Misusing Freedom Pass on TfL

[tkc23]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for being another desperate idiot coming here to seek advice on Freedom pass misuse charge (TfL).

I (30yr grad student) was caught in the morning last Saturday when tapping out at High Street Kensington (from North Acton) with my mother's freedom pass. The pass was lightly used (below 30 times in 2024) as my mother seldom travels on TfL due to illness and I cycle most of the time to save money. The pass was never used on regular journeys. I deeply regret using her pass and am in extreme remorse and panic at the moment.

I haven't received the verification letter yet. However I have had mental conditions for years (bipolar) and the situation is worsening quickly over these days, I hope I can prepare my response early when I can still function at the moment. I was so depressed and feeling unwell that day (cardiac) and I was stupid to use my mother's pass. I am not employed and the prosecution will kill my job applications (I am looking for hospital posts as my study is healthcare related, which is subject to extended DBS) (resort to benefits). Not sure whether losing jobs on extended DBS in hospital would be considered by TfL in terms of public interest, but I would like to ask TfL to consider not prosecuting based on pre-existing mental health conditions, and I pulled together some of the GP consultation notes from 2022 to last week as evidence. Still I believe I was being foolish and wrong here, and I will pay all outstanding fares and costs that TfL charges. What I hope is they could offer a warning with a penalty instead of prosecution, which I understand is very rare.

Could anyone please proofread my draft response below and suggest any more content / supporting documents to be enclosed? Any comments are highly appreciated.

Sorry for committing the stupid act. Thank you very much.

---

To whom it may concern,

I refer to your letter on x about me reported on x for misusing my mother's Freedom Pass when travelling from x to x.

I am extremely sorry and deeply regret for my actions. After this incident, I have fully understand misusing travel pass and not paying correct fare are serious offences. I am willing to pay the outstanding fare and TfL costs, and I hope you may consider not proceeding with a prosecution for my wrongdoing on this occasion, based on my pre-existing mental conditions as explained below.

I have been suffering from depression then bipolar disorder for more than 3 years and had been on antipsychotic drug (Olanzapine) for some years. My health condition has started deteriorating since last year, potentially due to side-effects, and I have been seeking GP assistance ever since. However I was stuck in waiting list and not able to see a psychiatrist in NHS to discuss my treatment. Up to the weeks before the incident on x, I was having manic episodes and started developing cardiac symptoms, which my GP referred me to cardiology and chased my referral to specialist psychiatry. I have enclosed evidence, which is part of the related GP records, for your reference.

Most of the time I travel by cycling to save on costs. However on the day of the incident I was so depressed, mentally unstable due to an ongoing episode and feeling unwell, especially in dealing with road traffic on a cycle. I was stupid to use my mother's pass for travelling instead of paying my fare and I promise I will never do this again.

I am not employed and currently jobseeking at the moment, while I started a company last month for seeking potential contract work it has not generated any income so far. As my study is healthcare related, any prosecution will be detrimental to my job applications in hospitals and the industry, which continous unemployment might force me into benefits as last resort. My mental and physical conditions have been much worsened since the incident due to extreme remorse and stress for my wrongdoing, which my heart symptoms frequented and I have to take more antipsychotic drugs to control myself. For sure I have learnt my lesson and ensure I will always pay the correct fare at all times.

Once again I must say I am now fully aware my wrongdoing for misusing travel pass, and the trouble caused to the public for not paying a correct fare for travel. I would like to give my sincere, deep heartfelt apologies to TfL and its staff for the time and resources spent on my wrongdoing and other fare evasion offenders, which could have been redirected to improve services for everyone. I will never ever make such mistake again. To assure this, I have asked my GP to adjust my treatment for bringing me in control, and I will choose to buy a full ticket or not to travel if similar situation arises in future. I would very appreciate if my medical conditions above could be considered for not proceeding with a prosecution, and I am willing to pay my outstanding fare with your costs incurred for settlement. Thank you very much for your kind consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Enclosure:
1. GP consultation notes on Bipolar Disorder, May 2022
2. GP consultation notes on Bipolar Disorder, July 2023
3. GP consultation notes on Bipolar Disorder, May 2024
4. GP consultation notes on cardiac condition, May 2024
5. NI record for supporting non-employment
6. Tax record for supporting non-employment

---

Thanks again for your reading and comments.

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi. I expect people will be along later to comment for you.

One thing you can consider in preparation for the letter coming is to write down everything that you remember from Saturday, to refer to later if you need it.

If TfL look at the history of the Freedom pass are they likely to find other uses by you?

 

[tkc23]

One thing you can consider in preparation for the letter coming is to write down everything that you remember from Saturday, to refer to later if you need it.

Thanks a lot will do

If TfL look at the history of the Freedom pass are they likely to find other uses by you?

I don't know how tfL determines whether the pass is used by me in a journey. If it is by regular journey (between A & B), then the pass history is clean as my mother never make regular journeys with the pass and it is lightly used, as we usually got driven or walk to our regular destinations. I cycle most of the time when my body allows.

 

[Pushpit]

It's certainly worth a go, but I wouldn't want to set your hopes too high. Though TfL do occasionally let off some people with some sort of final warning, I don't think anyone has established the logic yet. On the other hand, using someone else's Freedom Pass - and perhaps more than once - is usually something that ends up in the criminal justice system, and often bypassing SJP, they will want you to appear in court. So there's a high chance that you will join the other 20,000 convicted by TfL every year.

As someone who works in this area, it's unlikely that the Enhanced DBS will show this conviction, it is role dependent and there is a risk matrix where cases are fed through on this, but I've not seen many examples. But that's the wrong way to look at it, since if you are in a sensitive role, you must declare cautions and criminal records regardless of what Disclosure and Barring / Disclosure Scotland prints out. A minor conviction isn't a game ending outcome, a further act of deception (not declaring something that has to be declared) certainly is life altering. So I don't think the outcome is quite as bad as you fear, so long as you appreciate that where dishonesty gets you into trouble, honesty will get you out of it.

The text of the letter reads well, in my opinion.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's extremely rare for TfL to settle out of court for abuse of Freedom Passes. There is nothing wrong with the letter you are sending back but you should bear in mind that none of what you say is a defence and I don't see that TfL will issue a warning or settle based on what you have included.

They will almost certainly prosecute you in the Magistrates' Court under the TfL Bylaws.

If you are prosecuted and plead guilty (or are found guilty by the court) then you will have to pay:

- A fine based on your income (usually discounted by a third if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards TfL's costs
- Compensation for the fares avoided

If they prosecute for only one offence you will be able to do the whole thing "on paper", under the Single Justice Procedure Notice, with no physical attendance in court.

If they detect other offences after auditing the pass, they will ask if you would like to take these into consideration, and they will send you a postal requisition. It may be necessary for you to attend court to address other offences, but not always.

A conviction under the Bylaws may, in some rare circumstances, show on an Enhanced DBS (it is at the vetting officer's discretion, and you do not get a say in this process). If convicted, you will find the conviction is spent after one year from conviction. You should take guidance when applying for jobs about whether you need to declare spent and unspent convictions. Unlock is a charity which can help with this and they are very good.

 

[furlong]

You have the right idea with that sort of letter, yes. The one thing missing from it though is something that demonstrates that you now have some understanding of the problems fare evasion causes TfL - the letter mustn't only be about you! What were the consequences of your actions on TfL and where's the apology for the trouble you caused?

 

[alholmes]

The letter reads well, however I’ve two thoughts:
- Firstly, the person at TfL reading this will not be wanting to wade through a lengthy letter containing a lot of medical information (for which they won’t necessarily fully understand), plus attachments. Is there any way of making the letter more succinct?
- Secondly, I’m not sure your letter convinces the reader that this incident couldn’t happen again. If you’re going to argue that your lapse / error of judgment was caused by a medical condition, then how can you persuade them that it won’t happen in future?

 

[tkc23]

The letter reads well, however I’ve two thoughts:
- Firstly, the person at TfL reading this will not be wanting to wade through a lengthy letter containing a lot of medical information (for which they won’t necessarily fully understand), plus attachments. Is there any way of making the letter more succinct?
- Secondly, I’m not sure your letter convinces the reader that this incident couldn’t happen again. If you’re going to argue that your lapse / error of judgment was caused by a medical condition, then how can you persuade them that it won’t happen in future?

1. My guess is in order to let the prosecutors to consider my case on mental condition basis they will need to see proof from 3rd parties. I will try to use more layman terms in the letter.
2. Will add a sentence to the letter - I am asking my GP to adjust my treatment for bringing me in control, and I will choose to buy a full ticket or not to travel if similar situation arises in future.

You have the right idea with that sort of letter, yes. The one thing missing from it though is something that demonstrates that you now have some understanding of the problems fare evasion causes TfL - the letter mustn't only be about you! What were the consequences of your actions on TfL and where's the apology for the trouble you caused?

Thanks for pointing that out!

I'll edit the text at the top accordingly. Thank you so much for your time in reading and giving comments. Further comments will be very appreciated.

 

[furlong]

So on the face of it, I think that ticks the right boxes for a chance of settling out of court. But it leaves one key box unticked - the 'totality of offending' box. When TfL looks at the past journeys made with the pass, might they suspect there were additional journeys? With this not addressed in the letter, what do you think might they conclude?

 

[tkc23]

So on the face of it, I think that ticks the right boxes for a chance of settling out of court. But it leaves one key box unticked - the 'totality of offending' box. When TfL looks at the past journeys made with the pass, might they suspect there were additional journeys? With this not addressed in the letter, what do you think might they conclude?

I guess the prosecutors will look at the past journeys anyway? I am sure they won't find any frequent nor regular journey records. Probably they won't believe what offenders says in this part anyway, so I was thinking better leave them to draw their own conclusions and not digging holes for myself here.

Should I say something about this though? Thanks.

 

[Titfield]

I guess the prosecutors will look at the past journeys anyway? I am sure they won't find any frequent nor regular journey records. Probably they won't believe what offenders says in this part anyway, so I was thinking better leave them to draw their own conclusions and not digging holes for myself here.

Should I say something about this though? Thanks.

Only you know how often you have used the pass but TfL will check the records and draw their own conclusions.

The adage of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck" holds true. In other words if they find journeys that fit the pattern of wrong doing then they will assume it was wrong doing., NB They do not need to prove wrong doing in all cases, all they needs is one slam dunk occasion to go to court with.

It is up to you whether you tell the whole truth (as it were) but do not lie as that will undermine any goodwill TfL may have been prepared to show you.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think we have ever seen TfL settle a case like this without a solicitor, and even then I can only think of two cases we've seen in the last couple of years.

 

[Titfield]

I don't think we have ever seen TfL settle a case like this without a solicitor, and even then I can only think of two cases we've seen in the last couple of years.

Yes indeed. I think at some point in time TfL decided that always prosecuting was a policy was that was consistent and easy for them to apply. They didnt want to get bogged down into having to make judgements about each individual case which would be time consuming.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes indeed. I think at some point in time TfL decided that always prosecuting was a policy was that was consistent and easy for them to apply. They didnt want to get bogged down into having to make judgements about each individual case which would be time consuming.

Yes, to put it bluntly, they can't be bothered. There is endemic abuse and dishonesty in London when it comes to paying for travel, and Freedom Passes are funded by taxpayers. Everyone who misuses a Freedom Pass is guilty of the much more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889 5 3(a) offence, but that's a bit more complex to prove and takes a little more work on the part of the prosecutor.

There's a conveyor belt of strict liability Bylaw prosecutions as a result. Very simple and neat, everyone is guilty, no intent need be proved, and hence much of the correspondence that people send back to TfL is of little value. That isn't to say settling is impossible, as we have seen it (twice?), but anyone who doesn't engage a solicitor is onto a loser, I fear.

 

[tkc23]

Okay then I should start preparing for the worst. There are loads of solicitor ads on google, but could anyone suggest any solicitors which have been referred to / active in this forum?

Could only find a post in the forum about solicitors and I put it here for everyone's reference - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-london-based-fare-evasion-solicitors.250808/
There was an "Oxbridge graduate" case which achieved settlement, and was mentioned in several posts including the post quoted.

Please help me to locate the two cases you mentioned if possible. Thanks a lot.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes, to put it bluntly, they can't be bothered. There is endemic abuse and dishonesty in London when it comes to paying for travel, and Freedom Passes are funded by taxpayers. Everyone who misuses a Freedom Pass is guilty of the much more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889 5 3(a) offence, but that's a bit more complex to prove and takes a little more work on the part of the prosecutor.

There's a conveyor belt of strict liability Bylaw prosecutions as a result. Very simple and neat, everyone is guilty, no intent need be proved, and hence much of the correspondence that people send back to TfL is of little value. That isn't to say settling is impossible, as we have seen it (twice?), but anyone who doesn't engage a solicitor is onto a loser, I fear.

A logical consequence of this is that there's no way out of this cost-free: you either get prosecuted and pay the fine (plus costs) or employ a solicitor who may get the prosecution dropped, and pay their bill.

So successful use of a solicitor may avoid the issues of a criminal conviction, but still incurs a cost that many people will find punitive. So if TfL are relying on a punitive cost to deter people from reoffending and TfL aren't too worried about the potential implications of a criminal conviction, then a case where a solicitor is used still has the desired effect for TfL.

 

[tkc23]

Verification letter received today and responded by email. Hope they could take my conditions into account.

Thanks everyone.

 

[tkc23]

Got the letter from TfL today which they closed the case by warning.

While I am surprised by this outcome, I must emphasize I was only being extremely lucky to get away in this case, as I happened to have all sorts of clincial evidence available and there were no frequent nor regular journeys made with the pass.

Just pay the correct fare at all times to stay away from the nightware.

Once again, thanks to all members on this forum who provided their advice and opinion on all the cases which helped me when preparing my response.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for providing an update - these are very useful to us going forward. You were lucky!

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

It is unusual to see a warning for misuse of a Freedom Pass.

 

[John R]

I’m also surprised that they say they will only take the incident into account for the next year.

 

[30907]

I’m also surprised that they say they will only take the incident into account for the next year.

Had the OP been convicted, that would have been spent after 12 months, so couldn't have been adduced.

 

[Haywain]

Had the OP been convicted, that would have been spent after 12 months, so couldn't have been adduced.

Would TfL not have retained a record of their previous prosecution, had that happened?

 

[island]

Had the OP been convicted, that would have been spent after 12 months, so couldn't have been adduced.

Whilst that is true, it does not follow that a record of a decision not to prosecute must follow the same retention timeline.