171 offences - what to do - Help please.

[dantheman3547]

Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time to read. In a nutshell, here's my situation:

My partner did not tell me about any of this until today when the Magistrates' Court Requisition arrived. I am a law student, so I was quite shocked.
In Aug '23, he was caught using my photocard Oyster, which I did not know about, and was told he would be fined £175. He was okay to pay.

Today, his Requisition totals nearly £1,000 plus £400 for costs. They are accusing him of making 171 journeys on my Oyster which, of course, he did not do.
I happen to have proof of this, as my location is archived every day via my phone, of which I have 3 years of records.

I have spoken to some 'specialist' solicitors and they are quoting near £1,000 for preliminary services.

Does anybody have any advice on what to do here?
We are a young couple just starting out in the City and do not have £1,500 to spare to plead Guilty, never mind over £1,000 for solicitors.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Sultan]

Could you upload a copy of the requisition, with all personal details redacted (name, case number, etc)? The advice you receive will depend on exactly what stage the process is at and what your options are. The TOC (Train Operating Company) is also important.

Was the photocard confiscated when your partner was caught? The Train company have probably reviewed usage of said card (on the same route?) and assumed that he was the one travelling at the time. I'm not sure whether phone location is acceptable proof - they may well have evidence to the contrary. Can you be sure that your partner hasn't used the pass without your knowledge before - it would be most unlucky to get caught the first time (although they are flagged as high-value benefits so are more likely to be challenged).

As a law student, you may want to distance yourself from this as far as possible and let your partner take the penalty, whatever that may be. I assume he is not a law student as well.

Others will be along to advise but this could be a very tricky situation for your partner (and you, if the TOC suspect you were aware of your card being used by someone else).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

I was about to say much the same as @Sultan, but as they've said it I won't repeat it. I will add, however, that if your partner is also a student, it may be worth talking in the first instance to his student union: they may be in a better position to advise, maybe offer legal support or direct him towards a legal practice which is aware of the sort of budget that students are on.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

We really need to see copies of what has been sent to be able to advise properly. By pleading guiltu (or being found guilty following a trial) you would have to pay:

- A fine based on your weekly income (normally discounted by a third for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards the train company’s costs
- Compensation for the fares avoided

Are they claiming £1,000 for the fares avoided, or is it their costs? I doubt the requisition will have a figure for the fine as this is imposed by the court as a punishment upon conviction.

 

[penalty fares]

Ask to attend court and you can present the evidence of the journeys you had made.
All they really have is the 1 day and consider that he used it others, unless he admitted others.
For the prosecutions to raise a summons they would need evidence of the journeys that he had made.
Depends what the charge is and what its raised for. Regulations of railways act has to prove intent.

Would be good to ask some of these questions.

Attending court and pleading guilty as Hadders has said raises costs for many issues normally £220 inital fine with less than £100 in a surcharge. Company costs and the fares that can be proven to be avoided.

 

[dantheman3547]

Could you upload a copy of the requisition, with all personal details redacted (name, case number, etc)? The advice you receive will depend on exactly what stage the process is at and what your options are. The TOC (Train Operating Company) is also important.

Was the photocard confiscated when your partner was caught? The Train company have probably reviewed usage of said card (on the same route?) and assumed that he was the one travelling at the time. I'm not sure whether phone location is acceptable proof - they may well have evidence to the contrary. Can you be sure that your partner hasn't used the pass without your knowledge before - it would be most unlucky to get caught the first time (although they are flagged as high-value benefits so are more likely to be challenged).

As a law student, you may want to distance yourself from this as far as possible and let your partner take the penalty, whatever that may be. I assume he is not a law student as well.

Others will be along to advise but this could be a very tricky situation for your partner (and you, if the TOC suspect you were aware of your card being used by someone else).

Hi all, many thanks for your replies.

Please see attached the redacted Requisition received today. There is about 20+ pages of my journey history that I have not added to the pdf. The journey history spans zones 1 to 4 and is not just between the stations in question, it is across the TfL network at vast intervals, dates and times.

The photocard was confiscated, yes.
My partner is not a law student nor any student (so no student union help).
This was indeed the first time, and he was flagged due to the high value benefits (see witness statement of TfL staff).

Some context:
I was out of the UK at the time and thus left my Oyster at home. I usually carried it in my phone wallet (which I now still do) and this was the first time I'd taken it out for ages, thus I am confident my partner had not used it without my permission before. My partner earlier that day had been mugged and left home by taking the Oyster he saw on the side, which was mistakenly mine. He was caught entering our home station, not when trying to get out, and thus it was his first instance of noticing it was not his card.
He is adamant that he explained this to the TfL staff member, yet, as you will see, it is not in their witness statement.
Whilst I was out of the country, my partner told me he had been mugged and that he had my Oyster on him at the time. He was ashamed and shocked by the day and I ordered a new Oyster for myself shortly after. He told me he had used my Oyster by mistake.

My partner is not wanting to plead guilty to 171 offences, of which 170 are not offences.

Any advice appreciated.

Many thanks.

 

[jon0844]

How many times have you been stopped and checked? It seems odd they you make 170 trips and then 1 trip results in a check; the one day someone else is using the card.

And did your partner get a crime reference number after the mugging? I am not sure it's relevant or very helpful to suggest that after being mugged, another card was used instead, but it might at least explain the desperation and a misjudgement clouded by stress.

 

[dantheman3547]

How many times have you been stopped and checked? It seems odd they you make 170 trips and then 1 trip results in a check; the one day someone else is using the card.

And did your partner get a crime reference number after the mugging? I am not sure it's relevant or very helpful to suggest that after being mugged, another card was used instead, but it might at least explain the desperation and a misjudgement clouded by stress.

I had been stopped and checked before yes, but I can't remember how many times.

I do not believe that he got a crime reference number, no.

 

[Snow1964]

As a law student you need to keep yourself out of this, (off record helping is ok, but you don't want anything that could affect your career on record), if you were out of the country say so, and won't do any harm providing copies of you flight tickets, or hotel invoice abroad.

Your partner should admit to taking your ticket accidentally and presenting it for that journey, due to having accidentally picking up wrong ticket, due to distress of being mugged. But should clearly plead Not guilty to all the other 170 occasions when they had their own ticket. If you have partners oyster card number get them to write back and say no, used own oyster not yours for those 170 trips.

They probably have taken an easy route and assumed done same as day he was caught (without actually having any evidence). They are fishing for someone to admit extra guilt. Assume they won't have known about the other ticket (And it might well be some journeys overlapped in time, so had to be two people travelling especially if at different locations at same time. If they have researched the history of your ticket, they can also do his (but obviously won't have as don't yet know about it)

 

[furlong]

1) They are only prosecuting for ONE offence, but INIVITING admission of all the others.

Normally there would have been previous paperwork where this could all have been sorted out in response - but you are suggesting this paperwork was probably ignored, head in the sand style?

2) If it was genuinely you travelling, then he should NOT admit to the other journeys. That's the page saying 'offences to be taking into consideration' which he would NOT sign - see point 3 'THAT YOU WERE THE PERSON MAKING THOSE JOURNEYS'. They can then charge each one separately if they want to which, if it's as you say, they'd have no evidence to prove, and you'd have some evidence from tracking to help to rebut.

 

[dantheman3547]

My partner had received no correspondence from TfL apart from two letters dated August 2023 and October 2023.
The first asked for his details, the second confirmed receipt of these details.

He sent them an email in September asking for an update, as they hadn't replied to him with anything, and included his personal Oyster card number in this email for them to check.

This is all correspondence ever received from TfL.

 

[pedr]

I think your partner needs some advice from a general criminal solicitor or someone familiar with the procedures involved in taking offences into account so that his response is in line with what magistrates and legal advisors would expect.

It appears that it is possible to plead guilty to the offence charged but refuse the offer that the other alleged offences are taking into consideration in sentencing. This would mean the prosecutor/TOC would have to find evidence of those journeys and charge them separately (which you and your partner say they wouldn’t be able to do). In any event it should mean that the fine and compensation ordered would be on the basis of the one journey charged, not the additional 171. But this is something where expert advice would be worth obtaining I think.

 

[30907]

Your partner definitely needs to follow the procedure on the last page you have posted, admitting to the one offence only.

As you yourself have committed no offence, I don't see why you should avoid getting involved publicly, eg as a witness, but perhaps you should get informal advice from your place of study.

 

[dantheman3547]

Thank you all. We are starting to gain a clearer picture of what's going on now. I think that a requisition of this kind coming through the post was greatly shocking and scary for him.

He is happy to plead guilty to the one and none of the others.

He is wondering what a fine to that tune would entail - for one instance of the fare evasion in question, what can he expect to pay?

I will be reaching out to recommended criminal solicitors tomorrow, as I have a fair few I know, to get some advice for him.

I do not intend to get involved publicly, and I thank you all for mentioning it. I know what the standards and image is like.

 

[furlong]

Also note it is in February, so there is sufficient time to get in touch with TfL and inform them he won't be signing the schedule and explaining why, hoping to persuade them to take no further action - something that should normally have happened at an earlier stage of the investigation. You must make yourself 100% sure that every journey was yours though - do check your tracking data yourself to confirm this.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you all. We are starting to gain a clearer picture of what's going on now. I think that a requisition of this kind coming through the post was greatly shocking and scary for him.

He is happy to plead guilty to the one and none of the others.

He is wondering what a fine to that tune would entail - for one instance of the fare evasion in question, what can he expect to pay?

I will be reaching out to recommended criminal solicitors tomorrow, as I have a fair few I know, to get some advice for him.

I do not intend to get involved publicly, and I thank you all for mentioning it. I know what the standards and image is like.

Not sure this adds much to the helpful advice others have posted - but do both you and your partner have Oyster cards registered with TfL and if so does the journey history on them show both being used during the period concerned (do the records you can see go back that long I can't recall) - if your partner's journey history shows regular use of their Oyster then this would help back up a story (tho would not guarantee it) that the card was used once as a one off mistake. You may not want to use this evidence or you may want to - but the important thing would be to get the evidence from the cards journey histories if you can. So you have it in case you need it.

 

[dantheman3547]

Thanks again all.
He is in the process of extracting his personal Oyster card data / journey history at the moment, which (I think) will help.

Thanks again for all help.
He intends to plead guilty to the one instance and not guilty to the other 170+ journeys as they have no evidence for these at all and he believes he will have evidence to the contrary.

He is scheduled for some professional advice tomorrow and thanks again to you all, as we weren't clear that the other 170+ were not the charged offences from the requisition. Any more advice welcome.

 

[MotCO]

Can you clarify an issue regarding your friend's mugging? You say your friend was mugged and had your Oyster card; was your Oyster card stolen by the mugger? If so, your friend had used the card at least twice - once when he was mugged and once on the day he was stopped since he was able to show a card to the inspector. You ordered a new Oyster card - was this because the inspector had confiscated your card, or because the mugger had stolen it?

 

[dantheman3547]

Apologies - for clarity:

My partner did not have the Oyster card on him when he was mugged. He returned home and picked it up by mistake as a result of the shock that was caused by the mugging.

The card was confiscated by the inspector.

Thanks.

 

[jon0844]

Why didn't he report this to the police exactly? Non reported crimes mean less police funding, as well as the offender being free to continue mugging people.

It might have provided a small amount of mitigation, but otherwise could just be seen as a farfetched excuse.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

He intends to plead guilty to the one instance and not guilty to the other 170+ journeys as they have no evidence for these at all and he believes he will have evidence to the contrary.

This paragraph is potentially slightly concerning, saying as they have no evidence of the 170+ other journeys he will plead not guilty to them, is slightly different to saying he never made any of those other journey at all.

Just for clarity is there any possibility that he has used the card more than the one time he was caught, as if things are held back it can affect the best advice given etc

 

[dantheman3547]

Why didn't he report this to the police exactly? Non reported crimes mean less police funding, as well as the offender being free to continue mugging people.

It might have provided a small amount of mitigation, but otherwise could just be seen as a farfetched excuse.

For the same reason that many crimes go unreported, my partner had very little faith in our local police force at the time due to poor previous dealings. There is also a degree of embarrassment for many victims of crime - they took his personal possessions.

This paragraph is potentially slightly concerning, saying as they have no evidence of the 170+ other journeys he will plead not guilty to them, is slightly different to saying he never made any of those other journey at all.

Just for clarity is there any possibility that he has used the card more than the one time he was caught, as if things are held back it can affect the best advice given etc

That is my fault - apologies. To the best of my knowledge, and I have been liaising with him closely today, he did not make any of the other journeys.
I did. It's my journey history that I'm looking at - I can place myself on those journeys, I know what they were for and who I was with at the times.

There is, of course, the possibility that he used my card more than that once and wasn't questioned, as our Oyster cards were identical (in all but photograph) as he had a photocard too. That's the mistake he made - he picked up mine and not his. I use my Oyster photocard every single day and have been asked to see it maybe 5 times in 2 years. It's impossible to say whether he'd accidentally done it before and not noticed, our Oysters are kept in wallets.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Sorry if this has been answered, but what kind of photocard do you each have? Was your partner actually travelling any more cheaply by using his card rather than yours?

 

[dantheman3547]

Sorry if this has been answered, but what kind of photocard do you each have? Was your partner actually travelling any more cheaply by using his card rather than yours?

It's not been answered.

I have a student 18+ one, he had an Apprentice one at the time. He is no longer an apprentice so just has a normal blue one now.

 

[Sultan]

One thing that could help is identifying if any of the 170 journeys made with your photocard were also made with your partner's Oyster card, indicating that you travelled together. That would be easier evidence to submit without your personal intervention than mobile phone location records, which may only be permissible as evidence if it goes to court (assuming TFL charge him with those offences).

I wish you well on this.

 

[dantheman3547]

One thing that could help is identifying if any of the 170 journeys made with your photocard were also made with your partner's Oyster card, indicating that you travelled together. That would be easier evidence to submit without your personal intervention than mobile phone location records, which may only be permissible as evidence if it goes to court (assuming TFL charge him with those offences).

I wish you well on this.

Thanks for all of your help, Sultan.

My partner offered his personal oyster number to TfL right at the very start when the TfL inspector caught him, and again via email a month later, so that TfL could see that he has his own Oyster and this was a genuine mistake. TfL never took him up on it, and now his Oyster journey data is no longer saved (it saves up to 9 weeks).

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for all of your help, Sultan.

My partner offered his personal oyster number to TfL right at the very start when the TfL inspector caught him, and again via email a month later, so that TfL could see that he has his own Oyster and this was a genuine mistake. TfL never took him up on it, and now his Oyster journey data is no longer saved (it saves up to 9 weeks).

That someone sometimes pays for their journeys isn’t a defence - but if you and your partner made the *same journey at the same time* you could use it to try to convince them not all the journeys on the card are his. Is this the case?

 

[pedr]

At this stage, is evidence or argument about the uncharged journeys relevant? The court can't (as I understand it) require a defendant to have uncharged offences taken into account. Should TfL seek to bring additional charges for those journeys, the defendant could then advance these defences and require TfL to prove that he was the person making them, surely?

 

[furlong]

My partner offered his personal oyster number to TfL right at the very start when the TfL inspector caught him, and again via email a month later, so that TfL could see that he has his own Oyster and this was a genuine mistake. TfL never took him up on it, and now his Oyster journey data is no longer saved (it saves up to 9 weeks).

They had a duty to retain all the journey history available as at the point they became aware of the Oyster card number and to supply it as it could assist the defence - make sure they provide it. (If they can't/don't - this demonstrates deficiencies similar to those of the Post Office, though of course on a much smaller scale. Are they making accusations of offences and seeking a confession while ignoring evidence already in their possession that strongly suggests there's an alternative explanation?)

 

[Snow1964]

Thanks for all of your help, Sultan.

My partner offered his personal oyster number to TfL right at the very start when the TfL inspector caught him, and again via email a month later, so that TfL could see that he has his own Oyster and this was a genuine mistake. TfL never took him up on it, and now his Oyster journey data is no longer saved (it saves up to 9 weeks).

The data is retained for much longer, but it gets moved to backup disks, and is no longer on the recent viewable online version.

Clearly if keep few years data on front system, then will slow the data retrieval for everyone.

If TfL want to take it to Court it would be reasonable to ask for it to be evidence. It could be partners card has more or less journeys over same period, as some days one or other of you didn't travel. There might even be days where partners oyster was used but yours wasn't which rather suggests your card was not being misused previously.

Unfortunately it looks like the Inspector has assumed guilty multiple times, and has chosen to ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise. You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to stop their false assumption of travelled exactly 171 times with wrong ticket.