help!! ticket evasion allegation

[dottie]

hi, I'm paniking about this and would really appreciate and advice as I really don't know what to do. I was late this morning and walked past the ticket office in guide bridge as my train had pulled up and I opted to board the train and buy one from the conductor. the train was really full and I could.nt see a conductor so I joined the Que at Manchester picadilly to buy a ticket. when I got to the desk to buy a ticket the man refused to sell me one and I had to speak to another person who explained I needed to pay £3.10 for a single fare to an address on a letter. I was asked to fill out my details which I did. I put my address down as my dad's address as this is where I thought I was registered to (I've just finished uni and have lived at my boyfriends and dads since moving out of a house share with a flat mate the inspector rang someone and confirmed I was not registered at this address?? so I gave my boyfriends address and that was ok. the inspector then said because I had given false details I would have to wait for a letter in the post??

I'm worried I will be prosecuted over false details which went false I just couldn't remember which one I was registered to.

I wasn't trying to avoid paying for a ticket I was asking to buy one??

I'm worried I'll get a criminal record because I work for the police and that's my career ruined. I told work about it and that said not to worry I will get a fine because I've never offended before is this right?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can you clarify something here please?

Was it a false address that you supplied? Or was it the address at which you have lived for a long time until recently, and the address where some official bodies will still recognise as your current address, including some Government agencies?
Does post to you at that address reach you in a timely manner?

 

[scotsman]

You can ignore this, posted before I saw Dave's post!

Sounds like you'll be prosecuted under The Regulation of Railways Act for Avoiding paying the correct fare with intent. This is a criminal matter, so you will lose your job if a case proceeds against you (seems very likely) then you will need to seek legal advice to defend yourself.

Of course, they could decide to prosecute you for Not showing a ticket on demand - this is a strict-liability by-law offence. You are guilty of this, but it shouldn't go on a criminal record.

I'm not hugely knowledgeable on these things, but I'm sure there'll be someone who'll be able to help more in a bit.

On a side note, can I suggest that you don't worry until the letter arrives - there's nothing you can do until they tell you if/what they'll be pursuing you for.

 

[DarloRich]

Can you clarify something here please?

Was it a false address that you supplied? Or was it the address at which you have lived for a long time until recently, and the address where some official bodies will still recognise as your current address, including some Government agencies?
Does post to you at that address reach you in a timely manner?

This is something that does concern me about my own status. It dawned on me recently that other than a bank statement i have nothing in my name at this address. I am still on the roll my old address!!!!!

If i gave my details now they might find nothing and presume i gave a false address

 

[Stigy]

For them to prosecute you for a false address, they'd have to be able to prove to all intents and purposes, that you supplied a false address, so as to avoid contact with them, and thus paying your fare should they charge you one, or other proceedings.

To mirror what Dave has asked here, have you been resident there, and was your giving of that address innocent in that you genuinly have been between addreses? Do you visit the address, and/or can you easily pick up your mail from it?

What were you asked by the RPI, and what did you respond?

You could be prosecuted for the ticket irregularity quite easily from what you've written, but the address one seems a bit sketchy at this stage. We'd need more info to advise the likely legislation you could be prosecuted under for the initial ticket offence, although if they do see you as giving a dodgy address, it would be the more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889, sections 5(3)a and 5(3)c they'd seek to prosecute under.

 

[SussexMan]

This is a criminal matter, so you will lose your job if a case proceeds against you (seems very likely) then you will need to seek legal advice to defend yourself.

I think that is real scaremongering. We have no idea what the OP does other than to work for the police and there are many serving police officers who have criminal convictions. To dismiss someone, the dismissal has to be fair, irrespective of who you work for. This isn't to say that losing your job isn't a possibility - but it isn't a forgone conclusion either.

 

[scotsman]

I think that is real scaremongering. We have no idea what the OP does other than to work for the police and there are many serving police officers who have criminal convictions. To dismiss someone, the dismissal has to be fair, irrespective of who you work for. This isn't to say that losing your job isn't a possibility - but it isn't a forgone conclusion either.

To quote the OP: "I'm worried I'll get a criminal record because I work for the police and that's my career ruined."

The OP appeared to think that a first offence would be dealt with as a fine, and they also believe that a criminal conviction would result in dismissal. Thus, their colleague(s) appear to be under the impression that such an offence would be dealt with under a Fixed Penalty Notice - which accepts an admission of guilt (in criminal cases, it's different for bylaws) in return for no requirement to attend court, as well as no criminal record.

Therefore, I stated in the clearest possible terms that they may face a charge which would (more than likely) result in a fine and a criminal record.

 

[wintonian]

Can you clarify something here please?

Was it a false address that you supplied? Or was it the address at which you have lived for a long time until recently, and the address where some official bodies will still recognise as your current address, including some Government agencies?
Does post to you at that address reach you in a timely manner?

I'm assuming it would be the electoral roll that was checked?

As a student the OP may have had the right to register for the electoral roll at both their term time address and academic holidays address, it's not uncommon for students not to be aware of this and only register at 1 address which could be either and thus it's not uncommon either for student to forget which address they registered at.

 

[jon0844]

There's a big difference between giving a fake address, or that of someone else (perhaps to try and get them done instead, as has been mentioned here in another thread), and giving an address where the person is likely known, or would be 'linked' on a range of credit reference agencies.

Someone could be thinking of giving an address where they're more likely to receive the letter, such as a parents address, than a rented property with lots of other people sharing or a communal entrance etc.

 

[dottie]

hi thank you for your replies. I live between addresses I checked with the council yesterday who said I must have registered at my boyfriends in my last yr of uni in 2011, I was registered at my parents address upto then since about 1999. yes I get post to both addresses.
I currently work for action fraud, and take crime reports from victims of fraud. I'm due to start a graduate scheme next yr. I did aeronautical engineering so it would involve working with defense and I'd need to pass another security check.

I was't avoiding paying my fare I was stood in a Que to buy a ticket from the station I got on the train and the station I departed. it was only when I asked to buy a ticket they refused to sell me one and asked for my details. I didn't have any intention of avoiding a charge. I needed my weekly ticket so I can get to work. if I'd tried to run through the barriers without showing a ticket then I'd deserve it but I don't see what I've done wrong? I've bought tickets from man picadilly before and never had a problem.

after they said I would expect a letter in the post they then let me buy my ticket so I have a weekly from yesterday's date. I also have weekly tickets since October in my trail pass. will this be any use to show them? thank you for all your help again I really appreciate it.

 

[LexyBoy]

For reference, the Acts which are likely to apply here are Byelaw 18(2) (PDF of legislation), and Regulation of the Railways Act 5(3) (link to legislation).

By your own account, you are guilty of a Byelaw 18(2) offence, which occurred as soon as you boarded the train without having purchased a ticket. There is no requirement for intent to avoid payment to be proven, and a conviction does not result in a criminal record. Whether or not Northern decide to persue this is up to them - it's entirely possibly that they could ask for the fare and an admin fee.

A RoRA offense is more serious and would result in a criminal record, but requires proof of intent to evade the fare. The main issue is how the "false" address issue will be taken - I'll leave comment to others more knowledgable - but I would be very disappointed and surprised if giving your dad's address could be taken against you, if you would expect post sent there to be forwarded promptly (see Dave's post).

Northern have a somewhat schizophrenic approach to ticketless travel, so I'd not like to comment on the likely outcome, but given your account I would say the chances of avoiding court are better than average (though IANAL).

 

[snail]

You don't need to copy and paste the same explanation in every post! You will get the chance to give your version of events to the train company. As others have said, you have committed an offence by walking past an open ticket office. You need to accept that. It doesn't matter that you were late, nor that you have bought tickets on the train in the past, nor that others on your train were doing the same thing. Admitting that you have done it on previous occasions could make things worse, not better.

When you get the letter, you need to apologise for not getting a ticket at the first opportunity and explain why you gave two addresses when challenged. It sounds from what you say that you have a good explanation for giving the first address, so hopefully Northern will just ask you for the fare and an administration fee.

PS it's queue not Que

 

[dottie]

hi sorry about that I'm posting on my phone and for some reason everytime i log in it posts my previous reply. I'm new to this forum so my apologies.

:cry:

 

[alanf]

im confused by this as it seems to me there is a guard on board who sells tickets but the OP didnt get one for whatever reason but then gets done for trying to buy one at Piccadily. Like she says if she tried to do a runner then fair play to Northern but she didnt

Alan

 

[Greenback]

im confused by this as it seems to me there is a guard on board who sells tickets but the OP didnt get one for whatever reason but then gets done for trying to buy one at Piccadily. Like she says if she tried to do a runner then fair play to Northern but she didnt

Alan

Northern are trying to encourage people to buy before boarding the train, after many years of being happy with the situation.

 

[Anvil1984]

I could be wrong but I think Guide Bridge is on one of the trial stations for the Pseudo Penalty Fare Scheme (sorry I couldnt come up with the real phrase) where you got one chance then if you get caught again you get charged £80, that would explain the not being allowed to pay by the person at Piccadilly

 

[snail]

But aren't you supposed to be given a written warning the first time? It doesn't sound like that has happened to the OP.

 

[island]

Northern isn't obliged to do that.

 

[Anvil1984]

But aren't you supposed to be given a written warning the first time? It doesn't sound like that has happened to the OP.

Ill be honest and say I dunno how the scheme works being in an area which doesnt have it, but would think that the £80 charge / warning letter would come from prosecutions department and not the RPIs as the prosecutions department will have a detail of the "strikes" a passenger has had. And to do that you would have to take the passengers details

I could be completely wrong

 

[maniacmartin]

As far as I can tell, the requirement is only to give one's name and address. There is no requirement for this to be the address that you are on the electoral roll as residing at. Indeed, if you have recently moved house, the address on the electoral roll may not be one you reside at at all.

In my opinion, failing the address check is not conclusive proof that a false address was given; it is merely lack of proof that a valid address was given. I would be surprised if Northern use the address mismatch as evidence to proceed under a RoRA prosecution, once the reason for the multiple addresses has been pointed out to them. I do, however, think a lessor prosecution under the Railway Byelaws would be very likely to succeed.

An interesting aside is that some people have no permanent address (such as my work colleague who lives in a houseboat and moves it up the canal every week) so would not be on the electoral roll).

 

[Stigy]

For reference, the Acts which are likely to apply here are Byelaw 18(2)

It would most likrly be 18(1), as this relates to buying a ticket whereas 18(2) relates to not being able to produce one, for example, if the OP had lost their ticket. Either can be used really, as the OP obviously couldnt produce a ticket.

Reference the name and address again, bear in mind that a 5(3)c can only be used in conjunction with a or b of the same act, although Byelaw 23 can be used for false names and addresses in conjunction with other byelaws, even though this usually relates to refusing details. It's probably more a loophole than anything else, but if you read it, it'll become clear, and it's tried and tested.

 

[gasman]

have you informed action fraud and the police about your situation dottie?

might be better it coming from you rather than someone else.

 

[amcluesent]

Surely the OPs correct course of action would have been to demand BTP attend, then flip them the ID Card issued by their Force?

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not in a position to comment on the letter of the law, but it does seem morally dubious of Northern to try and instigate such an action if the OP has attempted to pay the fare at the destination, particularly as paying at the destination seems to be de regeur across a lot of Northern's network. This is aside from any address issues.

 

[Stigy]

Surely the OPs correct course of action would have been to demand BTP attend, then flip them the ID Card issued by their Force?

What good would that have done?

 

[Flamingo]

Surely the OPs correct course of action would have been to demand BTP attend, then flip them the ID Card issued by their Force?

I think the correct term to cover that approach is Malfeasance in a Public Office. However, if one of our more learned colleagues would like to correct me, I'll be most happy.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Ah, yes!
But it's a risky move if (and I'll guess you'll share my wish for more assurances) there maybe more to the matter than we already know.

I withdrew from advising on this thread at an early stage - you may draw conclusions at your leisure.

 

[34D]

But northern allow free travel for police anyway, don't they? I know in West Yorkshire they do, perhaps one of our members can advise for GM?

In west yorks (for trains or buses) a flash of the warrant card is all that is needed.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Only btp get free travel, other police get free travel at our discretion only

 

[34D]

Only btp get free travel, other police get free travel at our discretion only

Ah fair enough. Over in WY its officers and specials from BTP and WYP.