Caught Using a 11-15 card

[2019292]

dont really have the money to spare but I cant afford to get a conviction at all currently. so I will be contacting the solicitor

 

[Hadders]

TfL don’t normally do out of court settlements. They do sometimes offer a final warning, but having asked you for an explanation and any mitigation in the verification letter they sent you a few weeks ago, have decided to prosecute you.

 

[2019292]

so your saying if they wanted to give me a final warning, they would of sent it ages ago?

 

[AlterEgo]

so your saying if they wanted to give me a final warning, they would of sent it ages ago?

Yes.

If you want to avoid a conviction then spending money on a solicitor is the most realistic option now.

 

[2019292]

do you guys think contacting a solicitor from the start is the best thing to do when this happens?

 

[Hadders]

do you guys think it was wise to contact a solicitor from the start?

Personally I don’t think a solicitor would make any difference.

As I said in my first post in this thread that TfL take a dim view of this sort of thing and did say that prosecution was a likely outcome. Their default position is usually to prosecute when a Freedom Pass or Zip Oyster pass is involved.

There’s nothing stopping you from getting a solicitor involved at this stage but I do think you need to be realistic about the prospects.

 

[SuspectUsual]

do you guys think contacting a solicitor from the start is the best thing to do when this happens?

It depends on the nature and severity of the accusation, and which company it involves. If you read threads in this forum you'll see plenty of instances where people have obtained out of court settlements without using expensive solicitors. Equally, there are people who use solicitors and still go to court and get convicted

 

[2019292]

Hadders by you saying " need to be realistic about the prospects" are you inferring that I need to accept the reality of me getting convicted?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hadders by you saying " need to be realistic about the prospects" are you inferring that I need to accept the reality of me getting convicted?

That's what he's saying.

You might also want to have another look at the first few posts on this thread. If you are taken to court, it won't be cheap, but neither will it be the end of the world.

 

[2019292]

from the email which I copied and pasted, does that infer that I will be receiving a single justice notice procedure?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

from the email which I copied and pasted, does that infer that I will be receiving a single justice notice procedure?

That seems likely to be what happens next.

 

[Hadders]

Hadders by you saying " need to be realistic about the prospects" are you inferring that I need to accept the reality of me getting convicted?

Yes. To be blunt, using someone else's Zip Oyster card is a criminal offence and prosecution is an appropriate outcome.

from the email which I copied and pasted, does that infer that I will be receiving a single justice notice procedure?

That what I expect will happen next.

 

[furlong]

Well you still need to describe in more detail what happened - depending on the answers, a solicitor might be able to help with a more technical defence or mitigation.

No. Completely different legislation that most notably explicitly allows for a 'reasonable excuse' defence and needs a bit of cherry picking to encompass Oyster. The approach would depend on whether or not the pass was touched in when boarding, whether it was first presented with the inspector challenging it or whether the passenger explained first, what notices were displayed on the bus, whether another opportunity to pay the fare was offered etc.

Did you touch in when boarding the bus or not?
When the inspector reached you, did you FIRST present your pass and then wait for the inspector to notice the probelm and challenge you, or did YOU tell the inspector there was a problem with it BEFORE (or while) you showed it?
Were you offered the chance to pay your fare on the spot or not?
You probably wouldn't have remembered what notices were displayed on the bus, but that could also be something TfL may need to have recorded at the time to include in their evidence.

 

[2019292]

Yeah, I touched it boarding the bus
So the inspector was waiting near the door, and she ordered everyone to show their cards while everyone was getting off. I showed her the card first upside down and then she told me to flip it and I did. She saw the card and took me outside. She asked me whose card and why do you have it. I answered brothers and I said my one broke. She didn't give me the chance to pay for the fare. While taking my details she aged for age ( 18) and just made a face. there weren't any notices on the bus that I can remember.

 

[furlong]

One more thing - did you receive a replacement 16+ Zip card in the end? (Not 18+)
If so, you (perhaps with the help of a solicitor) can at least try to argue that, while it was a silly thing to do, there was effectively no financial loss to TfL and so they should drop it.

The legislation they use was formulated with traditional bus tickets in mind so it needs bending a bit to encompass things like Oyster. If it does head to court, a solicitor would be able to check if there are any shortcomings in how they are doing this in your particular circumstances. There are two basic offences they could consider - one for using someone else's ticket and one for not paying your fare. The legislation allows a 'reasonable excuse' defence but that looks a bit of stretch here.

 

[2019292]

Yeah I did receive the 16+ Oyster card

 

[2019292]

update-14/09/2023
I have just received my single justice procedure notice.
couple questions, i read on the back that i didn't receive a £80 fine because i am not a minor and it wasn't a lower level fare offence.
so does that mean they know i used the card couple of times.
Btw I haven't gone to a solicitor,they were all expensive and i don't have any money to my name. the one guy did give me some free advice saying your pretty much done,deal with the consequences and another guy said gimme £600 ill write them a email but i declined.


ill continue to update until the end.
-for those in similar situations like me- don't worry too much- talk to your parents etc and go out often so you dont dwell on it.

 

[furlong]

update-14/09/2023
I have just received my single justice procedure notice.

What is the wording of the offence they have chosen to use? Perhaps you might share a photo of it here (with your name and any other identifying information and reference numbers covered up)?

I would still suggest writing them a letter apologising and asking if they would consider a settlement on the basis that you were entitled to your own pass and have since obtained one. In court, if convicted, you'd probably want to say that as mitigation and try to argue that as such you ought to be given a discharge and not fined.

 

[2019292]

This is what they’ve said

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Should I email their prosecution department?
Im alone in this, I don’t have any help. So literally any advice will be helpful.
Im going uni as well next week + have a job which requires enhanced dbs check. (Should I tell them about this now or after I speak to a solicitor for some advice)

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for updating us. We could really do with seeing the actual SJPN that you've been sent. Can you upload a copy of it (with any personal details covered up). This is so we can see the exact offence you're being charged with and what they're asking for in the way of costs.

Once we know this we can then advise on the likely outcome.

 

[2019292]

Isn’t that the sjpn?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Am I allowed to show the solicitors name on it

 

[Hadders]

Isn’t that the sjpn?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Am I allowed to show the solicitors name on it

It's a part of it, but not the part we really need to see.

 

[2019292]

Is this better

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

This is costs

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Btw the lady gave details of the incident but things like the bus number was wrong, stuff like she approached me is wrong ( she cornered me on the bus and closed the doors)
She said she asked me some questions but she didn’t. Questions like are you using this pass?( I just gave her the pass wehn she asked for it)

Also she did ask me my age but that’s it.

 

[furlong]

Again that doesn't quite say which of the three things they are relying upon: driver, inspector or notice? Does it answer that somewhere else in the papers they sent? In particular, what was the precise "direction" that they allege you ignored? If it's a notice have they included a copy along with evidence that it was displayed for you to read prior to doing whatever it said?

 

[Hadders]

It does make it hard to get the full picture when all you post is short snippets of what you have been sent.

Bus fare evasion is a bit different to railway fare evasion but from what I can work out:

What you are being charged with is not a Bylaw offence but an offence under the Regulation 7(2)(b)(ii) of Public Service Vehicle Regulations 1990 contrary to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger vehicles Act 1981. I believe this means that the conviction will be recorded in the Police National Computer and will appear on DBS checks until the conviction is spent (I'm sure ither forum members with more knowledge in this area will correct me if this is wrong).

You have three choices when you reply to the SJPN:

1. Plead guilty and request that the matter is dealt with by a single magistrate on the evidence available to them. You won't have to attend court but when you return the SJPN you can write any mitigation you want the magistrate to take into account. You will be notified of the outcome by post.

2. Plead guilty and request a hearing at the Magistrates Court. This will allow you to give your mitigation in person to the Magistrate.

3. Plead not guilty. This means you would need to attend court where a date would be set for a trial.

If you plead guilty (or are found guilty following a trial) then you can expect to have to pay:

- A fine based on your weekly income. This is reduced by up to a third if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity
- A surcharge of 40% of the fine imposed
- TfL's costs in dealing with the case. Their letter indicates they will ask for £250
- £1.75 compesnation for the fare avoided

 

[2019292]

This is the full document:

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2023 ==

Continuation

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2023 ==

There was a witness statement where they said I used the 11-15 oyster.
How do I know if it gets recorded?
I’m really confused, can I still try email them begging or it’s too late now.
If it’s recorded I’m truly ****ed

 

[furlong]

I'm still not seeing anything to say what the "direction" they allege you didn't follow actually was. If they are alleging you didn't do what a Notice on the vehicle told you to do, then surely they need to show the court what it said and show that it was present?

 

[Hadders]

Thank you for uploading the documentation.

You are being charged with a criminal offence because you used a pass you weren't entitled to use on the bus. As I explained at the very start of this thread TfL take a very dim view of this sort of thing and the usual course of action is prosecution.

There is nothing to stop you from emailing TfL asking if they will reconsider withdrawing the case against you but realistically I don't think they will budge atthis stage. You could consider engaging a solicitor however this is likely to be a significant cost, and if they are unsuccessful you risk having to pay the solicitor as well as the penalty imposed by the court.

As I said in my previous reply this is not a charge under the TfL Bylaws so if you plead guilty (or are found guilty by the court having pleaded not guilty) then it will be recorded and will be disclosed until the conviction is spent which is usually a year for most purposes.

 

[island]

What you are being charged with is not a Bylaw offence but an offence under the Regulation 7(2)(b)(ii) of Public Service Vehicle Regulations 1990 contrary to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger vehicles Act 1981. I believe this means that the conviction will be recorded in the Police National Computer and will appear on DBS checks until the conviction is spent (I'm sure ither forum members with more knowledge in this area will correct me if this is wrong).

I can confirm that the offence charged is not a recordable offence. Recordable offences are those punishable by imprisonment and those which the government has chosen to specify as recordable. An FOI by Unlock yielded a list of non-imprisonable recordable offences.

 

[Danberto]

Whilst not specific to this case, I'd add that a bit of googling reveals that in answers to Freedom of Information requests, in 2022/23 TfL estimated that fare evasion accounted for £130 million (this is over £35,000 every day). They also stated they employ 450 'revenue inspectors'.

Given that the 'fare evasion' figure is 'official', I'd expect that this is used internally to justify use of time & resources. It is no wonder that they target people using 'invalid' cards as they are likely to be 'repeat' offenders.

In this context I would suggest the OP is unlikely to avoid court although of course it would not be impossible.