Caught with 11-15 zipcard

[jollybee]

I am not sure if this would work well, because if your own response doesn’t persuade them it seems to me that when the solicitor gets involved their option might then be to try and represent you in court on the day. I suspect that’s far more expensive fee to pay.

But I’m not an expert in this.

Others might have a better knowledge of if what you are thinking of would work.

If I hire a solicitor after being given a notice of a court hearing, would the solicitor still be able to persuade them to drop my case before the court date? I have seen it happen a few times in this forum I think, and honestly if it comes to this I’ll have to do it; I genuinely cannot risk my future at this stage when my career hasn’t started, and I am panicking a lot

 

[Puffing Devil]

I was just wondering, is it okay to write my verification letter myself, and if I end up getting a letter saying I will be prosecuted in court, is it worth then to hire a solicitor to help me avoid it at all costs? How long do I have to seek legal advice if I get a notice of conviction?

For the absolute best chance of avoiding court, you need to involve a solicitor from the moment you receive the verification letter.

However, this will cost you money, and there is no guarantee of success, just slightly improved odds.

You may wish to contact some of the firms named above for an initial consultation, perhaps after your letter arrives. They will explain the costs and will, hopefully, be able to share cases very similar to yours where they have secured a result. If they can't do that, there's little point in progressing with them.

 

[WesternLancer]

If I hire a solicitor after being given a notice of a court hearing, would the solicitor still be able to persuade them to drop my case before the court date? I have seen it happen a few times in this forum I think, and honestly if it comes to this I’ll have to do it; I genuinely cannot risk my future at this stage when my career hasn’t started, and I am panicking a lot

Puffing Devil has given some good advice imho.

I suppose you have to balance things up. The cost of a solicitor will not be cheap. But the cost of not getting employment with a decent salary will be much higher over the longer term. But I have no idea how much of a risk that actually is.

I can genuinely appreciate that this is a difficult decision to make. Hopefully this thread helps you weigh things up.

Try not to panic though as that probably makes it harder for you to weigh up you choices. But I know that’s easy for me to say. Less easy to do.

 

[Titfield]

I am not sure if this would work well, because if your own response doesn’t persuade them it seems to me that when the solicitor gets involved their option might then be to try and represent you in court on the day. I suspect that’s far more expensive fee to pay.

But I’m not an expert in this.

Others might have a better knowledge of if what you are thinking of would work.

I can not think this would be a good idea.

If you ask a solicitor to represent you then you will have to pay for (probably) half a days time plus the travel time. Arent all cases listed for a set time and then it is pot luck when your case will be called? The solicitor could be sat there for 2 hours with the clock ticking. Furthermore he may have to spend time and effort undoing (or trying to undo) something you may have said in your initial reply that isn't in your favour.

Far better to get the solicitor to write the initial response and go from there.

EDIT

I strongly suggest you get a solicitor because I think deep down this is something you need to do to at least give you peace of mind that you have tried your best to get the result you want. If you do not and get convicted you will always be thinking "If only I had got a solicitor...."

 

[styles]

EDIT

I strongly suggest you get a solicitor because I think deep down this is something you need to do to at least give you peace of mind that you have tried your best to get the result you want. If you do not and get convicted you will always be thinking "If only I had got a solicitor...."

This is something I hadn't considered but agree with. Although not cheap, I think I'd rather spend a few hundred on a solicitor and still 'lose' than not pay for one and kick myself for it if it turns out to block my SC/DV required career path. Just my personal view though.

Agree with others that involving a solicitor when you get your correspondence from TfL wil give you the best chance. Ideally they can convince TfL to deal with it by way of a warning letter rather than a prosecution, but it's very far from guaranteed.

 

[WesternLancer]

Post 4 of this thread has links to the solicitors firms I mentioned earlier

Fare evasion - 60+ Oyster card - TfL prosecuting

Hi everyone, A few months ago my brother was stopped at the beginning of his journey (immediately after going through the barriers) and was asked to display his Oyster card. Unfortunately, he used a TfL 60+ Oyster card that didn't belong to him. When asked about it he admitted that it didn't...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Twenty4Pilots]

Hi jollybee and all - I am in a similar situation. I've been stopped on a Southeastern train during an (extremely rare) revenue check. For some reason, instead of just saying I don't have a ticket I've tapped an under 12 Oyster card. As a fellow Uni student, I can contend with the exorbitant pricing - they're trying to destroy us all. However, my situation is slightly different, the inspector was unable to collect my name or address (because I left the train at the next stop which was my own), but they did enable their body cams - not sure if they actually captured my face as I was wearing a hood and looking away.


They did not collect the card, my name or address or any information about me but they did scan the card and clearly they ascertained it was not my own. Just wondering if I should be worried, and if I should are you usually able to settle these cases without gaining a criminal record? Thanks. They also claimed the "Police would investigate" - sounds like BS to me, is this likely? Thank you all.

 

[Hadders]

Hi jollybee and all - I am in a similar situation. I've been stopped on a Southeastern train during an (extremely rare) revenue check. For some reason, instead of just saying I don't have a ticket I've tapped an under 12 Oyster card. As a fellow Uni student, I can contend with the exorbitant pricing - they're trying to destroy us all. However, my situation is slightly different, the inspector was unable to collect my name or address (because I left the train at the next stop which was my own), but they did enable their body cams - not sure if they actually captured my face as I was wearing a hood and looking away.


They did not collect the card, my name or address or any information about me but they did scan the card and clearly they ascertained it was not my own. Just wondering if I should be worried, and if I should are you usually able to settle these cases without gaining a criminal record? Thanks. They also claimed the "Police would investigate" - sounds like BS to me, is this likely? Thank you all.

Welcome to the forum.

Please start your own thread if you require assistance and forum members will be happy to assist.

We only discuss one case in each thread to avoid confusion.

 

[jollybee]

I have a question about the potential of the record appearing on the PNC. If I get convicted under the tfl bylaws, would it never be recorded on the PNC, even with repeated misuse? I am trying to find an answer and I keep seeing different outcomes, and that sometimes in court it can be recorded onto the PNC? Under what circumstances would it be sometimes? I thought for a summary only offence with a fine it would not be recorded in the PNC?

Also if it is under the PNC, how does this affect all my dbs checks, compared to if it isn’t recorded on the PNC.

 

[reb0118]

Byelaws are generally non recordable, but NB that does not mean there is no record. Mistakes do happen and, albeit rarely, it is possible that one may be visible via a disclosure check.

I could be wrong here, but I'm getting the impression that you are testing the waters to see whether or not you should, voluntarily, disclose this to any potential employer. I think the advice given above, by other experienced posters, is clear.

Remember, there are many other ways that a vetting officer can find out information over and above official court records.

 

[AlterEgo]

Byelaws are generally non recordable, but NB that does not mean there is no record. Mistakes do happen and, albeit rarely, it is possible that one may be visible via a disclosure check.

I could be wrong here, but I'm getting the impression that you are testing the waters to see whether or not you should, voluntarily, disclose this to any potential employer. I think the advice given above, by other experienced posters, is clear.

Remember, there are many other ways that a vetting officer can find out information over and above official court records.

To be clear, a non-recordable conviction is a criminal record, held at the court. "Non recordable" simply means it doesn't go on the PNC.

It will be discovered by a vetting officer, as I expect this thread would be (and certainly would under DV).

 

[jollybee]

Byelaws are generally non recordable, but NB that does not mean there is no record. Mistakes do happen and, albeit rarely, it is possible that one may be visible via a disclosure check.

I could be wrong here, but I'm getting the impression that you are testing the waters to see whether or not you should, voluntarily, disclose this to any potential employer. I think the advice given above, by other experienced posters, is clear.

Remember, there are many other ways that a vetting officer can find out information over and above official court records.

Yes I was just wondering as I read about mistakes happening and it could sometimes still be visible if recorded somehow on the PNC. Also I understand that I may be giving this impression but I am in no way trying to imply I am thinking about never disclosing it.

I am currently seeking how this can affect me for the rest of my life in my career, and I just wanted to clarify my doubts here, I don't think it is fair if everyone here assumes I am just pinpointing out every single thing about this offence because I am deceitfully not wanting to disclose, which I understand may imply due to vetting nature. I am just worried about my future, and I want to know everything now so I can prepare myself for the forever worst.

 

[styles]

Yes I was just wondering as I read about mistakes happening and it could sometimes still be visible if recorded somehow on the PNC. Also I understand that I may be giving this impression but I am in no way trying to imply I am thinking about never disclosing it.

I am currently seeking how this can affect me for the rest of my life in my career, and I just wanted to clarify my doubts here, I don't think it is fair if everyone here assumes I am just pinpointing out every single thing about this offence because I am deceitfully not wanting to disclose, which I understand may imply due to vetting nature. I am just worried about my future, and I want to know everything now so I can prepare myself for the forever worst.

The TLDR is:

• Assuming it is a bylaw offence:
  • It'll almost certainly not show on Basic DBS' or Standard DBS', which lookup recordable offences from the PNC.
  • Most jobs requiring any DBS check ask on application if you have convictions, and the bylaw offence will be 'spent' after a year, meaning it doesn't need disclosing unless a role requires Standard or Enhanced DBS.
  • You could choose to not disclose it while it's unspent if it's not on the PNC, but if you get found out, it could be considered fraud by false representation, though most likely you'll just be sacked.
  • It may (not will) show up on an Enhanced DBS because these include information not on the PNC, e.g. local police records.
• Assuming it's an offence under legislation which makes it a recordable offence (unlikely from TfL, but possible):
  • It'll almost certainly show on any DBS.
  • It'll be spent after a year, meaning it will stop showing on a Basic DBS after a year, but continue to show on Standard and Enhanced DBS' which include spent convictions until they are 'filtered'.
• In either case:
  • It should be 'filtered' from any DBS after 11 years. There are some exceptions, but they likely wouldn't apply.
  • For DV/eDV, the vetting officer will likely explicitly ask you about convictions, and they're experienced lie detectors; they'll speak to family and friends who may tell them; they'll go through bank statements and may question a payment made to HMCTS. So even if it doesn't show on a DBS, the vetting officer will very likely found out, not least because it will exist on court records.
  • For SC/eSC, the interviews may not happen by default, but there's many reasons which may cause the vetting officer to either investigate financial/criminal history, or speak to family/friends, in which case you may as well assume all of the DV/eDV interrogations will happen.
  • Any national vetting application data will be retained for normally 15 years, but may be retained for longer, so if you are rejected, this information may (not will) be kept for life. This doesn't necessarily mean you will never get an SC/DV job with a conviction - as I mentioned much earlier up this thread, honesty is key, and the longer ago it was, the less relevant it will become. But there's no kidding on - if you are rejected for a security clearance, you'll have to look for non-SC/DV/maybe non-CTC roles for a few years. BPSS shouldn't be as much of a barrier but no guarantees either way.

Ok that wasn't very TLDR, but I believe that to be a concise summary of the position including impact on vetting.

I don't know your career goals, your specialism, your industry, etc. If I were, in the next year, going to apply for jobs requiring an Enhanced DBS, I would probably try and find the money for a solicitor. If I were going to apply for SC/DV roles in the next few years, I would probably try and find the money for a solicitor and pay for it in a way which isn't going to invite questions from a vetting officer (though if they did ask, tell the truth). In any other case, particularly given your low income as a student, I'd probably just take it on the chin, learn the harsh life lesson, and move on. But that's just my personal view.

I am not assuming you're going to lie to a vetting officer, but would reiterate what others have said that it would be a bad idea. When the vetting officer came to my house I noticed a few things which I just hadn't predicted, like he sat in the chair which clearly wasn't set up for him but gave him full view of the room, the hallway, and the outside; he asked about my family tree (which I was required to draw up in advance) and I couldn't complete half of due to distancing from one side of the family, and he actually had completed the family tree himself beforehand so he'd have known within minutes if I'd lied about something on it; he'd actually found a family member's contact information, of somebody I hadn't spoken to for nearly 15 years, didn't even know what country they were in, let alone their phone number and address. They are highly-experienced, usually ex-spooks. They can and often will look into your history independently before your interviews; lying to them would by a very high risk strategy and I'd never recommend it. I appreciate you're not suggesting doing this, but in case there was even an inkling, really, don't!

 

[Hadders]

I have a question about the potential of the record appearing on the PNC. If I get convicted under the tfl bylaws, would it never be recorded on the PNC, even with repeated misuse? I am trying to find an answer and I keep seeing different outcomes, and that sometimes in court it can be recorded onto the PNC? Under what circumstances would it be sometimes? I thought for a summary only offence with a fine it would not be recorded in the PNC?

Also if it is under the PNC, how does this affect all my dbs checks, compared to if it isn’t recorded on the PNC.

Byelaw conviction aren't normally recorded on the Police National Computer so don't normally show on DBS checks. That said, a Byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction and is a matter of public record. Organisations do have other ways of finding out if you have been convicted of an offence. It's always best to be honest if you are asked if you have a conviction but I wouldn't expect a conviction for a minor railway ticketing issue to adversely impact career prospects as long as you disclose it when required to do so.

 

[jollybee]

Hello everyone, I’d just like to update. I have contacted a solicitor and we provided mitigation for my case, however I just heard back and tfl are prosecuting regardless. I’m in an extremely stressful position. I want to know if a bylaw conviction is possible in this case as the email sent by tfl regarding my case explains ‘dishonesty’ and how I’ve had 65 counts of using the card, which means they think it’s extremely serious. I am extremely worried they will convict me under the regulation of railways act, as this will bar my future forvever. I need advice on what to do next as this is has put such a mental toll on me for the last month and I can’t accept the fact that my future is already over. Would sending another letter on my behalf explaining to them my situation and how I’m remorseful maybe help? (I know it won’t but it’s worth a shot?)

 

[JBuchananGB]

As you have taken proper legal advice from a solicitor it is probably best to continue to listen to their advice. There are experts in this forum but the guidance can really only be general. Your solicitor can answer any questions you have.

 

[AlterEgo]

As TfL have made the decision to prosecute that's that. You will be prosecuted and convicted; if they are asking whether you want the numerous other offences to be taken into considerstion you will need to attend court to do this. TfL prosecute under their Bylaws as previously explained.

As you've come to understand, this sort of offending is taken very seriously by TfL and prosecution is the usual outcome.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hello everyone, I’d just like to update. I have contacted a solicitor and we provided mitigation for my case, however I just heard back and tfl are prosecuting regardless. I’m in an extremely stressful position. I want to know if a bylaw conviction is possible in this case as the email sent by tfl regarding my case explains ‘dishonesty’ and how I’ve had 65 counts of using the card, which means they think it’s extremely serious. I am extremely worried they will convict me under the regulation of railways act, as this will bar my future forvever. I need advice on what to do next as this is has put such a mental toll on me for the last month and I can’t accept the fact that my future is already over. Would sending another letter on my behalf explaining to them my situation and how I’m remorseful maybe help? (I know it won’t but it’s worth a shot?)

I think this is very unlikely to bar your future. Many many people will have records for this sort of thing in London. Have a look at the website of the charity ‘Unlocked’ to get an idea of the consequences of records fir things like this.

 

[Dave W]

My advice to you is to come clean from the off with whatever place you've got a job that requires SC. It's already been said but I will reiterate: they WILL find out in the process of their checks.

That does not necessarily preclude you from having your SC granted however - especially if you come clean. The same applies on a more critical level if you "graduate" up to a DV role - some of the stories you hear of DV interviews would make your eyes water. To paraphrase an oft used piece of advice on this part of the forum: "they've heard it all before" - and usually worse.

I don't work in a role requiring SC anymore but when I applied I had a significant amount of unsecured debt (credit cards and a bank loan) from over stretching myself when I moved to London. That wasn't an issue in my case - so if finding the money to pay is concerning you, there are options (this doesn't constitute financial advice).

Loads of people around the public sector have minor convictions - your life isn't over. But you must be up front. And - it goes without saying, I'm sure - don't even contemplate this sort of behaviour again.

 

[jollybee]

Do you guys think it is worth trying to continue in the defence sector once I graduate this year after my conviction? I would need to obtain my SC clearance straight away which most likely would be rejected given the nature of my offence. If it is rejected, wouldn’t this impact the ability of obtaining a clearance again? Let’s say in 5 or so years I try again and get back on my feet to the path I wanted to pursue, would having a rejection of SC before because of my offence mean I won’t get it again as it’s a conviction of dishonesty?

I am not sure where to start thinking about and how to pave my future for the next 6 months until I start working full time. I understand as the conviction will be unspent until possibly early 2027 (as I assume my court date would be around early 2026), it’ll be difficult for me to pass dbs checks for finance careers also. I did want to pursue a career in banking and finance, and this also will be affected. I am not sure how to go about choosing the next barred path for myself, as an engineering student.

 

[Hadders]

A conviction in itself is not a bar to obtaining security clearance. Many people have ‘skeletons in the cupboard’, including people with the highest levels of security clearance.

What you must do is be 100% honest about what happened and not try to cover up or hide anything.

Each case will be looked at on its own facts, there won’t be a hard and fast rule.

 

[duffield]

Do you guys think it is worth trying to continue in the defence sector once I graduate this year after my conviction? I would need to obtain my SC clearance straight away which most likely would be rejected given the nature of my offence. If it is rejected, wouldn’t this impact the ability of obtaining a clearance again? Let’s say in 5 or so years I try again and get back on my feet to the path I wanted to pursue, would having a rejection of SC before because of my offence mean I won’t get it again as it’s a conviction of dishonesty?

I am not sure where to start thinking about and how to pave my future for the next 6 months until I start working full time. I understand as the conviction will be unspent until possibly early 2027 (as I assume my court date would be around early 2026), it’ll be difficult for me to pass dbs checks for finance careers also. I did want to pursue a career in banking and finance, and this also will be affected. I am not sure how to go about choosing the next barred path for myself, as an engineering student.

I had issues which might have affected my clearance, but being upfront about them just caused a slight delay, not a refusal. Being honest about anything that might affect your clearance might even be a positive factor, it shows you are open and ready to learn from your mistakes. You shouldn't assume this issue is a bar to your desired career (but that's not to say it is irrelevant either).

 

[jollybee]

A conviction in itself is not a bar to obtaining security clearance. Many people have ‘skeletons in the cupboard’, including people with the highest levels of security clearance.

What you must do is be 100% honest about what happened and not try to cover up or hide anything.

Each case will be looked at on its own facts, there won’t be a hard and fast rule.

I had issues which might have affected my clearance, but being upfront about them just caused a slight delay, not a refusal. Being honest about anything that might affect your clearance might even be a positive factor, it shows you are open and ready to learn from your mistakes. You shouldn't assume this issue is a bar to your desired career (but that's not to say it is irrelevant either).

I understand, however do you think it is a big risk trying to still go for the job and potentially getting it rejected anyway? If I do not end up getting the clearance this would stay on my vetting record. Would that not be damaging when trying to apply for a role that needs clearance a few years down the line? Would this impact it at all?

 

[duffield]

I understand, however do you think it is a big risk trying to still go for the job and potentially getting it rejected anyway? If I do not end up getting the clearance this would stay on my vetting record. Would that not be damaging when trying to apply for a role that needs clearance a few years down the line? Would this impact it at all?

I really don't know about exactly how this sort of vetting works, I've only seen it from the outside. But I would think the only assumption you can safely make is that you should be totally honest, and that doing that will probably work in your favour. The only case where I can see it would be damaging later is where you are intending to pretend this incident did not happen and hope to get away with that, which is not sensible.
As far as I know, the vetting process rewards total honesty and punishes any sort of lies or obfuscation. So I'd doubt that this

If I do not end up getting the clearance this would stay on my vetting record

could be a negative.

Anyhow, you should take my words with a pinch of salt; I've only seen the process from the outside!

 

[jollybee]

I also have another question and after searching for hours and even asking AI, I’m still quite confused. I travel to the US quite often as I have family there, and I have realised I would no longer be eligible or the ESTA ever again. Once I tick yes that I have a conviction I would need to apply for a visa another way. However form my understanding the conviction asking for moral turpitude, so I am not sure if the tfl bylaw offence comes under this or not, I’m not sure what to do. Is this considered moral turpitude? If so and I tick yes and they ask to see court records etc, would they see the counts of offence e.g 65 and deem me as inadmissible? It has worried me quite a lot as not only would I like to visit family but I would like to pursue a career there too.

 

[duffield]

I also have another question and after searching for hours and even asking AI, I’m still quite confused. I travel to the US quite often as I have family there, and I have realised I would no longer be eligible or the ESTA ever again. Once I tick yes that I have a conviction I would need to apply for a visa another way. However form my understanding the conviction asking for moral turpitude, so I am not sure if the tfl bylaw offence comes under this or not, I’m not sure what to do. Is this considered moral turpitude? If so and I tick yes and they ask to see court records etc, would they see the counts of offence e.g 65 and deem me as inadmissible? It has worried me quite a lot as not only would I like to visit family but I would like to pursue a career there too.

Given the turbulent situation re US immigration I would think you need to consult a professional legal advisor rather than ask random people online, as there are lots of rail fare experts here but not so many US visa experts.

 

[WesternLancer]

I also have another question and after searching for hours and even asking AI, I’m still quite confused. I travel to the US quite often as I have family there, and I have realised I would no longer be eligible or the ESTA ever again. Once I tick yes that I have a conviction I would need to apply for a visa another way. However form my understanding the conviction asking for moral turpitude, so I am not sure if the tfl bylaw offence comes under this or not, I’m not sure what to do. Is this considered moral turpitude? If so and I tick yes and they ask to see court records etc, would they see the counts of offence e.g 65 and deem me as inadmissible? It has worried me quite a lot as not only would I like to visit family but I would like to pursue a career there too.

IIRC this USA moral terpitude question has been discussed on the forum in some detail in the past year or so.

Instead of an AI search try using the forums own search facility to see if you can find that thread. Might be helpful to you.

It might have even related to a TfL prosecution case or may have been stand alone thread.

 

[jollybee]

I have taken a look, most of the information is different, with some saying its not regarded as a serious offence as stated in their question and some saying even tho it is not serious you should still decalre it? but declaring one would mean you would be inelligble for ESTA forever.

 

[MotCO]

It has been stated previously on this forum that only approved parties can provide advice on visas; I don't know if that only applies to UK visa applicants or to any visa applicants, but we may be restricted in what advice we can give. It may be best if you contacted the relevant embassy for advice.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have taken a look, most of the information is different, with some saying its not regarded as a serious offence as stated in their question and some saying even tho it is not serious you should still decalre it? but declaring one would mean you would be inelligble for ESTA forever.

None of us are American immigration experts so I really recommend getting proper immigration advice if you intend to pursue an ESTA or visa to enter the USA.