Prosecution threat: used freedom pass in error

[Aza12]

Can you carefully read all of the paperwork and identify whether they are

A) charging you with 118 offences or
B) charging you with one offence and inviting you to ask the court to take into consideration the other offences.

There is a difference between the two. It is usual to charge people who have committed many similar offences with one (or a few) examples and then for the sentence (punishment fine, in this case) to be slightly increased if they acknowledge they have also committed other offences, rather than the prosecution having to prove each one of the many offences. It is efficient and, for the defendant, results in both a smoother process and a lower overall sentence than if there were separate prosecutions for each offence.

If you do not accept that you committed all of the offences then you should not say that you do. This means the prosecutor can, in theory, attempt to prosecute for those in future but they would have to prove the offence.

(It doesn’t help that the word “charging” means both “formally accusing of a crime and bringing to court” and “requiring the payment of money”; it may look as if they are charging for all of the journeys in the second sense, if they are seeking compensation for them all, even if they are only charging one offence in the first sense.)

Hello

It's B).

Im taking legal advice from Manak solicitors. Will see what they say

 

[Snow1964]

Hello

It's B).

Im taking legal advice from Manak solicitors. Will see what they say

In meantime might want to ensure you have backup plan to access funds (from family, friends, savings or a loan), for legal costs (say £500-700) and possibly £200 for TfL costs and £200-600 for compensation for not paying fares (say a total of £1000-1500).

It might not happen but if an agreement is reached will only get short time (which could be as little as 1-3 weeks) to pay everyone.

Do come back with update, as it helps give better advice to next person.

 

[AlterEgo]

Don't tfl have to prove i made those journeys?

No. They have enough for a single specimen offence to convict you and that’s what they’ll do.

If you don’t want X number of offences to be taken into consideration, you can deny those and it’s up to TfL if they want to prosecute for those offences. Regardless, the money “saved” by not admitting 100 odd offences while still being prosecuted for one (or five) will be surpassed by the cost of your legal consultation.

 

[Aza12]

No. They have enough for a single specimen offence to convict you and that’s what they’ll do.

If you don’t want X number of offences to be taken into consideration, you can deny those and it’s up to TfL if they want to prosecute for those offences. Regardless, the money “saved” by not admitting 100 odd offences while still being prosecuted for one (or five) will be surpassed by the cost of your legal consultation.

I had a travelcard for the journeys they are accusing me off, so I have evidence that I wouldn't have had to use the freedom pass for then

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I had a travelcard for the journeys they are accusing me off, so I have evidence that I wouldn't have had to use the freedom pass for then

That's not the same thing. However, if you used your travelcard for journeys on those dates that will be evidence to prove you weren't using it on those dates

Merely having a travelcard isn't evidence

 

[Hadders]

TfL has sufficient evidence to secure a conviction for the single offence where you were caught. They will prosecute you for this.

In cases like this, if they suspect there are other offences of a similar type they can ask the court to take these offences into consideration.

If you accept you did these other offences then the court will impose a greater fine but it will be less costly than if they prosecute these offences separately at a later date.

You can tell the court that you don't want these separate offences to be taken into consideration. You won't be convicted of those offences or punished in respect of them but TfL could investigate them and prosecute you for them at a later date. Clearly, they would need to have sufficient evidence to do so which, based on what you have told us, is unlikely.

 

[Aza12]

Can you carefully read all of the paperwork and identify whether they are

A) charging you with 118 offences or
B) charging you with one offence and inviting you to ask the court to take into consideration the other offences.

There is a difference between the two. It is usual to charge people who have committed many similar offences with one (or a few) examples and then for the sentence (punishment fine, in this case) to be slightly increased if they acknowledge they have also committed other offences, rather than the prosecution having to prove each one of the many offences. It is efficient and, for the defendant, results in both a smoother process and a lower overall sentence than if there were separate prosecutions for each offence.

If you do not accept that you committed all of the offences then you should not say that you do. This means the prosecutor can, in theory, attempt to prosecute for those in future but they would have to prove the offence.

(It doesn’t help that the word “charging” means both “formally accusing of a crime and bringing to court” and “requiring the payment of money”; it may look as if they are charging for all of the journeys in the second sense, if they are seeking compensation for them all, even if they are only charging one offence in the first sense.)

Hello

It was b)

I definitely didn't do all those other offences. Can I ask for part of the other trips to be taken into consideration, but not the others? The burden of proof will be on them?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hello

It was b)

I definitely didn't do all those other offences. Can I ask for part of the other trips to be taken into consideration, but not the others? The burden of proof will be on them?

You can, yes.

 

[furlong]

I definitely didn't do all those other offences. Can I ask for part of the other trips to be taken into consideration, but not the others? The burden of proof will be on them?

There is no burden of proof involved at this stage. You are being invited to *admit* the list of offences. Any that you did not truthfully make you simply do not admit. In fact you MUST NOT admit to any journeys you did not make. One reason they insist you attend court in these cases is so that the court can be satisfied that you understand what you are doing here.

 

[Snow1964]

Hello

It was b)

I definitely didn't do all those other offences. Can I ask for part of the other trips to be taken into consideration, but not the others? The burden of proof will be on them?

Unless you kept stealing the pass without its owner knowing, you potentially have a problem if you want to fess up to just a few selected journeys within the list.

What you would be doing is either saying you kept taking pass without owner knowing, (so basically admitting multiple thefts), or you are saying the pass owner knew and was lending it (which is against the rules and might get pass withdrawn).

Admitting either way could accidentally make problem bigger.

 

[furlong]

What you would be doing is either saying you kept taking pass without owner knowing, (so basically admitting multiple thefts), or you are saying the pass owner knew and was lending it (which is against the rules and might get pass withdrawn).

That old chestnut again that I hoped had largely been eliminated from the forum. Those statements are incorrect. It is not theft - go and read the definition, in particular the "permanently" part which is not satisfied when you borrow. And it lets you assume nothing about the pass holder.

 

[Haywain]

or you are saying the pass owner knew and was lending it (which is against the rules and might get pass withdrawn).

We have yet to see a case of a passholder having their pass permanently withdrawn, so I believe this is purely hypothetical. And TfL won't be doing further investigation of those cases that are taken into consideration , they are there because they are seeking the compensation.

 

[Aza12]

We have yet to see a case of a passholder having their pass permanently withdrawn, so I believe this is purely hypothetical. And TfL won't be doing further investigation of those cases that are taken into consideration , they are there because they are seeking the compensation.

Do tfl prosecute twice if all the cases aren't taken into consideration?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

How do TFL compile the list of potential offences? It looks like they just looked at all the journeys for last 3 months and attributed them to me

 

[Haywain]

It looks like they just looked at all the journeys for last 3 months and attributed them to me

That may well be what they have done.

 

[Honestviews]

That old chestnut again that I hoped had largely been eliminated from the forum. Those statements are incorrect. It is not theft - go and read the definition, in particular the "permanently" part which is not satisfied when you borrow. And it lets you assume nothing about the pass holder.

That's not true. You should read section 6.1.which states borrowing can be regarded as permanently depriving. The example that is always taught and is in the cps guidance on section 6.1 and 6.2 states

"These examples would cover circumstances such as someone who borrows a season ticket for so long as to deprive the owner of much of its benefit before returning it or someone who pawns property belonging to another."

Edit so borrowing someone's rail season ticket, intending to return it, can amount to theft even if its returned before it expires. How long it would need to be borrowed for before it becomes theft would be for a court to decide.

But I agree with your point about the pass holder.

 

[Titfield]

That may well be what they have done.

They take the offending journey (the one when you were caught) as an example and attribute any similar journeys as also likely to be ones you made. They may look at cctv if it has been retained. If for example the legitimate pass holder travelled between a and b 3 times a week at say 0930 outward and 1600 back and your journey was between a and c 5 days a week 0745 outward and 1720 back then there is strong circumstantial evidence of repeated use of the pass by someone other than the pass holder.

 

[Aza12]

They take the offending journey (the one when you were caught) as an example and attribute any similar journeys as also likely to be ones you made. They may look at cctv if it has been retained. If for example the legitimate pass holder travelled between a and b 3 times a week at say 0930 outward and 1600 back and your journey was between a and c 5 days a week 0745 outward and 1720 back then there is strong circumstantial evidence of repeated use of the pass by someone other than the pass holder.

Are they examples of TFL prosecuting again if they admitted to one offence but don't ask for the other offences to be taken into account?

 

[Haywain]

Are they examples of TFL prosecuting again

No.

if they admitted to one offence but don't ask for the other offences to be taken into account?

It is not open to you not to ask for these additional offences to be taken into account - you cannot just ignore them. You have to accept or deny that you committed the offences and you will be doing this in a court of law. If you were found to have answered dishonestly a further prosecution from TfL would be the least of your worries as you would be committing one or more offences by lying in court. Perjury, for example, is a much more serious matter and carries a prison sentence, so don't think about it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are they examples of TFL prosecuting again if they admitted to one offence but don't ask for the other offences to be taken into account?

I'm not sure we would ever hear of those, but this would be the last question on my mind if I was thinking about being honest about the extent of my offending.

 

[Aza12]

No.

It is not open to you not to ask for these additional offences to be taken into account - you cannot just ignore them. You have to accept or deny that you committed the offences and you will be doing this in a court of law. If you were found to have answered dishonestly a further prosecution from TfL would be the least of your worries as you would be committing one or more offences by lying in court. Perjury, for example, is a much more serious matter and carries a prison sentence, so don't think about it.

They havent charged me with the other offences. They've just asked if I want them to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the size of the fine

 

[Haywain]

They havent charged me with the other offences. They've just asked if I want them to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the size of the fine

If you accept them you are deemed to be guilty of them. Taking into consideration is a technical way of avoiding a full court hearing on each count.

 

[AlterEgo]

They havent charged me with the other offences. They've just asked if I want them to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the size of the fine

Yes, taking into consideration means the court will deal with the totality of the offending in one sitting. It means that the defendant can move on without other live and unprosecuted offences which could be prosecuted later, and it means the court doesn't waste its time in the future.

Therefore, if you committed the offences, you should admit to them. It's not a very difficult decision to make for most people.

 

[Aza12]

My concern is just they'll try to prosecute me for the ones I didn't do. I dont want to go through that again.

 

[Haywain]

My concern is just they'll try to prosecute me for the ones I didn't do. I dont want to go through that again.

I refer you to an earlier answer given to you about this:

Any that you did not truthfully make you simply do not admit. In fact you MUST NOT admit to any journeys you did not make.

 

[Aza12]

Ok. The schedule of loss has a receipt which says ' i accept 118 offences'. And a bit with a statement. I dont accept 118, but it says i must sign to acknowledge receipt. So im confused.

 

[Titfield]

Please upload the document with your personal details and any reference numbers obscured.

Forum members need to see the document so we can correctly assess it and provide the guidance you need.

 

[furlong]

If you don't accept the complete list you don't sign it as it is - the document has to be amended first. (In practice if you don't accept the full list they tend to just say to sort this out in court on the day.)

 

[Manak]

Ok. The schedule of loss has a receipt which says ' i accept 118 offences'. And a bit with a statement. I dont accept 118, but it says i must sign to acknowledge receipt. So im confused.

In the schedule of offences you just sign for the ones you accept and return that. Just under here where it states you accept all the journeys there is an empty space to write, just write I accept (number) amount of journeys.

 

[Haywain]

In the schedule of offences you just sign for the ones you accept and return that. Just under here where it states you accept all the journeys there is an empty space to write, just write I accept (number) amount of journeys.

@Manak - this is off topic for the OP, but does this approach of 'taking offences into consideration' reflect a recent-ish change of policy by TfL? We hadn't seen this happen until a few months ago.

 

[Manak]

@Manak - this is off topic for the OP, but does this approach of 'taking offences into consideration' reflect a recent-ish change of policy by TfL? We hadn't seen this happen until a few months ago.

Hi there. No it has been done for quite a while. It benefits the Defendant as they will not have a separate charge for the other offences and therefore what comes up on an a dbs is just the one byelaw.