Caught without a ticket

[scryb sprite]

Hi all.
I was caught without a ticket a couple of weeks ago, and I'm looking for advice on the best way to proceed.
I boarded the train without buying a ticket first as I was running late. No excuse, I know. However, I had no intention of avoiding payment, had the cash on me and was expecting to buy a ticket on the train. Failing that, I have made the same journey regularly, and am fully aware that ticket barriers are in operation at my destination station, with the facility to buy a ticket then.
I have previously bought tickets on the train with no problem, and no warning that I should have got one before boarding. I have also bought a ticket at the end of the journey in the past, again with no warning.
This time though, I didn't see a conductor on the train, and reaching my destination was not permitted to buy a ticket, and a statement was taken. After giving my statement, even though I stated my intention and desire to buy a ticket for the journey I had just made, I was not allowed to do so.
I've just received a letter from Transport Investigations Ltd., inviting me to provide a statement prior to a decision on whether to issue a summons for prosecution. They have also given me the opportunity to pay £72.10 for the fare and "a proportion of the administrative costs".

So, is any of the above likely to be sufficient for them to decide against prosecution, should I just pay the £72.10, or if I let them prosecute, is the magistrate likely to rule in my favour?

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Flamingo]

If there were facilities to buy at the station you boarded at, you have not got a leg to stand on if it goes to court.

 

[transmanche]

They have also given me the opportunity to pay £72.10 for the fare and "a proportion of the administrative costs".

So, is any of the above likely to be sufficient for them to decide against prosecution, should I just pay the £72.10, or if I let them prosecute, is the magistrate likely to rule in my favour?

Pay the money.

If they choose to prosecute you under the Railway Byelaw 18, then they don't need to prove any intent to avoid payment. The mere fact that you did not have a ticket (and that ticket-purchasing facilities were available at the station where you started your journey) will mean that Magistrate is virtually certain to find you guilty. And the fine is likely to be more than £72.10.

I'm afraid the best course of action is to treat this as an expensive lesson - and make sure you always buy a ticket before travelling in future.

 

[furlong]

If there were facilities to buy at the station you boarded at, you have not got a leg to stand on if it goes to court.

I wouldn't put it quite so strongly myself - nothing's certain and a good lawyer might try to construct a defence based on being encouraged to do this by the train company due to being able to purchase tickets on the train or at the destination on previous occasions without being warned you might have been prosecuted for this.

For example, consider whether anything can be taken from the thinking that underlies paragraph 4.34 of the SRA's Penalty Fares Policy (and the consequential safeguards built into any Penalty Fares scheme), regardless of whether or not Penalty Fares applied to your particular journey, and consider whether this is something the train company might like a court to clarify.

4.34 The basic principle of any penalty fares scheme is that passengers must buy their tickets before they get on their train. If passengers find that they can buy their ticket on the train from the conductor or guard, it undermines this message.

In your situation though, I expect most people would just pay up what was requested and get on with their lives. After paying up, it would still be open to you to pursue the matter through the train company's customer services department.

 

[Flamingo]

And how many angels fit on the head of a pin?
The railway has been prosecuting fare evaders for nearly 160 years. If it was that easy to construct a defence, then many more people would do so...

 

[Haywain]

I wouldn't put it quite so strongly myself - nothing's certain and a good lawyer might try to construct a defence based on being encouraged to do this by the train company due to being able to purchase tickets on the train or at the destination on previous occasions without being warned you might have been prosecuted for this.

Two points:
1. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
2. Good lawyers can be expensive.

In your situation though, I expect most people would just pay up what was requested and get on with their lives. After paying up, it would still be open to you to pursue the matter through the train company's customer services department.

Even without knowing how much the fare might have been, had you paid it, £72.10 sounds relatively reasonable. You would be well advised to pay it and learn from it.

 

[TheEdge]

Take the £72.10. Most of the time TOCs don't tend to offer that, they tend to threaten you with prosecution as per your received letter and might later accept an offer as part of your version of events of fare plus admin fees rather than offer it outright. Also the figure tends to be 3 figures.

So yea, learn, pay and don't do it again. You can be damned sure they wont offer this if they catch you again.

 

[Stigy]

As has been said, if they proceeded to Court and intended to prosecute using Byelaw 18(1), you're almost certain to be found guilty. There are only three statutory defences to this Byelaw (A member of staff gave you permission, there was nowhere to buy a ticket or there was a sign instructing you to board without a ticket), everything else is mitigation.

 

[Tibbs]

And how many angels fit on the head of a pin?
The railway has been prosecuting fare evaders for nearly 160 years. If it was that easy to construct a defence, then many more people would do so...

It's not necessarily about ease, it's about cost/reward.

When the downside of getting convicted of a Byelaw 18 offence is ~£400, why would you spend £2,000+ on a good lawyer and a decent, well researched and thought out defence, especially when there's no risk of criminal record etc.?

Do we know know what a TOC actually does when faced with a robust, solicitor-led defence from someone? It wouldn't surprise me if they just drop those cases, as they have to be very few and far between. The risk to the TOC is for an adverse judgement that could affect future cases. Just see what's happening with Private Parking Companies now that lots of people are winning in court - the Judges are looking to previous judgements to guide them, and it's not going in the PPC's direction.

Another similar area is in personal injury - it's often more cost effective for a company to pay out on a spurious claim than take that person to court and beat them there as it's just too expensive to be proven right.

And of course there was the bank charges scenario - banks would pay out (they did to me) before court as they didn't want the risk of a judgement going against them. There were even instances of cheques being written in the foyer of county courts just before the session was due to take place.

 

[Stigy]

It's not necessarily about ease, it's about cost/reward.

When the downside of getting convicted of a Byelaw 18 offence is ~£400, why would you spend £2,000+ on a good lawyer and a decent, well researched and thought out defence, especially when there's no risk of criminal record etc.?

Do we know know what a TOC actually does when faced with a robust, solicitor-led defence from someone? It wouldn't surprise me if they just drop those cases, as they have to be very few and far between. The risk to the TOC is for an adverse judgement that could affect future cases. Just see what's happening with Private Parking Companies now that lots of people are winning in court - the Judges are looking to previous judgements to guide them, and it's not going in the PPC's direction.

From experience I know that at least one TOC wont back down when confronted when the defendant enlists a solicitor.

To be honest, I've yet to see a Solicitor brave enough to challenge a Byelaw 18 charge, largely because of it being a strict liability matter. Any possible loophole would, or at least should, have been ironed out by the TOC's Prosecutions team before the matter goes to court, and being strict liability, Byelaws have very few loopholes anyway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . .

Do we know know what a TOC actually does when faced with a robust, solicitor-led defence from someone? It wouldn't surprise me if they just drop those cases, as they have to be very few and far between.

. . .

Yes, each case is assessed on its merits and risks.
I've seen Prosecutions fall before the hearing after a word between solicitors, and I've seen challenges to a TOC prosecuting go completely undefended by the Company.

From experience I know that at least one TOC wont back down when confronted when the defendant enlists a solicitor.

To be honest, I've yet to see a Solicitor brave enough to challenge a Byelaw 18 charge, largely because of it being a strict liability matter.

Hmm. there are ways.
I seem to recall that in Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin), the Company (as Respondents) chose not to appear to defend their Byelaw prosecution (which was quashed by the Court of Appeal); "A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) was, whatever the underlying merits, doomed to fail."
The Apellant hadn't even instructed a solicitor and was simply a litigant-in-person, which in the Court of Appeal, can be quite a daunting process.

Ultimately, it's all about revenue, and if Witnesses are going to be required to attend to be questioned and cross-examined, then taking them off front-line duties for a day can be a considerable drain on the Company's resources - and costs should they fail.

 

[scryb sprite]

Thanks for all the help.

Even without knowing how much the fare might have been, had you paid it, £72.10 sounds relatively reasonable. You would be well advised to pay it and learn from it.

The original fare was £2.10, but I'm sure that's not the point. I appreciate that the fine in court will be far more than £72.10.

So, two more questions that occur to me:
1. Should I reply to the letter, giving the points I made in my original post, just in case they decide against prosecution, or is that likely to result in the administrative disposal offer being withdrawn?
2. I'm on a low income, working part-time and earning £94 per week. Is the company likely to take this into consideration and allow me to pay the £72.10 in instalments?

Cheers,
Alex

 

[Haywain]

So, two more questions that occur to me:
1. Should I reply to the letter, giving the points I made in my original post, just in case they decide against prosecution, or is that likely to result in the administrative disposal offer being withdrawn?
2. I'm on a low income, working part-time and earning £94 per week. Is the company likely to take this into consideration and allow me to pay the £72.10 in instalments?

Cheers,
Alex

If you pay the £72.10, they won't prosecute. If you don't pay it, they will. Don't hold out hope of changing their minds.

As far as paying in instalments is concerned, I would think that they are unlikely to accept that. If they have provided a phone number it may be worth asking, but time will be important, so writing to ask may well be seen in much the same way as not paying.

 

[Stigy]

Yes, each case is assessed on its merits and risks.
I've seen Prosecutions fall before the hearing after a word between solicitors, and I've seen challenges to a TOC prosecuting go completely undefended by the Company.

Hmm. there are ways.
I seem to recall that in Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin), the Company (as Respondents) chose not to appear to defend their Byelaw prosecution (which was quashed by the Court of Appeal); "A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) was, whatever the underlying merits, doomed to fail."
The Apellant hadn't even instructed a solicitor and was simply a litigant-in-person, which in the Court of Appeal, can be quite a daunting process.

Ultimately, it's all about revenue, and if Witnesses are going to be required to attend to be questioned and cross-examined, then taking them off front-line duties for a day can be a considerable drain on the Company's resources - and costs should they fail.

I'm not saying there's not exceptions, but generally speaking, they tend to see them through. Some exceptions are the wrong charges being laid (not noticed for whatever reason) such as an 18(1) when the appropriate charge would have been an 18(2) for example....or More frequently perhaps an ambitious 5(3)a which should have really been an 18(1)

 

[island]

In Burns it was a combination of the wrong charge and arguably bad draftsmanship. The case turned on the fact that the offence charged was failing to hand over a ticket for inspection contrary to bylaw 18 (2). Said bylaw makes no mention of any requirement that the ticket be valid (which, as it transpired, it was not, being an Oyster card that had not been touched in and was not within any Travelcard zones).

 

[bb21]

@OP. Which train company is this with?

 

[scryb sprite]

@OP. Which train company is this with?

Arriva Trains Wales

 

[scryb sprite]

If you pay the £72.10, they won't prosecute. If you don't pay it, they will. Don't hold out hope of changing their minds.

As far as paying in instalments is concerned, I would think that they are unlikely to accept that. If they have provided a phone number it may be worth asking, but time will be important, so writing to ask may well be seen in much the same way as not paying.

Well, I decided to make the full payment of £72.10. Checked my bank account two days later, and the payment has been taken twice!

 

[Islineclear3_1]

VERY expensive lesson then....!!!!

Not sure what you can do here apart from querying with the bank

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . the payment has been taken twice!

Quite often when something like that happens, the error will be flagged up by one of the banks and they will correct it automatically. However, I have had experience of banks almost refusing to acknowledge the error (both Lloyds and Barclays though they're probably all the same) so it should be reported to the bank by the customer, and also reported to the Railway Company, ATW, so that they can confirm to their bank that the duplicate is an unintended receipt (if the duplicate actually got that far).