Chiltern Fare Evasion Notice

[crossthetracks]

Hello all,
Hope everyone's well! Back on the 5th of December 2023, I attempted to skip the gate at Marylebone station and was caught by an employee of Chiltern Railways claiming to be an inspector of sorts. I attempted to calm the situation down but he was extremely aggressive. Asked me a number of questions about my ability to pay the fare (I can), produce a valid ticket (I couldn't) and was my intention to avoid paying the fair (it was).
Was pretty stressed at the time but given the time surpassed forgot about it until I received a letter in the post today which I have posted below. I'm finding it a little confusing, especially due to the last note concerning their investigation showing a potential for similar attempts and how they'd like to interview me.

Any advice would be appreciated on how to move forward.
Thank you so much!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2024 ==

The pack received

 

[notmyrealname]

I'm finding it hard to navigate your images but one of them reads as if they would like to talk to you about other instances of fare evasion.

Do you think they could have found other information on you?

 

[crossthetracks]

I may have skipped the gates in the past so it’s possible they could’ve found instances. I’ve also been a bit of a numpty when it comes to booking tickets and have refunded a number within the 15 allowance you get in Trainline when the wrong day or time has been booked mistakenly. So could be both instances tbh

 

[30907]

Very simply: you are being offered the choice of an out-of-court settlement (provided you fess up to everything, and are prepared to pay the fares you avoided - expect to be asked for the full Anytime fare) or prosecution for one offence under the Byelaws - so a relatively low-level offence.

Chiltern will get more money if you settle with them, and you will probably lose less than you would in court (and avoid a criminal conviction).

There is more than one current thread discussing this scenario with Chiltern - work reading.

 

[furlong]

Does anyone here have recent knowledge of Gerrards Cross station? Or perhaps the OP will be visiting the station again soon. In particular, it would be useful to see photos of the current yellow Penalty Fares posters at the station.

What was posted strikes me as rather muddled and including what looks like some unnecessary and incorrect information. (The person's name is also still visible at the top of some of the pages.)

1) Perhaps something has changed, but byelaw 18 did not used to apply at Gerrards Cross. (Rather, a different offence under Byelaw 17 would previously have been considered.) The photos of the posters would allow this to be clarified.

2) Buying a ticket at the destination station does not make it an invalid ticket. (Its only relevance to an offence allegedly committed at the start of the journey may be that the journey has now been paid for so there should be no compensation order other than costs.)

In practice, the interview can be avoided if you are basically admitting to everything wrong that they suspect you have done and you respond requesting a settlement along those lines.

 

[Hadders]

Essentially Chiltern is giving you a choice:

1. Co-operate with them, tell them about everything you've been up to and they will offer you an out of court settlement. You would have to pay them the cost of all the fares avoided at the full Anytime rate with no credit given for the tickets you did purchase, repay the refunds you obtained and pay them an admin cost to reflect the cost of Chiltern dealing with your case. In return Chiltern will withdraw court proceedings.

2. Let the matter proceed to court where Chiltern would prosecute you for the single case where you were caught. You would almost certainly be found guilty and would have to pay a fine based on your income, a surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine, compensation for the fare avoided and a contribution towards Chiltern's court costs. If you choose this route you would have a criminal conviction which could cause some difficulties in other areas of life (although convictions under the Railway Byelaws don't normally show on Standard DBS checks).

@furlong mentions a technical reason as to why a prosecution might not succeed but this is a very specialist area and if you were to go down this route I would recommend taking specialist advice (which would cost) and there is no guarantee of success.

 

[island]

Does anyone here have recent knowledge of Gerrards Cross station? Or perhaps the OP will be visiting the station again soon. In particular, it would be useful to see photos of the current yellow Penalty Fares posters at the station.

This is irrelevant. No posters are required to be displayed as a prerequisite to a prosecution.

1) Perhaps something has changed, but byelaw 18 did not used to apply at Gerrards Cross. (Rather, a different offence under Byelaw 17 would previously have been considered.) The photos of the posters would allow this to be clarified.

To my knowledge, Gerrards Cross has a compulsory ticket area.

There is no penalty for breaching National Rail Byelaw 17 other than being chucked out of the station.

 

[furlong]

This is irrelevant. No posters are required to be displayed as a prerequisite to a prosecution.
To my knowledge, Gerrards Cross has a compulsory ticket area.

The presence of posters stating that it is a compulsory ticket area is today what defines it as a compulsory ticket area.

“compulsory ticket area means any area designated as such under a Penalty Fares Scheme and identified by a notice to this effect."

If such posters are present then I'd suggest that the first condition for 18.1 "In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area," would not be met.

Conversely, if the posters are now missing, or they have swapped them to the version that doesn't mention that it's a CTA, then 18.1 could be used.

I hope Chiltern hasn't been routinely prosecuting under 18.1 for travel from stations that still have CTAs, or we could be looking at another category of potentially unsafe convictions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2024 ==

(Chiltern might have been expected to use RORA in this situation - the interview provides clear evidence of intent.)

 

[crossthetracks]

Thank you all so much for your responses, it’s been really helpful and much appreciated!

I emailed back asking for some clarity since I was a little confused as to whether I need to respond to the SJP and/or the letter for the interview and you were all correct. If I go to the interview and they’re satisfied then there may be no need to respond to the SJP and it gets dropped.

My main concern is the line stating ‘Given the nature of our concerns regarding your ticket purchasing history and/or refund claims history, we would like you to voluntarily attend an interview…’. They want to see my railcard to check journeys going back to 2021 and since I may have skipped unintentionally before I’m worried they may be trying to trap me.

With that in mind I think I’m safer (and will be less out of pocket) just pleading guilty to the single instance, however my concern here is of course the impact on my future. Can anyone further confirm this impact, if the conviction would appear on a background check and any other implications of having a record for this?

Thank you again so much in advance.

 

[crossthetracks]

I'm finding it hard to navigate your images but one of them reads as if they would like to talk to you about other instances of fare evasion.

Do you think they could have found other information on you?

I have skipped the gates in the past so it’s possible they could’ve found instances. I’ve also been a bit of a numpty when it comes to booking tickets and have refunded a number within the 15 allowance you get in Trainline when the wrong day or time has been booked mistakenly. So could be both instances tbh

 

[crossthetracks]

Essentially Chiltern is giving you a choice:

1. Co-operate with them, tell them about everything you've been up to and they will offer you an out of court settlement. You would have to pay them the cost of all the fares avoided at the full Anytime rate with no credit given for the tickets you did purchase, repay the refunds you obtained and pay them an admin cost to reflect the cost of Chiltern dealing with your case. In return Chiltern will withdraw court proceedings.

2. Let the matter proceed to court where Chiltern would prosecute you for the single case where you were caught. You would almost certainly be found guilty and would have to pay a fine based on your income, a surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine, compensation for the fare avoided and a contribution towards Chiltern's court costs. If you choose this route you would have a criminal conviction which could cause some difficulties in other areas of life (although convictions under the Railway Byelaws don't normally show on Standard DBS checks).

@furlong mentions a technical reason as to why a prosecution might not succeed but this is a very specialist area and if you were to go down this route I would recommend taking specialist advice (which would cost) and there is no guarantee of success.

Didn’t reply directly to your comment, Hadders, but am curious as to your opinion about the outcome further if I go down the SJP route

 

[gholamkabuj]

Thank you all so much for your responses, it’s been really helpful and much appreciated!

I emailed back asking for some clarity since I was a little confused as to whether I need to respond to the SJP and/or the letter for the interview and you were all correct. If I go to the interview and they’re satisfied then there may be no need to respond to the SJP and it gets dropped.

My main concern is the line stating ‘Given the nature of our concerns regarding your ticket purchasing history and/or refund claims history, we would like you to voluntarily attend an interview…’. They want to see my railcard to check journeys going back to 2021 and I’ve 100% done this before so think they may be trying to trap me.

With that in mind I think I’m safer (and will be less out of pocket) just pleading guilty to the single instance, however my concern here is of course the impact on my future. Can anyone further confirm this impact, if the conviction would appear on a background check and any other implications of having a record for this?

Thank you again so much in advance.

What is your end goal? If you would like to avoid a criminal conviction, you should cooperate with them. Write them an apology letter and express your willingness to rectify them. They have found other instances in which you haven't paid the correct fare, so they are trying to get the money back for those as well.

If you do these, it is likely that you don't need to attend an interview and they offer you an out-of-court settlement. It would be costly, but you would avoid a conviction (and the SJP would be dropped).

 

[AlterEgo]

With that in mind I think I’m safer (and will be less out of pocket) just pleading guilty to the single instance, however my concern here is of course the impact on my future. Can anyone further confirm this impact, if the conviction would appear on a background check and any other implications of having a record for this?

Thank you again so much in advance.

It depends on what you want to achieve. There is nothing preventing Chiltern from launching a civil claim for the fares for the 2021- historic offences (which works only on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt), if you plead guilty to the one offence and leave the rest unanswered. We haven't seen them do this, but it is a significant risk that will leave you both out of pocket and with a criminal conviction.

Chiltern are a private prosecutor and do not have access to or provide updates to the Police National Computer. Most prosecutions for fare evasion (like the Bylaw offences) are considered non-recordable offences meaning they are not captured on the Police National Computer. A conviction for fare evasion which is a criminal offence is recorded by HM Courts and Tribunal Service and is a matter of public record - for all time. As such, a person when asked to declare convictions for vetting or DBS purposes is obliged to declare them all whether recorded on the PNC or not and therefore this can impact them.

A conviction for a Bylaw offence should be spent after one year, but some jobs can legally demand you disclose unspent convictions too. Unlock is a charity which can help with this.

 

[Haywain]

but some jobs can legally demand you disclose unspent convictions too.

Minor, but important, amendment!

 

[AlterEgo]

Minor, but important, amendment!

Yes, my bad! Spent.

 

[jumble]

I think it is a tad unwise to be confessing on here especially as you have left your date of birth and the fact that you are male on one of the forms

 

[Hadders]

Didn’t reply directly to your comment, Hadders, but am curious as to your opinion about the outcome further if I go down the SJP route

If you plead guilty to the SJPN then you are convicted, and will have to pay a fine, surcharge, a contribution towards Chiltern's court socts and compensation for the fare avoided for your journey on the day you were caught.

If you plead not guilty to the SJPN then you will have to attend the Magistrates Court in person for a trial. If you do this then I assume you would be relying on the possibility of a technical defence as alluded to by @furlong This is a very technical area and for the defence to succeed it would need to be presented in quite a specific and legalistic way. If you are not used to dealing with this sort of thing then I would recommend engaging a solicitor who specialises in railway ticketing matters but they don't come cheap.

 

[bobby97]

Hi Crossthetracks.

I have had a similar incident and would appreciate if you could share

a) what happened at the interview?

b) what is the latest, is this resolved (and if so, how)?

Thanks

 

[30907]

Hi Crossthetracks.

As this person hasn't posted for 3 months they may well not see your message. You have already been advise to start your own thread for help.
EDIT - I see you have now done that, sorry!

 

[Bucksman]

After recently having lunch with my ex boss who works for CR, this forum cropped up and became the main topic of discussion.

I can confirm that the following station on CR have compulsory ticket areas only.
Compulsory ticket areas

South Ruislip
Birmingham Snow Hill
Harrow-on-the-Hill
Rickmansworth
Chorleywood
Chalfont & Latimer
Amersham

Most of these are TFL managed stations.
Hope this helps re CR and their CTA stations

 

[CyrusWuff]

After recently having lunch with my ex boss who works for CR, this forum cropped up and became the main topic of discussion.

I can confirm that the following station on CR have compulsory ticket areas only.
Compulsory ticket areas

South Ruislip
Birmingham Snow Hill
Harrow-on-the-Hill
Rickmansworth
Chorleywood
Chalfont & Latimer
Amersham

Most of these are TFL managed stations.
Hope this helps re CR and their CTA stations

Which raises two questions:

1) When did that change, given previously all of Chiltern's gated stations had CTAs; and
2) Have the PF Warning notices at the relevant stations been swapped for the non-CTA version?

 

[furlong]

I see two possible interpretations.

1) As I explained in post #5, it is solely the presence of the correct signage that defines a CTA now. I.e. as long as everything is consistent with the CTA specifications, it is a CTA.
If it looks like a CTA and smells like a CTA, then it is a CTA. This is the pragmatic view.

or

2a) There are no CTAs anywhere any more. They are now defined through a circular definition if you take the approach of (1), so you could take the alternative view that as there is no entry point to the definition, there cannot be any. No mechanism remains for a Penalty Fares Scheme to designate a CTA therefore there cannot be any. (Penalty Fares Schemes got abolished so CTAs disappeared with them, but if you attempt to carry that definition over to the regulations that replaced them, there is still no longer any way to designate one.)

2b) Similar to (2a) but arguing instead that the pre-existing CTAs were grandfathered into the new regulations at the time they came in (because they met the new definition at the time of transition, avoiding the circularity) but no further changes are possible. If the signage disappears, they remain CTAs but are unenforceable.

It's a mess.

 

[crossthetracks]

Hi Crossthetracks.

I have had a similar incident and would appreciate if you could share

a) what happened at the interview?

b) what is the latest, is this resolved (and if so, how)?

Thanks

Hey Bobby, hope you’re not stressing too much about this!

In my scenario I reached out to a relatively cheaper lawyer who requested a document outlining all my potential indiscretions and with a request they’d like to settle out of court. The document was pretty hard to argue with and they tallied up that plus Chilterns fees which came to about £800 or so, with the lawyer on top it came to around £1200 in the end and no criminal record. It was of course worth it for peace of mind.

I felt as though all the lawyer really did however was request the list which I could’ve done myself and saved on that cost. But if you want it to be handled neatly and with little to no intervention by yourself I’d probably still go with the lawyer.

Hope this helps but please do reach out if you need anything else! I’m sure it’ll be fine.

CtT