Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Hi, my son (age 19) travelled on an expired 16-25 rail card (i.e., discounted ticket) this week from London to Edinburgh. The ticket inspector took the details on the train and he has got a letter in the post. The rail card had expired in January this year which he had not noticed. He also travelled on two occasions in May but the railcard was never checked. It was totally unintentional though obviously careless. May and June have been exam times so it was quite stressful. Would this lead to a prosecution?
Your son has breached the law which requires a passenger to have a valid ticket - and if you have a Railcard ticket but no (in date) Railcard you don't have a valid ticket.
So the bad news is that he could be prosecuted.*
The rather better news is that the railway will fairly often agree to settle the matter out of court for the train fare that should have been paid plus the cost of their investigation (so maybe £100 - £200 plus the fare). But this better news is tainted by the fact that the railway will be looking for the full London - Edinburgh fare, which will be quite a lot.
Against this, if the matter went to court, essentially the same costs would be faced, with a fine on top. So seeking a settlement is your son's best route.
@Hadders may be along soon with excellent suggestions on how your son should respond to the letter: the really important thing is that your son must respond: if he doesn't engage then prosecution moves from being a possible outcome to being near-certain.
*For completeness: in another case involving a train from England to Scotland I was advised that the railway pursues such matters under the English legal system, so prosecution is feasible.
Thank you. He will respond and of course pay the fine. My worry is a prosecution and a criminal record. How do the courts determine intent because from what I understand under the railway act intent must be demonstrated (not under Byelaws)?
Thank you. He will respond and of course pay the fine. My worry is a prosecution and a criminal record. How do the courts determine intent because from what I understand under the railway act intent must be demonstrated (not under Byelaws)?
I would expect this to be prosecuted under the byelaws which as you say doesn't need intent.
But were the prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act, I suspect that the prosecution line would be something like
- a reasonable person would check that their Railcard was in date
- we have no reason to think that the defendant is not a reasonable person
- therefore they must have checked that their Railcard was in date
- therefore they knew that it wasn't
- therefore they knew (i.e. had intent) they weren't paying the fare due.
It's not a strong argument. But if might work - or it might not. Which is why, should the matter go to court, I would expect the charge to be under the byelaws.
I would expect this to be prosecuted under the byelaws which as you say doesn't need intent.
But were the prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act, I suspect that the prosecution line would be something like
- a reasonable person would check that their Railcard was in date
- we have no reason to think that the defendant is not a reasonable person
- therefore they must have checked that their Railcard was in date
- therefore they knew that it wasn't
- therefore they knew (i.e. had intent) they weren't paying the fare due.
It's not a strong argument. But if might work - or it might not. Which is why, should the matter go to court, I would expect the charge to be under the byelaws.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thank you. Sounds like a very harsh thing for a silly error and honest mistake. And this remains in the records for 11 years? That can damage someone’s career
Sorry, he was on the Glasgow train with Avanti. He stays in Edinburgh
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thank you. Sounds like a very harsh thing for a silly error and honest mistake. And this remains in the records for 11 years? That can damage someone’s career
It can damage someone’s career — but with a few exceptions, it probably won’t.
Most employers in most fields recognise that people are fallible. And failing to check that your railcard is in date is, in the realms of criminal actions, very much at the minor end.
So unless an employer says (and is legally entitled to say) ‘applications will not be accepted from people who have been convicted of an offence’ a conviction for not paying the right train fare is likely to lead to an embarrassing conversation with HR - but nothing more. It’s hard for me to see how disclosing a minor conviction could lead to an employer deciding that someone was unsuitable as an employee (against which, failing to disclose could lead to an employer doubting the employee’s fundamental honesty, which could be grounds for dismissal if the employer felt that this breached the fundamental trust between master and servant).
It can damage someone’s career — but with a few exceptions, it probably won’t.
Most employers in most fields recognise that people are fallible. And failing to check that your railcard is in date is, in the realms of criminal actions, very much at the minor end.
So unless an employer says (and is legally entitled to say) ‘applications will not be accepted from people who have been convicted of an offence’ a conviction for not paying the right train fare is likely to lead to an embarrassing conversation with HR - but nothing more. It’s hard for me to see how disclosing a minor conviction could lead to an employer deciding that someone was unsuitable as an employee (against which, failing to disclose could lead to an employer doubting the employee’s fundamental honesty, which could be grounds for dismissal if the employer felt that this breached the fundamental trust between master and servant).
Thank you, that is reassuring. Sorry if you don't mind me asking another query. Reading the Avanti policy, I am a bit confused. It says in the same paragraph: "If you give us false details we will assume you are making a deliberate attempt to avoid paying your fare and you may be prosecuted under railway byelaws. Please don't leave your destination station without having purchased a valid ticket for the journey as failure to do so may be taken as intent to avoid payment"
I am not sure how the second sentence relates to the first. My son gave his correct details but he thought he will get a penalty letter and so did not purchase the full ticket either inside the train (it was not offered to him though he had asked) or at Glasgow (as he thought the process to claim the fare with penalty was already underway).
I assume he travelled from Euston with Avanti then?
I don't think it makes much difference to the outcome though - as a general rule, if a settlement cannot be reached, from the evidence on the forum train operators will prosecute under the Railway Byelaws which do not require them to show intent. They get the same amount of compensation without having to do the extra work to convince the court.
I don't understand Avanti's wording either, but I think it may apply where there has been no previous opportunity to buy. As it is your son acted correctly - there was no point buying the correct ticket after the event.
I assume he travelled from Euston with Avanti then?
I don't think it makes much difference to the outcome though - as a general rule, if a settlement cannot be reached, from the evidence on the forum train operators will prosecute under the Railway Byelaws which do not require them to show intent. They get the same amount of compensation without having to do the extra work to convince the court.
I don't understand Avanti's wording either, but I think it may apply where there has been no previous opportunity to buy. As it is your son acted correctly - there was no point buying the correct ticket after the event.
Thank you. Yes it was Euston to Glasgow. He is going to write to them apologising for his.actions, explaining measures put in place to avoid this happening again, plea for an out of court settlement, and offering to pay full fare plus costs plus penalty. The letter he got was from Transport Investigation Ltd and not from Avanti
Should he be forthright about previous couple of journeys in May?
Apologies, one more question. Since he travelled twice in May before getting caught in June (all unintentional and honest mistakes), would this be classified as repeat offending or because he was caught for the first time, it would be taken as first offence?
Apologies, one more question. Since he travelled twice in May before getting caught in June (all unintentional and honest mistakes), would this be classified as repeat offending or because he was caught for the first time, it would be taken as first offence?
Hopefully one last time, a few more queries. I am most indebted to everyone who has helped with my queries.
1. The letter from TIL who are agents for Avanti only asks to confirm the name, address, DOB, postcode, and signature & date. It further says "make any comments about the incident on the reverse" but does not have any specific questions. So I take he can write the full response with apology, any learning, offer to pay and pleading for a out of court settlement on the reverse
2. I am still unsure if a confession about the previous journeys should be explicitly stated. Is there a downside to that?
3. Would it be advisable to mention any health condition that has played a role? Or would it seem a bit of rambling?
Hopefully one last time, a few more queries. I am most indebted to everyone who has helped with my queries.
1. The letter from TIL who are agents for Avanti only asks to confirm the name, address, DOB, postcode, and signature & date. It further says "make any comments about the incident on the reverse" but does not have any specific questions. So I take he can write the full response with apology, any learning, offer to pay and pleading for a out of court settlement on the reverse
2. I am still unsure if a confession about the previous journeys should be explicitly stated. Is there a downside to that?
3. Would it be advisable to mention any health condition that has played a role? Or would it seem a bit of rambling?
We are seeing lots of cases like this at the moment. Can you post a copy of the letter you've been sent by Avanti (but do redact any personal details before posting)
My normal advice when responding to these letters is 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
- It might also help if you tell them that you have renewed your railcard since the incident happened (assuming this has been done)
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 settlement (commonly known as an out of court settlement) for people who engage with the process and who haven't come to their attention before. There is no guarantee of this and they could decide to prosecute you in the magistrates court if they wanted to, although I very much doubt this will happen as long as you engage with them.
The reson we ask to see the letter is because it's important to understand exactly what they are asking. If they are asking about the single incident where your son was caught then I would simply confine the reply to that once incident - you are not required to incriminate yourself or assist Avanti with their investigation. On the other hand if they indicate that they have, or will, research the online ticketing purchasing history then it would be wise to come clean about the other incidents
If you are offered a settlement the amount tend to be around £100plus the outstand ing fare. An out of court settlement might appear to be a fine, but it isn't and you won't have a criminal record as a result of accepting one.
Feel free to post a copy of your draft reply in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.
A person giving the above name and address was questioned by a member of rail staff with regard to an alleged incident. Failure to respond to this letter may lead to this matter being authorised for prosecution. Before I proceed further, I invite you to respond by completing in full the bottom section of this letter, making any comments about the incident on the reverse, and send it to the above address within 14 days. Failure to respond will lead to the matter being progressed without further notification.
(Then there is a box to fill in name, address, postcode, DOB, phone, email, signature and date)
A letter like this is pretty poor ,and it is tempting to reply saying that without further details one is unable to confirm anything.
However, I would advise your son to resist the temptation, as Avanti might well treat that as being uncooperative and proceed to a Byelaw prosecution, and to take @Hadders' advice upthread, mentioning only the one occasion.
i am probably overthinking. My son had a return ticket under the same reference number but he decided not to travel choosing to stay with us, obviously stressed. However he renewed the railcard after he was meant to start his journey, which he did not begin. Since the ticket is electronic, I take it can be proved that the return ticket was never scanned. Or in any case the company would need to prove if it was?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would expect this to be prosecuted under the byelaws which as you say doesn't need intent.
But were the prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act, I suspect that the prosecution line would be something like
- a reasonable person would check that their Railcard was in date
- we have no reason to think that the defendant is not a reasonable person
- therefore they must have checked that their Railcard was in date
- therefore they knew that it wasn't
- therefore they knew (i.e. had intent) they weren't paying the fare due.
It's not a strong argument. But if might work - or it might not. Which is why, should the matter go to court, I would expect the charge to be under the byelaws.
(1) The law about fare dodging doesn't have a category of careless behaviour, so the question is moot
(2) I am not a railway prosecutor so can't know quite what argument they would put forward: but I have already suggested that a byelaw prosecution (which doesn't involve the question of intent) would be more likely, mainly because of the difficulty in establishing intent.
As you have said yourself, I think you are overthinking this. The consensus here is that the matter will probably be settled out of court: if that consensus is wrong then a byelaw prosecution is more likely. To all of that I will add that if a prosecution is started the process then takes some weeks, so there's adequate time for your son to prepare a defence once he knows what charge he is facing, rather than needing to speculate now.
A person giving the above name and address was questioned by a member of rail staff with regard to an alleged incident. Failure to respond to this letter may lead to this matter being authorised for prosecution. Before I proceed further, I invite you to respond by completing in full the bottom section of this letter, making any comments about the incident on the reverse, and send it to the above address within 14 days. Failure to respond will lead to the matter being progressed without further notification.
(Then there is a box to fill in name, address, postcode, DOB, phone, email, signature and date)
I would simply reply to confirm that you were the person involved in the alleged incident, and mention the points I raised in my earlier post upthread. If you post a drafct here we are happy to proof read it for you.
@andersonoval, what does your son remember of what he and the staff member said at the time? If he was cooperative and polite, that makes it (even) less likely he would be prosecuted.
Is he still a student? If so, he can call the student union and ask what advice, including perhaps free legal advice, and reassurance about lack of impact on careers, they can offer.
If the company doesn't offer to settle straightaway, your son can keep asking with help from this forum and/or elsewhere. He can search this forum and see that even people blatantly fare dodging over a period of time get settlements.
If there are any cases on this forum where someone innocent of intent to avoid a fare has been convicted of it, they are to my knowledge rare. As it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it would be silly for a company to try that route where someone has a reasonable chance of being believed, even if the company wanted to prosecute in the first place. They don't want to go to the magistrates and look silly.
A conviction resulting in a fine would be "spent" for most purposes after a year, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. We'd expect any jobs exempt from the Act to need adequate enough scrutiny to establish that a byelaw offence is of no real concern. Pretty much nobody cares whether a doctor, lawyer, teacher or spy forgot to renew their railcard when they were a teenager.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm saying these things about court and conviction not because they are likely, but in case there's some additional reassurance for your son. As he can see from cases on this forum, people have very good success rates at getting settlements by posting a draft on here for comment.
