Advice for a slip of judgement

[sevenleaf]

So a mate has just had a letter through the door saying he is being taken to magistrates court for an incident that happened a few weeks back.

He bought a return ticket on the Saturday but missed the last train home. Mistake number one.

He then get the train home on Sunday without buying a ticket. Mistake number two.

When approached by a ticket officer, he then gave the incorrect boarding station (presumably to reduce the amount he would have to pay), and when questioned whether cctv would back this up, confirmed that it would. Mistakes number 3 and 4.

At some point he tried to pay for his ticket plus penalty fare, but this offer was refused.

This all surprises me as he is the most by the book, law abiding person I know. I still cannot believe that he did this, but I guess the court summons is proof enough.

He knows he's been very stupid, is not pointing fingers at anyone other than himself and is absolutely terrified as he has never been in trouble before. I'm not expecting any sympathy but can anyone advise what is likely to happen or what his options are?

 

[island]

He needs to write to the Prosecutions department of the train operating company in question with a grovelling apology, offering to pay the fare in question and a substantial contribution towards their administration costs (and I would be suggesting in the region of £200 if it has already reached the stage of a summons) for the matter not to be taken any further.

Previous posts here have indicated that this approach usually works as long as you have not come to the adverse attention of that TOC (and possibly any other TOCs operated by the same owner) before.

 

[yorkie]

I suggest your friend gets legal advice!

Or offer to settle out of court, perhaps offering 200 pounds.

The fine would likely be higher and a criminal record is not good in today's job market.

Sounds like the train operating company will have a very good chance of securing a conviction in this case so offering to settle out of court may be best.

Note I am not a lawyer and I recommend you seek legal advice.

Nothing more I can add.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with island.
Attempting an out-of-court settlement for a first offence is likely to succeed. The apology should be simple, sincere and give the impression that the 'mate' has learned their lesson and will take care not to be so foolish in future.
I would have expected that there will have been other correspondence before the summons which indicated the level of costs which will be applied for after a successful prosecution in Court. The amount of the out-of-court settlement should be, at least, a similar amount.

 

[sevenleaf]

Thanks for all of the replies.

Just heard back from him he said

I approached the the ticket officer first by the way, not that it makes any difference

and also

this is the first bit of paper i have got and its not a court summons but from the rail company stating there intentions to prosecute me

So my first line of him being taken to court was a little presumptuous - would this change any of your advice?

 

[scotsman]

So my first line of him being taken to court was a little presumptuous - would this change any of your advice?

Same advice applies, perhaps lower offer to £100?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So my first line of him being taken to court was a little presumptuous - would this change any of your advice?

Not by much. As scotsman says, the financial offer may be lower. I would still expect that 'the letter' refers to an amount that the Railway Company would seek - and that is the amount, plus any unpaid fare, that should be offered.

 

[RPI]

Depends on the TOC, I know one or two that will never under any circumstances settle out of court for false details and/or abusive behaviour.

 

[island]

Not by much. As scotsman says, the financial offer may be lower. I would still expect that 'the letter' refers to an amount that the Railway Company would seek - and that is the amount, plus any unpaid fare, that should be offered.

Or possibly a little more. I don't think the TOC will ever offer a settlement upfront; I think it would make the prosecution unsafe if the passenger didn't accept it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Or possibly a little more.

I will not disagree.
However, if I was to agree, then the reasoning becomes quite complex - perhaps unnecessarily so, and beyond the scope of this posting.

I don't think the TOC will ever offer a settlement upfront; I think it would make the prosecution unsafe if the passenger didn't accept it.

Agreed.

The question which this thread raises (and many others, sadly), is the position in which a TOC finds itself AFTER having advised the passenger of the sum it will seek, by way of costs, in Court (as if it is a simple Civil Claim) and which the pasenger offers to pay (or actually does pay). On receipt of the offer to pay (ar actual payment), then the TOC either has nothing left to bring to Court (such as a loss), or else they are obliged to bring an 'absolute offence' to Court which is independent of any value of their alledged loss. If that was a TOC's approach (ref. the claims of 'we have a zero tolerance approach to fare evasion), then what on earth are they doing when telling the passenger that they have some specific costs to claim - if its an absolute criminal offence then the Courts have their Tarriffs, and that is what should be advised to the passenger, if indeed any figure need be disclosed.

If you follow and agree with my reasoning, then you might also agree with some more of my analysis, which I shall not spell out in such a public forum as this - I guess you can anticipate my reasoning.