Help. TIL is charging me to court!!

[island]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

 

[kefty]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

Thank you once again. I should just plead guilty and pay the fines.
I'm scared I might complicate this further as I'm not very confident.
And i can't afford to pay a representative.
The only worry about a guilty plea is the criminal record.

Also, my wife is not working. She hasn't worked since March 2024. How would her fines be calculated?

Thank you.

 

[Hadders]

Pleading guilty is most straightforward way of dealing with this. Read what I put in post #45, option 1. The fine will be based on your weekly income, I think they will assume £220 for your wife if she's not working (others forum members will know and correct e if I'm wrong).

The court will allow what you owe to be paid in installments if you engage with them.

You could consider option 3 but this is higher-risk and would potentially mean a larger fine if this was unsuccessful.

 

[island]

I think they will assume £220 for your wife if she's not working (others forum members will know and correct e if I'm wrong).

It's £120 weekly income, which will be reduced by a third for a guilty plea, then take a half of it for this offence's guideline, and add back 40% surcharge, which I think gets you to £56.

For the OP who is working, in round sum terms it's about half your weekly income.

Costs and compensation, which will be detailed in the court paperwork, to be added to both.

 

[Haywain]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence. The intial act of pleading not guilty and explaining on the form that you did not commit the offence does not require legal advice and I am sure that the courts will receive such depositions on a daily basis. The argument that once your case reaches the court you may require some legal assistance to present your case does have some merit, but I would expect that if it reaches this stage you will not need a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion matters, just a general criminal lawyer who understands court procedures and can put the simple case concerned. If you are unsure about how to proceed, I would recommend that you look to arrange a consultation with a local criminal lawyer prior to submitting your plea - I believe you can often get a free initial consultation and sometimes this will may all the advice you need. If you then need to engage them for representation they are likely to be considerably cheaper than a specialist.

 

[furlong]

I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence.

I agree. Take it one step at a time. (I reckon it's more likely they'd offer to settle out of court than mess the court around trying to bring a new charge.)

 

[AlterEgo]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence. The intial act of pleading not guilty and explaining on the form that you did not commit the offence does not require legal advice and I am sure that the courts will receive such depositions on a daily basis. The argument that once your case reaches the court you may require some legal assistance to present your case does have some merit, but I would expect that if it reaches this stage you will not need a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion matters, just a general criminal lawyer who understands court procedures and can put the simple case concerned. If you are unsure about how to proceed, I would recommend that you look to arrange a consultation with a local criminal lawyer prior to submitting your plea - I believe you can often get a free initial consultation and sometimes this will may all the advice you need. If you then need to engage them for representation they are likely to be considerably cheaper than a specialist.

I also agree with this.

The OP is not farting about here - they are entitled to, and indeed should plead not guilty to the offence. They are demonstrably not guilty of it. If they end up being convicted of the “correct” offence (for which they would also be allowed to plead guilty if it got that far) they would still receive the same discount on the fine. The court could not take the view that their time has been wasted, because the OP is doing this in good faith and is making a plea consummate with the actual facts of the matter. They won’t penalise you for “messing them about”. This sort of thing is important.

 

[island]

I do not share the view of @Hadders and @island and I would not recommend that you plead guilty to an offence that you have clearly not committed, just because you would be found guilty of a different offence.

I have not at any time recommended doing such a thing.

 

[kefty]

Ok t

I also agree with this.

The OP is not farting about here - they are entitled to, and indeed should plead not guilty to the offence. They are demonstrably not guilty of it. If they end up being convicted of the “correct” offence (for which they would also be allowed to plead guilty if it got that far) they would still receive the same discount on the fine. The court could not take the view that their time has been wasted, because the OP is doing this in good faith and is making a plea consummate with the actual facts of the matter. They won’t penalise you for “messing them about”. This sort of thing is important.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2025 ==

Thank you again.

I've now made a little mess on the plea form but that's ok.
Now back to the question i asked before. I understand all that has been said and know i have to put it in my own words but i still have to be able to clearly explain it in the limited box space. That's why I would need some help with what to write in the box explaining why I'm pleading not guilty. (That the bye law 18.2 was wrongly quoted by the prosecutor)

 

[island]

Ok t


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2025 ==

Thank you again.

I've now made a little mess on the plea form but that's ok.
Now back to the question i asked before. I understand all that has been said and know i have to put it in my own words but i still have to be able to clearly explain it in the limited box space. That's why I would need some help with what to write in the box explaining why I'm pleading not guilty. (That the bye law 18.2 was wrongly quoted by the prosecutor)

I already explained in post 61 what to write there.

 

[kefty]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

I echo Hadders' point that this is not a line of argument I would like to recommend an unrepresented defendant run unless they are very confident indeed.

Got it. Thanks

 

[Haywain]

I already explained in post 61 what to write there.

I would also go with that, although I am not sure that this bit is necessary:

 

[island]

You need to say you are not guilty because you did present a ticket, as is acknowledged by the prosecution statement. You need to point out that you have done what the law you have been charged under requires in presenting a ticket, and that there is nothing in the law you have been charged under that states the ticket has to be valid.

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

 

[kefty]

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

Wow. Good to see this.

 

[WesternLancer]

Wow. Good to see this.

I think as it gets to the court date people here will be able to give you very good information on what to expect and how to make your point in clear and straightforward terms.

 

[kefty]

Anything else to add here?
And do i need to write 'bye law 18(2)' in brackets? Or there's no need for that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2025 ==

I think as it gets to the court date people here will be able to give you very good information on what to expect and how to make your point in clear and straightforward ter

It may also assist to quote the case law Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin) in which it was found that a passenger who handed over an Oyster card with insufficient funds could not be convicted of a Byelaw 18 (2) offence as he did indeed hand over a ticket, despite that the ticket handed over was not a valid one.

Is this good to go? Or anything else worth adding?

Many thanks,

 

[furlong]

This law is basically there to give a ticket inspection the force of law, so people cannot claim to have a ticket but then refuse to show it or allow it to be marked.
A ticket inspection wouldn't work if there was no legal obligation to show your ticket or to allow it to be stamped.

Different laws deal with ticket validity. (The law would be too complicated if every separate requirement was combined into a single clause.)

Anything else to add here?
And do i need to write 'bye law 18(2)' in brackets? Or there's no need for that?

No need to write 18(2).

 

[kefty]

Today, I received an update on this case,

TIL has now offered another opportunity to settle this matter administratively.

@WesternLancer @furlong @Hadders @island

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Today, I received an update on this case,

TIL has now offered another opportunity to settle this matter administratively.

@WesternLancer @furlong @Hadders @island

You need to decide whether it's worth paying £114 to put the whole matter behind you, or whether you want to carry on fighting to completely clear your name. Note that if you carry on fighting and lose then you'll face the amounts of money that TIL are demanding for costs, as well as the fine and whatever from the court. Against this, if you fight and win then you face no costs (unless you have paid for a lawyer) but it will have taken time up that you could be using to do other things.

So it depends on your appetite for risk. Personally, I'd pay the £114. But your view may be different.

 

[John R]

I'd pay it and move on with your lives without any further stress. Ultimately you didn't have a valid ticket, and as they are still within six months, there is (unless I'm mistaken) nothing stopping them withdrawing the charge and charging you with a different offence.

 

[kefty]

Yes. I intend to pay the fines and move on.
I just thought to give an update here.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks f

Today, I received an update on this case,

TIL has now offered another opportunity to settle this matter administratively.

@WesternLancer @furlong @Hadders @island

Thanks for this update. Looking back at my earlier posts I was advising you to do what you could to get the out of court settlement offer re-instated, even though the cost of this was not cheap - but it seems you have manged to do this so that is a good achievement on your part. So now my advice is that I think you should pay this to close the matter without it going to court and you avoiding the criminal record that would be very likely to come with that as I fear you would be found guilty.

So I think you have done well to get the offer re-instated and I think it's probably best to pay it, and I note in your post #81 this is your plan.

I would say that if you do that, make sure you keep proof of payment / a receipt or screen shot of the payment for example, and keep all the records of this safe for the long term (at least a year, probably longer).

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for updating us. TIL are harder to deal with so I think you have done well to get an out of court settlement in this case.

 

[furlong]

(I reckon it's more likely they'd offer to settle out of court than mess the court around trying to bring a new charge.)

Interesting that their letter discusses only having a ticket when boarding yet that is not the charge i.e it serves to mislead you into accepting a settlement under false pretences and is another of those letters we see from time to time that procedurally should never have been sent. Of course, knowing what you do now, you're able to accept the settlement with a sufficient understanding of the situation so as not to actually be mislead.

 

[kefty]

Hello again, there has been another unexpected update on this case.

After getting an offer to settle, we have now received a letter to attend a hearing. What else can we do please

@furlong @WesternLancer @Hadders

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

Hello again, there has been another unexpected update on this case.

After getting an offer to settle, we have now received a letter to attend a hearing. What else can we do please

@furlong @WesternLancer @Hadders

 

[John R]

Have you paid? If so I would get back to TIL and politely ask why you have now received summons.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's academic but note the company still has the wrong charge because they're incompetent.

 

[kefty]

Have you paid? If so I would get back to TIL and politely ask why you have now received summons.

I haven't paid yet. We have till 8th May.

This letter is dated 25th April, the letter from TIL is dated 24th April.

 

[Haywain]

What else can we do please

Pay the settlement. The charge won't be withdrawn until you have done that.

 

[kefty]

Ok thank you.