Prosecution letter

[sheff1]

I saw the letter before Yorkie removed it and it was very unprofessional in both style and content. I am not surpised that the recipient had doubts regarding its provenance.

If I were in doubt, I would always ring up the supposed sender of a letter to confirm its validity. As SET Prosecutions Department do not seem to have an advertised telephone number, you could always try SET Customer Services on 0845 000 2222.

 

[AJP62]

I saw the letter before Yorkie removed it and it was very unprofessional in both style and content. I am not surpised that the recipient had doubts regarding its provenance.

If I were in doubt, I would always ring up the supposed sender of a letter to confirm its validity. As SET Prosecutions Department do not seem to have an advertised telephone number, you could always try SET Customer Services on 0845 000 2222.

Cheers, I will pass the number on and report back anything that comes back.

One thing that wasn't apparent from the scan was the quality of paper - pretty poor for a formal letter I'd say. The pre-printed postage on the envelope was also something I'd never seen - green for a start. No external return address either from memory. In my line of work we are always told to be on the look out for dodgy requests for information and this rung some alarm bells with me.

 

[jon0844]

Presumably it also rung alarm bells with your mate, for him to even tell you about it and show you the envelope! If he hadn't thought anything of it, you'd have never known to seek advice.

 

[AJP62]

Knowing I'm interested in railways he asked me what I thought. He knew he'd done wrong around that date in 2010, not 2011, and had been told there'd be a letter but Southeastern and South East Trains meant nothing.

Looking at the letter I thought it looked a bit dodgy - not knowing at that point about the SET connection with Virgin I thought I'd ask on here what people thought. Quite easy for a file to be picked up from a non-secure email or something and letters sent out. If its known the file is from SET then quote them in the letter to make it seem genuine. Often when phishing is uncovered it is from something flukey like this.

Anyway I've passed on the number for SET for him to chase up.

 

[MikeWh]

@AJP62: I, and I'm sure quite a few others on here, believe what you're saying. To me there is nothing inconsistent in your posts. I can see how some people on here might misinterpret things you say (like the locked gate at the bottom of the stairs), but once it's explained properly it makes sense. As you're probably aware we do have quite a few staff here, and they are naturally more suspicious as they deal with cunning fare evaders every day.

I can also empathise with being the fount of all knowledge on railway matters. I've not yet had a friend seek advice about prosecution, but in my last job I was regularly consulted whenever trains were required for other staff. I've also learnt something new in that TOCs sometimes share things like prosecutions departments.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I just had a thought about the possibility of it being a phishing scam that the above couple of pages discuss.

Firstly, are all the phone numbers and e-addresses on the letter, even the postal address on it, genuine?

If any of them are not, that would be very iffy indeed.

Secondly, is it at all possible that a phishing scammer is going around watching for people who probably haven't got tickets ( surely too time consuming to be worthwhile? ) and then pretending to be an inspector, catching them, then following up with this poorly put together letter in order to collect details that can be used to verify a card number they may have already obtained ( did they, for instance, inspect a bank card closely when he was caught? ).

If this is the case then we have a potential new scam developing to be aware of.

 

[350401]

Slightly off-topic, but its a question I've always wanted an answer to - What is the legal situation if you get on at an unmanned station, the guard on the train does not come round, there is no ticket barrier at the destination station, and the ticket office is closed. The only opportunity to buy a ticket is from a TVM, and they only do tickets from that destination station outwards. A practical example of this would be getting on the 23.31 Chelford-Piccadilly service, arrive 00.08. Ticket office is usually shut at this point and can't use the TVM's to get a CEL-MAN ticket. What is a passenger expected to do?

 

[b0b]

presumably the unmanned starting station has a TVM, so you're supposed to buy a ticket that lets you make at least part of your journey, if the TVM does not sell the ticket you need.

If it doesn't, then I don't know.

 

[350401]

Chelford, along with most stations on the Crewe-Manchester line does not have a TVM. I'm surprised NT haven't installed one, as most stations on the line are not prone to vandalism and they must loose a lot of revenue.

 

[Ferret]

Slightly off-topic, but its a question I've always wanted an answer to - What is the legal situation if you get on at an unmanned station, the guard on the train does not come round, there is no ticket barrier at the destination station, and the ticket office is closed. The only opportunity to buy a ticket is from a TVM, and they only do tickets from that destination station outwards. A practical example of this would be getting on the 23.31 Chelford-Piccadilly service, arrive 00.08. Ticket office is usually shut at this point and can't use the TVM's to get a CEL-MAN ticket. What is a passenger expected to do?

I'd be inclined to say that a passenger in that scenario can't be convicted of any offence - no intent to avoid and no byelaw breach as there was no opportunity to purchase a valid ticket for the journey made.

 

[AJP62]

I just had a thought about the possibility of it being a phishing scam that the above couple of pages discuss.

Firstly, are all the phone numbers and e-addresses on the letter, even the postal address on it, genuine?

If any of them are not, that would be very iffy indeed.

Secondly, is it at all possible that a phishing scammer is going around watching for people who probably haven't got tickets ( surely too time consuming to be worthwhile? ) and then pretending to be an inspector, catching them, then following up with this poorly put together letter in order to collect details that can be used to verify a card number they may have already obtained ( did they, for instance, inspect a bank card closely when he was caught? ).

If this is the case then we have a potential new scam developing to be aware of.

On your first point there are no phone numbers or email addresses but there is a fax number however no means of direct contact which is odd. The letter address comes up as a flat on a google search but it is next to London Bridge - not easy to judge that one.

The second point I think is less likely - a lot of effort to be in Macclesfield then send letters from London, there were a few people involved and my mate has seen at least one of the guys at Piccadilly since.

Of course it could all be genuine and just badly put together but as I mention I'm on the look out for information mining through my work so wary.

 

[142094]

I'd be inclined to say that a passenger in that scenario can't be convicted of any offence - no intent to avoid and no byelaw breach as there was no opportunity to purchase a valid ticket for the journey made.

Wonder what would happen if there were RPIs at this end station? Perhaps they'd make you buy a single from the end station to the start station to cover the loss?

 

[nedchester]

Have to say the idea of seeing people walking past the ticket office and then doing them smells a little of entrapment.

If the TTIs just barriered the station in the normal way and got people to pay for their tickets then fair enough. If someone "tries it on" then fine throw the book at them.

Some on here seem to get a bit of a kick out of people getting 'caught' out.

 

[Tom B]

Wonder what would happen if there were RPIs at this end station? Perhaps they'd make you buy a single from the end station to the start station to cover the loss?

Surely that ticket would be pointless - if you tried to travel with such a ticket you'd be stopped by the guard - so why buy one when you finish your journey when it's not valid to cover the journey you just made? If TOCs can't be arsed to provide functional ticket machines at the starting station, or guards with ticket machines, or ticket offices, then that's their lookout!

 

[Old Timer]

Have to say the idea of seeing people walking past the ticket office and then doing them smells a little of entrapment..

That is not entrapment, it is catching out a thief.

Walking out through the barrier is the same as walking out of a shop with an item without paying, and incidentally outside the shop is where the security people sometimes are.

 

[142094]

Surely that ticket would be pointless - if you tried to travel with such a ticket you'd be stopped by the guard - so why buy one when you finish your journey when it's not valid to cover the journey you just made? If TOCs can't be arsed to provide functional ticket machines at the starting station, or guards with ticket machines, or ticket offices, then that's their lookout!

I agree, if a TOC doesn't provide TVMs/guards/such and such, then they can't complain about it. However I know a few people on these forums would be up in arms about someone doing such that, and getting a free ride.

On a related note, this is what you are supposed to do on the TW Metro if a machine is not working. If people actually do this or just walk off at the destination is anyone's guess.

 

[sheff1]

Slightly off-topic, but its a question I've always wanted an answer to - What is the legal situation if you get on at an unmanned station, the guard on the train does not come round, there is no ticket barrier at the destination station, and the ticket office is closed.

A similar situation is common around here. Many stations are unstaffed with no ticket issuing machines and even those staffed in the day are not manned in the evening. On the later trains it is quite common for the guard not to come round, so people travelling say Conisbrough to Swinton, Chapletown to Wombwell, Goldthorpe to Bolton-on Dearne etc etc have no way of purchasing a ticket at the start or end stations or on board.

 

[Ferret]

Have to say the idea of seeing people walking past the ticket office and then doing them smells a little of entrapment.

If the TTIs just barriered the station in the normal way and got people to pay for their tickets then fair enough. If someone "tries it on" then fine throw the book at them.

Some on here seem to get a bit of a kick out of people getting 'caught' out.

Sorry, but this post is complete and utter gibber, and barely worth its place in this thread.

If it was entrapment, it would be thrown out in Court, simple as. As for people getting a kick out of seeing people caught out, it's hardly worth dignifying that playground comment with a response.



--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wonder what would happen if there were RPIs at this end station? Perhaps they'd make you buy a single from the end station to the start station to cover the loss?

I'd expect the RPIs to sell a ticket on their Avantix machines in that scenario!!!!

 

[mumrar]

How on Earth is waiting to see if people who've possibly had two opportunities already to buy, pass up a third (in the OP's case, first) chance to buy a ticket and then prosecute them entrapment.

Are you familiar with the law in the charge of entrapment at all? The RPIs are supervising a situation and analysing what actions people take. If somebnody is stopped between the last point of sale and the exit without a ticket, it's fair to assume they weren't about to buy one.

I'd imagine that passengers who fork out for season tickets or semi-regular peak tickets often would get a kick out of seeing somebody stopped and cautioned etc. They've probably witnessed many people hiding in toilets and other tricks to avoid fares, and this all has a detrimental effect on the ticket prices that they are willing to pay. It's no different to me enjoying watching the various TV shows where law breaking scum get either caught, prosecuted, a slap for trying to escape - or all three! As a law abiding citizen who pays tax towards upholding the law, why shouldn't I?

 

[RPI]

Best thing your mate can do is write to SET enclosing a copy of the letter recieved and ask them if it is genuine, explaining the reasons as to why you are suspicious of it, give no further details as of yet other than a return address, if it is a genuine letter then SET will reply with a similar letter, if it is genuine then in order to avoid court your mate should write to SET offering to pay the outstanding fare plus any reasonable admin fees and they MAY decide to withdraw the case and settle out of court but they are not obliged to, the worst thing your mate can do is ignore it, it wont go away, SET will apply for a summons and that will be the next contact you hear from them if you dont get hold of them.

Below is the customer service address for SET.

As for the technicality on the letter, this doesn't really hold much chance of getting him off as they are not obliged to send any correspondence before the summons and it would need to be a pretty laxe Prosecutor to make the same mistake on the summons, the letter he recieved was probably just a "standard" letter.

SOUTHEASTERN CUSTOMER SERVICES,
PO BOX 63428,
LONDON
SE1P 5FD

Telephone 0845 000 2222

 

[moonrakerz]

That is not entrapment, it is catching out a thief.

Walking out through the barrier is the same as walking out of a shop with an item without paying, and incidentally outside the shop is where the security people sometimes are.

I think we are getting a little confused here with these comparisons.
Yes - "Walking out through the barrier is the same as walking out of a shop with an item without paying"
but....... to be charged with shoplifting you must have left the shop (that is why the guards are out there or they follow you out) - if you are only stopped leaving the station, some distance after the ticket barrier, this is a totally different matter.
Of course there is no requirement for you to retain your ticket as "proof of purchase" when you have finished your transaction with the rail company.

Suppose the barrier has retained your, quite valid, ticket; how do you prove, 10, 20 yds further on, when you leave the station, that you ever had a ticket at the barrier. It is a very long way from the barriers at platform 1 at Waterloo to the steps out of the front entrance !

 

[Flamingo]

I think we are getting a little confused here with these comparisons.
Yes - "Walking out through the barrier is the same as walking out of a shop with an item without paying"
but....... to be charged with shoplifting you must have left the shop (that is why the guards are out there or they follow you out) - if you are only stopped leaving the station, some distance after the ticket barrier, this is a totally different matter.
Of course there is no requirement for you to retain your ticket as "proof of purchase" when you have finished your transaction with the rail company.

Suppose the barrier has retained your, quite valid, ticket; how do you prove, 10, 20 yds further on, when you leave the station, that you ever had a ticket at the barrier. It is a very long way from the barriers at platform 1 at Waterloo to the steps out of the front entrance !

I think the point is that passengers stopped in this manner have not gone through any barriers.

 

[jon0844]

I think the point is that passengers stopped in this manner have not gone through any barriers.

Exactly. I would expect that some stations allow for 'sting' operations and others don't (like having barriers that would take your ticket). And if they can, why shouldn't they?

Good on them for coming up with a system of catching people who can be caught bang to rights for obviously passing up an opportunity to buy a ticket when leaving the station.

I am sure claiming that you forgot and had every intention to pay would wash as much as it would if caught leaving a shop and being stopped a few feet from the door.

 

[tony_mac]

I am sure claiming that you forgot and had every intention to pay would wash as much as it would if caught leaving a shop and being stopped a few feet from the door.

R v Self?

He had forgotten to pay for something, the court believed it was a genuine mistake and he was aquitted.

(Not relevant here, but it's well-known because of the appeal, where his subsequent conviction for assault was overturned - it was ruled that if no offence was actually committed, then he couldn't have been lawfully held, and therefore he was entitled to use reasonable force to free himself).

Not that it's relevant with strict liability offences etc., but just pointing out that the analogy does break down.

 

[jon0844]

Surely many people caught shoplifting say they forgot. I accept that, statistically, some might have been telling the truth. But probably not most of them.

 

[moonrakerz]

I think the point is that passengers stopped in this manner have not gone through any barriers.

That is why I said "there is no requirement for you to retain your ticket as "proof of purchase" when you have finished your transaction with the rail company"

Up to what point are the TOCs suggesting that you retain your ticket ? It appears to be quite common for people to discard tickets as they leave the train (look in the bins by the doors of trains or on the platforms), if they are then accused, as they leave the station premises, of not having a ticket, where do they stand ? Even if it is a CTA they can be there quite legally without a ticket.
What happens if you have just "seen someone off" on a train, and are then leaving the station with hordes of people who have just alighted from that train ?
There seems to be a distinct parallel between what is being done by some TOCs and the excesses of TV Lie - censing.

Please don't get me wrong - fare dodgers should be dealt with severely, but some of the actions being taken by TOCs, under the guise of dealing with fare dodging, are of extremely doubtful legality.
If they expect us to play by the rules, is it asking too much for us to expect them to do the same ?

 

[Flamingo]

Well, if they are not playing by the rules, people sent for prosecution who have been caught in this manner would be able to put their case before a judge / magistrate, and would be getting cases thrown out (costs awarded against the TOC's as well, I'm sure). I'm not involved in that side of it, but I am not aware of TOC's losing cases because of any "dubious legality".

 

[cuccir]

That is why I said "there is no requirement for you to retain your ticket as "proof of purchase" when you have finished your transaction with the rail company"

Even if it is a CTA they can be there quite legally without a ticket.

I did ask this question above about Macclesfield station, out of interest, but didn't get a response; if you are outside a compulsory ticket area then there is no need to have a ticket on you, clearly. I suspect that this doesn't prevent you from being done for having travelled without a ticket if checked outside a CTA, providing that it can be proved that you were on the train without a ticket (eg you admit it, CCTV shows you getting off, a guard can identify you).

If you are in a CTA, however, then you MUST have a ticket on you, which is quite clear in the conditions of carriage. If you're assisting someone onto the train in a CTA then you ought to purchase a platform ticket.

 

[jon0844]

How long should someone realistically expect to keep a ticket, because if the argument is now going to be that someone may dispose of their ticket - we could extend that to the very point you step off the train. As soon as you place both feet on the platform, you no longer need your train ticket - but you obviously keep it because you're often checked on the way out.

So, why wouldn't someone expect to be asked to show their ticket until they leave railway property? I'd keep mine until I give it up to staff, a gate or (probably) get home or go somewhere far away from the station.

My first thought, if I hadn't been asked to present my ticket, wouldn't be to leave the station and go via a bin to chuck it (and if I did, then it would be in the bin and I'd make the revenue staff empty it. If they found lots of tickets, I could identify mine by stating where I came from, the approximate time I bought it, even how I paid (the tickets would show all of this). There's a good chance they'd just let you go, which would be up to them.

Thus, I see no entrapment and think it's totally fair. Perhaps people should be advised to carry a valid rail ticket until they've left railway property (or the main building at least) which I'm sure is what people do anyway - and it's only an excuse given by those who didn't actually have one anyway.

If fare evaders wish to play such games, then let the revenue staff play them too. Even the hassle and time wasted might serve as a deterrent.

 

[Flamingo]

A common one I get coming out of Cardiff is
TM: "Tickets please"
Passenger: "Ticket from Cardiff to Swansea"
TM: "How did you get through the barriers?"
Passenger: "I came in from somewhere else"
TM: "Can I see your ticket from there to Cardiff?"
Passenger: "Err, I left it on the other train"
TM: "That's a pity, I'll have to sell you another one from there"

Some pay, some argue, some say they want two tickets, X to Cardiff, and Cardiff to wherever (which if they ask for it first I will do, but not after they have been caught!).

Saying "I threw the ticket away" = I am not in possession of a ticket, and is treated as such.