First Capital Intention to prosecute

[Wilfred87]

Last year I was travelling from South London to West London. I was doing this for work (I work in a shop and regularly travel to other branches to transfer stock).

Usually I would do this with an oyster card that the shop manager has for these journeys. However this time the oyster card was not available so he gave me his personal travelcard. I accepted it under the impression it was a valid ticket.

Upon finishing my return journey, I was asked to produce my ticket. I was only then informed that I could not travel using my managers ticket. I apologised and offered to pay the fare.

I was told that this was not possible and they would write to me. My manager went and spoke to the revenue protection inspector and even then they did not give back his travel card.

I have now received a letter of intention to prosecute, for 'receiving a ticket with intent' and 'entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling to travel'. This implies i purposefully tried to use a ticket i knew to be invalid, which was not the case and I expressed that quite clearly to the inspector.

From browsing forums on the subject, I understand that 'i didn't realise' is an often used excuse that isn't necessary acceptable. However I feel my case differs slightly.

This was not a personal journey, I would not have been making this journey if my manager had not asked me and provided me with a means of travel. I was never offered the chance to pay the fare or a penalty fare to make up for the mistake. I would have been happy to pay for these as my manager would have reimbursed me.

On a personal note, this is very concerning as I will be applying to medical school and a criminal record could be devastating to my long term career. This cannot proceed to the point where i could get a criminal record. Also to be fined for a journey that was made as part of my job is also concerning, I am a part time student and don't have the money to pay £100's.

What is the best course of action? APologising for the mistake and offering to pay a penalty fare? Offering to pay a fine out of court?

 

[mikeg]

Can you tell us which law(s) you are being accused of breaking? I suspect from the 'with intent' part it is the Regulation of the Railways act 1889, which carries a criminal record upon conviction. This may be the harder part to prove. However, the second part sounds like a byelaw prosecution, which does not carry a criminal record. You are clearly guilty of this. That your manager told you to use it is no excuse, assuming you can drive would you drive a van with bald tyres just because your manager said to? And would you expect to be not legally responsible if you obeyed?
It was your responsibility to ensure your ticket was valid for travel. I'd have thought it common knowledge however that rail tickets are non-transferable. The withdrawal of your manager's travelcard is quite correct, as it has been used contrary to its terms and conditions. I don't know the details, but your manager could also be in trouble if there is a law against transferring one's ticket. Or he may simply not get his travelcard back (again quite rightly).

I think the question here is 'is ignorance of fact a defence?'. It may or may not be on the first count. The question is whether the law states that intentionally receiving the ticket itself is an offence and merely the intent to receive the ticket is the problem, or deliberately receiving the ticket knowing it is not valid for travel is the offence. The latter if the case may form a defence to the first accusation, but others more knowledgable than me will be along to help. As to the second offence, it sounds like strict liability and you have no valid defence. As I said earlier, it is always your responsibility to ensure your ticket is valid. I suggest an out-of-court settlement, offering to reimburse FCC's administrative costs and the price of the fare is in order, but before writing to them run it past one of the 'fares advisors' (ie not me!) on the forum to check you are avoiding further incriminating yourself.

I think we already know that ignorance of law is not a defence.

The revenue staff did not have to give you the option to pay a penalty fare, as this was (at least from their point of view) more than the small mistake for which a penalty fare is demanded. You have, or appear to them to have, broken the criminal law, the consequence for which should always be prosecution.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . your manager could also be in trouble if there is a law against transferring one's ticket. Or he may simply not get his travelcard back (again quite rightly).
. . . .
I think the question here is 'is ignorance of fact a defence?'. It may or may not be on the first count. The question is whether the law states that intentionally receiving the ticket itself is an offence and merely the intent to receive the ticket is the problem, or deliberately receiving the ticket knowing it is not valid for travel is the offence. The latter if the case may form a defence to the first accusation, . . . .

The relevant TfL Byelaws state:-

20. Unauthorised buying or selling of tickets

(2) Subject to Byelaw 20(5), no person shall transfer or receive any unused or partly used ticket, intending that any person shall use it for travelling unless the conditions of use for the ticket specifically permit such transfer.
(3) Subject to Byelaw 20(5), no person shall knowingly use any ticket which has been obtained in breach of Byelaw 20.​

21. Fares offences committed on behalf of another person

(1) No person shall buy a ticket on behalf of another intending to enable another person to travel without having paid the correct fare.
(2) No person shall transfer or produce a ticket on behalf of another person intending to enable that other person to travel without having paid the correct fare.​

Whichever way you look at it, both parties (the employer and the employee) appear to have been at fault.

Whether it is proportionate or reasonable for the Company to pursue both persons for what appears to be the fare for a single, local, journey, is doubtful. The main point at issue appears to be that the passenger was traveling with someone else's Travelcard and as a result is deemed to have travelled without a valid ticket for their journey. But as mikeg has confirmed, the phrase "receiving a ticket with intent" suggests that they are considering investigating a Regulation of Railways Act Offence. I say "suggest" because there appears to be two Offences merged into one statement there: the 'receiving' and the 'intent'. The chances are that the Company is just waiting for the passenger to provide their answer and will make a decision of which Offence, if any, to pursue, based on that answer

The elements in the report concerning the employer, a business journey, and the ignorance of the Conditions, are probably only going to complicate things rather than help.

 

[mikeg]

Thanks, DaveNewcastle that appears to clear things up both for me and the OP. So first of all it's a byelaw prosecution, which ought not to result in a criminal record.
Second of all, it appears that it is the intent to receive the ticket combined with intention to travel using the ticket, rather than the intent to travel knowing the ticket is not valid. Am I correct? If so it sounds like the OP is guilty on both counts.

 

[Ferret]

The elements in the report concerning the employer, a business journey, and the ignorance of the Conditions, are probably only going to complicate things rather than help.

I'm fascinated to know whether FCC intend on prosecuting the OP's manager as well, seeing as he effectively went to the station to confess an offence of his own.

I have sympathy here with the OP who I bet did not realise he was doing anything wrong. It seems FCC's prosecutor does not, and of course we must remember that ignorance of the law is not a defence. I'm sure the OP will have read that it is possible to resolve these matters before it reaches the Magistrates. I suggest that would be the way forward, and as a moral matter, the Manager concerned ought to pay the settlement.

 

[tony6499]

I presume they checked the photocard to see it was not you ?

Did you not think it strange that the ticket had a photo on it that wasn't you ?

 

[W230]

I presume they checked the photocard to see it was not you ?

Did you not think it strange that the ticket had a photo on it that wasn't you ?

Are the conditions on the back of the ticket? I know there's usually some stuff printed on such things.

Totally irrelavant and off topic so I apologise but the circumstances are a bit like certain 'use, cause, permit' offences you get under the Road Traffic Act, when the person causing or permitting the offence is also prosecuted (well sometimes)...

 

[Dave1987]

It will be interesting to see how FCC play this one. Because traveling under the managers ticket is fraud. But if the OP was told by his manager to use the travel card surely FCC should go after his manager for intentionally giving him his travel card as he would have know that it was a fraudulent use of it. I do feel sorry for the OP in this case, even though ignorance is no excuse.

 

[revenueadvice]

On the back of tickets it says "tickets are non transferable" . But it doesn't give a definition of what "transferable" means. If your someone who usually just makes the odd journey on an oyster card then your possibly not going to realise that means "Cannot lend to a friend".

If i was the OP I would write in make an apology explain you have learnt a valuable lesson and you will not be so naive again. Offer an out of court settlement. Then go and ask your boss for the money back if its accepted!

 

[jon0844]

I'm amazed that it was even noticed, as tickets are usually checked far too quickly for the photo ID to be verified.

 

[revenueadvice]

If the ticket required a photo card and the passenger just showed the ticket it might arouse suspicion that they do not have a photo card. Then obviously they would be asked for a photo card when they cannot produce one it would come to light that it is someone elses ticket.

 

[Dave1987]

On the back of tickets it says "tickets are non transferable" . But it doesn't give a definition of what "transferable" means. If your someone who usually just makes the odd journey on an oyster card then your possibly not going to realise that means "Cannot lend to a friend".

Indeed that is a very valid point. Thats is something that probably could be made a lot clearer.

 

[revenueadvice]

The word transferable in that context is really railway jargon.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think the definition of "transferable" is well understood personally, and isn't railway-specfic

Able to be transferred or made over to the possession of another person.

 

[Dave1987]

I think the definition of "transferable" is well understood personally.

Well I think it maybe should say it with no jargon at all. Ie "you the holder of this travelcard are the only person who may use this travelcard as a means to travel" or something along those lines then there is no ambiguity at all. Do you honestly understand all the terms and conditions of everything you have signed up for?

 

[revenueadvice]

I agree a lot of people would know what it means but there will be people who do not realise.

 

[Dave1987]

I have noticed recently a lot of signs going up in very prominate positions to remind passengers of their need to purchase a valid ticket before they board at PF stations. I think it is for this precise reason so people cannot claim they didnt realise. I also think that the whole ticketing system is far too complicated for passengers but that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[142094]

I have noticed recently a lot of signs going up in very prominate positions to remind passengers of their need to purchase a valid ticket before they board at PF stations. I think it is for this precise reason so people cannot claim they didnt realise. I also think that the whole ticketing system is far too complicated for passengers but that is a discussion for another thread.

Someone will know the details but the signage is legally required to enforce the Penalty Fare/Compulsory Ticket Area zones. If there were no signs at entrances to those areas, that would be a good enough defence for not buying a ticket beforehand.

 

[island]

Not quite. It would excuse a passenger from getting penalty fared, but they could still be prosecuted.

 

[jon0844]

For years, FCC has failed to put a poster next to the side gate at Hatfield. It's very easy to approach the gate from the north car park and not pass anywhere near the poster that is placed near the cycle shelter.

 

[snail]

Well I think it maybe should say it with no jargon at all. Ie "you the holder of this travelcard are the only person who may use this travelcard as a means to travel"

So, "you the holder" means the person in possession of (as in physically holding) the travelcard at the time of travel, correct?

No jargon, but just as open to interpretation.

 

[455driver]

If they cant understand the current wording then tough, it isnt difficult and you dont need to be a scientist to understand it!

Why does everything have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, IE the thickest person in the country?

 

[Flamingo]

If they cant understand the current wording then tough, it isnt difficult and you dont need to be a scientist to understand it!

Why does everything have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, IE the thickest person in the country?

Because they have the vote and probably qualify for enough free legal aid to go all the way to the European Court with the most trivial matter...

 

[Dave1987]

So, "you the holder" means the person in possession of (as in physically holding) the travelcard at the time of travel, correct?

No jargon, but just as open to interpretation.

Lol indeed. "you the person who this travelcard is registered to" then

If they cant understand the current wording then tough, it isnt difficult and you dont need to be a scientist to understand it!

Why does everything have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, IE the thickest person in the country?

Unfortunately that is where the country has got to now. I bought a new electrical kitchen appliance last week. The instruction book stated "insert plug into a plug socket and turn on", I just thought to myself do people really need to be told to do that......

 

[Deerfold]

Lol indeed. "you the person who this travelcard is registered to" then



Unfortunately that is where the country has got to now. I bought a new electrical kitchen appliance last week. The instruction book stated "insert plug into a plug socket and turn on", I just thought to myself do people really need to be told to do that......

Registered? Isn't that jargon?

 

[jon0844]

I bought a new electrical kitchen appliance last week. The instruction book stated "insert plug into a plug socket and turn on", I just thought to myself do people really need to be told to do that......

Ah, so that might be why the water in my new kettle is still cold two weeks after I bought it.

 

[snail]

I bought a new electrical kitchen appliance last week. The instruction book stated "insert plug into a plug socket and turn on", I just thought to myself do people really need to be told to do that......

Yes. What's the point of an instruction manual that misses the most vital action?

 

[Realfish]

I guess what has tripped the OP and his manager up, is that they had become used to sharing the Oyster card, as my organisation does, having a number of 'company' Oyster cards.

Easy, I think, to forget, or not appreciate that the T&Cs for the TC were very different

 

[455driver]

The instruction book stated "insert plug into a plug socket and turn on", .

You were that excited with your new appliance?

Sorry, I have got my "funny" head on.

 

[34D]

The elements in the report concerning the employer, a business journey, and the ignorance of the Conditions, are probably only going to complicate things rather than help.

I always defer to your superior judgment, Dave, but surely in this case the fact that this person was given a ticket by his employer _is_ relevant?

I mean, company travel departments give tickets to their employees all the time. Surely there isn't a duty that the employee enquire into great detail as to any previous use, etc?

Can the OP advise whether he was given a photocard too?