My husband just received a single justice procedure notice and we are unsure what to do. I work with a transport company and got a free oyster for my sister and me. My husband just joined me in the country and he picked up the ticket and stepped out whilst I was sleeping. I later got a call on the phone and it was a TFL inspector asking for our address, which I provided. My husband literally thought it's a free travel ticket that any of my family members can use as long as they are family and didn't even open it to realize there's a picture together with the oyster. He just arrived here and when being asked for his ticket, he gladly gave my sister's oyster to the TFL inspector. We received a letter which we wrote to TFL explaining that he took it by ignorance and that we are ready to pay any fine. Another letter has now been sent to us asking us to plead guilty or not guilty and also to decide to go to court or not. Obviously he is guilty because I know ignorant is not considered by law. am even unsure what we should write for the court to consider when taking a decison. Please help.
-
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!
TFL single justice procedure notice
- Thread starter Empress
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The short answer is that TfL always take misuse of privileged Oyster cards very seriously and they almost always prosecute for ticketing offences.
Others will be on here to explain more, but it looks as if your husband has little choice other than to plead guilty. That will reduce the eventual fine by a bit. I doubt that any other words you write will make much difference.
Another thing to consider now is what happens with your sister's Oyster Card. TfL is likely to be in touch about that. Presumably her employer paid for it, but TfL would still be concerned about it being misused, and could possibly cancel its validity.
Others will be on here to explain more, but it looks as if your husband has little choice other than to plead guilty. That will reduce the eventual fine by a bit. I doubt that any other words you write will make much difference.
Another thing to consider now is what happens with your sister's Oyster Card. TfL is likely to be in touch about that. Presumably her employer paid for it, but TfL would still be concerned about it being misused, and could possibly cancel its validity.
Whilst all cases are unique, there are some recent cases on here of a fairly similar nature which may help guide the OP.
If the OPs husband has genuinely just come to the UK and didnt fully understand the rules relating to these cards this is something I think very much worth mentioning. Whilst ignorance (of a law or procedure) is never an excuse nevertheless it does provide some context which may help influence the course of action TfL takes.
The difficulty here is that an SJPN has already been sent. Have we ever heard of TfL halting a prosection at this late stage? Although it seems to have been due to a big misunderstanding on the part of the OP's husband, his open behaviour will have made this potentially apparent to the inspector and TfL should already know the likely circumstances
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,353
The OP should also talk urgently to their union rep - because I understand that there could be consequences for them as the staff member whose employment allowed the card to be issued.
Transport for London take misuse of staff passes very seriously and prosecution under the TfL Bylaws is the normal outcome. There will also likely be some very serious consequences for you as it is your responsibility to make sure the pass issued to you is used correctly. If you haven't already done so you should seek advice from your union rep at work.
Your husband needs to reply to the SJPN, there are three possible replies:
1. He pleads guilty and is happy for the case to be dealt with on the basis of the evidence and mitigation provided. Your husband will be notified of the outcome by post.
2. He pleads guilty but wishes to attend court in person to give further mitigation.
3. He pleads not guilty. He will have to attend court in person where the case eill be heard before the magistrates who will decide if he is guilty or not guilty
If your husband pleads guilty, or is found guilty following a trial then the court will impose a punishment. Your husband will have to pay:
- A fine based on his weekly income (normally discounted by a third if he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards TfLs costs in dealing with the case
- Compensation for the fares avoided
Your husband needs to reply to the SJPN, there are three possible replies:
1. He pleads guilty and is happy for the case to be dealt with on the basis of the evidence and mitigation provided. Your husband will be notified of the outcome by post.
2. He pleads guilty but wishes to attend court in person to give further mitigation.
3. He pleads not guilty. He will have to attend court in person where the case eill be heard before the magistrates who will decide if he is guilty or not guilty
If your husband pleads guilty, or is found guilty following a trial then the court will impose a punishment. Your husband will have to pay:
- A fine based on his weekly income (normally discounted by a third if he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards TfLs costs in dealing with the case
- Compensation for the fares avoided
Given the original post said “obviously he is guilty” then the third option is not appropriate in this case.
I would be inclined to take option 1. I doubt the mitigation would count for much, and it might be regarded as a somewhat far fetched story, unless supported with more evidence (eg if “just” arrived meant the day before, but even then, how many people would just pick up a card and assume it was permissible to use it without asking, especially if unfamiliar with the transport network having arrived so recently.)
I would be inclined to take option 1. I doubt the mitigation would count for much, and it might be regarded as a somewhat far fetched story, unless supported with more evidence (eg if “just” arrived meant the day before, but even then, how many people would just pick up a card and assume it was permissible to use it without asking, especially if unfamiliar with the transport network having arrived so recently.)
Indeed! Based on what is said in the opening post the OP's husband is guilty and pleading not guilty would not see a successful outcome.
Why did he think that? Without further context, it sounds quite irrational!
dakta
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 577
More importantly, why not find out rather than assume?
I appreciate might be a little off topic, but if some remember what I said a few weeks ago with regards to the common reference to anxiety when caught, my natural thought would be people would be more cautious and more risk averse where anxiety is, or is likely be to be a factor - i.e the more anxious you are, the more effort you are likely to put in to check, double check, and triple check (even for severe cases leading to an irrational amount of checking).
I appreciate that isn't the case here, but it does lead me down a similar thought process because we also see this a lot 'I was unfamiliar so assumed' - when you get something in life, such as a product, or service - it normally comes out of someones pocket somewhere down the line. This is pretty universal knowledge - if a train runs, someone is paying for it to have the fuel, and the staff time to run it. So when you're in an environment, for which you are unfamiliar - how do we come to the conclusion that something that we think might be free, is free with such conviction that it's not worth checking first? Given that checking is probably quite straightforward in any case (look at any terms on the card, or quick google, or speak to someone etc). Could save a lot of headache
If you grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and dropped me into a subway or whatever in Japan, and give me some kind of railcard to use I'd be like 'nope not touching that until i know the crack'
Not having a dig, it's a legitimate curiosity.
I appreciate might be a little off topic, but if some remember what I said a few weeks ago with regards to the common reference to anxiety when caught, my natural thought would be people would be more cautious and more risk averse where anxiety is, or is likely be to be a factor - i.e the more anxious you are, the more effort you are likely to put in to check, double check, and triple check (even for severe cases leading to an irrational amount of checking).
I appreciate that isn't the case here, but it does lead me down a similar thought process because we also see this a lot 'I was unfamiliar so assumed' - when you get something in life, such as a product, or service - it normally comes out of someones pocket somewhere down the line. This is pretty universal knowledge - if a train runs, someone is paying for it to have the fuel, and the staff time to run it. So when you're in an environment, for which you are unfamiliar - how do we come to the conclusion that something that we think might be free, is free with such conviction that it's not worth checking first? Given that checking is probably quite straightforward in any case (look at any terms on the card, or quick google, or speak to someone etc). Could save a lot of headache
If you grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and dropped me into a subway or whatever in Japan, and give me some kind of railcard to use I'd be like 'nope not touching that until i know the crack'
Not having a dig, it's a legitimate curiosity.
Last edited:
I misread the initial bit about who got the free Oyster cards. The OP actually said she got them from her employer "for my sister and me".
That might have implied to the husband that any family member was entitled (they conceivably might be, but only if they got and used their own personal card)
With respect, only the OP's husband can answer that question and the truth can be stranger than anyone might imagine!
Yes. One will be a staff Oyster, the other a nominee Oyster.
And no, an Oyster card is only ever for one person (at a time).
I'm reading this as the OP is entitled to travel facilities through her employer and nominated her sister as a dependent due to the fact that her sister was here in the UK whereas her husband wasn't. It would otherwise be much more usual to nominate a spouse over a sibling.
So are we to understand the OP's husband the husband took, without permission, the sister's Oyster (with the sister's photo on it)?
That was very clear from the OP’s first post.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,905
Perhaps in other countries it is perfectly normal for tickets to be transferrable
Fair enough. But it's still not clear what involvement the (ticket-holder) sister had in allowing or encouraging this ticket's use by a third (forth?) party. How did the husband even learn of the existence (but clearly not the Conditions) of either Oyster?
Passenger123
Member
Is there a chance that if he pleads not guilty tfl drops the case? I believe ive seen this happen in the past on a previous post on the forum?
Tickets which are passes with people’s names and faces on?
Why on earth would it, when it has all the evidence it needs to ensure a conviction?
I think it's probably best you stick to your own thread rather than trying to provide advice for other people.
No, TfL will not drop the case with a not guilty plea. They have all the evidence they need and will have prosecuted hundreds of similar cases.
I'd say there is no chance of this. TfL have got the person bang to rights. They take misuse of staff passes very seriously and are unlikely to compromise.
- Status