Fare evasion - Second time

[worried_sick]

Hello
I would appreciate some advice in this matter.

I was caught without a ticket back in 2012 where I'd rushed to get on the train and asked for a ticket from the conductor, paid with my bank card but the transaction wouldn't go through as it was deemed an unsecure connection. The conductor at the time said not to worry and to buy a ticket at the station (as it was barrier operated anyway so would need a ticket to get out). I was then stopped by a revenue protection officer and received a letter from Transport Investigations Ltd. I responded to the letter, said I attempted to pay on the train and there was no intention to not get a ticket etc. They responded back accepting my response without no penalty or fine or further action and that was that.

Now in October 2016 I was stopped again as I had rushed without thinking to get on a late running train. I had a ticket for my prior journey just not for this one route. I had a letter from Transport Investigations Ltd and responded with my reasoning and apology etc. I have received a second letter where it has highlighted prosecution and am now terrified. I responded to that second letter saying there was no intention not to pay as I needed to make a return journey, I'm pursuing a career in law and a prosecution would be detrimental and that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
I am awaiting their response and would appreciate some guidance as to what it likely to happen. A conviction/ criminal record would mean I would lose my job, not be able to find another one and would massively impact on my life.
Any advice would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks

 

[Paule23]

OK, there will be much more knowledgable and eloquent people than me here at some point, but first thing to emphasise is, stop panicking.

TO get good advice you are going to need to provide more information. They key is whether there is enough evidence for the rail company to pursue a RoRA offence of intent to travel without paying. This will be very dependent on the circumstances of your journey, including where you were stopped.

Could you provide more details including where you were travelling from and to, and what the circumstances were when you were identified as not having a valid ticket for travel?

Without proving intent, the rail company can go for a Byelaw offence, which is a strict liability offence of travelling without a ticket. This is not recordable and would not show up on any criminal records search.

In many cases, the company will send a letter with an out of court settlement offer (usually around £80 plus any unpaid fare), but it depends on the rail company and the circumstances of your travel without a ticket.

Ultimately all you can do is wait for their next response, but in the meantime post more details here and the knowledgeable folk can give you more advice on likely outcomes.

 

[najaB]

I was caught without a ticket back in 2012... They responded back accepting my response without no penalty or fine or further action and that was that.

Indeed, that was that and it won't have any bearing on this case.

Now in October 2016 I was stopped again as I had rushed without thinking to get on a late running train. I had a ticket for my prior journey just not for this one route.

Could you clarify this statement please. What journey were you making and what ticket(s) did you hold?

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you both for your comments.
Basically I travelled from Bristol to Port Talbot to visit a friend and stayed over night on the Saturday. I had a valid ticket for my journey.
The next day (Sunday) I called my parents to pick me up from Port Talbot train station so I could visit them that day before heading back to Bristol.
When I called my dad his phone went to voicemail so I made a split decision to get a train from Port Talbot to Neath (a fare of approx. £2.20 - one stop) with a view of getting a bus to my parents house . I checked my train times app and there was a delayed train just getting into the station. I ran for that train and in doing so did not purchase a ticket beforehand. There was no conductor on the train to purchase a ticket but when I arrived at Neath I was stopped by a revenue protection officer. I explained the same to him but he still filed a report.
I also explained after visiting my family that day I needed to head home to Bristol so needed to get a ticket for the return journey in any case and was willing to purchase a ticket for my travel.
I'm now really worried and any comments would be gratefully received.

 

[cuccir]

It sounds from your description that Transport Investigations Limited, who investigate on behalf of Arriva Trains Wales (ATW), would have enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution against you, but the impact of this varies significantly on the legislation. They have a choice of Railway Byelaw 18 or the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA) (see a detailed outlining of these here).

Byelaw 18 is a 'strict liability' offence which demands that a passenger have a valid ticket, if they have passed an opportunity to buy one. As I'm sure you know, this means that your intent is not considered and that you're guilty of it buy not having purchased a ticket at the first opportunity (the ticket office or ticket machines at Port Talbot). Importantly, a succesful Byelaw prosecution is instantly spent, ie, it does not create a criminal record, unless your work involves 'enhanced' DBS clearance, and fines are typically under£200 (and can be under £100).

The RoRA is more serious, and requires evidence of intent to avoid paying a fare. A successful RoRA prosecution will produce a criminal record, and fines are typically a little higher. Whether they have sufficient evidence for proceeding with a RoRA prosecution depends a little on your conversation with the RPI, but walking past an opportunity to pay at Port Talbot will contribute towards evidence of intent to avoid a fare, so they may have the evidence for this: but it is a harder case to make.

Have they said which legislation they want to proceed under? Clearly, the differences in outcomes will change how you ought to act.

Either way, if you have not already, you might consider writing to Transport Investigations, copied to ATW, with an offer to pay administrative fees and the fare due, in order to settle this out of court. Unfortunately, ATW are one of the more aggressive train operators with regards to proceeding to prosecution, but that does not mean that they won't listen to an offer of an out of court settlement.

 

[Greenback]

There are advantages to ATW in accepting a settlement. It's their decision, though, and they are entitled to prosecute if they feel it's in their best interests, so there can be no guarantees.

 

[cuccir]

I'm pursuing a career in law and a prosecution would be detrimental and that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.
I am awaiting their response and would appreciate some guidance as to what it likely to happen. A conviction/ criminal record would mean I would lose my job, not be able to find another one and would massively impact on my life.
Any advice would be gratefully appreciated. Thanks

Just a couple of further points on this:

1. As ATW will chose to prosecute privately, if they do prosecute, then they do not have to consider public interest

2. Law I presume is stricter than some other industries, but even then I wouldn't presume that a criminal record for what many consider to be a relatively minor offence would end a career. Check your current contract to see if you're obliged to tell your employer of a conviction (you may not be). A Byelaw prosecution is spent immediately so you'd never have to tell an employer about it, and a RoRA prosecution is spent after 5 years, after which you would no longer have to declare it when applying for jobs.

 

[Deerfold]

A Byelaw prosecution is spent immediately so you'd never have to tell an employer about it, and a RoRA prosecution is spent after 5 years, after which you would no longer have to declare it when applying for jobs.

That should be just a year now.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/spent-now-brief-guide-changes-roa/#What is changing and when?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A Byelaw prosecution is spent immediately so you'd never have to tell an employer about it, and a RoRA prosecution is spent after 5 years, after which you would no longer have to declare it when applying for jobs.

That should be just a year now.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/spent-now-brief-guide-changes-roa

 

[najaB]

That should be just a year now.

Indeed it is.

Just wanted to add as advice to the OP: keep any correspondence with ATW focused on the Port Talbot to Neath journey - the fact you had other tickets isn't relevant.

 

[Haywain]

I'm pursuing a career in law and a prosecution would be detrimental and that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

I think if you are planning on pursuing a career in law you will need to understand that what is in the public interest is not concerned with your ability to continue in gainful employment in your chosen field.

1. As ATW will chose to prosecute privately, if they do prosecute, then they do not have to consider public interest.

Arguably, deterring fare evasion is in the public interest whether ATW have to consider the public interest or not.

 

[BanburyBlue]

I think if you are planning on pursuing a career in law you will need to understand that what is in the public interest is not concerned with your ability to continue in gainful employment in your chosen field.

Arguably, deterring fare evasion is in the public interest whether ATW have to consider the public interest or not.

I would argue that it's not in the Op's interest - doesn't mean it's not in the public interest. Two totally different things.

 

[Greenback]

I don't see how it can't be in the public interest to try and reduce ticketless travel by prosecuting some of those caught in order to deter others from doing the same thing.

 

[crehld]

I don't see how it can't be in the public interest to try and reduce ticketless travel by prosecuting some of those caught in order to deter others from doing the same thing.

I don't think the OP or anyone else needs to get bogged down in whether a prosecution would be in the public interest or not. The fact remains a prosecution can be brought and given the fact the OP travelled without a ticket, has the necessary evidence to succeed.

If you want to avoid this, then cuccir's advice here is sound:

Either way, if you have not already, you might consider writing to Transport Investigations, copied to ATW, with an offer to pay administrative fees and the fare due, in order to settle this out of court. Unfortunately, ATW are one of the more aggressive train operators with regards to proceeding to prosecution, but that does not mean that they won't listen to an offer of an out of court settlement.

Keep your letter short and concise. Don't waffle. Your experience in 2012 is irrelevant, as is the fact you had a ticket to Port Talbot. Your career plans are also of no interest to them. The only thing they're interested in is your ticketless travel between Port Talbot and Neath. Offer a genuine apology and a commitment not to travel without a ticket again. State your desire to resolve the matter swiftly and offer to make a direct payment of any outstanding fare, plus any administrative costs incurred by investigating the issues. A maximum of 300 words should suffice.

People on here are happy to proof read any draft if you're comfortable sharing it.

 

[Greenback]

You are correct,but the OP brought it up and it is worth ensuring that they don't believe that this will save them from being prosecuted.

 

[Fare-Cop]

You are correct,but the OP brought it up and it is worth ensuring that they don't believe that this will save them from being prosecuted.

I agree, I think it's been posted before, but I guess the relevant extract from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance to prosecutors makes the point clear.

Fare Evasion - This is the principal form of dishonesty to affect public transport. The fact that it is widespread is a relevant public interest factor.

Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (Stones 7-7043) is usually used for offences of fare evasion on the railways for:
• travelling/attempting to travel on a railway without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
• having paid the fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeding by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance and with intent to avoid payment thereof or
• having failed to pay the fare, giving in reply to a request from an officer of a railway company a false name and address.
Section 103(a) Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (Stones 7-7001) covers a person refusing to quit a carriage on arrival at the point to which he has paid his fare.

Both section 5 and section 103(a) are summary only offences. "Intent to avoid payment" in section 5 does not mean a dishonest intent, but an intent to avoid payment of the sum actually due.

There are provisions in bye-laws which cover fare evasion, but in the vast majority of cases it will be appropriate to use the section 5 offence.

There is more advice relating to the Theft Acts and other legislation concerning more serious matters, but in general, relatively low level fare evasion is covered by the above

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you all for your advice in this matter.
After writing back and forth to Transport Investigations Limited explaining the background to why I travelled without a ticket, that it was never my intention not to pay as I also needed to get home that day and needed further ticket/s, that a criminal record would be detrimental to my career and that I was willing to settle this matter outside of Court and pay any such penalty/ admin costs they deemed necessary, Transport Investigations Limited have now written a further letter basically reiterating everything said previously about the laws on travelling without a ticket and have now said "an application for the issue of a summons may now be made and we will advise once any hearing date has been confirmed".

Do you think they would issue a summons as they have said the application for a summons "may" be made? Is it worth me writing one more letter? Shall I now look to seek legal advice?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[najaB]

Do you think they would issue a summons as they have said the application for a summons "may" be made? Is it worth me writing one more letter? Shall I now look to seek legal advice?

In order: we don't know at this point, they may or they might agree to settle the matter administratively. Not really, they have all the information they need to make a decision, you just have to wait and see what it is. No, not until a summons has been issued (if even then).

 

[worried_sick]

Thanks for your response.
I was just wondering would the issue of a summons leave some sort of mark on my name like a criminal record or smudge on my character that would be revealed on a DBS/ background check? I am pursuing a career in law albeit at junior level and don't want this to adversely affect my current job or career plans.
Thanks in advance

 

[island]

An enhanced disclosure may show it (or may not). A basic or standard won't.

 

[najaB]

Thanks for your response.
I was just wondering would the issue of a summons leave some sort of mark on my name like a criminal record or smudge on my character that would be revealed on a DBS/ background check? I am pursuing a career in law albeit at junior level and don't want this to adversely affect my current job or career plans.

The issuance of the summons would not be visible unless you were applying for something that required enhanced vetting (e.g. a post at GCHQ or MI6).

 

[worried_sick]

Thanks both for your comments. I will keep you posted of the developments.

 

[worried_sick]

** Further update and advice required please**
I have been writing back and forth to Transport Investigations Limited. After my numerous letters setting out my circumstances of travel, my offer to pay at the time, my offer to deal with this administratively and outside of Court, how this would adversely affect my career and my apologies etc. TIL has stated that they are still seeking to pursue prosecution and a summons will be issued shortly once they have a date of availability from the Court.

I am considering instructing a "fare evasion specialist solicitor" but have been quoted between £700-£1400. Also I'm not entirely sure what they would do apart from writing and offering an out of court settlement, which I have already done, so I'm concerned about paying out and still being in the same situation.

Obviously I wish to avoid a criminal record at all costs and am not sure how to deal with this going forward.
Should a summons be issued I wish to plead not guilty as there was no intent in avoiding the ticket, however I am extremely concerned about having to attend Court, calling my family members as witnesses and the whole stress of it. Furthermore, the issue of further court costs being incurred etc.

I'm really not sure what the best approach would be and should be grateful for any advice or assistance in this matter.
Many thanks in advance.

 

[cuccir]

Have they said that they are intending to summons you for "Intent to avoid payment" or just for not holding a ticket?

If it is the latter, and they summons you for a Byelaws prosecution, then you have no defence (the matter is strict liability). The good news is that these are not entered onto the Police National Computer and so create no criminal record, as well as carrying a low fine. The solicitor is unlikely to bring any value (they will cost more than a fine) in this case.

If it is the former, then a successful prosecution would bring a criminal record which is spent within a year. Intent is determined by actions - our Ticketing guide outlines some of the case law as to what counts as intent. It may be worth quoting the key part of this here, with my highlighting

8.2.3 Case Law
It is notable that the most often cited authorities (precedents in Case Law) are also from some time in the past; these are
Corbyn vs Saunders (1977) [1978] 1 WLR 400; and
Bremme vs Dubery (1964) 1 WLR 119.
Corbyn defined the conditions which satisfy an "intent to avoid payment" where he passed an open ticket Office. It was determined that there was no need to suggest that he had a permanent intention to avoid payment, just that there had been an opportunity to pay and that he did not take that opportunity; "when passing the ticket collector at his final destination, the requisite intention to avoid payment is proved". This test is used daily in detecting intended Fare Evasion on Railway stations and the circumstances adopted by Revenue Protection staff mirror the situation described in Corbyn and their questioning generally aims to establish whether or not the passenger's actions which were taken as evidence of the "intent" in Corbyn can be applied to the passenger.

As you can see, passing an open ticket office can often be taken as evidence of intent to avoid paying a fare.

Whether the solicitor is value for money probably depends on their skill and on the evidence the train company holds. If you think that the railway company are likely to have evidence that looks like intent to avoid a fare, the cost of a specialist solicitor may not be worthwhile. If on the other hand you think that such evidence would be quite weak, then getting a solicitor could help you overcome that.

With regards to whether you'd then have to declare a conviction after 12 months is up, that is, after it is spent: 'Unlock' have a useful list of which jobs typically require DBS checks, and whether these are standard or enhanced. This page outlines what will appear on a DBS certificate and suggests that a conviction would appear for 11 years. Note that for many legal careers a DBS is only mandatory on entry into the profession. Your employer will have their own policies about whether you need to inform them about any convictions.

 

[worried_sick]

Thanks for your response.
I have checked all the correspondence from them and they refer to "travelling without a valid ticket".

In view of this, do you think it is best to wait for the issue of a summons, so I know exactly what they are pursuing before I look to instruct a solicitor?

Thanks

 

[najaB]

I am considering instructing a "fare evasion specialist solicitor" but have been quoted between £700-£1400. Also I'm not entirely sure what they would do apart from writing and offering an out of court settlement, which I have already done, so I'm concerned about paying out and still being in the same situation.

If I were in your situation I would wait until the summons has actually been issued. That way you have a clearer view of what you are up against.

cuccir pretty much nailed it - there's no point defending a Byelaw prosecution as you'd almost certainly lose, but the only impact will be on your pocket. A RoRA prosecution is a different matter.

 

[worried_sick]

Thanks both for your comments. I will wait to receive the summons and go from there.

 

[worried_sick]

**update**

I am yet to hear further from Transport Investigations and have not yet received a summons but am still incredibly worried about this situation.

I have read that there may be a timescale/ limitation period of six months for TIL (on behalf of Arriva) to issue the summons to the magistrates court. Is that correct?
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[cuccir]

Interesting. Yes, there is a 6 months limit on offences which can only be prosecuted in magistrates courts. This would seem to apply to the Byelaws. Note that this limit seems to be on informing about an intent to prosecute, rather than necessarily issuing a summons.

I don't know if they apply to the Regulation of the Railways Act? If extremely serious violations of that could in theory be prosecuted in a higher court (Crown Court) then I think that the 6 month limit wouldn't apply. We'd need one of our more legally-oriented experts to confirm this though!

 

[Puffing Devil]

The RORA is a summary only offence - only for the Magistrates court.

The TOC would need to lay an information (tell the court about the offence and request that a summons be issued) at the court within the 6 month window to proceed with the prosecution.

Don't relax just yet if you're just beyond six months - there can be a couple of weeks between the laying of the information and the production of the summons by the court and some prosecutors leave it to the last minute before going to court.

I'm assuming that you haven't moved in this time and the TOC/TIL know your current address?

 

[worried_sick]

Thank you both for your comments.

They have been writing to the correct address previously and I'm on the look out everyday for the dreaded summons.

I will hold tight and keep on waiting and see what happens. Thanks again.