TfL brings case to Magistrates Court with no notice

I received not a peep out of TfL since being stopped in February. I was told TfL would be in touch about what to do next. Instead, this morning I have received a letter from Highbury Corner Magistrates saying a case was brought against me and I owe £220 fine plus court costs of £250 and an £88 victim surcharge, total £565 payable within 14 days of the letter which is dated early last week.

No objection to the fine, but surely there is an opportunity to pay it before it gets to court and incurs additional costs? TfL obviously have my correct address and, of course, my other contact details through Oyster/contactless.

Getting the outcome set aside seems potentially pointless as it would simply come back to court but with proper notice; the costs would probably be the same or worse.

Even with single justice procedure, surely this is a mistake?

They would have sent a Verification Letter and a SJPN letter - did you receive neither? How has your post been?

Was this the first time that you were stopped by TfL or have you had issues with them before? For that matter, have you had fare issues with any other transport undertaking?

apbj said:

No objection to the fine, but surely there is an opportunity to pay it before it gets to court and incurs additional costs? TfL obviously have my correct address and, of course, my other contact details through Oyster/contactless.

Getting the outcome set aside seems potentially pointless as it would simply come back to court but with proper notice; the costs would probably be the same or worse.

Click to expand...

These are court costs so they’d be the same if you took the statutory declaration route and pleaded / got found guilty second time around

The fine is issued by the court. TfL don’t do out of court settlements, so your options are:

1 - stat dec and try and get TfL to issue a warning rather than prosecution, but to do that you’d probably need a solicitor and that’s the thick end of a grand

2 - pay the court and move on

3 - stat dec and go back to court and probably get the same outcome, but it’ll be longer till your conviction is spent

(I’m assuming by your statement that you’re happy to pay the fine that you are guilty and would not contest this in court)

Gloster said:

Was this the first time that you were stopped by TfL or have you had issues with them before? For that matter, have you had fare issues with any other transport undertaking?

Click to expand...

First and only, ever. One journey, not a pattern.

AlterEgo said:

They would have sent a Verification Letter and a SJPN letter - did you receive neither? How has your post been?

Click to expand...

Post is working perfectly, as evidenced by the arrival of the court judgement. As I said, I received nothing at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2026 ==

SuspectUsual said:

1 - stat dec and try and get TfL to issue a warning rather than prosecution, but to do that you’d probably need a solicitor and that’s the thick end of a grand

Click to expand...

But would remove the conviction, if I understand correcty? Potentially worth the expense.

Happy to pay a fine, offered to pay at the time, was told to wait for a letter that never came, then taken to court in my absence. For a first offence, that does not seem to be a particularly just outcome.

You have been convicted in your absence. You should take advice first if you have prospects of obtaining a warning or terms and conditions from TFL before undertaking a statutory declaration. You are now under a deadline of 21 days from finding out about the conviction to undertake this task.

apbj said:

No objection to the fine, but surely there is an opportunity to pay it before it gets to court and incurs additional costs? TfL obviously have my correct address and, of course, my other contact details through Oyster/contactless.

Click to expand...

Just for clarity if it helps you understand the process, TfL do not issue fines - its is the court that issues the fine - and the court issues that after it finds an offender guilty (the fine is the sentence from the court) - you get the fine after the matter has been dealt with by the court.

TfL might issue a Penalty Fare in some instances, but they did not issue you with one of those by the sounds of it. You would have been given a Penalty Fare at the time of the incident and have 21 days to pay it at the reduced - £50 usually - rate

You have been convicted by a court.

Of course you should have received prior notice that the matter was going to court

I guess it's hard to prove that they (the court and / or TfL before that) did not actually send you the relevant paperwork - but that is what the Statutory Declaration process is there for - convictions from court action against you that you were previously unaware of

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2026 ==

apbj said:

But would remove the conviction, if I understand correcty? Potentially worth the expense.

Click to expand...

A Stat Dec would do that - until it went back to court with you knowing about it the next time, and then you being found guilty again with the sorts of sums being demanded by the court being presumably the same, tho if on a low income you can complete court income paperwork that may reduce the court fine according to the relevant formula. (unless you did not commit the offence or could persuade the magistrates at an in person hearing that you were in fact innocent, in which case no fine / no punishment obviously)

apbj said:

Happy to pay a fine, offered to pay at the time,

Click to expand...

No - I think (am guessing?) you mean that you would have been happy to pay something like a Penalty Fare (like you see on posters at stations - £100 reduced to £50 if paid promptly) - but they did not issue you with one of those.

If you were / are genuinely happy to pay a fine - now is your chance! But I suspect you mean you are unhappy about getting a criminal record

Worth you knowing that TfL default position on fares evasion and other things is to prosecute - ie not issue Penalty Fares (foi requests quoted here suggest they prosecute circa 15,000 people per year)

apbj said:

was told to wait for a letter that never came, then taken to court in my absence. For a first offence, that does not seem to be a particularly just outcome.

Click to expand...

First offence? or first time caught?

The starting point is what happened when you were stopped. Were you knowingly evading your fare? Unknowingly? Due to external circumstances? Entirely your fault? Any mitigation? etc.

Then the next question is what income you have, and whether a correctly-calculated court fine would be higher or lower.

WesternLancer said:

Worth you knowing that TfL default position on fares evasion and other things is to prosecute

Click to expand...

Not really true, depends very much on the nature of the fare evasion which OP hasn't detailed. Any sort of pass dishonesty or whatever yes, but they've simply not given enough info for us to know what's happened.

OP also seems rather blase about the fine and potential solicitor costs (fair enough tbh, nice to have someone not catastrophising for a change) and it's worth noting as well that the assumed income at court, while high for a lot of our "usual customers" like students, is also prettty low (£440/week) compared to a professional Londoner's likely wage. So also worth thinking about. Basically, we need more info to say anything useful.

Egg Centric said:

Not really true, depends very much on the nature of the fare evasion which OP hasn't detailed. Any sort of pass dishonesty or whatever yes, but they've simply not given enough info for us to know what's happened.

OP also seems rather blase about the fine and potential solicitor costs (fair enough tbh, nice to have someone not catastrophising for a change) and it's worth noting as well that the assumed income at court, while high for a lot of our "usual customers" like students, is also prettty low (£440/week) compared to a professional Londoner's likely wage. So also worth thinking about. Basically, we need more info to say anything useful.

Click to expand...

These are fair points.

I suppose I should have phrased it such that I had concluded that the op seemed to think that the default position was a Penalty fare (which is what I think the op is referring to as a fine), but I believe from cases on here that the default position from TfL is prosecution.

Egg Centric said:

Not really true, depends very much on the nature of the fare evasion which OP hasn't detailed. Any sort of pass dishonesty or whatever yes, but they've simply not given enough info for us to know what's happened.

OP also seems rather blase about the fine and potential solicitor costs (fair enough tbh, nice to have someone not catastrophising for a change) and it's worth noting as well that the assumed income at court, while high for a lot of our "usual customers" like students, is also prettty low (£440/week) compared to a professional Londoner's likely wage. So also worth thinking about. Basically, we need more info to say anything useful.

Click to expand...

As I said, it was a one-off. I let my frustration get the better of me (days of continuous disruption on the Elizabeth line, TfL's repeated refusal or inability to honour legitimate delay repay claims, and widespread unpunished fare evasion) and I pushed through the barrier at Paddington straight into a RPI. The inspector said TfL would be in touch about what to do next and that I should respond to any letters otherwise I could face prosecution. That was in February. On TfL's own terms, the outcome is not what I had been led to expect.

Not blase about the court fine, but I must accept being in the wrong. And again, as I said at the start, returning to court is likely to end in a similar or higher fine because of my (average London) salary, so there seems little point making a statutory declaration; there's the basic principle of not being correctly notified of court action, but since standing on this principle would prove expensive to me and nobody else I'll just sit it out in the unprincipled corner!

Nor am I sanguine about the cost of a solicitor but, as I said, the "cost" of a criminal conviction – which has to be declared in many jobs even when 'spent' – has to be considered against the fee.

WesternLancer said:

I had concluded that the op seemed to think that the default position was a Penalty fare (which is what I think the op is referring to as a fine), but I believe from cases on here that the default position from TfL is prosecution.

Click to expand...

Of course penalty fare (yes I incorrectly used the word 'fine') is not the default or even always an option but neither does TfL state prosecution is automatic in all cases. I am grateful for your insight about the volume of prosecutions, which is helpful; nonetheless I'd be surprised if TfL made an intentional decision to prosecute in this case, it feels more likely to be an administrative error. (It takes endless repeat phonecalls and form-filling to get their delay repay and maximum fare errors fixed, so I shouldn't be surprised). My question remains whether it is worth, or even possible, addressing this with TfL or whether I just live with it.

It's worth knowing that unless you have specific (and fairly unusual) mitigation under Section 8 of TfL's Prosecution Policy, or unless you are very young, TfL always prosecute these cases. It's not clear to me what writing to TfL would achieve; you committed a crime, they prosecuted it and a court (not they) found you guilty. It seems extremely unlikely a Verification Letter or the SJPN were not *sent*, these are prerequisites to moving the case forward. They will just say "we sent them", probably.

apbj said:

Of course penalty fare (yes I incorrectly used the word 'fine') is not the default or even always an option but neither does TfL state prosecution is automatic in all cases. I am grateful for your insight about the volume of prosecutions, which is helpful; nonetheless I'd be surprised if TfL made an intentional decision to prosecute in this case, it feels more likely to be an administrative error. (It takes endless repeat phonecalls and form-filling to get their delay repay and maximum fare errors fixed, so I shouldn't be surprised). My question remains whether it is worth, or even possible, addressing this with TfL or whether I just live with it.

Click to expand...

I see your point

I suppose you would have to formally complain to TfL that you believe their process wasn't followed correctly - ie to send you a letter asking for your version of event (or whatever they call it - a verification letter) if that is their process.
Then if that leads nowhere - ask London Travel watch to take it up (the question of whether TfL followed their process)

I guess the question that then follows is even if they had followed that process and sent you a letter that you could have responded to (examples of which can be found on the forum), such letters don't provide an option to resolve matters out of court by paying a penalty instead of court - so what would be the probability of them having done anything else other than eventually prosecute you becomes the question - presumably for misuse of the ticket gates by barging through them.

I suppose it would then have allowed you to in theory engage a solicitor to deal with it for you before it go to court - but that option remains via the Stat Dec process (presumably) - just so you know there is a time limit form the date of becoming aware of the court action you did not know about to do your Stat Dec - 21 days IIRC.

AlterEgo said:

It's worth knowing that unless you have specific (and fairly unusual) mitigation under Section 8 of TfL's Prosecution Policy, or unless you are very young, TfL always prosecute these cases. It's not clear to me what writing to TfL would achieve; you committed a crime, they prosecuted it and a court (not they) found you guilty. It seems extremely unlikely a Verification Letter or the SJPN were not *sent*, these are prerequisites to moving the case forward. They will just say "we sent them", probably.

Click to expand...

Or over 60s who curiously are not prosecuted by TFL

jumble said:

Or over 60s who curiously are not prosecuted by TFL

Click to expand...

That policy is no longer in force.

lb001 said:

That policy is no longer in force.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify when it was ceased

Not too long, earlier this year. IRs are now able to be completed for all 18+, with no upper age limit. How the prosecutions team chose to apply this still remains to be seen based on the cases we see.

jumble said:

Can you clarify when it was ceased

Click to expand...

The current policy is dated November 2025 and does not include reference to automatically not prosecuting those aged over 60.

The age of the offender is still considered as part of the decision as to whether prosecution is in the public interest. The older someone is, the more likely it is that it won't be in the public interest, especially given the Freedom Pass.

Tetchytyke said:

The age of the offender is still considered as part of the decision as to whether prosecution is in the public interest. The older someone is, the more likely it is that it won't be in the public interest, especially given the Freedom Pass.

Click to expand...

Isn't it one of the perks of being a London resident that the State pension Age "bus pass" is extended to all TfL services? They could still catch out of town day visitors and tourists.

MarlowDonkey said:

Isn't it one of the perks of being a London resident that the State pension Age "bus pass" is extended to all TfL services? They could still catch out of town day visitors and tourists.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Freedom Pass makes most travel free on most TfL services.

It's also tougher to argue that prosecuting a pensioner from out of town for fare evasion when that fare would be zero for locals is in the public interest. So you wouldn't expect many over-60s to be prosecuted.

Tetchytyke said:

The current policy is dated November 2025 and does not include reference to automatically not prosecuting those aged over 60.

The age of the offender is still considered as part of the decision as to whether prosecution is in the public interest. The older someone is, the more likely it is that it won't be in the public interest, especially given the Freedom Pass.

Click to expand...

Thanks
Happy to be corrected
I was going by old info
Note to self: Must say "My understanding is" in future