Bye law 18(1) & 18(2)

[Watershed]

You'd be surprised how many do keep tickets. I have seen people with a ton of tickets in a different wallet as I check the train. Not double standards asking. They are trying to give you a life line if you did keep it as proof.

It's absolutely double standards to insist on it as the "only" acceptable evidence of a ticket, when they have destroyed the evidence which would prove the OP's defence.

Nevertheless, morals don't come into this. The fact that Chiltern are acting unreasonably here doesn't help the OP with their legal position.

Unfortunately if the OP is unwilling to share verbatim copies of the correspondence it will be difficult for us to help them. We can only wish them luck in court.

 

[Egg Centric]

@Fritz300 is perfectly entitled to testify under oath that he/she did and the mags are entitled to believe this - and I'm less skeptical than the rest of you that they will if he/she comes across well. While pragmatically settiling may be the wiser thing to do for most risk tolerances I would fully understand if he/she absolutely refuses to give Chiltern a penny if he/she is in the right without taking this the full way. Their receipts are supportive of their position as is (if they're telling the truth) their presumed consistent story the whole way through with Chiltern.

Fritz how much have you got to lose?

 

[island]

@Fritz300 is perfectly entitled to testify under oath that he/she did and the mags are entitled to believe this - and I'm less skeptical than the rest of you that they will if he/she comes across well.

Whilst the magistrates may well believe the defendant, it does not follow that they will not convict them. We must recall that the offence charged is entering a train without having with them a valid ticket and failing to hand over a ticket for inspection. Even if the magistrates believe that the defendant paid for a valid ticket, they will, indeed must, convict them if the ticket was not in the defendant's physical possession upon joining the train and presented when a request was made.

As the OP continues to decline to provide the paperwork we cannot of course know whether the witness statements are adequate in that respect.

 

[pedr]

If the magistrates believe that it is more likely than not that the OP was given permission to join a train without a valid ticket then they should not convict because that is the defence under 18 (3). Now whether he can do that, and whether they understand the defence clearly enough to realise the thought process they should follow is perhaps another matter. I agree that proof of purchasing a ticket is almost irrelevant and is not at all enough to provide a defence. The only way it is relevant is to support the argument that it’s the sort of situation where a gate-line attendant or inspector might show discretion and tell someone they can travel, so it makes it marginally more likely. The OP’s own testimony as to what someone said to him is probably the only really significant evidence though, unless the railway employee can be identified.

This is about the available evidence and the magistrates’ assessment of it. If this is about a combination of reputation and a sense of justice for the OP, rather than financial, it would be sensible to hire a solicitor to take up the correspondence with the train company or make the submissions in court. They will be able to advise on, for instance, the possibility (and process) of trying to identify the person who the OP says gave permission and whether it’s worth seeking to get their testimony.

 

[dosxuk]

In most other cases a ticket is not deemed proof of purchase (Anyone can pick up discarded tickets from the floor) and a receipt is required as this is actual proof of purchase.

A receipt is proof that you spent money on a train ticket. It is not proof that you held a specific ticket, one that would have been valid at the time you were stopped.

Receipts and [valid] tickets are two different things. The possession of either does not imply that the existence of the other.

I could go to my local station now and buy a week season ticket starting from next week - obviously not valid to use straight away. However a reciept for that would look identical to one for a ticket that was valid to travel immediately. This is why, without proof of actually holding a valid ticket, Chiltern are entirely uninterested in your reciept or bank statements - all they do is prove you bought a ticket - not whether you had one that was valid for the journey you were stopped.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the magistrates believe that it is more likely than not that the OP was given permission to join a train without a valid ticket then they should not convict because that is the defence under 18 (3). Now whether he can do that, and whether they understand the defence clearly enough to realise the thought process they should follow is perhaps another matter. I agree that proof of purchasing a ticket is almost irrelevant and is not at all enough to provide a defence. The only way it is relevant is to support the argument that it’s the sort of situation where a gate-line attendant or inspector might show discretion and tell someone they can travel, so it makes it marginally more likely. The OP’s own testimony as to what someone said to him is probably the only really significant evidence though, unless the railway employee can be identified.

The counter evidence is of course Chiltern explaining how revenue works at Marylebone, and that their member of staff wouldn't allow a customer to board without a ticket in their possession to come across such trouble. They might point to the very many cases they take to court or settle every year, and explain how unlikely it is that such a conversation took place. They might explain how the railway has a very clear policy of asking the customer to buy a ticket for their journey and claiming a refund on production of the season ticket - it's even written down and a TnC of the season ticket - and the customer would be advised to do that. They may show there are X number of times the barrier was left open at the origin station owing to a lack of staff cover; Chiltern may even be able to evidence that at the specific time of day the OP claims to have boarded, the barrier was open. Chiltern may point out that anyone can pass the barrier with a contactless bank card.

There are so many things the train company can say here which puts the argument over what happened into "it's anyone's guess" and the OP will be convicted.

Ultimately, the concealment of the paperwork/witness statements/correspondence from people who are being asked to help, the OP's determination to go to court, plus Chiltern's unusual hardball style here in what is being presented to us as a fairly simple case, leads me to suspect their is important additional context which would be revealed in that correspondence which the OP does not wish the forum to see. We can't help - whether it is finding a fatal flaw in the company's evidence, or absolute proof of a defence they can use, or advising that the OP's case is fatally undermined by an additional and as yet unrevealed fact - unless we do actually see all of that.

The OP's on their own. Best of luck.

 

[Falcon1200]

A receipt is proof that you spent money on a train ticket. It is not proof that you held a specific ticket

Indeed, nor is it proof that the ticket was not actually being used by another person - Although clearly that was not the case here.

What is so wrong is the OP being allowed onto the train as per Post #1, surely the staff there know what happens at the barriers at Marylebone and that the OP would have difficulty there, as was the case - Unless they phoned ahead to let Marylebone know?

 

[IanMac]

I used to travel with Chiltern's predecessor (in pre-barrier times) using weekly tickets so I am interested in this case.

It seems to me that there are lessons here for others:

1) if you have to ask permission to travel because you have forgotten/mislaid/lost your valid ticket, ask for that permission to be given in writing; if that is refused, pay the fare and reclaim the cost after the event;

2) if that permission is duly provided but will need to be surrendered at the end of the journey, ask the permitter for a copy which you can retain as evidence if required subsequently; and if that is refused, pay the fare and reclaim the cost after the event;

3) if you ever encounter a payment incident when you hold a valid ticket, and you provide identification, retain that ticket for no less than 6 months after expiry.

 

[John R]

The other strange thing about this case is why Chiltern has apparently marked its correspondence “Strictly Confidential”. I’m not sure we’ve seen this before, and I cannot understand why it would do so, and in what way it feels it is protecting its position.

 

[AlterEgo]

The other strange thing about this case is why Chiltern has apparently marked its correspondence “Strictly Confidential”. I’m not sure we’ve seen this before, and I cannot understand why it would do so, and in what way it feels it is protecting its position.

I expect this is standard for Chiltern, who have done it before when simply offering a settlement: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...by-avoid-pay-full-ticket.270835/#post-7156223

 

[John R]

I expect this is standard for Chiltern, who have done it before when simply offering a settlement: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...by-avoid-pay-full-ticket.270835/#post-7156223

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

 

[Tarquin88]

Obviously, we are limited on what we can do without copies of the correspondence. In #4, OP refers to "back in August 2024" and in #13 to receiving a letter 2 months later in early October and hearing nothing until this week (original post was yesterday so presumably received then, 17th February).

Is it possible that the incident took place between (say) Thursday 1st August and (say) Wednesday 14th August with the SJN being obtained more than 6 months after the incident - and therefore invalid?

 

[AlterEgo]

Obviously, we are limited on what we can do without copies of the correspondence. In #4, OP refers to "back in August 2024" and in #13 to receiving a letter 2 months later in early October and hearing nothing until this week (original post was yesterday so presumably received then, 17th February).

Is it possible that the incident took place between (say) Thursday 1st August and (say) Wednesday 14th August with the SJN being obtained more than 6 months after the incident - and therefore invalid?

This is a possibility, but Chiltern's general strategy has been to issue SJPNs correctly, just before the deadline (and sometimes even alongside an invitation to settle). Seeing a copy of the correspondence would be helpful, as we would tell when the information was laid at the court. This is another avenue of having the court case thrown out - that they have failed to issue proceedings in time.

As it stands, I think if the OP is minded to take this to court, I might consider a solicitor - who may be able to suggest calling a witness or identifying who gave the permission. However, on the flip side, I doubt any witness will, even under oath, be able to recall with any certainty some occasion in August last year where someone had a receipt and not a ticket. That person will have dealt with about 10,000 people since then.

 

[Fritz300]

@Fritz300 is perfectly entitled to testify under oath that he/she did and the mags are entitled to believe this - and I'm less skeptical than the rest of you that they will if he/she comes across well. While pragmatically settiling may be the wiser thing to do for most risk tolerances I would fully understand if he/she absolutely refuses to give Chiltern a penny if he/she is in the right without taking this the full way. Their receipts are supportive of their position as is (if they're telling the truth) their presumed consistent story the whole way through with Chiltern.

Fritz how much have you got to lose?

Will I be asked to testify under oath or would I have to request this? It’s certainly something I would be prepared to do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Feb 2025 ==

Obviously, we are limited on what we can do without copies of the correspondence. In #4, OP refers to "back in August 2024" and in #13 to receiving a letter 2 months later in early October and hearing nothing until this week (original post was yesterday so presumably received then, 17th February).

Is it possible that the incident took place between (say) Thursday 1st August and (say) Wednesday 14th August with the SJN being obtained more than 6 months after the incident - and therefore invalid?

I received the SJN 5 days before 6months was up

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Feb 2025 ==

Just commenting generally, you have my sympathy with what has happened and the way you have been treated by some parts of the railway.

If you do pursue this to court I hope you can update the thread with a summon what happens.

I think that would be of interest to forum regulars and future people with problems.

We don’t often get reports from court as most people get settlements with advice from here, or have cases with little hope other than a prosecution where they will be found guilty and don’t return to the forum having not heard what they want to hear.

I will update

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Feb 2025 ==

Welcome to the forum!

As others have said we cannot give proper advice without seeing the paperwork. If you can upload a redacted copy of all the paperwork then forum members are in a much better place to be able to advise.

As things currently stand you are guilty of an offence under Railway Byelaw 18.2. If the matter ends up in court then you will be found guilty. However harsh it sounds, the Magistrates can only judge the case based on what the law says, and you were unable to hand over a valid ticket when asked to do so.

If an authorised person gave you permission to travel then this is a defence. The issue you have is demonstrating that this did take place. Who were they? What was their name? Did they give you anything authorising travel? How would you describe them etc are the sort of thing I would expect to be able to show if you were going to demonstrate that you had permission to travel.

Your previous purchase history isn't a defence. Frustrating certainly, but it's like saying I'm sorry I've been caught speeding I obeyed the limit for years every time I've driven down this road.

Season ticket usually require an accompanying photocard. It might be different for a weekly season ticket but there should be a record that the season ticket links to the photocard number. This is the forst thing I would be asking Chiltern to check in addition to showing the receipt (does the receipt give the photocard number by any chance?)

It's a shame that you didn't seek our advice back wheb Chiltern first contacted you, but we are where we are. If you want to keep this out of court then it might be worth considering employing a solicitor who specialises in rail fare evasion. They don't come cheap but they will probably have a better chance of getting Chiltern to look at the case again.

Although I don’t have a name of the ticket inspector at Wycombe I would definitely recognise him. Is there a way of getting any records of ticket officers on duty that day and whether any of them were based at Wycombe at the time? I understand a ticket officer would probably just claim they do not recall anything but it would certainly help to have proof that ticket officers were actually on duty at that time.

 

[Fritz300]

Just to try and sum up a bit for the time being. I certainly have no desire to go to court.

I was firstly let down by the system on 2 separate occasions by the ticket officers at both Wycombe and Marylebone who either advised me incorrectly or failed to follow procedures. This left me in the sense that all I would had to do should anything be followed up was to prove I did have a ticket to the relevant authorities as I had done so with the 2 ticket inspectors via receipt and bank statements both of whom had acted reasonably satisfied with my explanation.

A letter was then received regarding a fine. I went on to explain the situation that occurred. This then turned into a dispute around being able to produce the actual ticket, the contents of follow up emails suggested that by producing the actual ticket then the case would be closed. For me this was all still a dispute around whether I had actually bought a ticket and I was not going to pay a fine when I had proof in the form of receipt and a bank statement. Again the case went quiet for 3 months until the SJN arrived charging me with 18(1) and 18(2).

 

[AlterEgo]

I was firstly let down by the system on 2 separate occasions by the ticket officers at both Wycombe and Marylebone who either advised me incorrectly or failed to follow procedures.

Agreed. The first one hasn't followed procedure, the second one effectively does not believe the first one would be so daft as to authorise travel, so reports you.

This left me in the sense that all I would had to do should anything be followed up was to prove I did have a ticket to the relevant authorities as I had done so with the 2 ticket inspectors via receipt and bank statements both of whom had acted reasonably satisfied with my explanation.

The second one clearly was not satisfied, because they reported you. They might have seemed genial at the time - they work in roles where people can blow up at them - but if they were satisfied you'd been given authority to travel, they would have no grounds to report you.

A letter was then received regarding a fine. I went on to explain the situation that occurred. This then turned into a dispute around being able to produce the actual ticket, the contents of follow up emails suggested that by producing the actual ticket then the case would be closed.

The train company wants the ticket, and not unreasonably so, to be fair. You were written up for not having a valid ticket having left it at home, and so it would have made sense for you to keep it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it seems odd to dispose of it with that hanging over you. A court might ask why you'd throw it away. You have a receipt for a purchase, but not the ticket. The company wants to satisfy itself that you have the ticket, could not have sold it on, or bought it for yourself for a future date, or refunded it or any other number of things one can do with a paper ticket. That's why the actual ticket is important. Notably, producing the ticket after the fact does not mean you haven't committed an offence (your defence here is actually that you were given authority to travel by staff). Chiltern seem to have been looking for grounds to cancel proceedings based on the idea that, to be honest, if you'd done the "proper" thing and bought a ticket for the day and refunded it on production of your season ticket, as per the conditions, no harm done to them.

For me this was all still a dispute around whether I had actually bought a ticket and I was not going to pay a fine when I had proof in the form of receipt and a bank statement. Again the case went quiet for 3 months until the SJN arrived charging me with 18(1) and 18(2).

Ok, so, they will have offered to settle out of court. This isn't a fine (although it will feel like one!) and, while we haven't seen anything that was said, this - at heart - isn't a dispute about whether you have bought a ticket or not, it is whether you boarded a train without it and whether you have a defence to that; the defences are narrow and laid out in the Bylaw itself.

Your issue is quite simple. You need to prove to a Court's satisfaction that you were given permission to board that train and will have no evidence at all to substantiate that other than your own word. This is not about what is true and what is not; it's about what evidence you have to support your defence, which is, in fact, almost none I'm afraid. (For what it's worth, we see a lot of people here telling fibs, and on balance, I am inclined to believe your account!)

Chiltern merely need to show that you had boarded the train, could not show a valid ticket, and will even introduce your own statements where you will repeat the material fact that no, you did not have a valid ticket, against you - as evidence. This is very easy for them to do. The burden is on you to evidence your defence.

Now, some people enjoy the combative nature of going to court, and frankly I have no time for the train companies who I think should wind their neck in most of the time, and I like to see them being given a bloody nose now and again. But if your reputation is what is important here, along with the sheer financial cost of being found guilty, I think it would be remiss of us not to advise that the cards are not stacked in your favour here. You might win in court if you get a bench who like you and are compelled by you, but there is certainly no guarantee of that and I think you have less than a 50% chance of winning. If it were me, I would settle for the amount they offered, and instead appeal to my MP and the press. It will feel rotten for a while, but if the principle matters, you still have other avenues available to make it good later.

 

[Fritz300]

Agreed. The first one hasn't followed procedure, the second one effectively does not believe the first one would be so daft as to authorise travel, so reports you.


The second one clearly was not satisfied, because they reported you. They might have seemed genial at the time - they work in roles where people can blow up at them - but if they were satisfied you'd been given authority to travel, they would have no grounds to report you.


The train company wants the ticket, and not unreasonably so, to be fair. You were written up for not having a valid ticket having left it at home, and so it would have made sense for you to keep it. Hindsight is 20/20, but it seems odd to dispose of it with that hanging over you. A court might ask why you'd throw it away. You have a receipt for a purchase, but not the ticket. The company wants to satisfy itself that you have the ticket, could not have sold it on, or bought it for yourself for a future date, or refunded it or any other number of things one can do with a paper ticket. That's why the actual ticket is important. Notably, producing the ticket after the fact does not mean you haven't committed an offence (your defence here is actually that you were given authority to travel by staff). Chiltern seem to have been looking for grounds to cancel proceedings based on the idea that, to be honest, if you'd done the "proper" thing and bought a ticket for the day and refunded it on production of your season ticket, as per the conditions, no harm done to them.


Ok, so, they will have offered to settle out of court. This isn't a fine (although it will feel like one!) and, while we haven't seen anything that was said, this - at heart - isn't a dispute about whether you have bought a ticket or not, it is whether you boarded a train without it and whether you have a defence to that; the defences are narrow and laid out in the Bylaw itself.

Your issue is quite simple. You need to prove to a Court's satisfaction that you were given permission to board that train and will have no evidence at all to substantiate that other than your own word. This is not about what is true and what is not; it's about what evidence you have to support your defence, which is, in fact, almost none I'm afraid. (For what it's worth, we see a lot of people here telling fibs, and on balance, I am inclined to believe your account!)

Chiltern merely need to show that you had boarded the train, could not show a valid ticket, and will even introduce your own statements where you will repeat the material fact that no, you did not have a valid ticket, against you - as evidence. This is very easy for them to do. The burden is on you to evidence your defence.

Now, some people enjoy the combative nature of going to court, and frankly I have no time for the train companies who I think should wind their neck in most of the time, and I like to see them being given a bloody nose now and again. But if your reputation is what is important here, along with the sheer financial cost of being found guilty, I think it would be remiss of us not to advise that the cards are not stacked in your favour here. You might win in court if you get a bench who like you and are compelled by you, but there is certainly no guarantee of that and I think you have less than a 50% chance of winning. If it were me, I would settle for the amount they offered, and instead appeal to my MP and the press. It will feel rotten for a while, but if the principle matters, you still have other avenues available to make it good later.

Thank you, I very much appreciate your time and advice. I can clearly see I’m in a sticky situation and that’s even more frustrating when I am telling the truth. I sort out two separate ticket officers, the first allowed me access and the second never going down the procedural route of explaining that I needed to buy a ticket then and there. By going down the ‘appears satisfied’ with my on the spot evidence he was enhancing my belief given to me by the officer at Wycombe that I was doing no wrong. Both had an opportunity to say ‘no, you must buy another ticket now’. I would never had boarded the train in the first place.

So if I now plea guilty I still receive a fine and a criminal record? If I plea not guilty but am subsequently found guilty what will the costs/fees/fine increase by?

 

[30907]

and the second never going down the procedural route of explaining that I needed to buy a ticket then and there.

You misunderstand: you needed to have bought the ticket before boarding at High Wycombe; staff member #2 was quite correct. Anyway...

So if I now plea guilty I still receive a fine and a criminal record?

Yes, but it is for a low-level offence which will not have a huge impact on your life

If I plea not guilty but am subsequently found guilty what will the costs/fees/fine increase by?

You will lose the discount (1/3?) of the fine which you get for pleading guilty straight away.

 

[Hadders]

If you plead guilty, or are found guilty following a trial then you will have to pay:

- a fine based on your income, normally discounted by a third if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity
- a surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- compensation for the fare avoided
- a contribution towards Chiltern's costs (this is likely to be higher if it goes to trial and Chiltern staff have to attend court)

A byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction which for most purposes would be considered spent after a year. Byelaw convictions aren't normally recorded in the Police National Computer and therefore won't normally show on Basic or Standard DBS checks. That said, a conviction is a matter of public record and information about convictions can come to light in other ways and it is possible that details of it could be disclosed on Enhanced DBS checks. It is always best to be honest if you are asked if you have a conviction. AI wouldn't expect a conviction for a minor railway ticketing matter won't adversely impact career prospects if it is disclosed appropriately.

 

[Egg Centric]

Thank you, I very much appreciate your time and advice. I can clearly see I’m in a sticky situation and that’s even more frustrating when I am telling the truth. I sort out two separate ticket officers, the first allowed me access and the second never going down the procedural route of explaining that I needed to buy a ticket then and there. By going down the ‘appears satisfied’ with my on the spot evidence he was enhancing my belief given to me by the officer at Wycombe that I was doing no wrong. Both had an opportunity to say ‘no, you must buy another ticket now’. I would never had boarded the train in the first place.

So if I now plea guilty I still receive a fine and a criminal record? If I plea not guilty but am subsequently found guilty what will the costs/fees/fine increase by?

For absolute clarity - while we can't be sure without seeing the paperwork it's highly likely you can settle this out of court still if you do wish to "roll over" rather than risk the mags. If this is going how it usually does, pleading guilty is the worst option at this point; if you don't want to take it to court then you should be trying to settle all the way up to the "court steps".

 

[some bloke]

Please be very wary of pleading guilty - telling the court and Chiltern you acted without permission when it's not true.

Two possible ways forward are to:

- Keep trying to get them to drop the case. You can pay a solicitor £5, and £2 per copy, to witness a statutory declaration ("sworn statement") that your story is true, and send that to Chiltern to show you are serious and will if necessary tell the court the story in person. Of course indicating a plea of not guilty implies you will do that anyway, but they might take you more seriously if you make the declaration. You could also get one or more character witnesses to write statements, witnessed or not, about your honesty.

- Try for a settlement.

If it comes to it, you could go to the court building early, ask staff where the prosecutor is and try to meet them before the case is called, with a view to persuading them to ask the court to drop it, or persuading them to settle.

What does the correspondence say about a deadline for your response to the SJP notice?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

If you're worried about posting supposedly confidential correspondence on here, you can ask Chiltern if they mind. Your posts on here come across as honest, so it seems unlikely that Chiltern reading them would harm your case. And if you upload what you sent, that may help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

People use the term "criminal record" in different ways.

A byelaw conviction is officially classed as not "recordable", ie not (in these circumstances at least) to be recorded on the "Police National Computer" database.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

The "confidential" thing may be to deter other people who come across the information from spreading it, not least in order to protect you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

If you search for threads on here mentioning Chiltern, you'll find instances where people have uploaded the correspondence. Rather than risk going against them if you ask and they refuse, you could consider that a lot of what they've written to you is what they're in effect proposing to say in open court anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Feb 2025 ==

I'm not convinced you can rely heavily on the idea of a standard process. The conditions only say that where a fare has been charged companies may refund it, not that you won't be reported for possible prosecution.

 

[Cantab26]

You can pay a solicitor £5, and £2 per copy, to witness a statutory declaration ("sworn statement") that your story is true,

A number of things wrong with this:

• Statutory declarations are administered, not witnessed, by solicitors (and certain other categories of people)
• They are not sworn statements - the whole point of them is that it is not necessary to swear at all
• The fee of £5 is for the administration only
• Copies are not charged at £2: there is no entitlement to a copy which would be charged at whatever rate is agreed. I would normally charge for the time taken to produce the copy and the cost of the consumables used
• They are not generally admissible as evidence in court proceedings because they foul the rule against hearsay - it would need to be a written witness statement that complies with the relevant legal formalities (which a statutory declaration does not) in order to guarantee that it would be admissible

and send that to Chiltern to show you are serious and will if necessary tell the court the story in person.

This misunderstands the point of such documents i.e. they are used so that it is not actually necessary for oral evidence to be given.

You could also get one or more character witnesses to write statements, witnessed or not, about your honesty.

Hearsay - inadmissible.

 

[island]

Indeed. I fear the post 51 exhibits a fundamental misconception that a statutory declaration is some kind of “super serious” way of making a statement. I would recommend the OP disregard that paragraph in its entirety.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

For absolute clarity - while we can't be sure without seeing the paperwork it's highly likely you can settle this out of court still if you do wish to "roll over" rather than risk the mags. If this is going how it usually does, pleading guilty is the worst option at this point; if you don't want to take it to court then you should be trying to settle all the way up to the "court steps".

Practically speaking, a courteous letter or email to Chiltern before you reply to the SJPN asking if it might be possible to settle this matter out of court might be enough to get them to send you an offer to settle. I don't think anyone has said it explicitly (although it's certainly implicit) but while an out of court settlement will cost money, it avoids the reputational/DBS/ etc. issues of a court conviction.

 

[AlterEgo]

Practically speaking, a courteous letter or email to Chiltern before you reply to the SJPN asking if it might be possible to settle this matter out of court might be enough to get them to send you an offer to settle. I don't think anyone has said it explicitly (although it's certainly implicit) but while an out of court settlement will cost money, it avoids the reputational/DBS/ etc. issues of a court conviction.

Chiltern have already offered to settle - this is what the OP means by "a fine". It is never usually too late to recant and try to take them up on their offer, although as we saw in a case last year, Chiltern's costs may have risen since the original offer and this may be reflected in the settlement.

 

[JordR]

I still don't think the OP has posted the actual correspondence. Worth saying that regardless of Chiltern marking it 'confidential' they can't unilaterally apply a duty of confidentiality to you. You can give copies of it to anyone you like.

 

[Fritz300]

Hundreds of train fare evasion cases quashed after unlawful prosecutions

A final batch of 500 cases have been quashed after tens of thousands were declared void last year. It comes after railway companies prosecuted passengers using the controversial single justice procedure - which they weren't allowed to do.

news.sky.com

Any opinions on this and how this may effect cases, in particular mine?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hundreds of train fare evasion cases quashed after unlawful prosecutions

A final batch of 500 cases have been quashed after tens of thousands were declared void last year. It comes after railway companies prosecuted passengers using the controversial single justice procedure - which they weren't allowed to do.

news.sky.com

Any opinions on this and how this may affect cases, in particular mine?

It’s hard to say unless we see the paperwork! But in general terms the issue with those convictions is that they were charging an offence under SJPN that cannot be charged under that mechanism because the offence carries a (theoretical) term of imprisonment. This court case actually originated in part in this area of the forum.

If you are being charged with a Bylaw offence then SJPN is entirely correct procedure and the cases there have no bearing on yours.

 

[eoff]

I still don't think the OP has posted the actual correspondence. Worth saying that regardless of Chiltern marking it 'confidential' they can't unilaterally apply a duty of confidentiality to you. You can give copies of it to anyone you like.

Presumably that correspondence includes some statement suggesting legal advice is obtained, pretty hard to do if the information can't be shared.

 

[John R]

Presumably that correspondence includes some statement suggesting legal advice is obtained, pretty hard to do if the information can't be shared.

You can always share information with your lawyer.