I've been sent a TFL verification letter.

[Hadders]

Should I get a solicitor or should I just deal with this myself? I am very worried about a criminal record, it will affect my life very badly and I still have not even begun my career yet. I have medical records showing my mental health issues. I can also get character references. But will this be something that would even be considered by iap. I'm been very distressed by all this.

Only you can answer this question. A solicitor cannot change what happened on the day and they cannot change the mitigating factors but they might be able to present your case to TfL in a better way than you can do yourself. Against that you've got to realise that solicitors are not cheap and if TfL do decide to prosecute you will still have to pay the solicitors costs as well as the fine and other costs imposed by the court.

A conviction for a minor railway ticketing matter should not adversely impact career opportunities.

 

[furlong]

I detect a bit of confusion here. A warning from TfL would certainly count as an out-of-court disposal - such a matter is settled out-of-court ergo it can legitimately be referred to as an out-of-court settlement! What TfL doesn't do is make out-of-court settlements conditional upon the payment of arbitrarily invented admin fees!

As others have said, it is crucial that TfL retains and reviews the CCTV (irrespective of which offence they pick) and your asking for a copy of that ought to be enough to make sure they do so. I have noticed that wide gates can be rather slow to respond to a second card presented rapidly after the first one while open, reducing the throughput of gate for people who correctly wait to make sure their card is properly acknowledged.

 

[Turtle]

View attachment 161922

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2024 ==

Please help me, I don't know what to do regarding this situation.

On a general point here, am I the only person who finds this a quite extraordinarily worded letter to receive regarding an alleged offence. To me it is redolent of an inquistorial system of justice. The letter does not specify the type of alleged offence and effectively asks the recipient to possibly incriminate themselves.
Is this normal procedure? Does it not violate the principle, under English law, of the right of the accused to remain silent?
Is this normal TfL procedure?
I stress again that this a general point of law that I am raising rather than the specific details of this case.

 

[AlterEgo]

The letter does not specify the type of alleged offence and effectively asks the recipient to possibly incriminate themselves.
Is this normal procedure? Does it not violate the principle, under English law, of the right of the accused to remain silent?

How would it violate that principle? There is no compulsion to reply.

 

[WesternLancer]

On a general point here, am I the only person who finds this a quite extraordinarily worded letter to receive regarding an alleged offence. To me it is redolent of an inquistorial system of justice. The letter does not specify the type of alleged offence and effectively asks the recipient to possibly incriminate themselves.
Is this normal procedure? Does it not violate the principle, under English law, of the right of the accused to remain silent?
Is this normal TfL procedure?
I stress again that this a general point of law that I am raising rather than the specific details of this case.

Yes, this has been remarked on before ref these TFL standard letters - you could reply and say 'thanks for your letter, I'm sorry I left an empty crisp packed on xx station platform' or some such. It would hardly seem to be beyond a reasonable expectation to insert the alleged offence in a title line on the letter to me - and add the costs for doing that to the court costs requested of course.

 

[Turtle]

Yes, this has been remarked on before ref these TFL standard letters - you could reply and say 'thanks for your letter, I'm sorry I left an empty crisp packed on xx station platform' or some such. It would hardly seem to be beyond a reasonable expectation to insert the alleged offence in a title line on the letter to me - and add the costs for doing that to the court costs requested of course.

Quite.
The most sensible response would be something along the lines of:
"Thank you for your letter. Before replying I would welcome a detailed description of the alleged incident."

 

[John R]

Quite.
The most sensible response would be something along the lines of:
"Thank you for your letter. Before replying I would welcome a detailed description of the alleged incident."

Really? Go back to the first post and you will see that the OP knows perfectly well what the incident was on that day, and TfL knows that they know.

So all that will do is antagonise the investigator who will be making a recommendation as whether to prosecute.

 

[gwr_tfl]

Quite.
The most sensible response would be something along the lines of:
"Thank you for your letter. Before replying I would welcome a detailed description of the alleged incident."

I would agree with this, it just gives you more understanding of what exactly you have been reported for. Some officers may say one thing, in the report they may say something different. It gives enough time to request bodycam footage so that everything is fair.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2024 ==

Really? Go back to the first post and you will see that the OP knows perfectly well what the incident was on that day, and TfL knows that they know.

So all that will do is antagonise the investigator who will be making a recommendation as whether to prosecute.

Why would the officers who stopped me tell me that they would say that I was cooperative and that I made a mistake and thought that I had tapped? Why would he also tell me that I can touch my card again and remind me to touch out when I complete journey? Its been over week since this has happened, I cannot remember perfectly well what happen on the day, but asking exactly what you've been reported for should not antagonise the investigator. Theres always 2 sides to a story and everyone has a right to say what happened from their pov.

 

[30907]

Theres always 2 sides to a story and everyone has a right to say what happened from their pov.

As you have, as TfL have asked, unless there was a separate incident that day.
A clear account of what you believe happened (ignoring the inspector's words) should help your case.
I agree that the letter should be more specific, even mentioning the station would narrow it down.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why would the officers who stopped me tell me that they would say that I was cooperative and that I made a mistake and thought that I had tapped?

Because that is what you told them, but it is not likely to be very relevant. If they charge you with being in a compulsory ticket area without a ticket this is basically a strict liability offence and your intent becomes irrelevant, like a police officer accepting you didn't mean to be doing 40mph in a 30 zone while writing you up.

Why would he also tell me that I can touch my card again and remind me to touch out when I complete journey? Its been over week since this has happened

Because he was not giving you a Penalty Fare (which acts as the fare for your journey) and instead decided to dispose of this by reporting you for prosecution, therefore you still had to pay your fare if you wanted to travel.

 

[gwr_tfl]

Moderator Note - this post has been moved into the main thread discussing @gwr_tfl 's case to keep all discussion in one thread.

@Rr123 @tiago1234

Can you guys advice me please.

I need some advice. I was caught tailgating a few weeks ago. I followed behind a friend. Got stopped by officers, complied with them. They said they will mention in report that I was complaint and that this was an accident and I thought I tapped my card. I was then allowed to tap on the reader and they told me to make sure I tap out when I finish my journey.
I do have pre existing mental health conditions. I am also a young carer and was in a rush home as I was running late after hanging out with a few friends. I have evidence of this too. I also have character references too.
I really dont want criminal record, I am very worried. I am a university student and oldest in family and this would ruin my whole career if I am convicted. Do you think I may be alright. With your case, what evidence did you supply to mitigate your situation?

 

[island]

Have you sent a reply to the TfL letter yet?

 

[gwr_tfl]

Have you sent a reply to the TfL letter yet?

not yet, I've been very ill, I plan on sending it this week

 

[island]

not yet, I've been very ill, I plan on sending it this week

That's what you need to do, without delay.

 

[gwr_tfl]

UPDATE.

Guys I have received a letter from TFL. They disposed of the matter by means of a warning. I have not been fined and will not get a criminal conviction. I have learnt a great lesson that will stay with me for my life.

Thank you to all who had helped me. I appreciate all the responses and advice that was given.

 

[notmyrealname]

That sounds like great news for you. With the experts' help you've done well.

Best wishes for the future.

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for updating us. You have been very fortunate here, we don't hear many cases of TfL giving warnings

 

[WesternLancer]

Good start to the bank holiday weekend!

 

[30907]

Thanks for updating us. You have been very fortunate here, we don't hear many cases of TfL giving warnings

It may have helped that the OP had attempted to tap in/ thought they had tapped in while apparently tailgating?

 

[Adam Williams]

It may have helped that the OP had attempted to tap in/ thought they had tapped in while apparently tailgating?

I've said this before but the bi-directional WAGs are really quite poorly designed and it is very possible to accidentally do this. Your physical card can make contact with the reader and not actually be read if you don't leave it there long enough, but the barrier can remain open. I say this because I've done it completely by accident on one occasion (in a busy station, with high passenger throughout and headphones on) and was charged a maximum fare. It doesn't happen with the other gates.

I would hope TfL are aware of the poor work their supplier Cubic has delivered here, and take this into consideration when looking at the facts of cases like these. It may be a strict liability matter, but there really should be a consideration as to whether there is any public interest in a pursuit of a prosecution.

A good result for OP.