Got a letter of prosecution

[WesternLancer]

Yes it’s gonna be a plead guilty just hoping for it not to be the worst outcome really and damn it’s 40% I just thought it was the £600 only and tbh I have no earnings I don’t work or anything was volunteering that’s it

You need to fill in a court income form. MC100 form from gov.uk website. That will possibly help reduce the fine based on your income and you can request a payment plan from the court after sentencing. You must stick to that plan or they will send bailiffs.

 

[beastman9901]

You need to fill in a court income form. MC100 form from gov.uk website. That will possibly help reduce the fine based on your income and you can request a payment plan from the court after sentencing. You must stick to that plan or they will send bailiffs.

Yeah the form came with my court letter probably will get reduced cause I don’t got income or anything

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2025 ==

So is it

The outcome of the case will be as per the first reply to your original post; that will be the sentence of the court here.

I see but on my papers I got it don’t say anything about bylaws or anything so just making sure it’s actually under that or na (I could just be overthinking it)

Only thing that’s on it is
Contrary to Regulation


Conductors & Passengers)


7(1)(b) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors,


Regulatione 1090 cl No. 1020 and contrarv to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

 

[beastman9901]

So I have court next Thursday plead guilty and everything so will I get charged under bylaws or whatever the below law is cause I really don’t know and it’s genuinely confusing me as one I don’t want it to affect any future USA visas and two any future jobs

Contrary to Regulation

Conductors & Passengers)
7(1)(b) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors,

Regulatione 1090 cl No. 1020 and contrarv to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi.

Have you had any more paperwork since you posted last month? I think it would help the advisers here to see redacted copies.

 

[island]

It'll probably be £56 fine + surcharge and whatever costs are on your letter, which you will get to pay at £20 a month. This doesn't appear on a DBS and is not a crime that will affect admissibility to the USA.

 

[beastman9901]

Hi.

Have you had any more paperwork since you posted last month? I think it would help the advisers here to see redacted copies.

I have not got anything back just sent everything in and have to go in next thursday for my hearing

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==

It'll probably be £56 fine + surcharge and whatever costs are on your letter, which you will get to pay at £20 a month. This doesn't appear on a DBS and is not a crime that will affect admissibility to the USA.

its about £375 in admin cost £253 in unpaid fairs

 

[island]

its about £375 in admin cost £253 in unpaid fairs

Okay so those plus the fine and surcharge.

 

[beastman9901]

Okay so those plus the fine and surcharge.

the only problem i have is i dont know what ill get prosecuted with cause on my letter it never mentioned anything underbylaws or anything only thing i got told was that the thing i did was breaking these two things below so im just confused on that

Contrary to Regulation
Conductors & Passengers)
7(1)(b) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors,
Regulatione 1090 cl No. 1020 and contrarv to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

 

[Haywain]

the only problem i have is i dont know what ill get prosecuted with cause on my letter it never mentioned anything underbylaws or anything only thing i got told was that the thing i did was breaking these two things below so im just confused on that

Contrary to Regulation
Conductors & Passengers)
7(1)(b) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors,
Regulatione 1090 cl No. 1020 and contrarv to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

You are being prosecuted for a breach of that particular law. Not every crime has a nice handy shortened name.

 

[Titfield]

The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990​

7.—(1) No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any [F1ticket] [F1travel mandate] which has–

(a)been altered or defaced;

(b)been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable; or

(c)expired.

​

Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981​

25Regulation of conduct of passengers.​

(1)Regulations may make provision generally as to the conduct of passengers on public service vehicles [F1or tramcars] and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) for—

(a)authorising the removal from a public service vehicle [F1or tramcar] of a person infringing the regulations by the driver, inspector or conductor of the vehicle or on the request of the driver, inspector or conductor by a police constable;

(b)requiring a passenger in a public service vehicle [F1or tramcar] who is reasonably suspected by the driver, inspector or conductor thereof of contravening the regulations to give his name and address to the driver, inspector or conductor on demand;

(c)requiring a passenger to declare, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, the journey he intends to take or has taken in the vehicle, and to pay the fare for the whole of that journey and to accept any ticket provided therefor;

(d)requiring, on demand being made for the purpose by the driver, inspector or conductor, production during the journey and surrender at the end of the journey by the holder thereof of any ticket issued to him;

(e)requiring a passenger, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, to leave the vehicle on the completion of the journey the fare for which he has paid;

(f)requiring the surrender by the holder thereof on the expiry of the period for which it is issued of a ticket issued to him.

(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

(3)Subject to section 68(1) of this Act, if a person contravenes, or fails to comply with, a provision of regulations having effect by virtue of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F3level 3 on the standard scale].

(4)In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1)(b) shall have effect as if after the word “address” there were inserted the words “to a police constable or”

 

[beastman9901]

The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990​

7.—(1) No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any [F1ticket] [F1travel mandate] which has–

(a)been altered or defaced;

(b)been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable; or

(c)expired.

​

Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981​

25Regulation of conduct of passengers.​

(1)Regulations may make provision generally as to the conduct of passengers on public service vehicles [F1or tramcars] and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision) for—

(a)authorising the removal from a public service vehicle [F1or tramcar] of a person infringing the regulations by the driver, inspector or conductor of the vehicle or on the request of the driver, inspector or conductor by a police constable;

(b)requiring a passenger in a public service vehicle [F1or tramcar] who is reasonably suspected by the driver, inspector or conductor thereof of contravening the regulations to give his name and address to the driver, inspector or conductor on demand;

(c)requiring a passenger to declare, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, the journey he intends to take or has taken in the vehicle, and to pay the fare for the whole of that journey and to accept any ticket provided therefor;

(d)requiring, on demand being made for the purpose by the driver, inspector or conductor, production during the journey and surrender at the end of the journey by the holder thereof of any ticket issued to him;

(e)requiring a passenger, if so requested by the driver, inspector or conductor, to leave the vehicle on the completion of the journey the fare for which he has paid;

(f)requiring the surrender by the holder thereof on the expiry of the period for which it is issued of a ticket issued to him.

(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

(3)Subject to section 68(1) of this Act, if a person contravenes, or fails to comply with, a provision of regulations having effect by virtue of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F3level 3 on the standard scale].

(4)In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1)(b) shall have effect as if after the word “address” there were inserted the words “to a police constable or”

so would this make me have like a bad record or anything just dont wanna have something bad to affect anything future job or visa wise thats all

 

[island]

so would this make me have like a bad record or anything just dont wanna have something bad to affect anything future job or visa wise thats all

Please see post 35, where I answered this already.

 

[beastman9901]

Please see post 35, where I answered this already.

I see cheers cause I got told before this forum originally that I’d get like a 1 year conviction etc so just was double checking everything yk

 

[Bungle158]

Fare evasion does not reach the threshold to be refused entry to the USA.

True, but various sources suggest that disclosure may prevent issue of an ESTA and oblige applicants to take the visa route.

 

[AlterEgo]

I see cheers cause I got told before this forum originally that I’d get like a 1 year conviction etc so just was double checking everything yk

The conviction is a matter of public record for all time.

It doesn’t go into the Police National Computer.

It won’t appear on a Basic or Standard DBS.

It may in rare circumstances appear on an Enhanced DBS, but only if it was relevant to the role being applied for.

The conviction is spent after one year. Until that time you must disclose the conviction when asked in certain situations or you may commit another offence by not doing so.

Even after the conviction is spent, you may in some circumstances be legally bound to disclose it in situations exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

If you have detailed questions, you should consult the charity Unlock.

 

[beastman9901]

True, but various sources suggest that disclosure may prevent issue of an ESTA and oblige applicants to take the visa route.

True, but various sources suggest that disclosure may prevent issue of an ESTA and oblige applicants to take the visa route.

The question they ask is the one below on the application I don’t think my one comes under that no?

2) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

 

[Titfield]

The question they ask is the one below on the application I don’t think my one comes under that no?

2) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

The answer would be no

 

[soil]

the only problem i have is i dont know what ill get prosecuted with cause on my letter it never mentioned anything underbylaws or anything only thing i got told was that the thing i did was breaking these two things below so im just confused on that

Contrary to Regulation
Conductors & Passengers)
7(1)(b) of the Public Service Vehicles (conduct of Drivers, Inspectors,
Regulatione 1090 cl No. 1020 and contrarv to Section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act

this is garbled

The offence is breach of

Regulation 7(1)(b) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990

That's the complete offence.

The text is "No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any travel mandate which has been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable"

(note: the government website says 'ticket travel mandate' but this is an error - it is 'travel mandate' only. Travel mandate includes 'tickets' and also smartcards, permits, etc.

So the short form of the offence is "using a travel mandate issued for another person".

These are Regulations, which means that they are made under some superior legislation, which limits the scope of the Regulations.

The superior legislation is section 25 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Section 25(1) provides the scope of the legislation, including fares. Section 25(3) sets out the maximum punishment - a level 3 fine.

 

[beastman9901]

this is garbled

The offence is breach of

Regulation 7(1)(b) of The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990

That's the complete offence.

The text is "No passenger on a vehicle being used for the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall use any travel mandate which has been issued for use by another person on terms that it is not transferable"

(note: the government website says 'ticket travel mandate' but this is an error - it is 'travel mandate' only. Travel mandate includes 'tickets' and also smartcards, permits, etc.

So the short form of the offence is "using a travel mandate issued for another person".

These are Regulations, which means that they are made under some superior legislation, which limits the scope of the Regulations.

The superior legislation is section 25 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. Section 25(1) provides the scope of the legislation, including fares. Section 25(3) sets out the maximum punishment - a level 3 fine.

Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2025 ==

£714 total I have to pay at £50 a month assuming that comes with a conviction thing aswell

 

[notmyrealname]

Thank you for letting us know. At least it's over with.

 

[beastman9901]

I got this email
Was told to contact them (nacro) is what they saying true

 

[AlterEgo]

I got this email
Was told to contact them (nacro) is what they saying true

Not all of it.

What did you ask them, exactly? Show us the email you sent them, as it’s difficult to believe they have got some of the key facts wrong here, such as disclosure on DBS. Neither you nor they are even correct that the ESTA asks about "crimes of moral turpitude"...it doesn't any more and a Bylaw offence would not likely have been considered such anyway as your intent ("guilty mind") was never in question as it's a strict liability offence.

 

[soil]

Not all of it.

What did you ask them, exactly? Show us the email you sent them, as it’s difficult to believe they have got some of the key facts wrong here, such as disclosure on DBS. Neither you nor they are even correct that the ESTA asks about "crimes of moral turpitude"...it doesn't any more and a Bylaw offence would not likely have been considered such anyway as your intent ("guilty mind") was never in question as it's a strict liability offence.

this is not a byelaw offence, but Regulations. Mens rea is not related to byelaw/otherwise.
As it happens it does seem to be a strict liability offence.

Given the question is "serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority", it's simple to answer "no", as that threshold doesn't seem to have been met.

Since the offence is not a recordable one, it would be extremely foolish, based on this conviction, to tick "yes".

 

[AlterEgo]

this is not a byelaw offence, but Regulations.

My mistake, thanks - you're correct.

 

[beastman9901]

Not all of it.

What did you ask them, exactly? Show us the email you sent them, as it’s difficult to believe they have got some of the key facts wrong here, such as disclosure on DBS. Neither you nor they are even correct that the ESTA asks about "crimes of moral turpitude"...it doesn't any more and a Bylaw offence would not likely have been considered such anyway as your intent ("guilty mind") was never in question as it's a strict liability offence.

That’s what I asked the question wise just the DBS one confused me cause I thought it didn’t show on standard just enhanced

2) Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

 

[AlterEgo]

They don't have enough information there to answer your questions; you didn't state the offence you were convicted of, only the mechanics of what you did. Yours is a non-recordable offence (that is - it won't appear on the Police National Computer although a record is held by the court) which will not show on a DBS other than, in rare cases, an Enhanced DBS. You still have the obligation to disclose it in many circumstances until it is spent, and, after that, you still have an obligation to disclose it if the scenario is not covered by the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is, some employers and agencies have a right to know about all convictions, even spent ones.

 

[beastman9901]

I see cheers thank

They don't have enough information there to answer your questions; you didn't state the offence you were convicted of, only the mechanics of what you did. Yours is a non-recordable offence (that is - it won't appear on the Police National Computer although a record is held by the court) which will not show on a DBS other than, in rare cases, an Enhanced DBS. You still have the obligation to disclose it in many circumstances until it is spent, and, after that, you still have an obligation to disclose it if the scenario is not covered by the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is, some employers and agencies have a right to know about all convictions, even spent ones.

I see my main concern is really just the esta stuff cause of family I got there n visit etc but again thanks for all the help much appreciated

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

They don't have enough information there to answer your questions; you didn't state the offence you were convicted of, only the mechanics of what you did. Yours is a non-recordable offence (that is - it won't appear on the Police National Computer although a record is held by the court) which will not show on a DBS other than, in rare cases, an Enhanced DBS. You still have the obligation to disclose it in many circumstances until it is spent, and, after that, you still have an obligation to disclose it if the scenario is not covered by the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is, some employers and agencies have a right to know about all convictions, even spent ones.

Gave them the full information and everything with the laws and stuff

 

[AlterEgo]

They are wrong.

Most offences which cannot be punished by imprisonment are non-recordable on the PNC. Maybe one to escalate with NACRO who really ought to be on top of this stuff. You can just Google all this and see they’re wrong.

Whether a conviction is recordable on PNC or not has no bearing whatever on your legal obligation to disclose it in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Failing to disclose when it is mandatory may be a separate offence.

 

[notmyrealname]

I've seen the charity Unlock mentioned here. Might they be able to help?

 

[beastman9901]

I've seen the charity Unlock mentioned here. Might they be able to help?

This is what they told me just hoping it’s not

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

They are wrong.

Most offences which cannot be punished by imprisonment are non-recordable on the PNC. Maybe one to escalate with NACRO who really ought to be on top of this stuff. You can just Google all this and see they’re wrong.

Whether a conviction is recordable on PNC or not has no bearing whatever on your legal obligation to disclose it in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Failing to disclose when it is mandatory may be a separate offence.

I see cheers I thought they would be ontop of it but yh i care about the pnc more for immigration purposes aswell not just esta but like for other purposes aswell