-

[Snow1964]

Can someone clarify, does entering the station (in this case with wrong card), but then not commencing a journey, or leaving the ticket hall, actually mean the ticket was used as opposed to just read.

If the correct ticket was then used to commence the journey then I am guessing the only offence is tapping wrong ticket, and not one of travelling on wrong ticket, unless a few paces to the staff member is TfLs definition of a journey

Its quite subtle, but clearly if both tickets were in same pocket and you had grabbed both in error and the wrong card was read, you would effectively be in same position. Had it been a staffed entrance where you show tickets to a real person and you accidentally offered two tickets stuck together then they would have realised the error and chosen correct ticket, so in a way you have fallen foul of mechanisation that can’t cope with errors.

 

[Aime]

Can someone clarify, does entering the station (in this case with wrong card), but then not commencing a journey, or leaving the ticket hall, actually mean the ticket was used as opposed to just read.

If the correct ticket was then used to commence the journey then I am guessing the only offence is tapping wrong ticket, and not one of travelling on wrong ticket, unless a few paces to the staff member is TfLs definition of a journey

Its quite subtle, but clearly if both tickets were in same pocket and you had grabbed both in error and the wrong card was read, you would effectively be in same position. Had it been a staffed entrance where you show tickets to a real person and you accidentally offered two tickets stuck together then they would have realised the error and chosen correct ticket, so in a way you have fallen foul of mechanisation that can’t cope with errors.

I only tapped in. The wrong card was read but not used for the journey. I paid the fare of the entire journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

@Aime - I think it is better to wait and see which offence they try to charge you with before we give presumptuous advice.

In the meantime, you have two options. The letter TfL have sent is a bit of a disgrace as it does not tell you which offence they are asking you to admit to or deny. So:

1) Reply to the letter along the lines of

Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. Your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I make no comment in response.

Yours faithfully

[NAME]

OR

2) Reply to the letter simply with your own version of what happened when you were stopped. Be very careful not to admit to or deny any offence.

Start of journey.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==


But how can they determine it was being misused and a mistake? I was entirely compliant and honest when I realised and actively pursued the payment of my journey.

Tapping the pass to enter the system is using the ticket. Offering to pay the correct fare, and indeed paying the correct fare, are not defences to most of the offences they could charge you with.

Also, this is the first time anything like this has ever happened to me. Will they take that into consideration? I have really be worried sick by the entire thing.

Well if you've no record of Penalty Fares or other incidents in the TfL network you won't be "hit hard" by the court, but I regret that if TfL decide you've done something wrong they almost always go straight to court after the correspondence and do not usually entertain settling outside of court.

The letter also does not provide any facts. So I don’t really know how to approach it? I will go by your advice from the other forum. However they can’t really expect a person to respond sufficiently to a letter so vague? There is no contact number, so I can’t call to inquire about anything either. Do you have any advice for this?

Do not call them.

How much are they allowed to investigate without my knowledge? Aren’t they supposed to inform me on what they are investigating? Currently I hold no information about anything. There has got to be a capacity of what they are allowed to investigate before it becomes a privacy issue? I just don’t know how this works.

They're investigating you for a criminal matter so no, they don't need to tell you what they are investigating or why. In the meantime they will be investigating, almost certainly, past uses of the Freedom Pass because in their experience someone caught misusing one isn't normally doing it for the first time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

Also does the type of freedom pass make a difference to how they treat the case? This is not a 60+ card. It is a disabled persons card I believe.

Likely not.

 

[WesternLancer]

If it makes any difference, i’m a law student at university.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

As a student you may be able to get help with this whole things from your students union - so I would ask them (eg if they have a welfare or advice service) - they may be able to help you respond - although there is probably plenty of good advice on this forum.

The thing is, how would they be able to determine WHO is frequently using the card? My mum makes a few regular trips weekly with her card, but in what way do they determine that’s her and not me since they are investigating me?

Well, it may well not apply to you or your mum - but you can imagine say, if they found your mum's card had been used every day for a week or two at set working hours, lets say (and that was not the historic usage pattern), they may not believe this was a one off error. But I can't imagine this will be the case - but that will be what people mean by 'investigating' - ie checking the cards usage history. As you say, they would probably not be able to tell who was using it, unless they start to cross match CCTV etc - which I doubt they would do unless they have reason to suspect long term abuse of the card.

But do not over worry about this (unless you have been doing such things) as they would have to be able to prove that or at least to the extent that a magistrate would believe it - and you would, given what you have said, deny such use.

So juts focus on explaining what happened at this stage.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. Your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I make no comment in response.

Yours faithfully

[NAME]

To me the "no comment" sentence reads as overly blunt and may be seen as antagonistic. Is "If you provide me with details of the suspected offence I'll be happy to respond" better?

 

[WesternLancer]

To me the "no comment" sentence reads as overly blunt and may be seen as antagonistic. Is "If you provide me with details of the suspected offence I'll be happy to respond" better?

or go with @AlterEgo 's option 2 response?

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Why do you not want them to investigate the previous use of the pass? Ie why do you not want them to usage check the cctv? Surely checking the cctv would only help you if you have only done it once by accident.

 

[WesternLancer]

Why do you not want them to investigate the previous use of the pass? Ie why do you not want them to usage check the cctv? Surely checking the cctv would only help you if you have only done it once by accident.

Did the OP actually say they did not want them to investigate the past usage of the pass?

Wasn't the OP more concerned about why they might need to do that? Which isn't quite the same thing although I can see why you have posed the question you have.

To the OP: the reason why they do this sort of thing is because sadly many people who say that they just made a mistake, actually turn out to be not being honest about things, and have committed other similar things which are offences, so they want to catch those people 'red handed'. Of course not everyone who is stopped is such a person, but it is surely understandable why they then check records to seek to find out.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Also what grounds would they need to investigate card usage history or CCTV footage and how can I avoid them from taking this action? What would I need to say in my statement.

Did the OP actually say they did not want them to investigate the past usage of the pass?

certainly reads as not wanting cctv viewed or the usage investigated to me

 

[AlterEgo]

To me the "no comment" sentence reads as overly blunt and may be seen as antagonistic. Is "If you provide me with details of the suspected offence I'll be happy to respond" better?

I think it is wiser to simply say as little as possible and make clear you are exercising your right not to respond.

If I was being interviewed under caution and I was said "so, you got arrested, we didn't even tell you what for, would you like to admit to any offences you committed today? "No comment."

I would not even invite them to ask me what I'm supposed to have done. No comment. Do not do their work for them.

Option 2 is perhaps less blunt but also gives them information they did not ask for. But IANAL.

 

[30907]

But how can they determine it was being misused and a mistake?

It was misused because you weren't entitled to use it.

I was entirely compliant and honest when I realised and actively pursued the payment of my journey.

Unfortunately, someone who had been "trying it on" would have done much the same as you - a careless mistake and a deliberate act look exactly the same.

What is straightforward byelaw route?

Apologies for being too brief.
A prosecution under the TfL Byelaws for not having a valid ticket (which covers tapping in with an invalid card) is straightforward from their point of view because they do not have to prove that you intended to avoid payment, as they would for any more serious offence.

The good news is that, even if you are prosecuted and found guilty, a Byelaw offence is non-recordable and is highly unlikely to have any impact on your studies or future career.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

I think it is wiser to simply say as little as possible and make clear you are exercising your right not to respond.

Only if you wish to contest the case in court. It is effectively an invitation to TfL to proceed straight to a Byelaw prosecution (at the least).

 

[AlterEgo]

Only if you wish to contest the case in court. It is effectively an invitation to TfL to proceed straight to a Byelaw prosecution (at the least).

I suspect they will do this regardless, because of the circumstances of the OP’s alleged offence. It’s TfL.

I’d recommend not answering any further questions to avoid self-incrimination so it stays at a Bylaw offence.

 

[Hadders]

To me the "no comment" sentence reads as overly blunt and may be seen as antagonistic. Is "If you provide me with details of the suspected offence I'll be happy to respond" better?

I agree, especially as the OP is told in the letter that they are answering under caution. You could modify the reply to say:

'Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. I wish to assist you with your enquiries but your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I would be grateful if you could confirm the offence I am suspected of committing.

Yours faithfully'

I do think that you should consult a solicitor first before sending this sort of reply, as this sort of reply might be seen as being inflamatory.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree, especially as the OP is told in the letter that they are answering under caution. You could modify the reply to say:

'Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. I wish to assist you with your enquiries but your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I would be grateful if you could confirm the offence I am suspected of committing.

Yours faithfully'

I do think that you should consult a solicitor first before sending this sort of reply, as this sort of reply might be seen as being inflamatory.

We can be fairly sure TfL are going to prosecute anyway for a minimum open-and-shut Bylaw offence - it is what they do 99% of the time - why invite further correspondence? There is no benefit to being overly cooperative in this case, with this train company. The OP:

- Had someone else's Freedom Pass
- Tapped it in to make a journey
- Was stopped
- Believes they may have come across as hostile
- Already appears to have given answers to questions under caution at the time of the stop
- Has, I'm sorry to say, a flimsy excuse for the actions whether they are true or not
- Is concerned about the possibility of further investigation and how to "stop" this

I wouldn't even ask what I'm suspected of. Just say no comment. That is a perfectly acceptable answer to a question put to you under caution and it makes clear in writing that rather than ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the question, you understand it has been asked and you are using your right to make no comment.

The letter starts by listing the rights the OP has, and not answering a question is perfectly within your rights and may well be advantageous at this stage. The OP does not even need to reply to the letter to take advantage of their right not to incriminate themselves further, such is the nature of that question (a big bear trap if you ask me), although I don't think doing that would be helpful.

 

[island]

Can someone clarify, does entering the station (in this case with wrong card), but then not commencing a journey, or leaving the ticket hall, actually mean the ticket was used as opposed to just read.

Most TfL* stations have compulsory ticket areas so the OP would commit a byelaw offence merely by being in the area behind the ticket gate without having a valid ticket.

*To save the pedants from spelling out irrelevant differences between TfL and London Underground, please note I intend with my use of "TfL" to encompass all subsidiaries.

 

[Aime]

I agree, especially as the OP is told in the letter that they are answering under caution. You could modify the reply to say:

'Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. I wish to assist you with your enquiries but your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I would be grateful if you could confirm the offence I am suspected of committing.

Yours faithfully'

I do think that you should consult a solicitor first before sending this sort of reply, as this sort of reply might be seen as being inflamatory.

Do you think it might be better off if I just gave them the information they are asking for? I don’t want to have to go to court over this as I do have a lot of anxiety and feel like I won’t be able to effectively defend or even express myself.

I would consult a solicitor but they charge a fair amount. Am I still able to get basic advice from a solicitor, and are you able to recommend to me one that would offer this- without paying hundreds of pounds?

I will definitely address the fact that I do not accept nor deny fault as no offence has been referenced in the letter. But maybe it might aggravate the court if I don’t just directly cooperate. But it makes more logical sense to actually ask what it is they are accusing me of, before I start offering information.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2022 ==

We can be fairly sure TfL are going to prosecute anyway for a minimum open-and-shut Bylaw offence - it is what they do 99% of the time - why invite further correspondence? There is no benefit to being overly cooperative in this case, with this train company. The OP:

- Had someone else's Freedom Pass
- Tapped it in to make a journey
- Was stopped
- Believes they may have come across as hostile
- Already appears to have given answers to questions under caution at the time of the stop
- Has, I'm sorry to say, a flimsy excuse for the actions whether they are true or not
- Is concerned about the possibility of further investigation and how to "stop" this

I wouldn't even ask what I'm suspected of. Just say no comment. That is a perfectly acceptable answer to a question put to you under caution and it makes clear in writing that rather than ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the question, you understand it has been asked and you are using your right to make no comment.

The letter starts by listing the rights the OP has, and not answering a question is perfectly within your rights and may well be advantageous at this stage. The OP does not even need to reply to the letter to take advantage of their right not to incriminate themselves further, such is the nature of that question (a big bear trap if you ask me), although I don't think doing that would be helpful.

Isn’t that me just setting myself up to attend a court hearing? This is something I’d prefer to avoid for my mental health. I’d much prefer writing to them over speaking in court. On what grounds will they take me to court? And if they were to prosecute, could they do this without going to court? It says online that if I admit to an offence I have the choice of whether I attend court or not. If I don’t admit then I have to attend. Is this true and does it apply in my case? Sorry for all the questions today- just preparing myself to write the response.

 

[Aime]

I agree, especially as the OP is told in the letter that they are answering under caution. You could modify the reply to say:

'Thank you for your letter of [DATE].

I was stopped on [DATE] and my details were taken. I wish to assist you with your enquiries but your letter asks me directly to admit to or deny an offence, yet your letter makes no reference to the offence you suspect me of.

I would be grateful if you could confirm the offence I am suspected of committing.

Yours faithfully'

I do think that you should consult a solicitor first before sending this sort of reply, as this sort of reply might be seen as being inflamatory.

Ok, I will consider this reply. Am I able to consult with this type of solicitor briefly without paying a huge sum? If so do you know any?

 

[Aime]

We can be fairly sure TfL are going to prosecute anyway for a minimum open-and-shut Bylaw offence - it is what they do 99% of the time - why invite further correspondence? There is no benefit to being overly cooperative in this case, with this train company. The OP:

- Had someone else's Freedom Pass
- Tapped it in to make a journey
- Was stopped
- Believes they may have come across as hostile
- Already appears to have given answers to questions under caution at the time of the stop
- Has, I'm sorry to say, a flimsy excuse for the actions whether they are true or not
- Is concerned about the possibility of further investigation and how to "stop" this

I wouldn't even ask what I'm suspected of. Just say no comment. That is a perfectly acceptable answer to a question put to you under caution and it makes clear in writing that rather than ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the question, you understand it has been asked and you are using your right to make no comment.

The letter starts by listing the rights the OP has, and not answering a question is perfectly within your rights and may well be advantageous at this stage. The OP does not even need to reply to the letter to take advantage of their right not to incriminate themselves further, such is the nature of that question (a big bear trap if you ask me), although I don't think doing that would be helpful.

What is a minimum open and shut bylaw offence? How does this work.

 

[WesternLancer]

Ok, I will consider this reply. Am I able to consult with this type of solicitor briefly without paying a huge sum? If so do you know any?

This firm gets mentioned on this forum - tho I can not recall anyone then reporting back after using them or saying what their charge regime is - but you could ring them and ask them what fee they charge and if they do an initial free consultation for advice

Fare Evasion - Penman Sedgwick

penmansedgwick.com

If you are a student your student union (SU) will quite likely have a 'deal' with a solicitors firm who may give initial free advice - ask the SU asap if they do this, or have list of local solicitors who give help to students at reduced rates - many will do this. As you said you are studying law at university is there anyone in your department you could ask if they know of legal advice for students?

 

[AlterEgo]

I will definitely address the fact that I do not accept nor deny fault as no offence has been referenced in the letter. But maybe it might aggravate the court if I don’t just directly cooperate. But it makes more logical sense to actually ask what it is they are accusing me of, before I start offering information.

I'll preface this by saying I am not a solicitor and this isn't legal advice.

Courts do not get "aggravated". You are entitled to refuse to answer questions. A magistrate may draw an inference from that refusal but it will not "aggravate" them. It is, in some circumstances, wise not to answer questions under caution when you do not have a legal representative present and that is a perfectly adequate justification for you using that right.

A solicitor would lay out the pros and cons in a proper way - I am not a solicitor - but I think you should be reminded again of your right to simply not answer a terrible, open question which has been set as a huge trap to gather evidence against you.

You are, unquestionably, guilty of the strict liability Bylaw offence of failing to present a valid ticket. Tapping through the barrier on someone else's card and being stopped on the "paid" side by revenue officers waiting for someone to do it means you were caught. No intent is required to be proven, a bit like speeding.

A Bylaw conviction is not recordable - so it doesn't get entered on the Police National Computer and you won't have a "criminal record" - at least by that definition anyway. A Bylaw offence is strict liability and very, very minor in the scheme of things.

A more serious offence is the Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) 1889, which requires you to have the intent to "avoid payment" of the fare. Tapping someone else's Freedom Pass and having a poor excuse as to why you did that - especially if other instances of misuse come to light - may invite a court to believe you did intend to avoid payment and convict you of this offence, but you must be charged with it by TfL.

However, we see most often that TfL dispose of offences even where clear intent is shown, by way of Bylaw prosecutions instead. This is a much simpler offence to prove and much easier to arrange a case for. TfL prosecute God knows how many people each year so this is something of an efficient machine and they don't like the faff of RoRA prosecutions.

Isn’t that me just setting myself up to attend a court hearing?

TfL do not settle, by habit. There will almost certainly be a court hearing but you do not have to attend in person and can submit your mitigation in writing. Your objective now is to ensure your offence is only a Bylaw one and not to give them any cause to prosecute you for offences involving intent. Hence, if it were me, I would not answer the questions in the letter. During your stop you probably inadvertently gave them small pieces of evidence like a motive (I'm a student, I don't have a lot of money, I'm borrowing this coat) which may be used against you if you pleased not quilty and were cross-examined.

My rule is to let them take their time to uncover the evidence, especially if you have used the Freedom Pass before. Do not do it for them.

In any case, whatever you choose to do with your reply, do post a draft on here and posters will be able to advise on tone, clarity and make suggestions.

 

[island]

You are, unquestionably, guilty of the strict liability Bylaw offence of failing to present a valid ticket.

This is not correct, as there is no such byelaw offence.

The OP does, however, seem to be guilty of the offence of entering a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is not correct, as there is no such byelaw offence.

The OP does, however, seem to be guilty of the offence of entering a compulsory ticket area without having a valid ticket.

My apologies - this is of course what I meant.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I will definitely address the fact that I do not accept nor deny fault as no offence has been referenced in the letter. But maybe it might aggravate the court if I don’t just directly cooperate.

You might want to note that the court isn't yet involved: if failing to respond to this point aggravates anyone, it will be TfL. Of course, it's TfL who will decide whether to prosecute, so you might not want to annoy them - but the court (the magistrates) won't be too concerned about whether you agreed with TfL at an early point or not.

(A) court hearing? This is something I’d prefer to avoid for my mental health. I’d much prefer writing to them over speaking in court. On what grounds will they take me to court? And if they were to prosecute, could they do this without going to court?

Realistically, unless TfL decide not to take any further action, this will end up with a prosecution. But if you are prepared to accept the charge that they make, it's possible that this can be dealt with through the Single Justice Procedure, which is in writing.

So on the basis of what you have told us, if you are charged with using an invalid ticket to enter a station (or, assuming inside the ticket barrier at Piccadilly Circus to be a compulsory ticket area, being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket - they amount to the same thing) then you may be able to accept that you are guilty and pay the fine, and do it all by letter. But as you have told us that this was an accident, if you are charged with intending to travel with an invalid ticket, then you will either have to accept that, or be prepared to attend court.

 

[island]

if you are charged with using an invalid ticket to enter a station

that's also not an offence, unless you think it comes under byelaw 9 (2) passing through a gateline otherwise than in the proper manner, but the compulsory ticket area one will stand, as under TfL's byelaws a compulsory ticket area is anywhere so identified by notice, and there are notices on the ticket gates.

There's also a byelaw 20 (2) offence of receiving an unused or partly used ticket intending that it be used for travel, but I don't think they'll charge that.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

that's also not an offence, unless you think it comes under byelaw 9 (2) passing through a gateline otherwise than in the proper manner, but the compulsory ticket area one will stand, as under TfL's byelaws a compulsory ticket area is anywhere so identified by notice, and there are notices on the ticket gates.

There's also a byelaw 20 (2) offence of receiving an unused or partly used ticket intending that it be used for travel, but I don't think they'll charge that.

Now edited to clarify. As the timestamps will show, I was in the process of writing my post of 1338 when, at 1335, you were kind enough to share your knowledge of the TfL byelaws.

 

[Aime]

Ok, so who’s approach am I better off using for my initial response? @fawkescat provided a draft where I set out my version of events and essentially admit and apologise for the mistake (which I did rectify on the day) Or shall I ask for more information about what offence they believe I have committed before doing that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2022 ==

I am so grateful for all the help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2022 ==

I just want to be as non-inflammatory as possible because I feel bad but I also don’t want it to be incriminating.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2022 ==

You might want to note that the court isn't yet involved: if failing to respond to this point aggravates anyone, it will be TfL. Of course, it's TfL who will decide whether to prosecute, so you might not want to annoy them - but the court (the magistrates) won't be too concerned about whether you agreed with TfL at an early point or not.


Realistically, unless TfL decide not to take any further action, this will end up with a prosecution. But if you are prepared to accept the charge that they make, it's possible that this can be dealt with through the Single Justice Procedure, which is in writing.

So on the basis of what you have told us, if you are charged with using an invalid ticket to enter a station (or, assuming inside the ticket barrier at Piccadilly Circus to be a compulsory ticket area, being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket - they amount to the same thing) then you may be able to accept that you are guilty and pay the fine, and do it all by letter. But as you have told us that this was an accident, if you are charged with intending to travel with an invalid ticket, then you will either have to accept that, or be prepared to attend court.

Based on how vague the letter is, I feel as though they are accusing me of being in a ticket area without an invalid ticket. However because I did essentially have a “valid ticket” because I went back after the pass was taken and tapped in with contactless, that it might be the latter. Obviously I cannot confirm either as they haven’t said anything detailing this.

 

[Nottingham59]

I was tapping into piccadilly and starting my journey there.

May I ask how you got to Piccadilly? I assume you don't live within walking distance. If you had already used your contactless card one or more times earlier that day, it should be possible to show this with through your bank statements, or journey history if your card is registered with TfL. In an ideal world, you would already have reached the daily or weekly cap on contactless, so would have no reason to use the wrong card.

What type of evidence will stand in my favour?

A statement on the lines of the following might stand in your favour: "I tapped in with my contactless card number WXYZ as soon as my error with my mother's Freedom Pass was pointed out to me. I had used that contacless card previously that day (at ABC station and on a DEF bus) and this shows that I was not intending to avoid payment. You can verify this from the journey history of my contactless card and my mother's Freedom Pass". Whatever you say along these lines must be absolutely true. If there is any chance that you may have inadvertently used your mother's Pass earlier that day too, then I would not go down this route.

i’m a law student at university.

Similarly, if your contactless journey history shows that you make journeys to Law School every day (or every Tuesday etc.) using your contactless card, then that would be evidence in your favour. It goes without saying that if by any chance your mother's Freedom Pass shows a similar pattern of use, then I would not raise this point either.

 

[Aime]

Yes I used my contactless into Piccadilly on the same day. I was asking if it is useful to provide old paid fares as evidence, but somebody told me to leave out the evidence part for now and see what they might request from me first.

Only thing which might cause confusion is that the contactless I used on the way into piccadilly is not the same as the one I used after the freedom pass was removed. After the freedom pass was removed I just used my apple pay on my phone as I couldn’t find the contactless card which I originally reached for in my pocket. That however, is the card that I would have paid with, and has the journey into Piccadilly on it.
Would they find an issue with the fact the journey did not end on that card? I hope i’m explaining this clearly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2022 ==

Also what does the “under caution” part mean?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes I used my contactless into Piccadilly on the same day. I was asking if it is useful to provide old paid fares as evidence, but somebody told me to leave out the evidence part for now and see what they might request from me first.

It may be, depending on what you have.

I would still absolutely steer clear of directly answering the question posed in the letter and, if you do want to reply, submit your "inbound" contactless tap as evidence. This may indicate a lower likelihood of your actions being intentional but it may also show nothing at all - that perhaps a court be invited to consider you were passed the Freedom Pass that day, and used it then.

Be very careful with responding if you have used the Freedom Pass before. They are likely to find out, if that is the case,

Also what does the “under caution” part mean?

It means the interview is conducted in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the interview is admissible in court as evidence.

The caution is “you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”.

The police caution is a warning to the person being interviewed. In plain English, what it means is that you have a right to silence. It is up to you if you answer their questions or not. However, if the matter proceeds to court, and you give an account at court which you did not give to the police in interview, the court may be less likely to believe what you have to say. Anything that you do say to the police is recorded and will be used as evidence.

The letter also places you under caution which is why you need to be very careful what, if anything, you say in response to it.

 

[MotCO]

One small detail which I don't think has been raised before, is were you aware that your mother had left her pass in her pocket? If not, the natural inclination is to search in your pocket, find a card and use it without realising there was a second (unsuitable) card in the pocket.