Advice on how to proceed with an nip letter

[lifechange1976]

Hey all

I need some advice on how to proceed with an nip letter

I was stopped on January 22nd with a missing ticket as I was travelling from beaconsfield to Bicester north

I was approached by a ticket inspector who took my details , around 8 weeks later I received an nip letter stating I have 14 days to respond
It says I was found to have a missing ticket on this one occasion in all honesty I was doing this for a number of months , I have seen other letters with them mentioning they have found more than one instance but mine didn’t after initial letter has been sent out
They have only mentioned this one incident and have threatened under two laws to try and prosecute me under railway bylaws 2005 and regulations of railways act 1889.

I promptly responded in good time under the 14 day limit

I apologised and admitted to the one offence offering to pay fine and investigation costs.


Since this time over 6 months has passed and I have had nothing back from Chiltern railways , I have done research online and have heard they are having internal issues with their prosecutions and have put their cases on hold

I have spoken to a few solicitors who have advised not to contact them , one or two have said to get in touch and try and get a resolution but am unsure how to proceed

Any advice would be appreciated on this matter on how to proceed

I know there’s a chance I could hear back and be going to court under the fraud act potentially but it looks nothing has come back so far

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hey all

I need some advice on how to proceed with an nip letter

I was stopped on January 22nd with a missing ticket as I was travelling from beaconsfield to Bicester north

I was approached by a ticket inspector who took my details , around 8 weeks later I received an nip letter stating I have 14 days to respond
It says I was found to have a missing ticket on this one occasion in all honesty I was doing this for a number of months , I have seen other letters with them mentioning they have found more than one instance but mine didn’t after initial letter has been sent out
They have only mentioned this one incident and have threatened under two laws to try and prosecute me under railway bylaws 2005 and regulations of railways act 1889.

I promptly responded in good time under the 14 day limit

I apologised and admitted to the one offence offering to pay fine and investigation costs.


Since this time over 6 months has passed and I have had nothing back from Chiltern railways , I have done research online and have heard they are having internal issues with their prosecutions and have put their cases on hold

I have spoken to a few solicitors who have advised not to contact them , one or two have said to get in touch and try and get a resolution but am unsure how to proceed

Any advice would be appreciated on this matter on how to proceed

I know there’s a chance I could hear back and be going to court under the fraud act potentially but it looks nothing has come back so far

You've responded as requested. So the ball is in their court, and it's reasonable for you to wait for them to contact you. If the railway does get in touch with you, then get back to us and we'll try to help.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I know there’s a chance I could hear back and be going to court under the fraud act potentially but it looks nothing has come back so far

If "missing ticket" means that you didn't have a ticket at all, they would only have evidence of fraudulent travel if they caught you in the act. If on the other hand you had been buying "short" tickets online, this can be established. Fraud would need multiple occurences to be proved.

 

[Watershed]

As you've said, they have 6 months to bring a prosecution for a 'summary only' offence, such as the Railway Byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act. Only a more serious offence, deemed 'triable either way' or 'indictable', would not have a time limit. An offence under the Fraud Act is just about the only offence that could fall into this category.

Usually we do indeed tell people that there's unlikely to be enough evidence for a Fraud Act prosecution, but that is generally in relation to expired Railcards or the like. If you've been donutting (buying a short ticket at either end of your journey to get through barriers) or simply short faring (buying a ticket at the barriered end) then it is a more serious matter as this is clearer evidence that your actions were deliberate. The question would then be what evidence they have of the tickets being used (e.g. ticket scanning records, if they were eTickets or smartcard based), and what evidence they have that it was you that used them (e.g. CCTV footage or WiFi tracking).

Aside from any Fraud Act prosecution, Chiltern also have the option of bringing a civil claim under the National Rail Conditions of Travel, for the unpaid fares. The time limit for this is 6 years, so they would be well within time to bring such a claim. We have seen some train companies bringing (or at least threatening) these kinds of claims recently, so it's not totally implausible.

In any case, I don't think there is anything you can gain by contacting Chiltern proactively now. Once they restart work on their list of cases, they will no doubt go through them in order of urgency (e.g. dealing with the ones within 6 months first so they have the option of prosecuting) and they will get to you when they get round to it. If you move house in the meantime, I suggest you arrange Royal Mail redirection for at least 6 months or so - it could of course take them longer than this to send a letter, but it's a step you can take to at least minimise the risk of missing their letter. Of course if you've been in email communication then it is less of an issue, though getting redirection is still sensible to avoid any fraud by future occupants of your current address.

 

[lifechange1976]

I didn’t have a ticket on 90 percent of the occasions a few rare instances I missed one or two stations

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Fraud would need multiple occurences to be proved.

I don't think this is entirely true. In practical terms, it seems to me unlikely that a prosecution would be brought for a single incident of fraud (not a cost effective use of resources for the prosecutor) but I don't see any need for repeat occurrences to establish fraud.

 

[island]

I don't think this is entirely true. In practical terms, it seems to me unlikely that a prosecution would be brought for a single incident of fraud (not a cost effective use of resources for the prosecutor) but I don't see any need for repeat occurrences to establish fraud.

Correct. A fraud can occur on a single occasion.