Caution with pending interview from prosecution team

[dave11]

oh boy have i been utterly stupid.... so read these forums a few times and cant see cases similar to mine: to be fair most feel minor so deep breath and here goes.

for 18 months I used a 1/2 travel card but commuted regularily from zone6 no barrier station.
working in town in a new job i was told I'd be abroad at times / travelling to other vendor office in central london and staying overnight in town from time to time as working late meetings etc...

so - seemed a sensible move to buy a 1/2 travel card with intent to pay zone extension as needed to commute home.

first issue was station only issues paper travel cards. Thought no big deal as return to border zone 2 is half the price of full ticket.
did it occasionally but got lazy and into a routine.

Bottom line: got caught: first stated i came from the border zoen 2 but inspector had watched me the whole journey and corrected my origin station to which i admitted i had lied and then gave a full truthful recount. he asked how much i think i had saved: i gave an estimate and said i admit you've caught me - I'm entirely in the wrong. i signed the caution and he confiscated my card. i called prosecutions office next day and spoke to a nice lady - apologising for my utterly stupid behaviour and that i had gotten into bad habit and deeply sorry. Lady was really nice stating they prefer to educate passengers and ensure they understand: they dont want to lose customers. i finally left the call stating this could have serious effects on my job. She told me i did the right thing calling in so promptly.

4 weeks on - got a letter to attend an interview under caution to explain any mitigating circumstances. I plan to explain my original intend was not to defraud the company but find an optimum use of travel card / ticket combinations.
i called to confirm attendance and date and re-iterated how sorry i am for what I've done. the lady (different one) stated she'll record that.

i'm terrified sick - never been stopped for any offences ever and reading these articles on large fare evaders feel dreadful. naivety is not an excuse; i was stupid. Clearly admitted guilt and desperate to find a means to settle out of court.

not really sure what advice I'm going to get here: it was beyond stupid.

 

[222007]

I plan to explain my original intend was not to defraud the company

Ulitmately it might not have been your intention to defraud the company but thats exactly what you did. Attend the interview but id say possibly an out of court settlement might be your best bet

 

[dave11]

thanks 222007 - completely agree and need to understand how to best position the out of court settlement route: I absolutly expect to pay a significant amount - deservedly so; but criminal record is a totally different level and will lose job / career. since the event I've been utterly diligent on every journey - too little too late granted...

 

[najaB]

oh boy have i been utterly stupid....

not really sure what advice I'm going to get here: it was beyond stupid.

Yes, you have been stupid. Which company is dealing with your case?

 

[gray1404]

Yes you've made some mistakes but you clearly admit those now. I agree with the above that the best way forward in this case would be to request an out of court settlement. I'd stick to the story you have already given them too.

 

[dave11]

SWT (Stagecoach?) - I called them this morning to confirm I'd attend the interview; is it too much to call again tomorrow and repeat apology and and if i could co-oporate toward an out of court agreement? the first lady i spoke with suggested she'd take on my case - reassuring but when calling today i didnt get the impression she is the case owner

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One of the outcomes of the interview will be to provide a basis for determining the cumulative losses you have caused the Company and an assessment of the amount that is to be recovered. This will be informed by your travel history.

I commend the frank and open approach that you suppose that you are presenting, but I have to say that it beggars belief in the form that you have presented it here - there is no way to reconcile the post hoc "I plan to explain my original intend was not to defraud the company but . . . . " with " . . . stated i came from the border zoen 2" and "got lazy and into a routine".
If you have been repeatedly and deliberately not paying the full fare, and lying when asked, then you won't be believed if you say that you did not intend to defraud. I strongly advise you to tell the truth, even if it is not what you want to believe. When the evidence shows one thing, it only undermines the reliability of your statements if they contradict that evidence.

Hope that helps.

 

[dave11]

thanks Dave - i panicked when stopped. but once corrected apologised and rest of captured caution. i also asked post caution inspector about extensions and views for the travel i typically do - they suggested extensions typically add up to same as a single - so not always economical: where a season card gives approx 2 months free (compared to daily costs). Either way - i am guilty; no two ways - original intent was eroded with bad habit. Evidence will show frequent travel into town but there are many gaps (holidays / travel abroad and stays in town or work in a different office).

is it best to approach SWT by phone now to ask if its possible to discuss a settlement; is that too premature given pending interview or should this be discussed at interview or post?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

is it best to approach SWT by phone now to ask if its possible to discuss a settlement; is that too premature given pending interview or should this be discussed at interview or post?

At present, there is no basis on which a settlement could be agreed. So no, don't phone now. Just prepare for the interview. Gather your evidence. If you think it will help, you could prepare a written Statement of Facts to hand to the interviewer which lists your journey details.

 

[dave11]

thanks Dave - makes sense and will do. will post back post interview and advise how it went.
So i should list out all occasions i stayed in town / was abroad - this should co-oborate dates of my travel (or not) - which one assumes they can tell by looking at card histories (swipes in etc...). Presumably post interview they'll consider the sum defrauded: once i recieve the follow up (I suspect a summons) thats the point to offer to settle?

 

[bb21]

What do you mean by "swipes"? I thought you had a paper ticket. Gatelines do not record usage histories for paper tickets and only the details of the last passage through a gateline is recorded on the ticket itself.

 

[dave11]

Swipes is the wrong term; I mean times ticket passed through the gates
But - your suggestion that paper ticket use doesn't carry a recorded history?

I'd be surprised; but makes sense as paper tickets are "perhaps dumb" compared to ouster cards I guess...

 

[najaB]

Swipes is the wrong term; I mean times ticket passed through the gates
But - your suggestion that paper ticket use doesn't carry a recorded history?

I'd be surprised; but makes sense as paper tickets are "perhaps dumb" compared to ouster cards I guess...

Neither paper tickets nor Oyster cards store journey history so I don't understand your post.

 

[MikeWh]

​

Neither paper tickets nor Oyster cards store journey history so I don't understand your post.

Oyster cards do store the details of the last 8 journeys, plus the central Oyster database records details of journeys within the last 8 weeks.

 

[najaB]

​

Oyster cards do store the details of the last 8 journeys, plus the central Oyster database records details of journeys within the last 8 weeks.

The point being that the detailed journey history the OP requires covering the last 18 months wouldn't be stored on an Oyster card any more than it would be on a paper ticket.

 

[Abpj17]

You might not be comfortable with the term 'fraud' being applied to your approach, but that's legally what it is.

Clear travel dates out of the country would be helpful to identify so - if they accept a payment - it is based around the fares youl should have been paying.

 

[dave11]

I think it's fair to say there won't be much on the oyster cards. I have 2 as in a previous job the commute was reverse where I travelled through town out to zone6. It turned out I got surcharges because I switched between rail and tube; so was advised to use one for rail and one for tube especially as at the time there were discounted rates for traveling into zone 1 at rush hour (all payg). 4+ years ago but that's why I initially had the oyster and thought about zone extensions as a means to be more travel cost efficient. We moved and I changed jobs... So commute ended in town. Anyway bottom line is I got lazy; simply used my 1-2 card regularity and it became a terrible habit. I'll be honest in the interview of course; and ask if there is a way we can settle administratively as court will cost both job, career and knock on effects could be worse. I have been such an idiot

 

[island]

I won't reiterate the good advice already given, but I will add this: start saving. In the event South West Trains is minded to consider an out of court settlement, the starting point of its calculations will be the value of an anytime day return for the journey you made, multiplied by the number of days it thinks you made it. It is unusual for the payment of out of court settlements to be accepted in instalments.

The fraud (for that is what it is) of buying a ticket for a shorter journey than you're actually making is not unknown to the Train Operating Companies. It is quite likely that an inspector watched your throughout journey on the day you were stopped, if not also on several previous days. This evidence will be tendered in court if the case gets there.

If you have been using monthly or longer Travelcarda then the details of the ticket you held will have been recorded on a database.

 

[dave11]

Agreed; already started saving. Inspector did tell me he had observed my journey even that I could have tapped an oyster but elected not to...

When is the right time and how do I approach the question of settlement out of court? I feel end of interview is best timing perhaps?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Own up and tell the truth. Inspectors may have followed you on other days so lying would further incriminate your case resulting in a court case and criminal record. As far as SWT are concerned, you have wilfully defrauded them out of a lot of money and not just on one occasion.

When you go, be humble, stick with the facts and own up. Do not make any lame excuses. This "may" go in your favour and you'll get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a hefty fine. But who knows at this stage?

 

[tony6499]

Surely this is a bang on prosecution case ? This is the sort of thing they use on their publicity to prevent such things

 

[455driver]

Surely this is a bang on prosecution case ? This is the sort of thing they use on their publicity to prevent such things

yep, RPIs absolutely adore these operations because it is a slam dunk prosecution case.

The trick the OP has been doing is very well known by the TOCs, RPIs and Courts and all the excuses have been heard dozens of times.
Of course it is all just a game but when people lose they suddenly realise how serious the 'game' can be!

 

[gray1404]

Would it be advisable for the OP to take someone to the interview to advocate on his behalf?

 

[dave11]

I agree this is bad but rang next day and apologised and done again on accepting interview. Really want to settle

 

[najaB]

I agree this is bad but rang next day and apologised and done again on accepting interview. Really want to settle

There is no way to settle anything at present as the TOC's lawyers haven't yet decided what, if any, charges to lay before the court.

Once they have, then we can start talking about settling.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Would it be advisable for the OP to take someone to the interview to advocate on his behalf?

dave11 could take their solicitor to present the facts and to advocate for them, yes. That would be a prudent move.
Alternatively, they could take a friend to take notes and give silent support - or they they could ask to have a private consultation with their friend at key moments during the discussion.

I agree this is bad but rang next day and apologised and done again on accepting interview. Really want to settle

At present, there is asolutely nothing to settle for, and there can't be until you and the Company have met to discuss the extent of the loss. I'm sorry if I haven't made that clear before now. If you feel the need to be doing somthing, then start to prepare a detailled schedule of your movements, specifically those by rail, over the past months since you started this 'habit'. Then start to list all the other evidence that you have which may relate to the accusations (e.g. evidence that you could not have travelled by rail on some dates).
You will have to be patient.

 

[323235]

How common is it to be asked to attend an interview, is it really better than phone and written correspondence. It sounds like the perfect interrogation opportunity for South West Trains.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

How common is it to be asked to attend an interview, is it really better than phone and written correspondence. It sounds like the perfect interrogation opportunity for South West Trains.

This is bad advice.
I strongly advise dave11 against attempting to resolve this by phone or by written correspondence.

A frank and open statement of facts during a face to face conversation between parties who are willing to talk, with the opportunity to seek clarifications, and with an evidential basis for any exceptions to the norm, can readily be achieve an agreed statement of loss, and which can then move towards the basis for an agreed outcome.

Maybe dave11 won't achieve the out-of-court settlement he so vigourously seeks, but his chances will be very much lower if he declines the invitation to an interview.

For your information, 323235, it is a procedure which is applied to very few incidents of suspected fare evasion, possibly not even 1% of them. But it is a powerful tool in assessing loss. I'm aware of matters which, following such an interview, have resulted in claims against the passenger which have reached 5 digits, and also have resulted in compensation paid to the passenger which has also been in the thousands. These sorts of resolutions are hard to agree effectively by letter, and almost impossible by phone. Pre-court resolutions like this will not flow easily whan the passenger won't come in to talk.

 

[323235]

I wasn't in way in trying to influence the OP by asking this question, merely investigating the nature as it is something I've never heard of in this section before.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was in no way offering advice or influence on what to do. It would quite clearly not be a good idea to arrange an interview with a train company in a matter such as this and then cancel it.

 

[dave11]

Inclined to agree; when first stopped I had stayed I had a 1/2 as I tend to travel more in town than out; the letter states it is an opportunity to state any mitigating factors concerning the alleged offence(s) and ensure SWT has all the facts at hand before coming to a decision regarding my case. Mobile number to call on arrival on the day. When I called to confirm attendance the lady said the letter was a standard one they send. Whilst the letter itself and phone correspondence don't feel sinister I do have a horrible feeling about it all. I plan to draft notes ahead of time including key no rail use dates (business travel, holiday and nights stayed in town). I also will reiterate how very sorry I am and if there is any possibility to settle out of court as that would result in loss of job and inability to travel to the U.S. which I rely on as part of my job.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
DaveNewcastle - thank you: accepted interview straight away; but 1% only go to interview is immensely worrying. On my first call (day after I was cautioned) the lady said they prefer not to interview as its time consuming; and she'd oversee my case, but feeling is that outlook has changed slightly now. No plans to write in or call; as you say, until I give my "mitigating circumstance" there's little to discuss. Mitigating circumstance are weak at best; so I just pray they are open to discuss. But 5 figures... OMG