Intention to prosecute letter

[Mike395]

You need to edit that and then delete this

TP

Edited :P (sorry yorkie!)

 

[snail]

Any way, best way to make it disappear is sending Southern an apology for the confusion around the situation and £100

...offer £100. Better not to send money at this stage.

 

[First class]

...offer £100. Better not to send money at this stage.

If you OFFER them £100 I think they will take their chances in court.

If they've got the money, and keep it, well, they aren't going to proceed.

 

[bluenoxid]

My advice is, that because you are in breach of the byelaws, and despite whatever you say on here, the statement of witness will be accurate, (and usually people tend to panic and say things to RPIs), you probably did incriminate yourself, possibly without knowing it. (Especially something like "I do it all the time, never had a problem before etc etc).

As they are taking a statement, would it be fair advice to reply no comment to RPI's?

 

[transportphoto]

The only thing is when they caution you they tell you that 'it may harm your defence if you fail to mention now / when questioned something you may later rely on in court.' No comment is only a wise thing if you are travelling with your legal adviser

TP

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Also, inferences can be drawn in court from no comment's or silence.

 

[All Line Rover]

If you OFFER them £100 I think they will take their chances in court.

If they've got the money, and keep it, well, they aren't going to proceed.

I don't think that's a very nice suggestion.

The OP is an infrequent railway traveller. She was not aware that a ticket covering the Clapham Junction to London Victoria section of the journey could not be purchased at the destination station.

When taking the DLR from Beckton as a family, we jumped onto a train with no tickets and purchased the tickets from Bank. Why? Because the ticket machine at Beckton doesn't accept Family Railcard's. Of course, I knew what I was doing, and it was a completely different situation to the one the OP was in, but I can see the way in which confusion can arise.

Are you seriously suggesting that Southern should take a customer to court over a £2.60 ticket when, in fact, the customer has paid more each and every time compared to buying the appropriate through ticket for their journey?

• Brighton to London Zones 1-6 Off-Peak Return Travelcard: £27.10

• Brighton to Clapham Junction Off-Peak return: £25.40
• London Victoria to London Zones 1-2 Off-Peak Travelcard: £6.60
• TOTAL: £32 (£4.90 EXTRA!)

And to suggest that Hannah send off £100 is, at this stage, ludicrous! TOC's should not be penalising customers who do not know what they are doing, especially in this case where they are not depriving the railway of any revenue - in fact, they are giving the railway extra revenue!

Southern may decide to prosecute, but I doubt it if they received a thorough explanation and apology. If they did prosecute (or ask the OP to pay something like a £100), I consider that to be very, very bad customer service. I doubt the OP will travel by train again! :roll:

 

[nedchester]

Another example of the railway making an a**e if itself by bullying the unknowing passenger.

We have the situation where someone is not realising the over complicated ticketing system in this country (not knowing the availability of a through ticket) and getting a potential criminal record for it.

Sometimes the railway shows appalling customer service.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

We have the situation where someone is not realising the over complicated ticketing system in this country (not knowing the availability of a through ticket) and getting a potential criminal record for it.

I'm sorry, but the availability or otherwise of through tickets is nothing to do with the over complicated ticketing system in this country. If anything, it is the one thing that is simple - you can buy a ticket from any station to any other station (and many other places besides) with relative ease.

The complicated bit about ticketing is the off-peak / peak restrictions - and certainly not through tickets.

 

[sheff1]

I'm sorry, but the availability or otherwise of through tickets is nothing to do with the over complicated ticketing system in this country. If anything, it is the one thing that is simple - you can buy a ticket from any station to any other station (and many other places besides) with relative ease.

The complicated bit about ticketing is the off-peak / peak restrictions - and certainly not through tickets.

Very true, but I am always surprised at the number of people who do not ask for a ticket to their final destination (and I am not talking about doyens of ticket splitting here )

 

[yorkie]

Indeed, I am surprised that someone thinks a ticket that is available from Clapham Jn is a tube ticket, despite there being no tubes there, and I am surprised that in 10 years no-one ever mentioned that you can get a Travelcard from Brighton. Although the ticket was referred to as a tube ticket, the OP was clearly aware it was actually a joint NR/LU ticket, because otherwise the OP would be admitting to travel without a valid ticket... so the idea that it was a tube ticket and it was assumed to only be available from Clapham Jn, again with no tubes, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Nevertheless, I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt, and make the assumption she's the victim of some poor advice over the years.

My advice to the OP would not be to send £100, nor to even offer £100, or any other sum, at this stage. I would send the tickets purchased (after taking a photocopy/scan), and an explanation making it clear that the journey was paid for in full, and that she genuinely didn't realise a Travelcard was available from Brighton. I think it is worth stating that this combination of tickets has been used before, though I wouldn't go into detail about being let through barriers without a ticket. I would point out that the fare paid is 20p more than the 'correct' through fare (assuming we're talking Off Peak - we've had to assume that as no time has been mentioned that I can see), and that she's now aware that she has been overpaying and overcomplicating things and will now buy the correct fare from Brighton.

Providing Southern believe that this is an accurate account, I would be surprised if they took it further. If they took it further, then I'd look to settle out of court at that stage. But not now.

 

[Paul Kelly]

To be honest, before I became a member of this forum I had no idea of the concept of an out-boundary travelcard and couldn't get my head round how you could have one coupon that was both an outward and return ticket. And also how the same ticket could offer unlimited travel in a certain area but only one single and one return journey over another part. I can totally understand the OP's confusion. I really thought Travelcards were strictly a London-only thing.

 

[yorkie]

To be honest, before I became a member of this forum I had no idea of the concept of an out-boundary travelcard and couldn't get my head round how you could have one coupon that was both an outward and return ticket. And also how the same ticket could offer unlimited travel in a certain area but only one single and one return journey over another part. I can totally understand the OP's confusion. I really thought Travelcards were strictly a London-only thing.

Yes, that's understandable, but less understandable is the idea that you can travel without a valid ticket on a train where it is made very clear you must have a valid ticket before boarding and there are announcements/notices to that effect, and then say you want a tube ticket to travel on that train, which clearly isn't a tube.

Yes, some aspects of ticketing are confusing, but Travelcards are not confusing and the Travelcard brand is very strong. If the OP had been buying Travelcards for 10 years I struggle to see how they could not notice the wording "Travelcard" on it, and I am sure if they asked for a tube ticket from Clapham that some staff would have informed them it was a Travelcard.

Yes, people do ask for tube tickets because they don't realise that there isn't a product that just allows unlimited travel on tubes and in fact allows almost all modes in the area, but if someone knows that their ticket includes National Rail services and has been buying the ticket for 10 years, then I am really struggling to understand that.

 

[Ferret]

Unfortunately that is wrong. Byelaws 18 and 19 allow for a strict liability prosecution which means no intent needs to be proven. The fact that you have committed the offence is enough to prosecute, whatever the reasons for it.

Having said that, I am not aware (that isn't to say it hasn't happened though) of a case where a TOC has prosecuted like that. Perhaps Flamingo/First Class/Ferret could confirm if they know of cases prosecuted under the byelaws?

Alas I know of several cases, some involving me!

My reading of this case is that the OP is guilty of an offence under the byelaws - no valid ticket held from Clapham Jn.

It may well be possible to write to Southern apologising and offering to pay the fare plus an admin charge and thus avoid prosecution. That would be my course of action.

 

[Harlesden]

Why did she not buy a ticket to Victoria at Brighton? As she arrives at Victoria, she buys her tube ticket to wherever she wants to go.
Being an infrequent traveler is really no excuse. She bought a ticket for Clapham Junction but stayed on the train until Victoria. Clear cut case of attempted fare evasion to me. When you go to the ticket office to buy a ticket, you state your destination if you are not sure which ticket you want. Asking for a ticket to Clapham Junction clearly indicates intention to end the rail journey at Clapham Junction.
As far as I can see, the "Intention to Prosecute" is totally valid

 

[RJ]

Another example of the railway making an a**e if itself by bullying the unknowing passenger.

We have the situation where someone is not realising the over complicated ticketing system in this country (not knowing the availability of a through ticket) and getting a potential criminal record for it.

Sometimes the railway shows appalling customer service.

Err, have you ever been to Brighton, Clapham Junction or Victoria? Last time I checked, all of those stations were staffed more or less around the clock. All anybody who is unsure of what to to needs to do is ask somebody. You cannot defend laziness/lack of common sense, no matter how anti revenue protection you are.

 

[Flamingo]

Unfortunately that is wrong. Byelaws 18 and 19 allow for a strict liability prosecution which means no intent needs to be proven. The fact that you have committed the offence is enough to prosecute, whatever the reasons for it.

Having said that, I am not aware (that isn't to say it hasn't happened though) of a case where a TOC has prosecuted like that. Perhaps Flamingo/First Class/Ferret could confirm if they know of cases prosecuted under the byelaws?

A RRA 1889 prosecution does require intent to be proven.

To be honest, I'm not sure what they get taken to court under. The few cases I have been involved in have all been dealt with without my input in court (which could lead one to believe that the option of pleading "not guilty" was not there). I just get a phone-call afterwards from BTP witness support to tell me the outcome.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Those TOCs which enforce the S18 & S19 Byelaw Offences do prosecute, and it is entirely possible for a passenger to respond with a plea of Not Guilty. However, it is unlikely that such a person would be advised to do so, as there is hardly any legal advice available across the regions which would propose such a Plea.
Most general practive solicitors will consider that these are 'absolute offences' similar to the equivalent motoring offences and will respond to them similarly (although without the knowledge and experience to examine the claim carefully enough to expose any error, omission or other technicality).

It would be usual for a passenger accused of a Byelaw Offence to be advised to accept the charge and accept the accusation and to settle the Cost claimed, without wasting Court time, without risking a higher penalty and without a Criminal Record.

 

[snail]

Are you seriously suggesting that Southern should take a customer to court over a £2.60 ticket when, in fact, the customer has paid more each and every time compared to buying the appropriate through ticket for their journey?

I'm surprised at your double standards given your attitude to people travelling early on AP tickets. I can see there appears at face value to be no intent to avoid payment of an appropriate fare but she has turned up at Victoria with a ticket for an earlier station. Without proof of her previous journeys (not everyone keeps 10 years' worth of old travel tickets - I use trains regularly but don't keep any) this could very much sound like someone trying it on to save a few pennies.

I don't see the value of the relative combined fares having much relevance to the argument without that proof.

 

[Greenback]

Southern have grounds to prosecute, as the OP is guilty of travelling without a vlid ticket.

However, there are quite a few people who think that 'Underground tickets' are only available in London, and maybe some people would be surprised by the number of passengers who are unable to grasp that you can buy through tickets to pretty much anywhere.

I remembe rone customer who wanted to buy a ticket from Reading to Middlesbrough. During the course of the conversation it became apparent that he was actually travelling to Marske. I non issued the Middlesbrough tickets and sold him Marske at the same price. He was genuinely stunned that he didn't have to buy a'local' ticket at Middlesbrough - he had been doing this for years!

My advice would be to write to Southern and give a full explanation of what I had been doning, and the tickets I had been buying, along with a big apology and an assurance that I will now buy the appropriate tickets at Brighton.

 

[michael769]

will consider that these are 'absolute offences' similar to the equivalent motoring offences

I presume you meant to say "offences of strict liability".

An definition of an absolute offence is something subtly different to strict liability, but such offences are mostly much more serious than either motoring or railway offences.

I'm not surprised that flamingo has never been called to court. With strict liability offences a witness statement is more often or not sufficient to establish guilt, and the witness will only be called if the defence indicates they intend to challenge the facts contained in the statement.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The distinction I was trying to make was between the advice a passenger might receive after a brief chat in a High Street Law Firm and the advice which might be available from a specialist in Railway Law (and the very few of those of which I am aware put a disproportionately large price on their offer to represent a passenger in a Claim or Prosecution by a TOC).

It appears that the advice given is frequently that there is no defence against a Byelaw Offence and that there is therefore no need to attend a Court nor any benefit from a 'Not Guilty' plea. One of the consequences of this approach is that relatively few Ticketing Irregularities based on a S.18 or S.19 Byelaw Offence will appear in front of the Magistrates.

This is the advice which I suspect is given to many of those who are the subject of many Motoring Offences. While there are a few Law Firms which have made a speciality out of exploiting technical defects in strict liability Motoring Offences, there is nothing like the same level of expertise in assisting passengers faced with a Railway Byelaw Prosecution. I find that regrettable.
There is some sub-standard evidence gathering on the Railways and I am sure that many MG11 Witness Statements could be challenged successfully.

I cannot wholeheartedly agree that "a witness statement is more often or not sufficient to establish guilt". They do, and many passengers promptly incriminate themselves at the first opportunity. But there are clearly unintended ticketing irregularities which are innappropriately prosecuted and in which the Evidence is not challenged robustly. The consequence of all this is simple. Innocent passengers are Interviewed, advised that there is no defence, and accept a settlement or Prosecution; an outcome which is indistinguishable from the fate awaiting the many Fare Dodgers which plague our Railways.

Turning to the OP, I can add little to the advice proposed by First class in post #29 with the qualification by snail that the payment should merely be an offer in compensation for administrative inconvenience. (I have advised sending a cheque in cases of a S.5 prosecution where there were grounds to challenge the claim of 'without paying' and wanted to maintain the 'attempts to pay'. That does not apply here).

 

[talltim]

Why did she not buy a ticket to Victoria at Brighton? As she arrives at Victoria, she buys her tube ticket to wherever she wants to go.
Being an infrequent traveler is really no excuse. She bought a ticket for Clapham Junction but stayed on the train until Victoria. Clear cut case of attempted fare evasion to me. When you go to the ticket office to buy a ticket, you state your destination if you are not sure which ticket you want. Asking for a ticket to Clapham Junction clearly indicates intention to end the rail journey at Clapham Junction.
As far as I can see, the "Intention to Prosecute" is totally valid

That is what puzzled me, and I found it strange that no-one (before Harlesden) had mentioned it. Fair enough if you don't realise you can buy a Travelcard covering the rail and the Tube from Brighton station, but you would at least buy a rail ticket for your whole rail journey (Brighton-Victoria)and a tube ticket at the end of the rail journey?

 

[All Line Rover]

I'm surprised at your double standards given your attitude to people travelling early on AP tickets. I can see there appears at face value to be no intent to avoid payment of an appropriate fare but she has turned up at Victoria with a ticket for an earlier station. Without proof of her previous journeys (not everyone keeps 10 years' worth of old travel tickets - I use trains regularly but don't keep any) this could very much sound like someone trying it on to save a few pennies.

What double standards? Customers travelling early on Advance tickets are depriving the railway of revenue because:

• a. That train is likely to be more expensive (in that cheap Advance fare quotas are not available).
• AND/OR
• b. The customer is supposed to pay for a new ticket to travel on a different train (there is no point in changing an Advance ticket on the day of travel).

In the case of the OP, she has not deprived the railway of any revenue - she simply didn't realise that the ticket covering the Clapham Junction to Victoria section of the journey couldn't be bought at the destination station. Why on earth would Southern want to prosecute a customer for that? Some simple words of advice (aka a polite telling off) would suffice.

(I am assuming that the OP has never been "in trouble" with Southern in the past. And if the OP keeps a collection of old tickets, that would certainly help greatly. )

 

[radamfi]

I remembe rone customer who wanted to buy a ticket from Reading to Middlesbrough. During the course of the conversation it became apparent that he was actually travelling to Marske. I non issued the Middlesbrough tickets and sold him Marske at the same price. He was genuinely stunned that he didn't have to buy a'local' ticket at Middlesbrough - he had been doing this for years!

This is definitely a common misconception. It probably arises because of the bizarre way that single bus fares usually only allow travel without any connections so bus passengers assume that also applies to railways.

 

[Minilad]

This is definitely a common misconception. It probably arises because of the bizarre way that single bus fares usually only allow travel without any connections so bus passengers assume that also applies to railways.

Used to get this a lot when working in the ticket office of a local Birmingham station. People used to come to the window and ask for a single to New Street but looking equipped for a longer journey. I always used to ask where they were going and a lot were genuinely surprised when I told them they could purchase a ticket all the way to their intended destination

 

[clagmonster]

That is what puzzled me, and I found it strange that no-one (before Harlesden) had mentioned it. Fair enough if you don't realise you can buy a Travelcard covering the rail and the Tube from Brighton station, but you would at least buy a rail ticket for your whole rail journey (Brighton-Victoria)and a tube ticket at the end of the rail journey?

One theory on this is that the passenger does not know of the existence of the out boundary Travelcard from Brighton. They then find out that the Zone 1-2 Travelcard covers both the Underground and BR travel from Clapham, but don't know they can buy it from Brighton, so buy a Brighton-Clapham ticket at Brighton and the Travelcard at Victoria, thus intending to pay for the full journey. Buy the book it is wrong, but I could see why somebody would think this. Only a theory mind.

 

[Greenback]

One theory on this is that the passenger does not know of the existence of the out boundary Travelcard from Brighton. They then find out that the Zone 1-2 Travelcard covers both the Underground and BR travel from Clapham, but don't know they can buy it from Brighton, so buy a Brighton-Clapham ticket at Brighton and the Travelcard at Victoria, thus intending to pay for the full journey. Buy the book it is wrong, but I could see why somebody would think this. Only a theory mind.

That is how I read the situation.

This way of thinking might simply the result of misunderstanding soemthing a decade ago. For example, the OP, a relative or friend may have asked for a zone 1-2 Travelcard at Brighton and been told it can only be bought within the zones.

If the person already had a Brighton - London ticket, possibly a promotion or special offer that was not available as a Travelcard, then in the absence of a proper explanation of the fares available that would include underground travel to Piccadilly Circus, then there is no reason for them to think otherwise.

It is strange that to think that one can remain on the train after reaching the destination on the ticket held, but it is no stranger than some of the things people believe for no apparent reason. After all, even some of the things that are claimed on this forum are no more than rumours, misunderstandings and urban myths!

 

[jon0844]

One theory on this is that the passenger does not know of the existence of the out boundary Travelcard from Brighton. They then find out that the Zone 1-2 Travelcard covers both the Underground and BR travel from Clapham, but don't know they can buy it from Brighton, so buy a Brighton-Clapham ticket at Brighton and the Travelcard at Victoria, thus intending to pay for the full journey. Buy the book it is wrong, but I could see why somebody would think this. Only a theory mind.

I can see that too, and once you've got the Travelcard you're covered for that whole day so, technically, you've paid and are legal.

But, given the way the money is divided up, I can see why a TOC won't look at that way. It's also dodgy if there's any suggestion you may have only bought the ticket because you were stopped. It's not as if someone will follow to see if you buy that ticket later on to continue your journey.

If you arrive at Victoria and immediately seek to buy your Z1-2 travelcard, I fail to see any intent. I get the 'ignorance is no excuse' bit, but for people travelling from a long way outside London, I can understand why this might be the case.

Now if someone had previously sold the ticket and said 'You do know you can buy a Travelcard before you set off from Brighton' then this would have been solved the very first time.

I have to admit that I didn't know you could buy a ticket that only included limited zones, as I'd have said that you could buy a London Terminals ticket OR a Z1-6 Travelcard. I am sure a Z1-2 Travelcard would be perfect for most trips to London, if it's cheaper.

My parents got caught out with a London Terminals ticket going from Cheshunt to Euston, assuming it would include the tube transfer. Only after that was it made clear that it was the terminal on that line, namely Liverpool Street. The TVM didn't make this clear, which obviously a ticket seller would (but it was unstaffed at the time).

Ticketing isn't that clear, and people from outside London are bound to be confused. I wonder how many people fully appreciate what the Travelcard covers, and the multiple services (and likewise, the restrictions).

 

[Greenback]

It was certainly the case when I worked at Reading that a Travelcard covering zones 1-6 was cheaper than a ticket to London terminals plus a 1 & 2 zone Travelcard. I assuem that is still the case, but I don't know how the fares work from stations in other areas.

The situationw as complicated by the fact that though you could get a 5 day return to London, but you could not add a weekend Travelcard at that time (10 years ago), you had to buy that on arrival. People were certainly confused about the London options in 2000/2001, as I can testify from my owne xperience, and it's hardly surprising, given the situation at that time!