-

[philthetube]

The TOCs should not be running a service using rest days. Not just from a financial perspective either. You also need to factor in the good will of staff to volunteer for the overtime.

If the DfT are allowing rest day agreements then they could be seen as supporting a broken system. By telling the TOC they cannot have one it will potentially force the TOC to resolve the service issues by other means. Increase staffing levels, better rostering, etc.

My mum always uses her card and I always mine. I was travelling at peak rush hour 6:30/7 and didn’t slow down upon reaching the barriers to tap in. I pulled out “my card” and continued on. It was literally as the officer approached me that I became aware of which card I had used and immediately complied to resolve the issue. If it makes any difference, i’m a law student at university. This is really detrimental for me and I fear the consequences more than the average person. That’s why I am so concerned about what to do! Why is a small human error so impossible to account for in our society! I feel really bad. I hope everything will be okay.

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

can you not find someone there with the knowledge to give advice?

 

[Aime]

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.

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.

can you not find someone there with the knowledge to give advice?

They don’t offer this

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

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,



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

So you’re advice is not to respond to the letter with my version of events but to ask them to clarify what offence they are accusing me of? That should be my first response?

 

[AlterEgo]

They don’t offer this

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


So you’re advice is not to respond to the letter with my version of events but to ask them to clarify what offence they are accusing me of? That should be my first response?

What I would do is to respond with no comment, and state you are not in a position to respond to any allegations of an offence given that you have not been accused of an offence.

Other members will take a different view, and it is up to you which approach you choose.

Did you use the Freedom Pass more than once? If they check CCTV will they see you on other occasions using this pass?

 

[Aime]

What I would do is to respond with no comment, and state you are not in a position to respond to any allegations of an offence given that you have not been accused of an offence.

Other members will take a different view, and it is up to you which approach you choose.

Did you use the Freedom Pass more than once? If they check CCTV will they see you on other occasions using this pass?

What do other members think of this approach?

And no I normally pay as you go for my travel. I paid for my travel on that day up until that incident.

I don’t know how far they can track the usage but I had used the card on a few occasions during Christmas 2021. But I don’t know how they would be able to detect whether that was my Mum or me. Also at the time I didn’t even know this was an offence. I didn’t even know what fare evasion was until last week. That’s why I am so overwhelmed and distraught that this is happening. I never intended to commit any time of crime.

 

[Bertone]

What do other members think of this approach?

And no I normally pay as you go for my travel. I paid for my travel on that day up until that incident.

I don’t know how far they can track the usage but I had used the card on a few occasions during Christmas 2021. But I don’t know how they would be able to detect whether that was my Mum or me. Also at the time I didn’t even know this was an offence. I didn’t even know what fare evasion was until last week. That’s why I am so overwhelmed and distraught that this is happening. I never intended to commit any time of crime.

If I’m understanding correctly, you used your Mum’s Freedom pass on other occasions?
Which leaves me to believe that it was not “accidentally “ used on the occasion in question?

 

[Aime]

What do other members think of this approach?

And no I normally pay as you go for my travel. I paid for my travel on that day up until that incident.

I don’t know how far they can track the usage but I had used the card on a few occasions during Christmas 2021. But I don’t know how they would be able to detect whether that was my Mum or me. Also at the time I didn’t even know this was an offence. I didn’t even know what fare evasion was until last week. That’s why I am so overwhelmed and distraught that this is happening. I never intended to commit any time of crime.

If I’m understanding correctly, you used your Mum’s Freedom pass on other occasions?
Which leaves me to believe that it was not “accidentally “ used on the occasion in question?

If you read my previous correspondences you’ll see what happened on the occasion in question. For example, I travelled into London earlier that day using contactless card. Comments like this are rather unhelpful to be totally honest.

 

[Jimbob52]

I think there is a degree of inconsistency in the OP’s statements.

In post no. 1 she says ‘I accidentally tapped my Mother’s Freedom Pass which was in the same pocket as my contactless card’ and ‘I continued my journey as planned paying my usual fare with my contactless card’. i.e. there were two cards in her pocket and she showed the wrong one.

In post no. 58 she says ‘After the Freedom Pass was removed I just used my Apple pay on my phone as I could not find the contactless card which I originally reached for in my pocket’. Unless the coat had unusually deep pockets, this suggests there was only one card in the first place.

I make these points purely to illustrate how the prosecution might undermine the OP’s explanation if this matter comes to court after a not guilty plea.

On a separate point, I disagree with Alter Ego’s comment that giving ‘no comment’ answers will not aggravate the Court.

Should the OP eventually enter a guilty plea, a magistrate would be entitled to award less than the full (one-third) reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea because, by refusing to comment, the plea was not entered at the first, reasonable opportunity.

 

[furlong]

Should the OP eventually enter a guilty plea, a magistrate would be entitled to award less than the full (one-third) reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea because, by refusing to comment, the plea was not entered at the first, reasonable opportunity.

Before the OP even knows what the charge is?
What is your legal authority for this statement (which I don't believe)?

(I'm afraid this thread is turning into one of the less helpful ones on this forum, with too many conflicting and perhaps misguided ideas being put forward IMHO.)

 

[AlterEgo]

Should the OP eventually enter a guilty plea, a magistrate would be entitled to award less than the full (one-third) reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea because, by refusing to comment, the plea was not entered at the first, reasonable opportunity.

The OP hasn’t been asked to plead, though? There hasn’t even been a charge yet!

 

[Starmill]

I think a key difficulty here is that, while it's absolutely 100% possible to have carelessly touched a card that doesn't belong to you because you were wearing your mother's coat, that's an astonishingly unlikely thing to happen because a) very few people will ever be wearing their mother's coat and b) few of those people will accidentally use a card that's not theirs. It's just exceedingly unlikely and therefore sadly you're in a really difficult position.

 

[Aime]

Before the OP even knows what the charge is?
What is your legal authority for this statement (which I don't believe)?

(I'm afraid this thread is turning into one of the less helpful ones on this forum, with too many conflicting and perhaps misguided ideas being put forward IMHO.)

I have not been charged for anything. If you refer to the pics I posted of the letter you will see that they do not even specify an offence.

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

The OP hasn’t been asked to plead, though? There hasn’t even been a charge yet!

Yes. But I also think your no comment idea might be a bit blunt (sorry) but I will definitely make a comment of the fact they have been very vague.

So far i’ve written as my response:

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for writing to me on 11/3/22. I would be happy to cooperate with the letter, although it has provided no reference to what offence(s) I am being suspected of, or any facts of an incident taking place on that date. Some details to clarify this would really help me be able to answer your questions more effectively. For now I am unable to admit or deny committing an offence(s) that has not been specified, but I will still try my best to help in this correspondence.

Then I will go into my version of events.

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

I think a key difficulty here is that, while it's absolutely 100% possible to have carelessly touched a card that doesn't belong to you because you were wearing your mother's coat, that's an astonishingly unlikely thing to happen because a) very few people will ever be wearing their mother's coat and b) few of those people will accidentally use a card that's not theirs. It's just exceedingly unlikely and therefore sadly you're in a really difficult position.

Why is it so unlikely? My mum isn’t that much older than me. We have a similar style. And if you need me to go into details, the specific coat we share is the one we walk the dog in, because he has separation anxiety with her and refuses to go for walks with anyone unless they are wearing that coat (which smells/associates with her) You may think this is an excuse but this is literally why I had her coat on.

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

I have not been charged for anything. If you refer to the pics I posted of the letter you will see that they do not even specify an offence.

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


Yes. But I also think your no comment idea might be a bit blunt (sorry) but I will definitely make a comment of the fact they have been very vague.

So far i’ve written as my response:

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for writing to me on 11/3/22. I would be happy to cooperate with the letter, although it has provided no reference to what offence(s) I am being suspected of, or any facts of an incident taking place on that date. Some details to clarify this would really help me be able to answer your questions more effectively. For now I am unable to admit or deny committing an offence(s) that has not been specified, but I will still try my best to help in this correspondence.

Then I will go into my version of events.

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


Why is it so unlikely? My mum isn’t that much older than me. We have a similar style. And if you need me to go into details, the specific coat we share is the one we walk the dog in, because he has separation anxiety with her and refuses to go for walks with anyone unless they are wearing that coat (which smells/associates with her) You may think this is an excuse but this is literally why I had her coat on.

I think there is a degree of inconsistency in the OP’s statements.

In post no. 1 she says ‘I accidentally tapped my Mother’s Freedom Pass which was in the same pocket as my contactless card’ and ‘I continued my journey as planned paying my usual fare with my contactless card’. i.e. there were two cards in her pocket and she showed the wrong one.

In post no. 58 she says ‘After the Freedom Pass was removed I just used my Apple pay on my phone as I could not find the contactless card which I originally reached for in my pocket’. Unless the coat had unusually deep pockets, this suggests there was only one card in the first place.

I make these points purely to illustrate how the prosecution might undermine the OP’s explanation if this matter comes to court after a not guilty plea.

On a separate point, I disagree with Alter Ego’s comment that giving ‘no comment’ answers will not aggravate the Court.

Should the OP eventually enter a guilty plea, a magistrate would be entitled to award less than the full (one-third) reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea because, by refusing to comment, the plea was not entered at the first, reasonable opportunity.

 

[Dai Corner]

I wonder what made the revenue protection staff think the OP wasn't the holder of her mothers disabled pass and decide to stop her? I can understand them suspecting someone who looks young using an over 60's pass.

 

[Aime]

I think there is a degree of inconsistency in the OP’s statements.

In post no. 1 she says ‘I accidentally tapped my Mother’s Freedom Pass which was in the same pocket as my contactless card’ and ‘I continued my journey as planned paying my usual fare with my contactless card’. i.e. there were two cards in her pocket and she showed the wrong one.

In post no. 58 she says ‘After the Freedom Pass was removed I just used my Apple pay on my phone as I could not find the contactless card which I originally reached for in my pocket’. Unless the coat had unusually deep pockets, this suggests there was only one card in the first place.

I make these points purely to illustrate how the prosecution might undermine the OP’s explanation if this matter comes to court after a not guilty plea.

On a separate point, I disagree with Alter Ego’s comment that giving ‘no comment’ answers will not aggravate the Court.

Should the OP eventually enter a guilty plea, a magistrate would be entitled to award less than the full (one-third) reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea because, by refusing to comment, the plea was not entered at the first, reasonable opportunity.

What is the full one third reduction in the fine for an early guilty plea? I don’t understand this.

 

[furlong]

I wonder what made the revenue protection staff think the OP wasn't the holder of her mothers disabled pass and decide to stop her? I can understand them suspecting someone who looks young using an over 60's pass.

And how would the answer be of any assistance to the OP?

 

[dastocks]

The OP needs to take a long hard think about how they are going to play this:
- TfL can analyse the journey history from both the Freedom Pass and her own card. Assume they can go back at least 3 months and, if they really want to, can verify who actually used the Freedom Pass by checking CCTV footage. They have to pay someone to check the CCTV, this is likely to be expensive, and TfL will seek to recover their costs via the court system.
- In doing their analysis TfL will be looking for evidence of repeated misuse of the Freedom Pass, so a solid journey history on the OP's own card showing her paying for her journeys with her own card and not using someone else's Freedom Card would be helpful to the investigation. Under these circumstances, I see no harm in giving full details of the card used and the journeys taken.
- If there were some special and unusual circumstances that meant the OP was wearing her mother's coat, especially with the Freedom Pass left in the pocket, it would be worth explaining this.
- TfL may also choose to take action against the mother if there is any evidence that she has intentionally breached the terms of the Freedom Pass by allowing her daughter to use it. In an extreme case this could lead to a separate prosecution.

 

[WesternLancer]

I don’t know how far they can track the usage but I had used the card on a few occasions during Christmas 2021. But I don’t know how they would be able to detect whether that was my Mum or me.

well, you are critical of @Bertone 's post but read this back to yourself, as it certainly reads to me like you are saying you used your mum's freedom pass during Christmas 2021 ! If you did not use it fair enough, but I'd edit your post if that is not what you mean.

The usage they will want to track is the freedom card, so your sentence structure reads as if it refers to that card. They are not going to be tracking any other cards that you are entitled to use after all.

As to how would they detect if it is you or your mum. Well- think it through. I would suggest they would:

a) look at the time you went thru the barrier at Piccadilly Circus.
b) look at the CCTV at the same time, of you being spoken to (so they know what you look like)
c) look at the times your mum's card has been used at other places
d) look at the CCTV that matches those exact times and see if you are in the picture there, or someone else (who may be your mum)

Now I don't think they will bother to do this actually, but if they wanted to, that is what they could do. Apols if this sounds bit rude, but surely this is pretty obvious to you?

Only you know if you have used your mum's card on other occasions, by mistake or intentionally. But if you have, it would probably not be wise to try to persist in a line of argument that that this was a one off mistake on your part. Esp not if I was studying law at university with a view to a career in the legal profession!

Edit - however - none of this detracts from the helpful suggested draft response in post #78 from @AlterEgo, whose accompanying comments in the post I would agree with.

Good luck in getting this resolved.

 

[Bertone]

If you read my previous correspondences you’ll see what happened on the occasion in question. For example, I travelled into London earlier that day using contactless card. Comments like this are rather unhelpful to be totally honest.

Yes agreed, it’s not a helpful comment but I’m concerned that you now, having admitted using your Mother’s Freedom pass on previous occasions, doesn’t exactly help your case.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes. But I also think your no comment idea might be a bit blunt (sorry) but I will definitely make a comment of the fact they have been very vague.

So far i’ve written as my response:

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for writing to me on 11/3/22. I would be happy to cooperate with the letter, although it has provided no reference to what offence(s) I am being suspected of, or any facts of an incident taking place on that date. Some details to clarify this would really help me be able to answer your questions more effectively. For now I am unable to admit or deny committing an offence(s) that has not been specified, but I will still try my best to help in this correspondence.

Then I will go into my version of events.

Okay, let’s just rejig the wording a bit:

Thank you for writing to me on 11/3/22.

I understand from your letter that you wish me to admit or deny an offence. However, you do not indicate which offence this is, so I regret I am unable to assist in answering this specifically.

However, I recognise being stopped in this way is something which needs addressing.

(Your words on the incident follow)



Be very careful with what you write in reply. As you have used the pass before, and they may well discover this, this will indicate not only intent but repeat offending.

Now it may well be the Freedom Pass has been tapped so many times over the last year or two that they won’t pull the CCTV for all those instances, so you may well get away with that. However I’d still urge caution on your part and not specifically invite them to specify the offence at this stage. Simply state your actions at the time of the stop, making sure they are consistent and truthful. Probably best not to admit or even reference intent/lack of intent, but do apologise for not having a valid ticket inside the compulsory ticket area and state how you understand this is wrong. (This is an offence regardless of your intent, I’m afraid)

 

[Dai Corner]

And how would the answer be of any assistance to the OP?

I was hoping it make her think about the possibility that they were monitoring use of the card and why that might be.

 

[Starmill]

Why is it so unlikely?

I'm afraid that you're just going to have to trust me. It is. And that's the view that a potential prosecutor will argue, convincingly, if something turns on it.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Do you feel you were specifically targeted or were they checking lots of people that day?

That may give you an indication on whether you were "unlucky" that day or that they may already know more than they have told you so far

 

[furlong]

I was hoping it make her think about the possibility that they were monitoring use of the card and why that might be.

Very unlikely - that would have been handled quite differently. This reads just like a normal random stop, where agents who aren't already dealing with someone just speak to the next person who has passed through a gate using a ticket or pass that requires supporting evidence to check that evidence. The ticket gates can be configured to identify whichever categories of tickets/passes they want to focus on.

 

[Starmill]

Do you feel you were specifically targeted or were they checking lots of people that day?

That may give you an indication on whether you were "unlucky" that day or that they may already know more than they have told you so far

It's very common for manual ticket inspection on London Underground to effectively be semi-automated by the ticket gates.

Rather than literally physically scanning every ticket on entry, when the revenue block is on, the officers stand inside the gates which are set to warn them when tickets that need to be checked physically to determine their validity are used.

For example, a paper ticket with a railcard discount will produce this warning, and the customer will then be stopped just after they've entered and asked to show their railcard. If they don't have it, well there's abundantly clear evidence of them entering a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket and thus they're issued with a Penalty Fare or asked for their details.

This has a couple of advantages for LU in that it allows a large proportion of people who make the proper use of the ticket gates to be passed from the inspection without the need for the officers to actually interact with them. It also allows for their time to be dedicated to checking for anyone who is passing through the ticket gates improperly (e.g. doubling through behind someone else). In addition, anyone who is minded to commit an offence is caught after having already done so, rather than before, when it may be much easier for them to mount a defence.

Ticket inspection in the completely manual sense may still take place from time to time, of course.

 

[Aime]

Okay, let’s just rejig the wording a bit:

Thank you for writing to me on 11/3/22.

I understand from your letter that you wish me to admit or deny an offence. However, you do not indicate which offence this is, so I regret I am unable to assist in answering this specially.

However, I recognise being stopped in this way is something which needs addressing.

(Your words on the incident follow)



Be very careful with what you write in reply. As you have used the pass before, and they may well discover this, this will indicate not only intent but repeat offending.

Now it may well be the Freedom Pass has been tapped so many times over the last year or two that they won’t pull the CCTV for all those instances, so you may well get away with that. However I’d still urge caution on your part and not specifically invite them to specify the offence at this stage. Simply state your actions at the time of the stop, making sure they are consistent and truthful. Probably best not to admit or even reference intent/lack of intent, but do apologise for not having a valid ticket inside the compulsory ticket area and state how you understand this is wrong. (This is an offence regardless of your intent, I’m afraid)

Ok sounds good. I will take responsibility for what happened on the stop. Did you mean specially or specifically in your final sentence? Thank you for your help by the way.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ok sounds good. I will take responsibility for what happened on the stop. Did you mean specially or specifically in your final sentence? Thank you for your help by the way.

“Specifically”!

 

[akm]

I wonder what made the revenue protection staff think the OP wasn't the holder of her mothers disabled pass and decide to stop her? I can understand them suspecting someone who looks young using an over 60's pass.

Disabled Freedom Passes carry a photo of the holder https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/freedom-pass. As mentioned already, the gates will have been set to beep differently for anything 'interesting'; the user is then asked to show their ticket or pass.

 

[island]

If you read my previous correspondences you’ll see what happened on the occasion in question. For example, I travelled into London earlier that day using contactless card. Comments like this are rather unhelpful to be totally honest.

Quite the opposite; what is unhelpful is drip feeding additional information into posts over the course of the thread and then getting accusatory when people point out you've broken the law. It's clear to me that this is something you've intentionally done repeatedly on several occasions and you're only sorry you got caught.

Nevertheless, I agree with the posts of AlterEgo and that you are best off to put TfL to proof of what they are claiming rather than making unnecessary admissions.

 

[jon0844]

I agree that the no comment route suggested is probably wise given we've gradually been given more information that shows what was said wasn't necessarily accurate - and the pass had been used on previous occasions.

 

[AlterEgo]

The big red flag was the early admission of a worry of further investigation of other uses of the pass. People do not generally use a Freedom Pass once and get caught the first time - that is very unfortunate.

 

[L401CJF]

I must admit I have been following this from the start, and have the same opinion as the above. Theres been a lot of worry about being investigated, but if theres no previous offences commited then surely there would be no problems with them investigating? Seems a bit odd to me.