Caught using freedom pass - please help!!

[Fawkes Cat]

hi guys i just got notified that i’ve been let off with a warning

Thanks for letting us know - I think that was the result that you were hoping for, so it counts as a good one.

Just to note for people who follow these cases that it's a further case where TfL have concluded things with a warning where the individual involved has employed a solicitor. Would a FoI request get an answer to 'how many final warnings were issued to people who used a solicitor; how many were issued to people who didn't?'?

 

[Starmill]

That's an incredible bit of good luck. Well done.

I'm sure it goes without saying that you must ensure that you have a valid ticket before boarding any train in the future.

 

[Titfield]

Thanks for letting us know - I think that was the result that you were hoping for, so it counts as a good one.

Just to note for people who follow these cases that it's a further case where TfL have concluded things with a warning where the individual involved has employed a solicitor. Would a FoI request get an answer to 'how many final warnings were issued to people who used a solicitor; how many were issued to people who didn't?'?

I have had a suspicion for some time (based on the small number of cases we see) that employing a solicitor increases the chances of receiving a warning rather than more punitive action.

if TfLs objective (of ensuring passengers travel with a valid ticket) can be achieved at one remove and avoiding the passenger being convicted then so much the better for all concerned.

 

[SuspectUsual]

if TfLs objective (of ensuring passengers travel with a valid ticket) can be achieved at one remove and avoiding the passenger being convicted then so much the better for all concerned.

Which is all well and good, but if the chances of avoiding legal action are significantly higher when a solicitor is used, this is essentially penalising those unable to afford one.

 

[Starmill]

Which is all well and good, but if the chances of avoiding legal action are significantly higher when a solicitor is used, this is essentially penalising those unable to afford one.

It is a possibility that this is the outcome, yes.

Of course, the criminal justice system is absolutely filled with these opportunities for moral hazard to occur. As much as we'd all prefer to believe that only the facts and the law decide outcomes there are many many cases where there's more to it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It is a possibility that this is the outcome, yes.

Of course, the criminal justice system is absolutely filled with these opportunities for moral hazard to occur. As much as we'd all prefer to believe that only the facts and the law decide outcomes there are many many cases where there's more to it.

Of course, you’re right, it just doesn’t sit comfortably with me.

 

[AlterEgo]

It does now appear increasingly clear that our first and best advice to anyone seeking help for these offences on TfL is simply to get a solicitor. Getting a warning without using one seems an extremely slim prospect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2025 ==

Which is all well and good, but if the chances of avoiding legal action are significantly higher when a solicitor is used, this is essentially penalising those unable to afford one.

The cost of the a solicitor is not really that much higher than just getting fined in court and having to also pay costs and the surcharge.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The cost of the a solicitor is not really that much higher than just getting fined in court and having to also pay costs and the surcharge.

For people on low incomes or unemployed that's not the case

 

[tonycockram]

For people on low incomes or unemployed that's not the case

I think at the low income or unemployed level we are looking at all combined charge of £400 to £500 total and the charge for the solicitors is circa £600 to £1000 and you don’t get a criminal record. Of course it depends on which solicitors you use.

 

[pidgeonlove]

in case anyone is interested, i used makwanas solicitors which were a total of £1.2k. i am a low income family. i do think i was ‘lucky’ in a sense as i do personally have pre-existing medical conditions, with proof.

 

[tonycockram]

Thanks for letting us know - I think that was the result that you were hoping for, so it counts as a good one.

Just to note for people who follow these cases that it's a further case where TfL have concluded things with a warning where the individual involved has employed a solicitor. Would a FoI request get an answer to 'how many final warnings were issued to people who used a solicitor; how many were issued to people who didn't?'?

I’ve sent a foi request for this information over the last 12 months

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I’ve sent a foi request for this information over the last 12 months

When/if you get a response it will be a good to hear what it is.

 

[WesternLancer]

in case anyone is interested, i used makwanas solicitors which were a total of £1.2k. i am a low income family. i do think i was ‘lucky’ in a sense as i do personally have pre-existing medical conditions, with proof.

Thanks for info. That’s great does show that the cost of professional legal help can be substantial.

 

[Haywain]

hi guys i just got notified that i’ve been let off with a warning

That's a good result. Could you tell us how much you paid for the solicitor to represent you?

 

[martin2345uk]

That's a good result. Could you tell us how much you paid for the solicitor to represent you?

They said it in post #40.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I’ve sent a foi request for this information over the last 12 months

It would be good to also know how many cases were dealt with where the accused had engaged a solicitor, so then we would know the solicitors’ success rate as well as the proportion of final warnings that came via use of a solicitor

 

[Haywain]

The cost of the a solicitor is not really that much higher than just getting fined in court and having to also pay costs and the surcharge.

I don't think we would ever see anyone coming out of court in a TfL case with a bill for over a thousand pounds. Even the cases we see of solicitors costing around £750 are likely to exceed to total court bill.

 

[Titfield]

As much as we'd all prefer to believe that only the facts and the law decide outcomes there are many many cases where there's more to it.

It is not only "the facts" but how those "facts" are presented to the person(s) making a decision of how the matter is to be disposed of.

Looking at this pragmatically: assuming that the solicitor is successful ie a warning letter is issued, the difference between the cost of the solicitor and the estimated total cost of being convicted (fine, victim surcharge, tfls fare etc) is the cost of avoiding a conviction.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't think we would ever see anyone coming out of court in a TfL case with a bill for over a thousand pounds. Even the cases we see of solicitors costing around £750 are likely to exceed to total court bill.

But we do frequently have threads where the basic request is 'I'll pay whatever it takes to avoid a criminal record' - and quite a few of these persist (no doubt for their own good reasons) even after we explain the finite extent of the damage that a conviction can do. It would be good if we could give good advice to those people.

 

[WesternLancer]

Looking at this pragmatically: assuming that the solicitor is successful ie a warning letter is issued, the difference between the cost of the solicitor and the estimated total cost of being convicted (fine, victim surcharge, tfls fare etc) is the cost of avoiding a conviction.

Yes. Well put. For some people this is clearly very important. I guess ref reputation at work, future earnings potential (real or perceived) or immigration status concerns.

 

[Titfield]

But we do frequently have threads where the basic request is 'I'll pay whatever it takes to avoid a criminal record' - and quite a few of these persist (no doubt for their own good reasons) even after we explain the finite extent of the damage that a conviction can do. It would be good if we could give good advice to those people.

Agreed.

Some of the posts indicate the age range and / or occupation of the poster. I would surmise that there are two groups who want to avoid a conviction irrespective of the "finite extent of the damage" (as @Fawkes Cat describes it):
(a) those whose career or career aspirations demands a blemish free record e.g. finance, health care, legal profession.
(b) more mature people who pride themselves on having a blemish free record.

Even if the extent of the damage is limited, I wonder if the sheer embarrassment of having to tell an employer of an issue is challenging for some.

I would also suspect that many older people are suspicious of human resources departments and would fear that it would somehow be used against them in the future.

Having worked for a number of companies who have reorganised, and seen the partiality of HR departments, I have no doubt in my mind that even a minor conviction would be used against someone in the future.

 

[Starmill]

It is not only "the facts" but how those "facts" are presented to the person(s) making a decision of how the matter is to be disposed of.

Looking at this pragmatically: assuming that the solicitor is successful ie a warning letter is issued, the difference between the cost of the solicitor and the estimated total cost of being convicted (fine, victim surcharge, tfls fare etc) is the cost of avoiding a conviction.

Indeed. Let's just hope anyone who is given a warning appreciates the lesson about following the rules.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2025 ==

Agreed.

Some of the posts indicate the age range and / or occupation of the poster. I would surmise that there are two groups who want to avoid a conviction irrespective of the "finite extent of the damage" (as @Fawkes Cat describes it):
(a) those whose career or career aspirations demands a blemish free record e.g. finance, health care, legal profession.
(b) more mature people who pride themselves on having a blemish free record.

Even if the extent of the damage is limited, I wonder if the sheer embarrassment of having to tell an employer of an issue is challenging for some.

I would also suspect that many older people are suspicious of human resources departments and would fear that it would somehow be used against them in the future.

Having worked for a number of companies who have reorganised, and seen the partiality of HR departments, I have no doubt in my mind that even a minor conviction would be used against someone in the future.

There are certainly an awful lot of cases where the HR department's role is to find some lawful basis on which to justify a decision which has already been made for business reasons, aren't there?

 

[Haywain]

But we do frequently have threads where the basic request is 'I'll pay whatever it takes to avoid a criminal record' - and quite a few of these persist (no doubt for their own good reasons) even after we explain the finite extent of the damage that a conviction can do. It would be good if we could give good advice to those people.

I don't disagree, I'm just making the point that "get a solicitor" shouldn't be the default.

I have no doubt in my mind that even a minor conviction would be used against someone in the future.

Even though that would be a breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

 

[SuspectUsual]

There are certainly an awful lot of cases where the HR department's role is to find some lawful basis on which to justify a decision which has already been made for business reasons, aren't there?

Absolutely

An example - about 15 years I was working for a retailer and they wanted to get rid of about 30% of the buyers and 40% of the buying assistants as part of an ill-fated cost cutting / reorganisation / deckchairs on the Titanic exercise. The Buying Director knew who he wanted to get rid of, but was told by HR that because of the number of people involved the law required consultation and a "transparent" evaluation exercise. The Director gave HR his list and said fine, this is who the evaluation needs to place in the bottom positions, go and find the necessary criteria to achieve this

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2025 ==

Even though that would be a breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

Companies would never write down or admit to this stuff, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

 

[AlterEgo]

Companies would never write down or admit to this stuff, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

They almost never find out about it, partly because offenders have the civil right to not declare spent convictions in most circumstances. There really is a lot of personal hysteria about “criminal records” in Britain that many other cultures simply don’t have.

 

[Pushpit]

They almost never find out about it, partly because offenders have the civil right to not declare spent convictions in most circumstances. There really is a lot of personal hysteria about “criminal records” in Britain that many other cultures simply don’t have.

I totally agree, and I'm one of those who has to process the problematic cases. It's an unfortunate outcome of the Soham case and the Bichard Inquiry, where the report came out in record time, about 4 months from starting the inquiry. The DBS recommendations that came out of it have cast the net very wide. Students who work in the designated sectors are told, typically as teenagers, how DBS is potentially important, many university courses impose DBS requirements. and hence everyone freaks out about it. In the meantime, a third of adult males in the UK have at least one criminal conviction. It would help if TOCs / TfL didn't add so many more cases, hopefully the current publicity is forcing them to slow down the path to the Magistrates Court.

 

[spotify95]

For people on low incomes or unemployed that's not the case

Indeed. There was one I saw a little while ago (I always read/watch the TfL threads) where the defendant was unemployed/low income, and had to pay a total of £307.75 in total costs. A solicitor would likely cost around double this figure, which matters a lot if you have no income, and whilst solicitors greatly improve the chance of receiving a warning (rather than court action), it's not guaranteed.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. There was one I saw a little while ago (I always read/watch the TfL threads) where the defendant was unemployed/low income, and had to pay a total of £307.75 in total costs. A solicitor would likely cost around double this figure, which matters a lot if you have no income, and whilst solicitors greatly improve the chance of receiving a warning (rather than court action), it's not guaranteed.

Indeed, in this case, it was around four times that.

 

[Hadders]

We do seem to be seeing more cases where TfL are issuing a warning where a solicitor is used. I would be very interested to see the FoI results.

I suspect that using a solicitor means that any mitigation is presented in a better way than someone might be able to do themselves. This is particularly important with TfL because their policy is quite clear on what factors they will and won't take into account.

I also wonder whether TfL knowing that people have paid £1k+ for a solicitor feel that in itself is a sufficiently high penalty. It's probably much more than the fine and court costs that some would have to pay if they were found guilty in court.

 

[Leo12]

hi guys i just got notified that i’ve been let off with a warning

Congrats. How long did TFL take to respond you with a warning? i am waiting for their response since November