no i see, but you guys know my situation now so hence based on what you know how would i reword it.Sorry but it's for you to suggest things that mitigate your actions, not for us to try and make excuses for you.
You clearly intended to pay a reduced fare, that is textbook pre-meditated fare evasion. Dancing around the point by saying you paid something is not going to help you.
i didnt intend to pay a reduced fare, i know you all think that, and so will tfl so no point me even arguing or debating it, i will just take it down with tfl and iap.
i havent mentioned in my email or letter to them once that i paid to top up the oyster anyway.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
thank you for going about this in a more positive and helpful manner.Yes, but you did not pay your fare, this is not in dispute and you should cease any sort of semantics about this and definitely not include it in the letter.
You tell us how your mental health is relevant mitigation - or in other words, why should they care? What is exceptional about having stress/anxiety/depression, in what way did it affect your offending, and why, given those things, is it relevant to them deciding whether or not to prosecute you in the magistrates' court?
It's up to you to supply your mitigation, not for us to imagine reasons.
A good example, however, for a mitigating factor is that someone was, in fact, eligible for a Freedom Pass they misused, but hadn't got around to applying for it.
Trying to imagine what the court or TfL might consider mitigation and then imagining how you can stretch credibility to claim something as mitigation isn't the way forward.
thank you , i will take this on board. once i do my final draft i will send it here.