MG11 - what is likely to happen?

[sa222]

Hello,

Any thoughts appreciated please. A friend who has spent several years in a regulated profession (legal profession) was stopped on the train on the way to work and found to be paying a lower fare and when questioned, admitted that they had done it before. They were issued an MG11 and have had to report it to their employer. They are worried that they could be let go and/or banned from the profession entirely. They are a first time offender and will plead financial difficulty, both in front of their employer and the regulator. The amount they saved through the fare evasion is nominal (relatively speaking- low 3 figures) and they were up for a promotion at work. Any advice on what may happen and what steps (if any) my friend should take? Many thanks

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

Your friend has made a good start by looking for places which can advise them without being biased towards their employer or regulator. In no particular order, I’d suggest the following:

— if they are a trade union member, consult their union. This may also apply if they’re a member of a professional association but as one of their concerns is about their regulator then if their professional association IS their regulator that might not be the way forward

- (edited to add) in the absence of a union/supportive professional association, talking confidentially to a trusted friend or colleague who knows what the employer and regulator are likely to actually do may be good. Of course, as you're posting on behalf of a friend, it seems as if they have already taken this sensible step. (End edit.)

- whether through their union or under their own steam, your friend should have a close look at their written rules of employment (and their professional rules too). What does it actually say about investigation, prosecution and conviction? And what is custom and practice (I.e. the unwritten rules?) Don’t forget that custom and practice can cut both ways - so it might be that criminal investigation is listed as grounds for dismissal but this has only ever been enforced if someone is sent to prison , or it might be that the rules say nothing about it but in practice it is seen as gross misconduct which leads to summary dismissal.

- although it appears that your friend has reported that they are under investigation, it seems to me likely that being investigated will be less of an issue than being prosecuted or convicted. So your friend should be prepared to cooperate with the railway in the hopes of agreeing an out of court settlement in lieu of prosecution. From what we see, this is often achievable at the cost of the train fares avoided plus an admin fee of maybe £150. If when your friend receives further correspondence from the railway they want to share it with us, we can make some suggestions about responses that might help.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

Which train company are you dealing with? It's important to know this to be able to offer appropriate advice.

 

[John R]

I’ve worked in both a regulated industry and a regulated profession for 40 years, and unfortunately have been directly involved in several dismissals either for fraud, or displaying gross lack of integrity. In at least two of those cases, had the employee been open and honest as to what they had done, they would not have been dismissed, but the attempted concealment of the truth demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty that sealed their fate.

So my advice would be to be completely honest, and not to be “economical with the truth” at all stages of the process.

 

[sa222]

Welcome to the forum!

Which train company are you dealing with? It's important to know this to be able to offer appropriate advice.

Thank you for replying- cross country trains

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2024 ==

Welcome to the forum!

Your friend has made a good start by looking for places which can advise them without being biased towards their employer or regulator. In no particular order, I’d suggest the following:

— if they are a trade union member, consult their union. This may also apply if they’re a member of a professional association but as one of their concerns is about their regulator then if their professional association IS their regulator that might not be the way forward

- (edited to add) in the absence of a union/supportive professional association, talking confidentially to a trusted friend or colleague who knows what the employer and regulator are likely to actually do may be good. Of course, as you're posting on behalf of a friend, it seems as if they have already taken this sensible step. (End edit.)

- whether through their union or under their own steam, your friend should have a close look at their written rules of employment (and their professional rules too). What does it actually say about investigation, prosecution and conviction? And what is custom and practice (I.e. the unwritten rules?) Don’t forget that custom and practice can cut both ways - so it might be that criminal investigation is listed as grounds for dismissal but this has only ever been enforced if someone is sent to prison , or it might be that the rules say nothing about it but in practice it is seen as gross misconduct which leads to summary dismissal.

- although it appears that your friend has reported that they are under investigation, it seems to me likely that being investigated will be less of an issue than being prosecuted or convicted. So your friend should be prepared to cooperate with the railway in the hopes of agreeing an out of court settlement in lieu of prosecution. From what we see, this is often achievable at the cost of the train fares avoided plus an admin fee of maybe £150. If when your friend receives further correspondence from the railway they want to share it with us, we can make some suggestions about responses that might help.

Thank you for replying, this is really helpful. They are going to get a lawyer on board and I will share the correspondence from the train company when it arrives, if my friend is happy for me to do so, thank you. Should they reach out to the company and ask to settle? Would that be viewed as being proactive and work in their favour? My friend is a lawyer and there seem to be a few cases where fare evasion has resulted in dismissal by the employer and being struck off by the regulator, so my friend is naturally worried.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2024 ==

I’ve worked in both a regulated industry and a regulated profession for 40 years, and unfortunately have been directly involved in several dismissals either for fraud, or displaying gross lack of integrity. In at least two of those cases, had the employee been open and honest as to what they had done, they would not have been dismissed, but the attempted concealment of the truth demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty that sealed their fate.

So my advice would be to be completely honest, and not to be “economical with the truth” at all stages of the process.

Thank you for replying. My friend has been honest from the beginning and owned up to the evasion, but they have been going through financial and personal difficulties which, they feel, played a significant part in their lapse of judgment. They have otherwise never done something like this.

 

[island]

You'll need to report to the relevant regulator (SRA/BSB as appropriate) that you've been stopped for fare evasion.

It's difficult to predict precisely, but it sounds like there has been persistent fare evasion over the course of a period of time on several occasions. I would not like to pre-empt the relevant authority, but you could be looking at a suspension from practice for a number of months if you have demonstrated a pattern of dishonest behaviour. You can probably also wave goodbye to the promotion.

It should go without saying that you absolutely must ensure you pay the correct fare going forward.

 

[Haywain]

My friend has been honest from the beginning

Since being caught, you mean.

 

[John R]

My friend is a lawyer and there seem to be a few cases where fare evasion has resulted in dismissal by the employer and being struck off by the regulator, so my friend is naturally worried.

Unfortunately that’s consistent with my instinctive reaction as to the most likely outcome if the legal profession is similar to the financial services industry that I have experience of.

And arguably that’s the most appropriate outcome given the need for those working in the legal profession to demonstrably have the highest standards of integrity.

 

[simonw]

Hello,

Any thoughts appreciated please. A friend who has spent several years in a regulated profession (legal profession) was stopped on the train on the way to work and found to be paying a lower fare and when questioned, admitted that they had done it before. They were issued an MG11 and have had to report it to their employer. They are worried that they could be let go and/or banned from the profession entirely. They are a first time offender and will plead financial difficulty, both in front of their employer and the regulator. The amount they saved through the fare evasion is nominal (relatively speaking- low 3 figures) and they were up for a promotion at work. Any advice on what may happen and what steps (if any) my friend should take? Many thanks

I'm not sure that the words 'admitted they had done it before' and 'first time offender ' are compatible. Your friend needs to be completely honest with the TOC otherwise things could go very badly for them.

 

[SuspectUsual]

admitted that they had done it before

My friend has been honest from the beginning and owned up to the evasion, but they have been going through financial and personal difficulties which, they feel, played a significant part in their lapse of judgment

How many times?

If it’s more than two or three, I suspect the “personal issues leading to lapse of judgment” argument becomes difficult to make

 

[furlong]

What was the nature of the lower fare he was found to be paying?

E.g. an otherwise valid ticket but only covering part of the journey - details? Using a discount to which he wasn't entitled - which? Using a ticket at a time it's not valid? Using a ticket via a route that's not valid? Using an image of a digit al ticket that had been edited?

 

[gray1404]

What will likely happen now is the train company will write to them asking for their side of the story. At this point it is possible to request for an out of court settlement from the train company. I would not say they needed to report to their employer at this point.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I would not say they needed to report to their employer at this point.

I don’t think that we’re in a position to say when someone needs to tell their employer. That will depend on their contract, which we haven’t seen.

 

[Skymonster]

They are going to get a lawyer on board and I will share the correspondence from the train company when it arrives, if my friend is happy for me to do so, thank you. Should they reach out to the company and ask to settle? Would that be viewed as being proactive and work in their favour?

You will get plenty of helpful advice here and time is currently on your friend’s side if they haven’t yet had a letter from the train company. If your friend is engaging a lawyer - which may be a good idea in this case due to the potentially serious consequences involved - I recommend not doing anything (including not communicating with the train company) until after the initial consultation. If a lawyer is engaged they are likely to want to handle communications on your friend’s behalf to avoid anything additionally and unnecessarily damaging being put in writing.

They are a first time offender and will plead financial difficulty, both in front of their employer and the regulator. The amount they saved through the fare evasion is nominal (relatively speaking- low 3 figures)…

Just to point out, sadly, your friend was not a first time offender - they were a repeat offender who had not previously been caught. It is actually an important distinction in terms of being open and honest with the train company, and possibly in terms of the professional consequences. A three figure fare saving is not really “nominal” - for one-off cases it is a rather significant amount although for serial offending it is more typical.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Just to point out, sadly, your friend was not a first time offender - they were a repeat offender who had not previously been caught. It is actually an important distinction in terms of being open and honest with the train company, and possibly in terms of the professional consequences. A three figure fare saving is not really “nominal” - for one-off cases it is a rather significant amount although for serial offending it is more typical.

It is important to note you are only an offender after being found guilty. At this stage, it is simply alleged they committed the offences. Until such time as they plead guilty or are found guilty they are not an offender. Whilst they may want to admit the offences, and it may be in their best interests to do so, they don't become an offender until such time as they are convicted.

In the same way, if you are offered (and accept) an Out of Court settlement, you are not an offender. There is no record of an offence. Claiming you are an offender when you are not can open up a whole can of worms!

Say I was caught speeding, but my solicitor found the speed camera was faulty and the evidence from it could not be submitted to court. Even though I was speeding and committed the offence, as the court did not find me guilty, I am not an offender.

 

[John R]

An offender is someone who commits an illegal act. Whether or not they are convicted of it is a different matter, although I agree in the eyes of the law your interpretation will be the case.

 

[Greyman1]

Is your friend a police officer by chance. I'm just guessing and reading between the lines.
If so this could be tricky.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is your friend a police officer by chance. I'm just guessing and reading between the lines.
If so this could be tricky.

It would be odd to refer to a police office as being in the ‘legal profession’ as used in the OP.

 

[Skymonster]

It is important to note you are only an offender after being found guilty. At this stage, it is simply alleged they committed the offences. Until such time as they plead guilty or are found guilty they are not an offender.

Nope

My friend has been honest from the beginning and owned up to the evasion.

The OP’s friend has admitted to committing an offence and is thus an offender.

Offence
A breach of a law or rule; an illegal act.

Offender
A person who commits an illegal act.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Nope


The OP’s friend has admitted to committing an offence and is thus an offender.

So you're an offender if you're found not-guilty? In which case the word is totally useless and I suggest we use a different one.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

So you're an offender if you're found not-guilty? In which case the word is totally useless and I suggest we use a different one.

If you are found 'not guilty' then presumably you didn't commit the offence. So no, you're not an offender.

I think (and please believe that this is a genuine attempt to help) that you are confusing the language used to describe matters of fact with that used to describe someone's position with respect to the justice system. If you break the criminal law, then as a matter of fact you have committed an offence and you are an offender: if you are taken to court and you admit or the court concludes that you committed an offence, then you are convicted of an offence and you are ( in rather old fashioned language) a convict. Different concepts and different words.

 

[John R]

If you are found 'not guilty' then presumably you didn't commit the offence. So no, you're not an offender.

I think (and please believe that this is a genuine attempt to help) that you are confusing the language used to describe matters of fact with that used to describe someone's position with respect to the justice system. If you break the criminal law, then as a matter of fact you have committed an offence and you are an offender: if you are taken to court and you admit or the court concludes that you committed an offence, then you are convicted of an offence and you are ( in rather old fashioned language) a convict. Different concepts and different words.

I think this is what I tried to set out in post 16, but you’ve explained it much much better!

 

[Egg Centric]

If you are found 'not guilty' then presumably you didn't commit the offence. So no, you're not an offender.

No, you weren't found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We don't apply that burden of proof to everything else in life!