Advice on possible second offence in a year

[trsiegel13]

I’m seeking advice for a friend, if that’s okay. Yesterday, when travelling to Dartford we boarded at Hither Green, but bought tickets for boarding at Crayford. When we arrived at Dartford ticket staff had put stickers on the scanners so that every passenger who wasn’t using contactless had to be reviewed by staff. I was let through after a tense back and forth (I couldn’t find my railcard for a minute) but my friend was detained and interrogated. The staffer I guess knew he didn’t start his journey at Crayford because it hadn’t been scanned at Crayford. My friend was very polite and kind and told staff it was a mistake and apologized. The staffer took his details and said a penalty fine would be likely coming.

His real concern, though, is this may be a second offence. Back in September, when travelling on the Stanstead Express to the airport he didn’t realise his railcard had expired. When he disembarked at Stanstead airport he was interrogated, realised his railcard had expired, and had to pay £75 on the spot.

Should he be concerned that this latest ‘fare evasion’ would result in something more serious than just a penalty fine? Could he be summoned to court and even face criminal charges? It seems insane that buying a £2 cheaper ticket could result in something so serious. Does the railcard infraction count as a first offence, when it’s not really the same situation?

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

[transportphoto]

Two different companies, you should be okay. Just deal with this however it progresses - Southeastern will likely write to you/your friend with a notice of intended prosecution.

 

[Haywain]

Should he be concerned that this latest ‘fare evasion’ would result in something more serious than just a penalty fine? Could he be summoned to court and even face criminal charges? It seems insane that buying a £2 cheaper ticket could result in something so serious.

Yes, he should. The other incident is irrelevant to that. On this occasion a criminal offence was committed so charges could follow. However, Southeastern are likely to settle out of court if he engages with them appropriately when they write. A complicating factor might be that they will look at his booking history and see previous offences and seek to recover the fares for those, regardless of which train company the travel was with.

 

[trsiegel13]

Yes, he should. The other incident is irrelevant to that. On this occasion a criminal offence was committed so charges could follow. However, Southeastern are likely to settle out of court if he engages with them appropriately when they write. A complicating factor might be that they will look at his booking history and see previous offences and seek to recover the fares for those, regardless of which train company the travel was with.

Could you explain that a bit more? What would they be seeking in his booking history? This is the first time he’s been faced with a fare evasion offence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Could you explain that a bit more? What would they be seeking in his booking history? This is the first time he’s been faced with a fare evasion offence.

Evidence of other short fares. People don't usually short fare once.

 

[trsiegel13]

Two different companies, you should be okay. Just deal with this however it progresses - Southeastern will likely write to you/your friend with a notice of intended prosecution.

You think notice of intended prosecution is more likely than a simple penalty fare notice?

 

[SuspectUsual]

You think notice of intended prosecution is more likely than a simple penalty fare notice?

A penalty fare can only be issued at the time, they can’t be issued after the event.

The options now are basically prosecution or an out of court settlement. As long as your mate engages with the train company in the right way, they should be offered a settlement rather than taken to court. The settlement may include other instances of fare evasion if the train company detect them

 

[trsiegel13]

That makes sense. Do you have any idea why the staff didn’t just issue a penalty yesterday then? Why he took down my friend’s details instead?

 

[Pushpit]

That makes sense. Do you have any idea why the staff didn’t just issue a penalty yesterday then? Why he took down my friend’s details instead?

Could be a lot of reasons, but from RPIs that post here, if they sniff something is badly wrong they will take details and send it off to the specialist back-office team. If it just looks like a silly mistake the RPI will do a penalty fare there and then (or even just warn for next time), as happened at Stansted. The penalty fare isn't a fine, but a fare at a penalty rate for not paying the correct fare at the time of purchase. But as has been pointed out, short faring almost always involves some premeditation to steal from the railways, it is rarely done once, is thus more serious than a recently expired railcard, and so the staff here may have said "let's get the specialists check this out".

 

[trsiegel13]

Okay that makes sense too. Obviously since it’s my friend I can’t say with 100% certainty but I really do think this is the first time this has happened. I don’t think he’s short-fared elsewhere before and I know for sure he’s never short-fared on this particular route (ie buying a Crayford to Dartford ticket rather than from Hither Green), so if they’re looking for evidence of that journey in his booking history they won’t find any other instances of this.

I’m also curious how they would find other evidence of short-faring in someone’s booking history without CCTV or something?

 

[AlterEgo]

That makes sense. Do you have any idea why the staff didn’t just issue a penalty yesterday then? Why he took down my friend’s details instead?

Because short faring is:

- blatant fare evasion and clearly dishonest, not punishable by penalty fare (which is reserved more for genuine mistakes), and
- easy to investigate historically; a penalty fare is done and dusted there and then.

Short faring will almost always result in a report for prosecution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2025 ==

I’m also curious how they would find other evidence of short-faring in someone’s booking history without CCTV or something?

They just look for one stop tickets, it isn't hard. They then add this to any out of court settlement, if one is offered.

 

[Pushpit]

I’m also curious how they would find other evidence of short-faring in someone’s booking history without CCTV or something?

Well that's back to the argument that those who short fare tend to do so repeatedly until caught: your friend has been caught short-faring, a computer trawl of further bookings may indicate repeat transactions - some people do this daily for years - and where they happen to live nearer another railway station. It won't need AI to draw a conclusion there. Now this may not be proof, it's more inference, but having been caught once the short fare passenger is in a difficult place to argue. Even more silly is when there is a history of other tickets back to the real home station.

I have to say there is an element of some people thinking they can outsmart the system by a short fare, but some locations feature very regularly in this forum - Vauxhall, Stratford, Wembley Stadium, Tottenham Hale, Finsbury Park, London Bridge, New Cross - but Dartford has also come up too in the second division. So it's not actually very smart at all, and it's pretty darn obvious to the rail companies.

 

[SuspectUsual]

They just look for one stop tickets, it isn't hard. They then add this to any out of court settlement, if one is offered.

Especially when both stations have barriers and the ticket is only scanned at one of them

 

[Tevion539]

Especially when both stations have barriers and the ticket is only scanned at one of them

I don’t think many people understand how much data is held when a ticket is scanned either.

GPS location, time, date etc… there’s a fair whack of data that can be trawled through and be used as evidence.

 

[trsiegel13]

Appreciate all the helpful responses. Assuming my friend responds promptly to all communication and cooperates fully is it reasonable to think this would be an out of court settlement, rather than taking him to court?