-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Outcome from C5 Fare Dodgers at War with the Law
- Thread starter MikeWh
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
JohnMcL7
Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 1,048
Good question, I wondered the same. I read it as meaning he didn't pay the £2000 that TFL had calculated he owed.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I believe the latter.
Noting the very low amount of the fine, I suspect that this figure will be so low because the person convicted doesn’t actually have any money and, because they engaged, the Court knew they didn’t have any money.
Mcr Warrior
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 17,151
In a separate sequence from the same episode, how was the tailgater entering the system likely to have actually been treated? After being stopped, would he have ended up with a failed inspection charge on his payment card (that presumably hadn't been used) before being let back in and allowed to go on his way?
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 3,167
I'm struggling with how the compensation came about, but here's my take on the figures.
£40 is a Band A fine, with an Early Guilty Plea discount of 1/3 on a "benefits" income of £120 (50% less 1/3)
There would be a Victim Surcharge of £16 and the court would probably allow costs of £84, giving a £100 "Costs" number.
I have no idea where the £100 compensation comes from. If there were many offences, or even a single offence and many "taken into consideration" (TICs), then there is very little chance that it would come to a round £100 for all the fares. And multiple offences would most likely nudge the fine into Band B territory.
The £2K may have been what they thought was avoided and documented during the investigation, but unless they were able to prosecute for the offences, or get them as TICs (see above), then they could not get compensation for that amount. They may have been lacking evidence or simply out of time. The calculation for the £100 compensation remains a mystery.
Edit to add:
TfL could still go down the civil route for the £2K, and the criminal conviction would make reaching the balance of probabilities easier. However, the chances of seeing any of that money with an offender on benefits are very low and not worth the time and expense of chasing.
Last edited:
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,477
I wouldn't trust the media to not be using rounding for the benefit of simplicity - they are unlikely to say "£103.80 in costs", in my opinion.
Are TICs subject to the same 6 month time limit as the main prosecution?
Puffing Devil
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 3,167
TICs are not subject to the six-month charging limit in the same way as the main summary offence, because they are not separate charges but voluntary admissions used at sentencing, and the court has discretion whether to take them into account.
However, if I were an offender and faced with time-barred offences, no way would I be admitting to TICs, as they usually only risk a higher sentence and offer little in return. In this case, TfL may have taken a pragmatic position based on income and agreed to pursue £100 in compensation in return for a clean slate. However, the bench would still have the discretion to raise the fine, which they did not, so I suspect no TICs.
No Out-Of-Court settlements at TfL, if no PF/Failed Inspection Charge issued or if PF unpaid, it's either prosecution or in very rare cases a Warning issued
You got a source for that? There are plenty of settlements at TfL - admittedly far more difficult to obtain, often via solicitors, but TfL are always happy to settle out of court, if the circumstances genuinely warrant such an outcome. A lot of youth offending is dealt with that way, although plenty still end up in the youth court, but as a last resort.
I would imagine that a lot of the people coming to this forum with a prosecution issue are a somewhat self selecting audience of the least deserving - although I am a long time lurker, my impression is that people asking for advice when it comes to TfL are caught red handed and fully deserving of prosecution OR are totally in the right and there has been an error - neither of which are suitable for a settlement.
TfL never settle out of court as per their own FOI response. They either proseucte or issue a warning, never a settlement.
Can you cite a source which shows people are paying money to settle with TfL?
OK semantics - they're not called Out of Court Settlements - they're framed as "warnings" (which are often conditional on payment of some kind) or recovery of losses etc. They are also not the ones making the offer of a settlement - and the FOI is worded very specifically. They don't offer - not necessarily that they don't accept or reject settlements suggested by others.
Solicitors also specifically specify TfL, e.g.
Although I am not sure of the legitimacy of that site.
Fare Evasion Solicitors | Expert Legal Defence UK Wide
Specialist fare evasion solicitors providing expert legal defence across the UK. Fixed fee services, nationwide coverage, and proven track record.fareevasionsolicitors.co.uk
TfL maintains a database of prior offences; a previous Penalty Fare Notice makes prosecution more likely. A solicitor can intervene after the SJPN is issued to negotiate a TfL out of court settlement before the case reaches a magistrate.
There is a case study here though with a TfL settlement
Gray Hooper Holt LLP | Moving House
iDea a Bootstrap-based, Responsive HTML5 Templatewww.grayhooperholt.co.uk
2) A teacher, who chose not to avail herself of our services, was nonetheless extremely grateful for the expert advice she was given in her initial free and confidential telephone discussion and was kind enough to report back to us that this had helped her on her own to secure a settlement from Transport for London. She had been stopped by an inspector for using her mother’s ‘Freedom Pass’ and reported for prosecution. She subsequently stated, ‘Adrian O’Brien gave me guidance and insight into the sort of situation I was dealing with and with which I was completely unfamiliar…. It was his kind advice that enabled me to approach this matter effectively.’
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 14,945
Never seen a single case over the last 5+ years on this forum that i can recall where someone came here and secured a warning from TfL and told us that they had paid any money.
Apart from money they had paid to a solicitor for their legal help - and the occasions small number who achieved that outcome through their own efforts
So these might be cases where things have indeed been resolved out of court, but I suppose not conditional on payment to TfL
Obviously there will be many cases that we never hear about on this forum
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,477
Well, if that's the case it's strange that among the significant number of TfL cases seen on the forum we haven't seen a single case that has resulted in a warning that was subject to any payment being made to TfL. Perhaps we could even take the view of a professional, such as @Manak?
Do you have a source for this assertion or not? Because it would fundamentally change the advuce given here.
That website is quite old and the TfL cases are labelled as "older" (one case is dated 2018 which gives a clue as to how old they all are).
The forum has never ever seen a settlement to TfL for money in hundreds of cases, and some people have even received replies that specifically refute the idea of offering payment.
Just to back up previous posts, TfL either prosecute or cancel an investigation, there is no in-between.
n. I suppose a letter might go out when an investigation is cancelled due to extenuating circumstances and advising to be careful in the future.
n. I suppose a letter might go out when an investigation is cancelled due to extenuating circumstances and advising to be careful in the future.
Back in 2014, someone claims to have gotten a Out-Of-Court Settlement in exchange of payment
But it really strikes me as very odd with regard to current TfL policy, and we don't have enough detail, due to the letter link either being behind registration or just gone.
But it really strikes me as very odd with regard to current TfL policy, and we don't have enough detail, due to the letter link either being behind registration or just gone.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,246
Does this mean that at this point you don't have a source for your statement?
As with comments above, this is so that we can give the best advice we can on the basis of what we know, rather than on the basis of what we suspect.
The current TfL policy has its roots in having to go begging for money during covid, the policy likely changed around then and they became more hardline.
I provided a link that contained several case studies from genuine and regulated solicitors- have you missed that?
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,246
I don't recall the Gray Hooper Holt quote being there when I saw your post - although as the forum software only leaves a very small window for unrecorded editing, that leaves the fault with me as it suggests that I either saw your post very soon after posting and didn't check for revisions, or else didn't read it properly.
But either way, I was being unnecessarily snotty. Apologies.
In passing, it's interesting that Gray Hooper Holt use the terminology 'out of court settlement' rather than 'warning'. That makes it even more important that we find out if there's a process for a payment resulting in a warning.
The case study involving a settlement out of court is at least 12 years old and probably a fair bit older. Importantly, it predates TfL's current prosecutions policy and cannot really be considered as indicative of current practice.
In very recent times, TFL have either settled by warning (free) or by Terms and Conditions as set by the Manager (pay fares outstanding) but that has only been very recently. The last few years it was just a warning. When I first started out they did settle for money when John Rees was Head of Prosecution. TFL never call them out of court settlements.