Freedom Pass misuse

[Ana246]

Hello, I was recently caught using my dad’s freedom pass but I have been using it for the past year in the evenings to get home from work. I completely understand this is an offence and did not realise the seriousness of this at the time. I recieved the standard letter asking for a statement and this is what I have written. I’d really appreciate if anyone could let me know next steps I can expect as I have seen various outcomes. I’ve always been a law abiding citizen and having such an offence would be detrimental.

Statement:

I am writing in response to your letter regarding the misuse of the Freedom Pass that I had access to and used to avoid paying the correct fare. I would like to offer my sincere apologies for my actions and fully accept responsibility for using a pass I was not entitled to. I acknowledge that my behaviour was a breach of Transport for London’s rules.

At the time, I did not fully understand the seriousness of my actions, but this incident has made me reflect deeply. I assure you that this will not happen again. I have great respect for the purpose of the Freedom Pass scheme and understand its importance to those who genuinely rely on it.

I am willing to pay any outstanding fares and associated costs. I respectfully request that you consider an out-of-court settlement rather than prosecution. A conviction would have a severe and lasting impact on my future, including my career prospects and the progress I have worked hard to achieve. I am committed to making amends and ensuring that such behaviour is never repeated.

Thank you for taking the time to review my case. This experience has been a significant wake-up call, and I fully understand the importance of respecting the concessionary travel scheme. I deeply regret my actions and can assure you that it will not happen again.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I think that's a well written letter and hits the right notes, personally, but just to set expectations, I understand that TfL almost never offer out of court settlements and almost always proceed to prosecution for this type of thing.

Other, more knowledgeable folks will be along in due course!

 

[Ana246]

Thank you for responding! But if I’m willing to pay any costs related and accept what I did surely they wouldn’t need to prosecute me right? I’ve never done anything against the law and if I am prosecuted for whatever reason, what this will show up on my record as & for long? I’m hoping the experts have some answer

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you for responding! But if I’m willing to pay any costs related and accept what I did surely they wouldn’t need to prosecute me right? I’ve never done anything against the law and if I am prosecuted for whatever reason, what this will show up on my record as & for long? I’m hoping the experts have some answer

No, TfL will prosecute you.

They prosecute 10,000 to 20,000 people a year, many of whom are abusing high value passes. Fraudulently making free journeys on someone else's Freedom Pass for a whole year is just about as serious as you can get in terms of fare evasion and it is not clear you accept how seriously they will take this.

TfL do not settle out of court. They have two options - they can send a warning letter (very rare, given only to people with significant mitigation or where the public interest is not served by prosecution). Or, they will prosecute you under the TfL Bylaws which is the standard way of handling these cases.

Next TfL will probably issue a summons - if the whole year's worth of offences have been detected there will be many offences to deal with and you may be asked if you'd like these to be taken into consideration. You will need to attend court if so, and you will be sentenced for the totality of the offending. The offences are spent a year from the date of conviction.

 

[Ana246]

Is there anything else that I can say to support my statement for them to allow me to just pay fines, I am more than happy to just do that and not be taken to court. If I am prosecuted any future jobs may see this via DBS and while fare evasion may not be serious for jobs I am worried if it falls under criminal record it may be. How long do these records stay? Is there anything I can do to avoid it being complicated? Any advice would be appreciated

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

No, TfL will prosecute you.

They prosecute 10,000 to 20,000 people a year, many of whom are abusing high value passes. Fraudulently making free journeys on someone else's Freedom Pass for a whole year is just about as serious as you can get in terms of fare evasion and it is not clear you accept how seriously they will take this.

TfL do not settle out of court. They have two options - they can send a warning letter (very rare, given only to people with significant mitigation or where the public interest is not served by prosecution). Or, they will prosecute you under the TfL Bylaws which is the standard way of handling these cases.

Next TfL will probably issue a summons - if the whole year's worth of offences have been detected there will be many offences to deal with and you may be asked if you'd like these to be taken into consideration. You will need to attend court if so, and you will be sentenced for the totality of the offending. The offences are spent a year from the date of conviction.

Is there anything else that I can say to support my statement for them to allow me to just pay fines, I am more than happy to just do that and not be taken to court. If I am prosecuted any future jobs may see this via DBS and while fare evasion may not be serious for jobs I am worried if it falls under criminal record it may be. How long do these records stay? Is there anything I can do to avoid it being complicated? Any advice would be appreciated

 

[AlterEgo]

Is there anything else that I can say to support my statement for them to allow me to just pay fines

No.

TfL do not settle out of court. It is literally not an option, as per their Prosecutions Policy: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

Warning letter, or prosecution. That's it.

You have been abusing a Freedom Pass for a year and your response to their verification letter reveals no mitigating circumstances, so TfL will almost certainly prosecute you.

If I am prosecuted any future jobs may see this via DBS

They may, but only if you have an Enhanced DBS, and even then it is not likely to be disclosed unless the disclosing officer believes the conviction is relevant to the role being applied for. You should get detailed advice from Unlock, a charity which can help with more specific questions.

How long do these records stay?

The conviction will be spent after one year.

 

[Ana246]

Right I see, this is my first time and I have previously not had any issues at all with TfL which I think is also worth mentioning. My only mitigating reasons would be the costs but I am in full time employment so not sure how strong that would be of a reason.

When you say “the conviction will be spent after a year” does that mean it’ll be on record for a year then completely wiped?

 

[saismee]

which I think is also worth mentioning

It unfortunately doesn't make a lick of difference. If you didn't have a truly mitigating reason (fleeing domestic abuse, etc), then you won't change the outcome.

 

[Ana246]

I have seen that if people are prosecuted related to this, it falls under the Bylaws therefore it is an offence but it is a non recordable lower level offence? Can anyone confirm if this is true?

 

[John R]

Right I see, this is my first time and I have previously not had any issues at all with TfL which I think is also worth mentioning.

It’s not your first time. You’ve been breaking the law for a year. The only reason that haven’t had any issues with TfL is that you haven’t been caught. So it’s not worth mentioning.

I’m afraid when you say you’ve always been a law abiding citizen, you are kidding yourself. You are not, and the sooner you understand that the better, as telling that to TfL or the court will just reconfirm to them that you don’t understand the seriousness of what you have been doing.

 

[pedr]

Criminal records are complicated things in the UK, and don’t always work in ways that appear logical.

If someone is convicted of a crime, that’s something that then true. There are narrow circumstances where they may have to disclose that indefinitely, even if the crime is a very minor one. For instance foreign countries, vetting agencies for security clearance, and some other organisations will expect full disclosure. However in most circumstances convictions for minor offences punished by a fine don’t have to be disclosed and can be ignored when answering questions about convictions after a year after the date of the conviction.

Where a job application or similar scenario asks about “unspent” convictions, i.e. where the person asking is limited by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, any spent conviction can be ignored when answering the question. Offences punished with a fine are spent after 12 months.

Other scenarios, such as where the job involves working with young or vulnerable people or regulated positions of trust, allow the employer to require the disclosure of all convictions or, in some cases, all convictions which aren’t 11 years old or another long timescale. However in many cases an employer will consider the context of whatever is disclosed; a spent conviction from years ago is not automatically a bar to this sort of employment as the decision is a contextual one.

Bye-law offences shouldn’t appear on the Police National Computer. They may or may not appear on more intensive DBS checks. But whether they’re recorded or returned on checks doesn’t change the legal position regarding disclosure and failing to disclose something which ought to be disclosed is always exceedingly foolish.

So a conviction for fare evasion is a minor thing, and is unlikely to have a major long-term effect. For most employment after a year (from the date of conviction) it can be ignored.

 

[Ana246]

Criminal records are complicated things in the UK, and don’t always work in ways that appear logical.

If someone is convicted of a crime, that’s something that then true. There are narrow circumstances where they may have to disclose that indefinitely, even if the crime is a very minor one. For instance foreign countries, vetting agencies for security clearance, and some other organisations will expect full disclosure. However in most circumstances convictions for minor offences punished by a fine don’t have to be disclosed and can be ignored when answering questions about convictions after a year after the date of the conviction.

Where a job application or similar scenario asks about “unspent” convictions, i.e. where the person asking is limited by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, any spent conviction can be ignored when answering the question. Offences punished with a fine are spent after 12 months.

Other scenarios, such as where the job involves working with young or vulnerable people or regulated positions of trust, allow the employer to require the disclosure of all convictions or, in some cases, all convictions which aren’t 11 years old or another long timescale. However in many cases an employer will consider the context of whatever is disclosed; a spent conviction from years ago is not automatically a bar to this sort of employment as the decision is a contextual one.

Bye-law offences shouldn’t appear on the Police National Computer. They may or may not appear on more intensive DBS checks. But whether they’re recorded or returned on checks doesn’t change the legal position regarding disclosure and failing to disclose something which ought to be disclosed is always exceedingly foolish.

So a conviction for fare evasion is a minor thing, and is unlikely to have a major long-term effect. For most employment after a year (from the date of conviction) it can be ignored.

Thank you, that is quite reassuring. Albeit not knowing the outcome of my statement all I can do is stay hopeful but if I am prosecuted then wouldn’t it just be for legal reasons to ensure that I know the seriousness of the issue and to show my acceptance of my fault and for me to agree that I will pay the costs associated with this? Or more because if I was to deny anything and of course I am not denying anything and truly apologetic as mentioned in my statement on the top of this thread

 

[WesternLancer]

Right I see, this is my first time and I have previously not had any issues at all with TfL which I think is also worth mentioning. My only mitigating reasons would be the costs but I am in full time employment so not sure how strong that would be of a reason.

When you say “the conviction will be spent after a year” does that mean it’ll be on record for a year then completely wiped?

Basically you need to carefully read the document linked to by @AlterEgo - this document, to see if there is anything in that around the basis for mitigation that you could add to your letter to them

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

especially look at section 8

You need to read it carefully, so take a bit of time out to have a good read.

One thing we do occasionally see on here (and you can find a small number of threads where this has happened) is that it seems that in some cases where a solicitor has been employed to help they have achieved a warning as an outcome rather than prosecution, but that can't be guaranteed. Paying for a solicitor to help you is likely to cost over £600. This would involve a solicitor who specialises in dealing with TfL cases - and a few get mentioned on here so info on such firms could be shared if you want to obtain quotes. It's something you could weigh up depending on what you think the consequences are for you personally of being prosecuted for this and having the record that's been mentioned.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thank you, that is quite reassuring. Albeit not knowing the outcome of my statement all I can do is stay hopeful but if I am prosecuted then wouldn’t it just be for legal reasons to ensure that I know the seriousness of the issue and to show my acceptance of my fault and for me to agree that I will pay the costs associated with this? Or more because if I was to deny anything and of course I am not denying anything and truly apologetic as mentioned in my statement on the top of this thread

The point of prosecuting you is to discourage you from breaking the law again. If you plead guilty or are found guilty by the court (and from what you tell us) that will be the result, you will have to pay a fine, which is meant to be painful on your bank account, and you will have the embarrassment of the public knowing (if they can be bothered to find out) that you have been taken to court and convicted - and as you have said, it could (but probably won't) have impact on your career.

After all of that, you might think that it was better not to have used someone else's Freedom Pass, and pay the right fare in future. And that will keep TfL happy, as by you not breaking the law and paying the right fare they get the money they're entitled to each time you take a tube or use a bus.

 

[Ana246]

Basically you need to carefully read the document linked to by @AlterEgo - this document, to see if there is anything in that around the basis for mitigation that you could add to your letter to them

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

especially look at section 8

You need to read it carefully, so take a bit of time out to have a good read.

One thing we do occasionally see on here (and you can find a small number of threads where this has happened) is that it seems that in some cases where a solicitor has been employed to help they have achieved a warning as an outcome rather than prosecution, but that can't be guaranteed. Paying for a solicitor to help you is likely to cost over £600. This would involve a solicitor who specialises in dealing with TfL cases - and a few get mentioned on here so info on such firms could be shared if you want to obtain quotes. It's something you could weigh up depending on what you think the consequences are for you personally of being prosecuted for this and having the record that's been mentioned.

Thank you for this and I have spent spent time reading section 8 but will take another look. I want to avoid taking this to court as much as possible but I understand the seriousness of the situation means anything could happen. I will send my statement by email just in case a letter gets lost in transit and await for a response before taking next steps. If anyone has had a similar situation like me I’d be grateful to hear what happened

 

[Ana246]

The point of prosecuting you is to discourage you from breaking the law again. If you plead guilty or are found guilty by the court (and from what you tell us) that will be the result, you will have to pay a fine, which is meant to be painful on your bank account, and you will have the embarrassment of the public knowing (if they can be bothered to find out) that you have been taken to court and convicted - and as you have said, it could (but probably won't) have impact on your career.

After all of that, you might think that it was better not to have used someone else's Freedom Pass, and pay the right fare in future. And that will keep TfL happy, as by you not breaking the law and paying the right fare they get the money they're entitled to each time you take a tube or use a bus.

When you say “embarrassment of the public knowing” what do you mean by this exactly? How will the public know? I have also taken a read of section 8 and there is a 50% chance I may just get the warning letter but there is no guarantee. They can of course see my TfL record and see that I have always used my own cards for several journeys and I have caused no other issues to TFL except this one time

 

[Mattplans]

Hello, I was recently caught using my dad’s freedom pass but I have been using it for the past year in the evenings to get home from work.

Where were you caught?

 

[Ana246]

Where were you caught?

London Bridge station, does this make a difference?

 

[Mattplans]

London Bridge station, does this make a difference?

At the Undeground or National Rail station?

 

[SuspectUsual]

When you say “embarrassment of the public knowing” what do you mean by this exactly? How will the public know?

Court business is a matter of public record. In the old pre-historic days local newspapers used to often have lists of people who'd be up in front of the local beak for low-level offences - motoring offences, fare evasion, that sort of stuff - but nowadays I suppose Mr Google would find you if someone asked him

have also taken a read of section 8 and there is a 50% chance I may just get the warning letter but there is no guarantee

Why do you say 50%? If you can tell us your thinking we might be able to advise further

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When you say “embarrassment of the public knowing” what do you mean by this exactly?

In theory, the court is in public. So if anyone turns up to the court session, they will know that you have been convicted.

In practice, virtually no one goes to the court for things like this. But TfL are within their rights to send out a press release, listing who was convicted of what, and local papers sometimes pick up on this. I don't know if TfL do it, but sometimes train companies have posters printed up as well and put at stations listing who has been convicted.

I have also taken a read of section 8 and there is a 50% chance I may just get the warning letter but there is no guarantee.

I'm not sure I would put your chances of getting a warning letter at 50%: looking at section 8.1 of TfL's Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy, from what you have said ('I was recently caught using my dad’s freedom pass but I have been using it for the past year in the evenings to get home from work') they may be encouraged to prosecute by 8.1(a) ('where the offender has committed a similar offence on any of TfL or Train Operating Company services' - each time you did this in the evening to get home from work you committed an offence), 8.1(d) (see 5.1(f)) and 8.1(f) ('The offender has unlawfully used or transferred a Freedom Pass (...) issued to named holders other than the offender' - which in fairness, is practically the same as 8.1(d)). And 8.5 tells you that a warning letter may be issued 'in exceptional circumstances': there aren't going to be exceptional circumstances about half the time.

 

[Ana246]

At the Undeground or National Rail station?

It was the underground station, I tapped in at Holborn and tapped out at London Bridge underground very stupid of me I’m well aware now

 

[AlterEgo]

When you say “embarrassment of the public knowing” what do you mean by this exactly? How will the public know?

It is possible that the local news may pick up on magistrates' court cases and report on them, although how often this happens in somewhere as large as London is anyone's guess. Rare I'd imagine.

I have also taken a read of section 8 and there is a 50% chance I may just get the warning letter but there is no guarantee. They can of course see my TfL record and see that I have always used my own cards for several journeys and I have caused no other issues to TFL except this one time

It isn't one time - it's a year of misuse. You aren't understanding that this is basically the most serious type of offence TfL deal with, committed habitually, dishonestly, and you'd have continued if you hadn't been caught.

Prosecution is the default, with between 10-20,000 cases prosecuted a year. Warning letters are very rare (you can look up the FOI figures yourself). Nothing you said to them in your correspondence would make any difference given the nature of the offence and no mitigation was provided in your response. What makes you think the chances are 50-50?

 

[Ana246]

Court business is a matter of public record. In the old pre-historic days local newspapers used to often have lists of people who'd be up in front of the local beak for low-level offences - motoring offences, fare evasion, that sort of stuff - but nowadays I suppose Mr Google would find you if someone asked him



Why do you say 50%? If you can tell us your thinking we might be able to advise further

I see

The only reason I think there is a 50% chance of warning letter is because I have owned up to misusing it (I don’t want to state I used it for a year in the evenings as regardless if I say that I misused it so that itself is an offence regardless of how many times I used it). Section 8.5 covers reasons why thy may just give a warning and I would say I fall under all of them minus the last one as I am not under 18. Let me know if these would be likely

 

[SuspectUsual]

I see

The only reason I think there is a 50% chance of warning letter is because I have owned up to misusing it (I don’t want to state I used it for a year in the evenings as regardless if I say that I misused it so that itself is an offence regardless of how many times I used it). Section 8.5 covers reasons why thy may just give a warning and I would say I fall under all of them minus the last one as I am not under 18. Let me know if these would be likely

Unlikely in the absolute extreme. Like as close to 0% as is possible.

You didn't own up, you were caught red handed

I really don't see any mitigation based on what you've said. TfL play hardball on this

 

[Ana246]

It is possible that the local news may pick up on magistrates' court cases and report on them, although how often this happens in somewhere as large as London is anyone's guess. Rare I'd imagine.


It isn't one time - it's a year of misuse. You aren't understanding that this is basically the most serious type of offence TfL deal with, committed habitually, dishonestly, and you'd have continued if you hadn't been caught.

Prosecution is the default, with between 10-20,000 cases prosecuted a year. Warning letters are very rare (you can look up the FOI figures yourself). Nothing you said to them in your correspondence would make any difference given the nature of the offence and no mitigation was provided in your response. What makes you think the chances are 50-50?

I completely understand that. Wouldn’t you say my statement itself is strong enough albeit I have no valid mitigating reasons but has completely agreed and not denied anything and show explicitly my willingness to pay the costs. I also have said this may cause impact on my career and any future prospects surely they can consider this especially when I have not caused issues in the past

 

[SuspectUsual]

Wouldn’t you say my statement itself is strong enough albeit I have no valid mitigating reasons but has completely agreed and not denied anything and show explicitly my willingness to pay the costs

If it was that simple, everyone would evade fares, say sorry when they got caught, pay back what they owed, and go again

I also have said this may cause impact on my career and any future prospects surely they can consider this especially when I have not caused issues in the past

You have evaded fares for a year!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If it was that simple, everyone would evade fares, say sorry when they got caught, pay back what they owed, and go again




You have evaded fares for a year!

I was writing something very similar, but I've been beaten to it. But please note that everyone here is pointing out that you have repeatedly broken the law by using someone else's Freedom Pass: the fact that you have only now been caught for it does not mean that those previous times will somehow be ignored. And because all of us are saying the same thing, think about the possibility that we might be right, rather than suffering from groupthink.

 

[Ana246]

If it was that simple, everyone would evade fares, say sorry when they got caught, pay back what they owed, and go again




You have evaded fares for a year!

Ok, this is quite upsetting and disheartening to hear. If anyone could advise on actual mitigating reasons I could say such as living costs (although I live at home I do contribute to expenses). I have built my entire career here and do not want such a mark to cause issues. I understand it is serious but in the scheme of serious offences I’d like to imagine this hasn’t impacted anyone but TfL in terms of loss of profit

 

[AlterEgo]

I completely understand that. Wouldn’t you say my statement itself is strong enough

To be quite blunt, I'm sorry - no.

albeit I have no valid mitigating reasons but has completely agreed and not denied anything and show explicitly my willingness to pay the costs. I also have said this may cause impact on my career and any future prospects surely they can consider this

No, they don't. Why should they? A criminal conviction is supposed to be a punishment and a consequence. Why should you not suffer the same consequences as 10,000-20,000 other people caught doing the same thing?

If you read TfL's prosecution policy you will see you have not provided any reason why they should not prosecute you. Further, under 8.1 (d) you've committed an offence of a serious nature (or, rather, probably hundreds of them).

especially when I have not caused issues in the past

You fraudulently claimed free fares for a year!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2025 ==

Ok, this is quite upsetting and disheartening to hear. If anyone could advise on actual mitigating reasons I could say such as living costs (although I live at home I do contribute to expenses).

These are not mitigating circumstances as per TfL's prosecutions policy as I linked upthread. To be blunt TfL don't give a stuff about whether you can or can't afford train fares and they will probably take any such statement with a pinch of salt given you've offered to just *pay them all the money* to stop them prosecuting you.

Regardless, your response has been sent *anyway* and TfL will consider it shortly and will respond to you within a few weeks. As we have said, this is likely to be court papers.