Fare Evasion - SWR

[DavidS1]

To repeat what I said earlier in the thread I would not attend an interview without legal representation. The interview is not a cheery chat over tea and biscuits, it'll be under caution (i.e. 'you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.') Being read that statement is sobering enough in itself and enough to put someone not used to being in that situation onto the back foot.

If the advice from a solicitor you have contacted is to go and confess then I'd be getting another solicitor quick sharp.

I've now spoken to 3 solicitors that have all stated to attend the interview. 2 offered their services to join but do not make it sound necessary.

The interview is soon and I am planning on attending alone. I will admit to my mistakes and pledge for an out of court settlement. I think it's my only option.

If I ignore, they will simply move to prosecution.

 

[WesternLancer]

I've now spoken to 3 solicitors that have all stated to attend the interview. 2 offered their services to join but do not make it sound necessary.

The interview is soon and I am planning on attending alone. I will admit to my mistakes and pledge for an out of court settlement. I think it's my only option.

If I ignore, they will simply move to prosecution.

If you can't afford to pay a solicitor to attend with you then I would advise trying to find a trusted friend who could be there with you - even if their only role is as an independent witness of what happened. (McKenzie's friend concept).

 

[AlterEgo]

If you can't afford to pay a solicitor to attend with you then I would advise trying to find a trusted friend who could be there with you - even if their only role is as an independent witness of what happened. (McKenzie's friend concept).

Good advice. Don’t go alone.

 

[island]

Is Bylaw conviction the worse case scenario, or could they convict me for something worse?

SWR can charge you with more serious offences such as travelling by train without having paid the fare and intent to avoid the payment thereof, a recordable and imprisonable offence, or in extreme cases, fraud by false representation. They cannot convict you, only a court can.

If I don't attend the interview, will I automatically go to court? I'm not sure what to do

Nothing is automatic.

 

[DavidS1]

If you can't afford to pay a solicitor to attend with you then I would advise trying to find a trusted friend who could be there with you - even if their only role is as an independent witness of what happened. (McKenzie's friend concept).

Thanks for the advice, although I will be going alone. I haven't spoken to anyone else about this as I am very embarrassed of my actions.

My plan is to read a written apology and only speak when necessary.

I now understand how many tickets I have 'doughnutted' & have an idea of the cost of these tickets.

From speaking with solicitors it seems these interviews are the last stage before prosecution, and if I can put forward a strong enough case for settlement then they'll agree.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for the advice, although I will be going alone. I haven't spoken to anyone else about this as I am very embarrassed of my actions.

My plan is to read a written apology and only speak when necessary.

I now understand how many tickets I have 'doughnutted' & have an idea of the cost of these tickets.

From speaking with solicitors it seems these interviews are the last stage before prosecution, and if I can put forward a strong enough case for settlement then they'll agree.

They'll likely agree, getting a settlement isn't hard - the question is how much money they will get out of you. Do not admit or refer to any offences they do not and have not asked you about.

 

[Snow1964]

When you go to the interview, do not incriminate yourself, keep all answers to the question and don't start adding things about other trips. This is why there is a general suggestion of No comment answers. However if you are looking for a settlement offer these have to be balanced vs irritating the questioners.

They might phrase questions like can we see your previous railcard. But if it has expired, you do not need to keep it (and many would throw it after replacing). So it their problem to find the expiry date and compare to travel dates. Rather harder to hide a digital version than a cardboard railcard.

 

[Tallguy]

I am not a Lawyer and this can not be taken as legal advice but the purpose of a voluntary interview is to gather evidence to use against you. There is no other purpose to that interview. I suggest you take a Lawyer with you should you decide to attend which you are under no obligation to do.

 

[WesternLancer]

I seem to recall the SWR cases with interviews we have seen on here with report backs (maybe only 2 I can seem to think of) did end with settlements. I don't think the people seeking advice took solicitors with them. One was some time ago (maybe a year or more back).

 

[philthetube]

One thing that you have in your favour is that you bought a new railcard before you were caught, make sure that they are aware of this as it suggests that travelling without a railcard was done in error.

 

[DavidS1]

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

 

[Tallguy]

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

I suggest you have achieved an absolute result. Are you willing to disclose what the settlement figure is?

 

[WesternLancer]

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

Thanks for feedback - this will be v useful to others in similar situations I suspect.

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

 

[Syes]

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

How much did you pay if you don't mind

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2023 ==

Hi,

I was recently caught by a ticket guard at Waterloo station. I was buying a shorter ticket & the guard noticed this and stopped me.

I was sent an email asking about my railcard, as there were about 10 purchases (4 months ago) where I used my railcard, but it had expired. I renewed my railcard (3 months) and didn't think anything of it. I have also bought tickets from a shorter station (probably 10 times in a year) to reduce my train fares by £2 each time. I'm worried this is will be shown by my purchase history.

I have recently been invited to an interview regarding my ticket irregularities and am not sure how to proceed. I don't want a criminal record as I would lose my job :/

To be honest, I didn't realise this was a criminal offence, I thought it was civil (like a parking ticket). I know this is not an excuse, but I will not be making this mistake again.

Should I get a solicitor? Should I be honest? Am I likely to get a criminal record or can I settle out of court?

Hi could you please help how was the interview and what did they ask I am in the same situation was it like a intense interview what do you think I should I have had a interview offer shall I go alone or with someone please help me really...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2023 ==

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

I also had an expired railcard and without knowing it was expired I bought tickets using it around 15 times what shall I say in the Inyerview

 

[Lessonlearned]

To clarify:

- Yes, I bought around 10 tickets where I did not have a valid railcard (unknowingly it has expired, although I know this is not a valid excuse). I renewed mine about 1.5 months after my original one expired and have been using this since.

- There's been a few times where I've bought tickets that did not cover the whole journey. However, I only do this occasionally. I believe a couple of the purchases were during the time my railcard had expired.

I completely understand what I've done is wrong and just want to pay what I owe without going to court (as I am very worried about job prospects) . I will never make this mistake again!!
Very stressful.

Similar situation to someone I know. Was interviewed a couple of times over the phone but it was more of a chat to see if the storey varied. I think if you are perfectly honest and upfront then you will eventually get a letter offering a settlement - as the person I know did. It took 3 months of waiting and cost him the value of all the tickets + an admin fee. He didnt quibble and paid it. For him it was very stressful too. People just dont realise its a criminal offence - everyone thinks its a civil matter like a parking ticket.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Similar situation to someone I know. Was interviewed a couple of times over the phone but it was more of a chat to see if the storey varied. I think if you are perfectly honest and upfront then you will eventually get a letter offering a settlement - as the person I know did. It took 3 months of waiting and cost him the value of all the tickets + an admin fee. He didnt quibble and paid it. For him it was very stressful too. People just dont realise its a criminal offence - everyone thinks its a civil matter like a parking ticket.

Funnily enough, a couple of hours after reading the above, I saw a poster on the platform at Reading which said the usual “Please buy a ticket before you travel”, but then also had “Fare evasion is a criminal offence”.

I don’t recall seeing such a statement on a poster before, at least in such prominent type; I hope this is the start of a concerted effort to inform “everyone” that even just forgetting to buy a ticket once can easily land one with a summons to a magistrates’ court.

 

[Doubleplus]

Funnily enough, a couple of hours after reading the above, I saw a poster on the platform at Reading which said the usual “Please buy a ticket before you travel”, but then also had “Fare evasion is a criminal offence”.

I don’t recall seeing such a statement on a poster before, at least in such prominent type; I hope this is the start of a concerted effort to inform “everyone” that even just forgetting to buy a ticket once can easily land one with a summons to a magistrates’ court.

I’m not sure if people will join those two things up in their minds. Someone boarding a train with intent to buy a ticket (like they always have done, when it has never been a problem before) will not consider themselves to be a fare evader. It’s only the railway that seems to treat its paying customers that way.

It really needs to be spelt out unambiguously - something like “Train fares are changing. From January 1st 2024, you will no longer be able to buy a ticket on the train. From this date you must buy a ticket before you board, or risk a fine of over £100…“ (etc)

 

[AdamWW]

I’m not sure if people will join those two things up in their minds. Someone boarding a train with intent to buy a ticket (like they always have done, when it has never been a problem before) will not consider themselves to be a fare evader. It’s only the railway that seems to treat its paying customers that way.

Yes I think the use of the term "fare evasion" is a problem.

I used to think that it would require clear evidence of a deliberate attempt not to pay to be prosecuted. I don't imagine I'm unusual in not having realised that you can be taken to court for the criminal offence of losing a ticket.

 

[Haywain]

Someone boarding a train with intent to buy a ticket (like they always have done, when it has never been a problem before) will not consider themselves to be a fare evader.

I doubt the 'pay when challenged' brigade would even regard themselves as fare avoiders.

 

[AdamWW]

I doubt the 'pay when challenged' brigade would even regard themselves as fare avoiders.

I do not believe that everyone intending to pay on the train is doing it in the hope they will get away without having to buy a ticket, even if that's how the industry chooses to treat them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do not believe that everyone intending to pay on the train is doing it in the hope they will get away without having to buy a ticket, even if that's how the industry chooses to treat them.

Not at the outset, but I bet very few of them pay the fare if and when they alight without a ticket at an unbarriered station.

 

[Doubleplus]

I doubt the 'pay when challenged' brigade would even regard themselves as fare avoiders.

In other news, supermarket group Sainsbury’s is cracking down on shoplifting and will now require all customers to pay for their shopping before entering the store. Customers entering any store without having paid in advance will be prosecuted, and a poster will be put up somewhere so that everyone knows.

Sainsburys Chief Executive Mr. Geoffrey Hinge said that the move would be popular with customers, who are tired of seeing shoplifters stealing goods which they, as law-abiding citizens, have to pay for.

The new regime to make shopping a more hostile and threatening ordeal for the vast majority of customers who have never shoplifted in their entire lives is expected to be significantly more successful than prioritising traditional customer concerns such as being treated with any kind of dignity, or being permitted to shop in a pleasant environment.

Critics said that the idea was ridiculous, but Mr. Hinge defended the move, saying that the old fashioned concept of paying for your shopping before leaving the store fostered a “pay when challenged” attitude.

 

[AlterEgo]

In other news, supermarket group Sainsbury’s is cracking down on shoplifting and will now require all customers to pay for their shopping before entering the store. Customers entering any store without having paid in advance will be prosecuted, and a poster will be put up somewhere so that everyone knows.

Sainsburys Chief Executive Mr. Geoffrey Hinge said that the move would be popular with customers, who are tired of seeing shoplifters stealing goods which they, as law-abiding citizens, have to pay for.

The new regime to make shopping a more hostile and threatening ordeal for the vast majority of customers who have never shoplifted in their entire lives is expected to be significantly more successful than prioritising traditional customer concerns such as being treated with any kind of dignity, or being permitted to shop in a pleasant environment.

Critics said that the idea was ridiculous, but Mr. Hinge defended the move, saying that the old fashioned concept of paying for your shopping before leaving the store fostered a “pay when challenged” attitude.

What rhetorical point is this retail shopping analogy supposed to make?

 

[MotCO]

Went to interview.

Definitely recommend going.

Was just questions around which journeys were legit and which weren’t.

Really nice interviewer, he was very honest with me and understanding.

He just explained that they use these interviews as a last step before prosecution. They do not want to prosecute, they just want the money that is owed.

got an out of court settlement

Glad you got a good outcome. Did you have legal representation?

I would also point out for others in a similar situation that other TOCs may not adopt the same aproach as SWR, and that the interviews may not be so friendly.

 

[Doubleplus]

What rhetorical point is this retail shopping analogy supposed to make?

Basically just that the vast majority of travellers are basically honest and have no desire or intention to evade, avoid, or defraud in any way, at any time. With that in mind, treating every customer like a potential criminal is perhaps not a step to take lightly.

Of course revenue protection is needed, of course tickets should be checked and actual, genuine offenders held to account. But making everyone’s experience of the railway harder and more difficult, purely because of a tiny minority of dodgers, is, to my mind, maybe not the way. No choice but to prosecute someone for getting on a train and not even having sat down, because otherwise the Railway would be ruined by a deadly “pay when challenged” attitude? Prosecutions and huge fines for innocently accidentally purchasing a £5.80 ticket instead of the £7.25 one? I appreciate that might occasionally happen with bad intent, but when that assumption and attitude starts to colour the railway’s interaction with honest paying customers, something has gone very wrong somewhere.

In contrast, making it easier for everyone to pay their fare - whatever fare is the fairest fare for the journey, the route, the time of day, and who is travelling - should surely be the highest priority, and one which would reap more revenue rather than less.

 

[jon0844]

In other news, supermarket group Sainsbury’s is cracking down on shoplifting and will now require all customers to pay for their shopping before entering the store. Customers entering any store without having paid in advance will be prosecuted, and a poster will be put up somewhere so that everyone knows.

Sainsburys Chief Executive Mr. Geoffrey Hinge said that the move would be popular with customers, who are tired of seeing shoplifters stealing goods which they, as law-abiding citizens, have to pay for.

The new regime to make shopping a more hostile and threatening ordeal for the vast majority of customers who have never shoplifted in their entire lives is expected to be significantly more successful than prioritising traditional customer concerns such as being treated with any kind of dignity, or being permitted to shop in a pleasant environment.

Critics said that the idea was ridiculous, but Mr. Hinge defended the move, saying that the old fashioned concept of paying for your shopping before leaving the store fostered a “pay when challenged” attitude.

Supermarket analogies never work.

The only similarity is perhaps that we don't take shoplifting that seriously, such that while a supermarket can bar someone from returning, the police are rarely going to show any interest and that's why we have habitual shoplifters, just like fare evaders that just push through gates and jump fences.

 

[AlterEgo]

Basically just that the vast majority of travellers are basically honest and have no desire or intention to evade, avoid, or defraud in any way, at any time. With that in mind, treating every customer like a potential criminal is perhaps not a step to take lightly.

Of course revenue protection is needed, of course tickets should be checked and actual, genuine offenders held to account. But making everyone’s experience of the railway harder and more difficult, purely because of a tiny minority of dodgers, is, to my mind, maybe not the way. No choice but to prosecute someone for getting on a train and not even having sat down, because otherwise the Railway would be ruined by a deadly “pay when challenged” attitude? Prosecutions and huge fines for innocently accidentally purchasing a £5.80 ticket instead of the £7.25 one? I appreciate that might occasionally happen with bad intent, but when that assumption and attitude starts to colour the railway’s interaction with honest paying customers, something has gone very wrong somewhere.

In contrast, making it easier for everyone to pay their fare - whatever fare is the fairest fare for the journey, the route, the time of day, and who is travelling - should surely be the highest priority, and one which would reap more revenue rather than less.

I think we can agree the prosecutions for strict liability offences are a load of BS and the railway oughtn't have those powers.

I'm not sure I agree that the railway makes everyone's life more difficult though as a result of having those powers. I always buy before I board; I find it way more convenient, more than anything else. One of the things which makes the railway less pleasant for many people is ticket barriers, which are the equivalent of a checkout - a physical barrier preventing you from leaving until you've paid, or at least it's been checked you've paid.

I can't recall any time I've felt the railway has treated me like a potential criminal, although I don't usually use the train in areas where there are no ticket machines or payment methods before boarding.

 

[FenMan]

I think we can agree the prosecutions for strict liability offences are a load of BS and the railway oughtn't have those powers.

I'm not sure I agree that the railway makes everyone's life more difficult though as a result of having those powers. I always buy before I board; I find it way more convenient, more than anything else. One of the things which makes the railway less pleasant for many people is ticket barriers, which are the equivalent of a checkout - a physical barrier preventing you from leaving until you've paid, or at least it's been checked you've paid.

I can't recall any time I've felt the railway has treated me like a potential criminal, although I don't usually use the train in areas where there are no ticket machines or payment methods before boarding.

Last Friday, my return ticket from Chelmsford wouldn't work the gates at Liverpool St. Went to the guy on the gateline and he clearly knew I was using a railcard-discounted ticket and asked to see the railcard. He then read out my Senior Railcard's expiry date to me, which is two years away. Erm, thanks for telling me what I know - then he huffed disappointedly and let me through.

Is it a thing that older customers falsely claim discounts to which they're not entitled? Being slightly ageist, I'd suggest younger passengers could be be a more fruitful target?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Is it a thing that older customers falsely claim discounts to which they're not entitled? Being slightly ageist, I'd suggest younger passengers could be be a more fruitful target?

Given the number of expired 16-25 Railcard cases we've seen, I'd suggest that the guy on the gateline was precisely not being ageist: rather, they were treating all Railcard tickets at being potentially abusive from an out of date Railcard.