My son has made a serious error of judgement...

[Dad1967]

Recently my son travelled by train getting off at Reading. He boarded at Sunningdale and did not buy a ticket as the train was leaving.

He arrived in Reading and went to buy a ticket from the ticket office. When asked where he boarded, he stupidly said an earlier station. The Inspector standing next to the ticket office challenged him and my son then admitted where he actually got on.

His details were taken and he signed the Inspectors note of his address, and where he actually boarded and freely admitted his guilt. He was told to expect a letter in 3-4 weeks and was told to go on his way.

He was not asked to pay for the ticket or pay a penalty fare.

As he's due to go to Uni in a few months, what's the likely outcome as he doesn't want a criminal record?

 

[TheEdge]

Indeed, a very serious error of judgement.

By asking for an earlier station he has attempted to short fare therefore has committed a criminal offence under the Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) by deliberately attempting to pay the wrong fare. A penalty fare was not offered as they are for people who make honest mistakes, not, as already admitted by him and you, people who deliberately try to pay the wrong fare. He would not have been offered a ticket as that is no deterrent to fare evasion.

Three outcomes but you won't know which till the letter arrives. A railway bylaws offence, fine with no criminal record, an offer from FGW of an out of court settlement (probably within the hundreds of pounds, also, they are not under any obligation to offer or accept one) or a RoRA offence, fine and a criminal record.

 

[najaB]

Three outcomes but you won't know which till the letter arrives. A railway bylaws offence, fine with no criminal record, an offer from FGW of an out of court settlement (probably within the hundreds of pounds, also, they are not under any obligation to offer or accept one) or a RoRA offence, fine and a criminal record.

I doubt they would go for a Byelaws prosecution as they have pretty much a slam-dunk RoRA prosecution.

Having said that, given that it's a relatively low-value fare, and assuming that your son isn't already known to them, a settlement is probably in the offing.

 

[TheEdge]

I doubt they would go for a Byelaws prosecution as they have pretty much a slam-dunk RoRA prosecution.

Having said that, given that it's a relatively low-value fare, and assuming that your son isn't already known to them, a settlement is probably in the offing.

I agree but there have been several examples of a slam dunk RoRA being charged under the byelaws.

 

[Kristofferson]

I'd imagine that's very dependent on TOC. Northern and Greater Anglia by any chance?

 

[Darandio]

Northern and Greater Anglia by any chance?

For this particular case? From Sunningdale to Reading?

 

[thedbdiboy]

I agree but there have been several examples of a slam dunk RoRA being charged under the byelaws.

Indeed. The decision over whether to use RoRA or Bye-law18 is not simply about whether it is possible to get a conviction. Believe it or not, the courts do not necessarily take a positive view of prosecuting someone guilty of a relatively minor offence in a way that will give them a criminal record and seriously damage their life chances.

Therefore, although from the circumstances given, the OP's son is clearly guilty, it is entirely likely that in this case the TOC will seek to discharge it other than by an RoRA proesecution. Obviously it is down to the TOC, and no promises can be made, but a bit of balance is needed in the responses!

 

[Dad1967]

Thanks for your responses so far(and my son is checking this thread!).

Clearly he's gutted by his mistake which 'saved' him £3 and will likely cost him a lot more.

A slap on the wrist and a couple of '00s in fines is something he'll gladly settle for and put this behind him.

I think its SWT that runs the line from Waterloo to Reading.

Once this is closed, I will post the outcome.

 

[Kristofferson]

For this particular case? From Sunningdale to Reading?

No, I was replying to the chap above on TOCs who have gone straight for RoRA convictions.

 

[Darandio]

No, I was replying to the chap above on TOCs who have gone straight for RoRA convictions.

Ahh, understood.

 

[furlong]

Therefore, although from the circumstances given, the OP's son is clearly guilty, it is entirely likely that in this case the TOC will seek to discharge it other than by an RoRA proesecution. Obviously it is down to the TOC, and no promises can be made, but a bit of balance is needed in the responses!

Yes. There may be more to this particular case than we have been told, but in general a TOC risks ending up out-of-pocket if it opts to prosecute a straightforward case that could have been resolved through, for example, a Penalty Fare.

 

[najaB]

I agree but there have been several examples of a slam dunk RoRA being charged under the byelaws.

That's why I would expect it to be an offer of settlement, in lieu of a prosecution under the RoRA.

 

[AM9]

Yes. There may be more to this particular case than we have been told, but in general a TOC risks ending up out-of-pocket if it opts to prosecute a straightforward case that could have been resolved through, for example, a Penalty Fare.

A penalty far wouldn't be appropriate, they are for genuine mistakes. A prosecution or a settlement is required when attempted fraud has taken place.

 

[furlong]

A penalty far wouldn't be appropriate, they are for genuine mistakes. A prosecution or a settlement is required when attempted fraud has taken place.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I can find nothing to indicate that a Penalty Fare is not within the range of appropriate responses to such situations. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go and read the relevant Parliamentary debates and the SRA's documentation and Magistrates' Sentencing Guidelines and form your own view.

 

[clagmonster]

I think its SWT that runs the line from Waterloo to Reading.

You are correct that the train is run by SWT. However, the matter will be dealt with by the employer of the inspector, most probably First Great Western, though possibly SWT or even I suppose Cross Country. Just a heads up, it shouldn't make too much difference to things and any correspondence should tell you who to contact.

 

[DasLunatic]

You are correct that the train is run by SWT. However, the matter will be dealt with by the employer of the inspector, most probably First Great Western, though possibly SWT or even I suppose Cross Country. Just a heads up, it shouldn't make too much difference to things and any correspondence should tell you who to contact.

Isn't Reading owned by Network Rail, though?

 

[clagmonster]

Isn't Reading owned by Network Rail, though?

Every station is owned by Network Rail.

As far as I know, Network Rail do not employ any revenue inspectors, indeed why would they? They operator no passenger trains, thus no fares to collect.

 

[cool110]

Every station is owned by Network Rail.

Not every station, all three Heathrow stations are owned by the airport and there are a few other ports and airports that own their stations.

 

[yorkie]

Isn't Reading owned by Network Rail, though?

This makes no difference whatsoever.

The OPs son needs to look out for the letter and act upon it promptly but carefully. I would seek advice before replying (which can be sought on this forum)

I wouldn't like to speculate on which TOC this was (though someone on here will almost certainly know!) nor hownlikely they are to settle out of court or what legislation they would prosecute under

A byelaw prosecution would be "just" a fine (plus costs etc) while a RoRA prosecution would additionally result in a criminal record. Either way a settlement would be better for both parties if agreement can be reached.

 

[Agent_c]

Every station is owned by Network Rail.

Prestwick Airport is not IIRC

 

[TheEdge]

OP, not sure if this has been mentioned through all the bumpf about station owners.

Make sure you find that letter, it might take a while to show up but it will arrive, do not let your son hide it under his bed, this won't go away and can only get worse if it gets ignored.

 

[Andrewlong]

OP, not sure if this has been mentioned through all the bumpf about station owners.

Make sure you find that letter, it might take a while to show up but it will arrive, do not let your son hide it under his bed, this won't go away and can only get worse if it gets ignored.

Assuming Op's son goes away to uni, letter will arrive at home address. Parent needs to get permission from son to open letter and the challenge will be how to engage son to respond to letter given their location.

I have a son who has just spent year at uni and getting them to respond to things which are not uni related is a challenge especially now they are an adult in the eyes of the law!

 

[Dad1967]

FWG has written and offered my son a settlement of less than £100. He's delighted and realises its a lesson learned the hard way.

Thanks to all who helped on this.

 

[IanXC]

FWG has written and offered my son a settlement of less than £100. He's delighted and realises its a lesson learned the hard way.

Thanks to all who helped on this.

Thanks for getting back to us with the outcome, this kind of information helps us to assist in future cases as we're then aware of how different TOCs operate. Pleased to see he got a good result, and like you say lesson learned!

Thanks again

 

[timbo58]

It's also very worth while pointing out that IME they (FGW) WILL keep his details on record.
Any further ticketing indiscretions will almost certainly go straight to court with no option to settle.

Certainly in my day (Reading & Paddington revenue area for this company) 1st offence and 'the right attitude' from the perpetrator would mean an offer of settlement IRO of £100 + fare avoided in the 1st instance, so it appears FGW are still doing this.

 

[323235]

We'll just have to disagree on that. I can find nothing to indicate that a Penalty Fare is not within the range of appropriate responses to such situations. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go and read the relevant Parliamentary debates and the SRA's documentation and Magistrates' Sentencing Guidelines and form your own view.

Whilst you would not find any documentation to support the view that penalty fares are not appropriate, an RPI's job is to question someone and establish what level of action to take. To say that a penalty fare is appropriate in all one off short faring situations would mean that you are saying all the RPIs that have reported people for such an action were wrong and RPI reporting should drop to only catch repeat offenders.

From the threads I see and the reports I get from people I know in revenue protection, this isn't the view shared within the industry.