Further investigation after settlement

[zowen]

Hi so ive recieved a letter (attached) from Northern rail saying that theyve been alerted to my purchasing history and it warrants further investigation after i was caught short faring in early march this year. That was concluded with an out of court settlement after i apologised and bought a rail card.

Now i did short fare a few times before this and havent done so since and bought full tickets.

Ive been told to email to arrange to attend an interview.

Any advice? especially because since the matter over summer ive had some big stuggles with mental health and started a medication (fluoxetine) which is affecting my memory so I can't remember the matter at all or any details.

From what Ive read as it was over 6 months ago since it happened is there anything they can do? ( currently been 7 months when i recieved the letter)

 

[skyhigh]

Now i did short fare a few times before this and havent done so since and bought full tickets.

You definitely haven't done anything wrong since? No wrong Railcard purchases, claiming refunds you weren't entitled to or anything like that?

The letter doesn't say what period of time they are considering (other than it's not in relation to the offence in March) so in my opinion it would be reasonable to simply reply saying you have no recollection of any other events and ask them to tell you what they are referring to.

 

[zowen]

You definitely haven't done anything wrong since? No wrong Railcard purchases, claiming refunds you weren't entitled to or anything like that?

The letter doesn't say what period of time they are considering (other than it's not in relation to the offence in March) so in my opinion it would be reasonable to simply reply saying you have no recollection of any other events and ask them to tell you what they are referring to.

I have not done anything since the fear factor definitely worked also considering i only got train once a week for university and havent been in since about may.

I dont recall any of the other events the meds im on make it pretty much impossible to remember much

Should i mention in my reply that the meds im on mean i struggle with memory or just say i have no recollection?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

in my opinion it would be reasonable to simply reply saying you have no recollection of any other events and ask them to tell you what they are referring to.

But the OP says

i did short fare a few times before this

So I struggle to see how getting them to say something that isn't true is going to help.

On a different point for the OP: there will, I expect, be plenty of advice on whether you should attend an interview or not. If ultimately you do decide to go, take someone with you. It's always good to have someone to talk to straight after something like this, and who can help you to understand the questions (this is not to suggest that you are not very bright - it's just easy to misunderstand what is said in a fast moving conversation). And although not with railway interviews, I have known work disciplinary discussions to go very differently when there's a third party in the room.

 

[AlterEgo]

No comment to everything, and don’t attend the interview unless you else Ute legal representation. The purpose of the interview is to extract incriminating statements from you.

I don’t even advise responding to the letter.

 

[zowen]

So I struggle to see how getting them to say something that isn't true is going to help.

I do not actually recall when i did as ive said i struggle with memory. I know i did previously I cant not recall when it was and anything about them I just know i did. So i dont actually recall when I did at all

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2023 ==

No comment to everything, and don’t attend the interview unless you else Ute legal representation. The purpose of the interview is to extract incriminating statements from you.

I don’t even advise responding to the letter.

with this being mentioned about fraud will the 6 month rule not be taken in to account and will i end up being able to be prosucuted? I read somewhere that when its about fraud the 6 month doesnt apply as it can go to crown court not judt magistrates?

 

[Titfield]

My reading of the letter, and I stand to be corrected, is that the out of court settlement you state you came to (and paid) was only for the "incident" on the 7th March 2023 which they acknowledge has been concluded.

The interview they seek to hold is to investigate any and all other potential offences which includes those which occurred before the incident of the 7th March 2023,

You state that you short fared before 7th March 2023 and presumably that can be confirmed by their looking at your booking record.

On that basis they probably believe they have enough evidence to escalate the matter. I think it is unlikely that they would accept a further out of court settlement.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I do not actually recall when i did as ive said i struggle with memory. I know i did previously I cant not recall when it was and anything about them I just know i did. So i dont actually recall when I did at all

This isn't going to be easy, so sorry if this sounds snippy: but on what you have told us, you do remember that you have dodged fares before, even if you don't remember when you did it. So if you want to say that you don't know what the railway is talking about, you will need to word things very carefully so that you don't say something that isn't true.

The thing is, the railway will be trying to show that there's no reason for them to believe you. So if you say something ('I have never fare dodged except on the one time you caught me ') and they can prove that it isn't true ('but we have other evidence to prove that you did on another occasion ') then anything else you say and can't prove, they will say 'we know you don't tell the truth every time, so why should we think you are telling the truth this time?'

So it's really important to not be caught out lying - and the easiest way to do this is to tell the truth.

 

[zowen]

My reading of the letter, and I stand to be corrected, is that the out of court settlement you state you came to (and paid) was only for the "incident" on the 7th March 2023 which they acknowledge has been concluded.

The interview they seek to hold is to investigate any and all other potential offences which includes those which occurred before the incident of the 7th March 2023,

You state that you short fared before 7th March 2023 and presumably that can be confirmed by their looking at your booking record.

On that basis they probably believe they have enough evidence to escalate the matter. I think it is unlikely that they would accept a further out of court settlement.

as this was over 6 months ago could they still escalate it?

Also do you have any advice for responding and how i should continue as ive stated previously I struggle with memory and physically cant remember anything about it

 

[WesternLancer]

Not an especially serious response to this problem (apols to the OP) but in pre word processing days - just - I worked in a place where we had supplies of pre printed letters to send as standard responses to certain enquiries / letters. One that sticks in my mind that might be useful to send in response for something like this said (you filled in the blanks by pen)

"Thank you for your communication of ....... concerning......
The contents of which have been noted"

and that was presumably deemed acceptable as a reply.

 

[zowen]

This isn't going to be easy, so sorry if this sounds snippy: but on what you have told us, you do remember that you have dodged fares before, even if you don't remember when you did it. So if you want to say that you don't know what the railway is talking about, you will need to word things very carefully so that you don't say something that isn't true.

The thing is, the railway will be trying to show that there's no reason for them to believe you. So if you say something ('I have never fare dodged except on the one time you caught me ') and they can prove that it isn't true ('but we have other evidence to prove that you did on another occasion ') then anything else you say and can't prove, they will say 'we know you don't tell the truth every time, so why should we think you are telling the truth this time?'

So it's really important to not be caught out lying - and the easiest way to do this is to tell the truth.

If I reply saying "Since this has happened Ive started medication which makes me struggle with memory could you confirm when the suspicious activity was?" because I did have to look back at my trainline to see roughly the time and once again I couldnt really tell you bout any of the fares I just know it wasnt the first time.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I reply saying "Since this has happened Ive started medication which makes me struggle with memory could you confirm when the suspicious activity was?" because I did have to look back at my trainline to see roughly the time and once again I couldnt really tell you bout any of the fares I just know it wasnt the first time.

That merely invites them to respond, and comes close to incriminating you. I advise you to say nothing.

 

[zowen]

That merely invites them to respond, and comes close to incriminating you. I advise you to say nothing.

Do you think I'll receive follow up letters, or they will carry on with their investigation and privately prosicute me?

 

[WesternLancer]

I see some similarities with this thread which the OP may want to have a look at:

WMR evidence request

I got caught with a partial ticket not covering the full journey and paid the penalty fare straight away. I've stupidly done this a couple of times before (I have a digital trace) and have now received this email from WMR. "Further investigations into this matter have been carried out...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[dakta]

This isn't going to be easy, so sorry if this sounds snippy: but on what you have told us, you do remember that you have dodged fares before, even if you don't remember when you did it. So if you want to say that you don't know what the railway is talking about, you will need to word things very carefully so that you don't say something that isn't true.

The thing is, the railway will be trying to show that there's no reason for them to believe you. So if you say something ('I have never fare dodged except on the one time you caught me ') and they can prove that it isn't true ('but we have other evidence to prove that you did on another occasion ') then anything else you say and can't prove, they will say 'we know you don't tell the truth every time, so why should we think you are telling the truth this time?'

So it's really important to not be caught out lying - and the easiest way to do this is to tell the truth.

At this risk of causing a ruckus I must emphasise this, I am on very similar medication. It does impact memory, it does, on really bad days near as damnit incapacitate, and details do get fused, there are good days and bad days. Even then I'd be extremely sceptical of it making a wholesale recollection of multiple events of fare evasion impossible to recall.

Be careful as an inconsistency can cause problems.

I see some similarities with this thread which the OP may want to have a look at

Definitely some parallels, maybe we can expect to see more of this sort of thing :/

 

[Hadders]

Train companies are certainly beefing up their investigations into this sort of thing 'behind the scenes'. There's an almost identical thread involving WMR ongoing at the moment so I'm going to repeat what I said in that thread here:

I am not legally qualified and this is something you might want to take appropriate advice on. I would advise seeking legal advice if you do attend the interview, especially as it's being conducted under the PACE Act. It won't be a cheery chat with team and biscuits - they will want to extract a confession from you.

My view is Northern would not be successful if they prosecuted you. They would need to prove to a court beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence had been comitted and purchasing tickets, however suspicious it might look, is not in itself a criminal offence. They would need to prove that you travelled with invalid tickets, and they are unlikely to have this evidence so would be relying on a confession from you. Fundamentally, you are not required to incriminate yourself.

It is highly likely that if you co-operate with Northern that they will agree to settle out of court which would cost you the value of the fares avoided plus an administration fee. This would give you certainty that the matter had been dealt with. On the other hand, unless you confess to Northern it's likely that they will have insufficient evidence to do anything further.

As I see it you have two choices:

1. Co-operate with Northern, tell them what you've done, they will likely agree an out of court settlement which will make the matter go away
2. Do nothing, Northern will likely not be able to do anything else but there's a small chance of them knowing or finding out something more

 

[zowen]

2. Do nothing, Northern will likely not be able to do anything else but there's a small chance of them knowing or finding out something more

If the suspicious activity they are talking about was the other cases then there isnt anything more for them to find out. the ticket i used was only for getting in and out of one station with barriers other stations didnt have barriers. So unless they get video evidence of me travelling will they be able to have evidence?

However I have deeply learnt from my mistake and heavily regret it and havent done anything wrong since but with having little recollection of when i did so and with a baby on the way next year I would like this matter dealt with and peace of mind that its not going any further.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2023 ==

At this risk of causing a ruckus I must emphasise this, I am on very similar medication. It does impact memory, it does, on really bad days near as damnit incapacitate, and details do get fused, there are good days and bad days. Even then I'd be extremely sceptical of it making a wholesale recollection of multiple events of fare evasion impossible to recall.

Memory is one of my main side affects and affects me the most outside of a very few things my memory is pretty much a cloud any day and without having something to remind me trying to recall things is extremely difficult if that makes sense?

I assume it makes sense if your on the same meds my bad days for memory are everyday haha

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you think I'll receive follow up letters, or they will carry on with their investigation and privately prosicute me?

They could prosecute you privately but it is more likely than not that they have limited evidence to do so. Fraud requires a high bar of criminal proof and evidence of intent. I recommend you do not give that evidence to them and that you do not respond or attend any interview without representation.

 

[zowen]

They could prosecute you privately but it is more likely than not that they have limited evidence to do so. Fraud requires a high bar of criminal proof and evidence of intent. I recommend you do not give that evidence to them and that you do not respond or attend any interview without representation.

what evidence would they need to be able to have criminal proof and of intent?

 

[dakta]

I'm posting very carefully because everyone is different, the impact of medication can be crippling so whilst what I'm saying isn't actually in your favour i guess, I don't want you to think I'm not understanding.

You have sort of made an argument in your thread that you have no recollection of events and have no details to give, in the post above you've made reference to the ticket used, and indirectly the method used and you are articulated enough to know that without video surveillance there would be no evidence. Just a gentle warning that this, i think, is the sort of inconsistency that could be noticed in a 'meeting'.

That said, it won't come to that because I think Hadders has nailed it (as usual).

 

[AlterEgo]

what evidence would they need to be able to have criminal proof and of intent?

A confession is what they're after. At present they have a purchase history and one other instance of short faring, which is not particularly compelling for a fraud trial. They might also want to check CCTV records (very unlikely for just a few cases of short faring, but if you have been doing this for a while, the likelihood of them doing this increases!).

@Hadders has neatly summarised things for you in his post and I agree with his analysis here.

 

[zowen]

That said, it won't come to that because I think Hadders has nailed it (as usual).

So pretty much my choice of sit through the threats until they stop or if i want peace of mind be completely honest and offer to pay for reimbursement and admin fees,

Hopefully would like not to attend an interview and would like this situation to be over as my anxiety is at a sky high.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2023 ==

A confession is what they're after. At present they have a purchase history and one other instance of short faring, which is not particularly compelling for a fraud trial. They might also want to check CCTV records (very unlikely for just a few cases of short faring, but if you have been doing this for a while, the likelihood of them doing this increases!).

uhh for how long i was doing it i think it was like 3 months of once a week max? so like 10 times or so? speculating could be less as it was around uni time i wasnt always in uni from the strikes and time off so i dont know a rough amount

 

[nanstallon]

It does no harm to ask yourself, 'what's in it for me if I attend an interview?' You don't have to go to any interview, and they are just looking for you to give them some evidence. They certainly aren't looking to help you! File their letter in w.p.b.

But if you do go for an interview, don't go on your own. Of course, a solicitor will charge a fee, which you will have to pay yourself unless the solicitor is giving you a free go. I expect that solicitor would advise you not to go anyway, as it is unlikely to be in your interests to do so.

 

[zowen]

It does no harm to ask yourself, 'what's in it for me if I attend an interview?' You don't have to go to any interview, and they are just looking for you to give them some evidence. They certainly aren't looking to help you! File their letter in w.p.b.

But if you do go for an interview, don't go on your own. Of course, a solicitor will charge a fee, which you will have to pay yourself unless the solicitor is giving you a free go. I expect that solicitor would advise you not to go anyway, as it is unlikely to be in your interests to do so.

I have anxiety and would rather not go to any interview if possible.

 

[dakta]

Pretty much, in the other similar thread it jumped out at me that they were basically asking/demanding the respondent to provide evidence that they were innocent without really giving any real clue as to what they were supposed to be guilty of - and if you really do have a legal argument you don't really have to be vague about it, it just doesn't read right, so not a legal opinion or advice at all but my first thought is, they're fishing because they have to.

This is not a risk free stance to take, but if they had me on something solid, they could skip all that, or at least give me a list of occasions saying we have evidence that you've done something wrong, can you explain it before we consider taking it to court or whatever, the fact they haven't done this is .... telling.

Mileage will vary and taking this stance does carry risk as if they do get evidence from other means, then you may end up explaining yourself regardless, but the chance of this IS small as there's not really much means in which they could get this, but it's not a zero possibility.

As I said in the other thread though, the board will give you the best advice it can, it will give you the info to hopefully make wiser choices than you have done and make the most of the situation as everyones entitled to a defence and to a fair process (and whilst I'm not a fan of fare evasion, I'm not a fan of demanding people using legal jargon and legislation references to encourage/pressurise laypeople to dob themselves in either) - avoiding fares is ultimately criminal and whilst you will get the best advice here don't put yourself in the situation going forward, it's a lot of stress.

 

[zowen]

Yeah ill never put myself in this much stress again.

Ive spoken to a friend who's a solicitor and they reccomended its up to me if i respond or not most likely wont be able to do anything but at same time not complying and if they eventually go to court with it will seem worse for me and give them an edge with non compliance.

Also said if i went to an interview that id be able to see if they had any evidence on me so it can be a two way thing theyre trying to get me to incriminate myself but I can see if they have anything on me.

 

[furlong]

I'm with AlterEgo: I would ignore the letter. It looks like a trap to me, in that by responding you risk providing them with exactly the new evidence that might mean the courts would allow them to reopen the earlier settlement and have a second bite of the cherry. They'd have to navigate around all manner of legal obstacles - including the 6 month limit. (There's an argument that, contrary to what they suggest in the letter, the first settlement does preclude them from pursuing this any further - it's simply too late now to go back and say "if we'd looked properly at this other data we had earlier, we would have asked for more money to settle" as presumably the railway had the data and could have taken it into account if it had wanted to and we see plenty of examples where the railway does do this in its settlement offers and compensation requests.)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

File their letter in w(aste)p(aper).b(asked)

Please don't exactly follow this advice. Even if you choose not to engage with the process, you can't guarantee that the railway won't carry on chasing you. So it could be important to know exactly what they sent you and when.

When you have done whatever you need to do with the letter, put it to one side for maybe a year. If you then haven't needed it, that's the time to throw it away.

 

[Watershed]

Another point worth mentioning is that if you do agree to an interview under caution, an adverse inference can be drawn in Court from your silence or failure to answer questions that are put to you. If you don't attend any interview, no such inference can be drawn.

Furthermore, if you were being interviewed under caution by the police, you would be entitled to free legal representation. Sadly, this does not apply for non-police interviews. Seeing as legal advice may be highly valuable in your position, I would not agree to be interviewed unless they agree to pay for you to be legally represented.

Of course, they won't want to do that - they are clearly on a 'fishing expedition', hoping you will incriminate yourself, and are hardly going to go the expense of paying for a solicitor.

 

[Titfield]

Perhaps some clarity of your position could be gained if you examined your "booking record" and calculated the approximate moneys that Northern would seek by using the anytime single fare for each journey you didnt not pay the correct fare for plus say £150 - £200 administration fee on top.

This at least may (I stress) may give an indication of the cost of resolving the matter by out of court settlement. If you engaged with them by letter this may cause you less anxiety than attending an interview.