Discussion on Whether Accidentally Underpaying is a Dismissable Offence

[some bloke]

Moderator Note - split from:

MG11 help please

This morning, my daughter was issued an MG11 at London Charing Cross. She had purchased her ticket via Trainline and had had been scanning in and out for the past 4 days without any issues. Today when she arrived at Charing Cross, the app wouldn't scan so she approached a ticket inspector for...

www.railforums.co.uk

She explained it was never her intention to avoid paying the right fare and that this was a genuine mistake

your daughter is guilty of short-faring on 4 (or more) occasions. ....It is the passenger's responsibility to have a valid ticket before boarding their train.
If it proceeds to court she will be found guilty and fined, and she will need to tell her employer - their policy may or may not lead to dismissal for dishonesty.

Accidentally underpaying is nowhere near a dismissal offence.

To me at least, the term "short-faring" conveys deliberate choice, so just in case, it's best if someone who made a mistake doesn't tell people she short-fared.

It is the passenger's responsibility to have a valid ticket before boarding, but the relevant offence, under Byelaw 18(1), does not imply any dishonesty.

Railway byelaws

Explains what the railway byelaws are, why they have been made and how they can be enforced and interpreted.

www.gov.uk

There is no good reason why anyone should be subject to any action by an employer or regulator for dishonesty for this (unless there are good grounds to think the person isn't telling the truth.)

Your daughter can check her employment contract, the regulator's website and perhaps the university website to see the approach they take. It would be crazy to boot people out of careers for this kind of mistake - people make errors in their work all the time, let alone in the rest of their lives.

In theory a company could try to get a conviction for intent to avoid a fare, but in practice they often prefer to use the strict liability allegation as it avoids arguments about intent.

The fare evasions amount to £1 difference per journey - therefore £4 in total. She is confident her history will show she has never evaded fares in the past and all her ticket purchases show a full London to Home or University to Home fares.

"Evasion" implies dishonesty, so best not to use that word! She's saying she underpaid by mistake.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2024 ==

Problem is that even if this is an error it will be tricky to persuade them of that because people buyin tickets on Trainline from London Bridge to Charing Cross is a tactic of deliberate fare evaders to buy a cheap ticket that will open the barriers at their destination for a journey commenced much further out.

I would think most passengers from London Bridge to Charing Cross would use their contactless bank card or Oyster.

Having said all this I think still good chance of avoiding prosecution by the op responding with advice from here on how to do that.

Agreed. It's best if the letter is carefully worded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2024 ==

my daughter had changed her Trainline app journey when she was out socially to London Bridge - Charing Cross but was buying a quick-buy open return ticket for about a week and travelling from Grove Park - Charing Cross, and therefore did not pay the correct fare over that week. The interface on the Trainline app says in big writing 'Still going to London Charing Cross?' and so she would just buy.

That makes sense. But why pay more for a ticket instead of using contactless?

 

[island]

Accidentally underpaying is nowhere near a dismissal offence.

There is no good reason why anyone should be subject to any action by an employer or regulator for dishonesty for this (unless there are good grounds to think the person isn't telling the truth.)

Depends entirely on the role.

 

[some bloke]

Depends entirely on the role.

Which roles would those not apply to?

 

[AlterEgo]

Which roles would those not apply to?

I expect revenue protection inspector would be one.

 

[some bloke]

I expect revenue protection inspector would be one.

The second statement was,

"There is no good reason why anyone should be subject to any action by an employer or regulator for dishonesty for this (unless there are good grounds to think the person isn't telling the truth.)"

If there are no good grounds for thinking there was dishonesty, why would there be a good reason for action based on dishonesty?

The other statement was,

"Accidentally underpaying is nowhere near a dismissal offence."

The context is the original poster referring to work in finance.

 

[MotCO]

There is no good reason why anyone should be subject to any action by an employer or regulator for dishonesty for this (unless there are good grounds to think the person isn't telling the truth.)

Your daughter can check her employment contract, the regulator's website and perhaps the university website to see the approach they take. It would be crazy to boot people out of careers for this kind of mistake - people make errors in their work all the time, let alone in the rest of their lives.

The key thing is to tell the truth to any employer or prospective employer if they are directly asked a question about any convictions. Not telling the truth or witholding information is seen as a much more serious crime than the crime itself.

 

[island]

Which roles would those not apply to?

Plenty, especially if the employer found out about it from some source other than the employee. Any role handling cash, any senior manager function, or certified person role for a start.

 

[some bloke]

especially if the employer found out about it from some source other than the employee.

The point made is about accidental underpaying. Failure to declare a conviction is a different subject.