’s called

 

[MotCO]

The ticket from b to c was discounted by £1.15

.

Yes but I only held a ticket from c to d at the time but he found out that i had an e ticket from a to b by looking up my account number and sort code and my name on the phone to swr office.

But you didn't have a ticket from b - c.

 

[England]

My bad I meant c to d

 

[island]

I think at this juncture England needs to decide what assistance they are trying to get from this forum.

If they accept that they have committed a crime, are willing to take the consequences, and are willing to provide all of the information relating to their trip, in one go and not drip-fed through a dozen posts, we can try to assist with bringing the impact of those consequences down.

If they are looking for loopholes or procedural failings to ”get away with it”, or trying to claim “it wasn’t a big deal” and therefore they shouldn’t face any consequences, then it is likely the forum will not be of assistance.

 

[FenMan]

I think at this juncture England needs to decide what assistance they are trying to get from this forum.

If they accept that they have committed a crime, are willing to take the consequences, and are willing to provide all of the information relating to their trip, in one go and not drip-fed through a dozen posts, we can try to assist with bringing the impact of those consequences down.

If they are looking for loopholes or procedural failings to ”get away with it”, or trying to claim “it wasn’t a big deal” and therefore they shouldn’t face any consequences, then it is likely the forum will not be of assistance.

I am impressed by the OP's knowledge of railway industry acronyms and railway slang.

Their first post ...
He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

... and ...
I don’t think the rpi cared about the railcard he just wanted to see if I was doughnut if that’s what’s it’s called

So, the OP is aware of cautions, MG11s, TIRs, the RoRA (with a correct lower case "o") and doughnutting. All this despite the Disputes section of the Fares & Ticketing Guide not being accessible at the moment (it asks me for an admin login).

Now I'm not the quickest off the mark, but .....

 

[jumble]

I'm not sure the train company would be able to trace other ticket purchases using your bank account details. Others will know better than me but under payment card regulations I don't think that retailers can keep details like card numbers, they can only be stored in an encrypted format. Also worth noting that when you buy a ticket online you don't give the sort code and account number, you quote the 16 digit card number, card expiry date and 3 digit security code from the rear of the card. I would expect the train company to be able to look up your account using your name and address and matching this to the tickets you showed them, it really isn't that hard for them to do it.

I believe the train company have a very strong case and they would be well within their rights to prosecute you. You would lose in court unless you could use a 'loophole' in your defense but this is an extremely risky strategy and not something I would recommend based on what you have disclosed on this thread.

Your best course of action is to try and agree an administrative settlement with the train company. You have no right to an administrative settlement and trying to argue that a loophole exists when engaging with the train company is highly unlikely to yield a positive result, in my opinion.

I suspect that they may well be able to trace multiple purchases against the same card
The encrypted details may well not change so each time the bank details are presented it puts in the same entry so they might be easily able to match an encrypted database entry against all transactions logged against it.
The OP seems to indicate that this is what took place
It would be trivial to code

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2020 ==

I am impressed by the OP's knowledge of railway industry acronyms and railway slang.

Their first post ...
He didn't give me a caution or an mg11 or a TIR. Can this information that I gave be used to prosecute me under RoRA?

... and ...
I don’t think the rpi cared about the railcard he just wanted to see if I was doughnut if that’s what’s it’s called

So, the OP is aware of cautions, MG11s, TIRs, the RoRA (with a correct lower case "o") and doughnutting. All this despite the Disputes section of the Fares & Ticketing Guide not being accessible at the moment (it asks me for an admin login).

Now I'm not the quickest off the mark, but .....

So what!
I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt as a forumite
I have read about and understand all of these things even though I have never had the misfortune to be in a situation where it was relevant, and I am not railway staff

 

[vinnym70]

What strikes me here is the level of info provided in post 1 - most of which needs to be extracted on other threads like this. Post #57 is the salient one here for my outside observations - what does the OP really want here?
Feels like a bit of a phishing trip to my unseasoned eye but if I'm wrong I really look forward to where this goes.