Fare evasion on staff pass

[Haywain]

dismissal etc. must merely be "within a reasonable range of responses".

That's the punishment. There must be a hearing first, in the same way that sentencing in court follows the reaching of a verdict.

 

[some bloke]

Even just considering that they can (if I understand correctly) withdraw the staff pass at their discretion, and refuse to issue a nominee pass, and that this could have effect over a number of years, might be enough financial justification to seek/pay for, within reason, the best advice you and she can get from laywers and union reps.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2022 ==

Given what you've written about the potential importance of this, it seems to me that you need careful thought and, importantly, professional advice about how to tackle the employment and criminal aspects and how they may influence each other.

 

[Deafdoggie]

One big eyebrow raiser is that the OP’s partner chose to leave their staff Oyster card at home when driving into work. I used to work some early Sundays on the railway and I can’t recall taking my Priv out of my wallet on the days I didn’t use it; it was simply there all the time. My driving licence almost never gets used, but it lives in my wallet too.

The OP’s partner should be prepared to be asked:

- Why did you leave your staff oyster at home?
- Are you in the habit of routinely emptying your wallet/purse of things you may not need for that single day?

Plus any number of follow up questions depending on the answer to those. Remember that in an employment setting, to dismiss someone or punish them via other disciplinary means, no proof is actually needed, merely a judgement on the “balance of probabilities”. This means reasonable doubt could exist, but, on balance, something is more likely to be true than not.

Whilst you might carry everything around with you, not everyone does. My wife takes only the minimum everytime she leaves the house. Often just her phone! She won't even take her house keys if she knows I'll be in when she gets back.
It's not so much emptying everything out, as just putting the bare minimum in. It would never occur to her to take her driving licence anywhere.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst you might carry everything around with you, not everyone does. My wife takes only the minimum everytime she leaves the house. Often just her phone! She won't even take her house keys if she knows I'll be in when she gets back.
It's not so much emptying everything out, as just putting the bare minimum in. It would never occur to her to take her driving licence anywhere.

Most people, and especially women, do not treat their handbag as an empty vessel by default, only placing things in it they need for that day or that trip, but as a personal space full of stuff by default, with things removed from it to make space.

Put it this way, the OP's partner is going to have to say, outright, that not only was the pass misused by the OP, but also that it was taken without their consent.

I would absolutely not want to be in a disciplinary hearing defending my actions to leave my staff pass at home only on the days I drove into work, and, by denying collusion with my partner in the misuse, directly accusing my partner potentially of another offence.

"And why did you leave your staff pass at home on those days, the same days your partner misused it?"
"Well you see I don't carry everything I need all the time, I took it out"

follows:

"So your bag is usually completely empty is it, and you only take things you need for that day?"
"Isn't the pass important? Why would you take it out?" "As you know from the employee handbook/conditions of the pass, misuse of the pass is very serious. You've signed to say you read the conditions - so can you confirm you understand misuse of the pass is a serious matter, and that if you are complicit in that misuse, it may be construed as serious/gross misconduct (delete as appropriate)?"
"Thank you. In light of that, why did you leave it somewhere it could have been misused?"
"Do you trust your partner?"
"Why didn't you apply for a nominee pass?"
"Did your partner steal the pass from you to misuse it?"
"Are you sure the pass was taken without your knowledge? That's got very serious consequences for your partner. We might need to inform the police/revenue protection of this information, for the benefit of the prosecution's case."
"Would you like us to take a break while you think about your answer to that question?"
etc etc etc

Most of the answers to those questions are quite difficult, and things could go south pretty fast in the disciplinary hearing, which, we have already ascertained, will be without union representation (another very bad decision not to join the union, I'm afraid!).

One of the things which is obvious from giving advice in this part of the forum is how many respondents don't appear to have been In Big Trouble anytime in their life, and are blissfully naive of how quickly things can go bad when you start talking, even when you have good intentions!

It is much more important to consider how circumstances appear, and how your actions appear, than the objective truth, when in a position where the company has to prove nothing, only that something happened on the balance of probabilities. A raised eyebrow and "sounds like a load of old toss, reckon on balance that's a lie" is enough for HR to undertake a disciplinary remedy, and "more likely to be a lie than the truth even if we can't tell" is also perfectly acceptable at a tribunal. This is not a criminal hearing on the part of the OP's partner, who is on weak ground.

 

[DaleCooper]

Most people, and especially women, do not treat their handbag as an empty vessel by default, only placing things in it they need for that day or that trip, but as a personal space full of stuff by default, with things removed from it to make space.

Perhaps it was on a lanyard which is very common.

 

[philthetube]

Well you admit you’re in the wrong, that’s good.

She does realise that even if she drives to work, she still needs her pass….it’s her staff ID after all.

As someone who was worked for TFL for twenty years, I would STRONGLY suggest she joins a union straightaway. People management and industrial relations on TFL could be much better. She would be in a much stronger position with an experienced rep by her side, rather than a well meaning, but potentially ineffectual colleague.

The only defence I can see here is that she was completely unaware of what you were doing. Play dumb in other words.

As to what could happen…she could be stood down from her current role whilst the matter is investigated. Likely in my opinion. Written warnings for a year or possibly two also possible. Lose her job, that’s possible, but hopefully it won’t get that far.

Staff ID and staff oyster are different things

Perhaps it was on a lanyard which is very common.

TFL staff do not wear id on lanyards, the are not expected to be on public view.

 

[motangk]

I do not think you should mention you are a civil servant. This make it more in the public interest to prosecute if TfL have this information. I would also recommend speaking to a solicitor. Manak Solicitors (https://manaksolicitors.co.uk/services/fare-evasion/) helped me a lot with my case and gave a lot of good advice.

 

[Tubeboy]

I think you're being a bit pedantic. They are kept in the same wallet by most staff, if not all. Ergo, you wouldn’t leave one at home, and bring one.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Only the OP and their partner will know the truth of whether the partner routinely left their staff pass at home or not. But since a lie will easily be caught out, it doesn't really matter what we know. All we can do is to suggest to the OP that they tell the truth - which is what we've already said.