Northern Rail Fare Avoidance

[Roryyb]

On Tuesday the 15th of April, 2014 I made a naive decision not to pay the small price of £4.20 to get a train from Leyland to Prestion Station. I got stopped by Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit at Preston. I gave all my details correctly and I hoped I came across as sorry. Obviously whats done is done and I can't change that. I asked if there would be a fine and he said No because Im under 18 (17). However Im not sure if thats true?


Anyway, earlier this week I got a letter that reads as follows:



This office acts as the prosecuting authority for Northern Rail Limited. The company has a zero tolerance policy in matters of fare evasion and anti-social behaviour.

On Tuesday 15th April 2014you were spoken to by an authorised member of staff in relation to an alleged contravention of Railway Regulations. An evidential report ha been submitted to this office regarding this incident. Before the company proceeds further with its investigations in respect to this matter, we would like to give you the opportunity of responding with your explanation concernin it. Please complete the bottom section of this letter and if you wish to make any comments, please do so on the reverse. Only written mitigation will be accepted.

As you will appreciate, this is a serious incident; therefore it is imperative that you respond as soon as possible to ascertain the full facts in this matter. Failure to respond to this reasonable within 14 days of this letter will result in legal action being take *(Regulations of Railway Act and Railway Byelaws apply).

should legal proceedings be invoked, in addition to any fines imposed by the court there will be an application for £150 as a contribution to our costs. Offences are recordable and should you be convicted you will receive a criminal record.



So yeah, I'm a little scared and could really use some guidence.

Thanks!

 

[bb21]

What anti-social behaviour is that?

 

[Roryyb]

What anti-social behaviour is that?

I've got no idea. I was very polite and well mannered to him the whole time.

 

[455driver]

It might be a standard letter!

 

[DownSouth]

What anti-social behaviour is that?

Fare evasion, aka theft?

It might be a standard letter!

Agree.

"The company has a zero tolerance policy in matters of fare evasion and anti-social behaviour" is poor wording though, it should read "The company has a zero tolerance policy in matters of fare evasion and other forms of anti-social behaviour."

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That is a standard paragraph available in Northern Rail's letters, but it is not the only option.
Only you and the inspector know what 'anti-social behaviour' was involved, if any, and none of us can have any insight into tat and its likely outcomes if you don't tell us.

It is a general policy of Northern Rail that when investigating a passenger for non-payment of their fare for the first time, then a sequence is followed which results in the offer of an administrative settlement of £80 being made to the non-paying passenger; where that offer is agreed (and acted upon in a timely manner), then the matter is closed.

Where the passenger is detected on a subsequent occasion, or has been reported for abusive or other anti-social behaviour, then that option is not normally offered, and a prosecution becomes probable.

Where a prosecution is being considered and the passenger is under 18, and will still be under 18 when the matter is passed to the Court for listing, then it is quite likely that a discharge will follow - the Prosecutor will be aware of tha, and so may not pursue it if it is a inor matter. But where the passenger will reach 18 years of age within 6 months of the incident, then the Prosecutor is likely to simply delay requesting the Summons until they have turned 18 and then proceed as if it were an adult.

I think there is quite a bit of confusion here, which will not be helping the OP:

Fare evasion, aka theft?

Fare evasion (which is a Fraud, not a theft) is not captured by any definition of 'anti-social' behaviour. The Public Order Act or even a 'Breach of the Peace' might be considered for 'anti-social behaviour'. The former is quite prescriptive in what actions might give rise to an Offence; in England & Wales, the latter is very vague, and is not criminal - and an arrest can only be made to prevent a future harm to person or property.

 

[Roryyb]

That is a standard paragraph available in Northern Rail's letters, but it is not the only option.
Only you and the inspector know what 'anti-social behaviour' was involved, if any, and none of us can have any insight into tat and its likely outcomes if you don't tell us.

It is a general policy of Northern Rail that when investigating a passenger for non-payment of their fare for the first time, then a sequence is followed which results in the offer of an administrative settlement of £80 being made to the non-paying passenger; where that offer is agreed (and acted upon in a timely manner), then the matter is closed.

Where the passenger is detected on a subsequent occasion, or has been reported for abusive or other anti-social behaviour, then that option is not normally offered, and a prosecution becomes probable.

Where a prosecution is being considered and the passenger is under 18, and will still be under 18 when the matter is passed to the Court for listing, then it is quite likely that a discharge will follow - the Prosecutor will be aware of tha, and so may not pursue it if it is a inor matter. But where the passenger will reach 18 years of age within 6 months of the incident, then the Prosecutor is likely to simply delay requesting the Summons until they have turned 18 and then proceed as if it were an adult.

Hi, thank you for your reply.
This is my first offense and will be my last. I'm turning 18 next month. So since its a first time offense it will be the £80 charge? Also what is this written mitigation and could someone offer some advice on writing one. I just want to get this sorted out as quickly as possible, and I'm prepared to pay any costs.

Thanks again!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is my first offense and will be my last. I'm turning 18 next month. So since its a first time offense it will be the £80 charge? Also what is this written mitigation and could someone offer some advice on writing one.

There is no assurance that the Company will agree to an 'Out-of-Court settlement' of £80, and this is normally only offered to simple and first-time incidences on non-payment of a fare.

This scheme is not likely to be applied to matters of 'anti-social behaviour', which would include swearing or offencive gestures. As I've already said, only you and the inspector know what this might be referring to, if anything, and so our advice on here will be incomplete in respect of that report. I would expect that abusive behaviour will be treated more seriously.

If there really was no reason for that paragraph to be included in your letter, then you may need to say something to that effect in your letter.

The 'mitigation' that you should provide should be completely truthful, and should be matters of fact. Only you will know what these facts are, but are likely to include: your knowledge and understanding of your obligations when travelling by rail, the frequency of your travel by rail, your familiarity with the stations used and the facilities on them, your age, your occupation/ education/ vocation, your financial means, what you have learned from this experience, any new insights into the matter now that you have the benefit of hindsight, any feelings you have about the work you have created for the investigating team, any outcomes which you would like to pursue with the Company.

But please don't use this as a prescriptive list, just as a hint of the sort of truthful facts which could be helpful to you and to the Company.
Some people tend to state that they were in a rush ('running late'), were feeling unwell that day, and that the one time that they were stopped is also the one time that they didn't have a ticket. These are going to be unacceptable as adequate excuses.

The low value of the fare is immaterial. The biggest challenges you face is in expecting anyone to believe that you haven't been doing this regularly, and in explaining the 'anti-social behaviour' (if there was any).

 

[Roryyb]

There is no assurance that the Company will agree to an 'Out-of-Court settlement' of £80, and this is normally only offered to simple and first-time incidences on non-payment of a fare.

This scheme is not likely to be applied to matters of 'anti-social behaviour', which would include swearing or offencive gestures. As I've already said, only you and the inspector know what this might be referring to, if anything, and so our advice on here will be incomplete in respect of that report. I would expect that abusive behaviour will be treated more seriously.

If there really was no reason for that paragraph to be included in your letter, then you may need to say something to that effect in your letter.

The 'mitigation' that you should provide should be completely truthful, and should be matters of fact. Only you will know what these facts are, but are likely to include: your knowledge and understanding of your obligations when travelling by rail, the frequency of your travel by rail, your familiarity with the stations used and the facilities on them, your age, your occupation/ education/ vocation, your financial means, what you have learned from this experience, any new insights into the matter now that you have the benefit of hindsight, any feelings you have about the work you have created for the investigating team, any outcomes which you would like to pursue with the Company.

But please don't use this as a prescriptive list, just as a hint of the sort of truthful facts which could be helpful to you and to the Company.
Some people tend to state that they were in a rush ('running late'), were feeling unwell that day, and that the one time that they were stopped is also the one time that they didn't have a ticket. These are going to be unacceptable as adequate excuses.

The low value of the fare is immaterial. The biggest challenges you face is in expecting anyone to believe that you haven't been doing this regularly, and in explaining the 'anti-social behaviour' (if there was any).

Thanks for your reply again. Would you mind looking over a draft letter for me once I've wrote it.

 

[Roryyb]

What happens if there is a flaw in their system to catch people out?
For example if there was an underpass in the station. The far exit takes you out to a carpark and the middle exit takes you to the middle platform. And the other far exit/entrance takes you to the furthest out platform.

Only the exit to the carpark exit is being watched over by Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit and nobody is at the middle exit to catch people out. So theoretically you could get off your train from the furthest platform, walk to the middle platform and then catch your next train without the risk of being caught or not having to pay your fare.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What is the point of this post?

What happens if there is a flaw in their system to catch people out?
For example . . . . .

There is well over a hundred years' worth of 'stories', attempts at re-describing incidents of fare evasion, of trying to find fault with the Railway Company after not having paid a fare, of speculating about hypothetical scenarios, and the like, and do you know what? They nearly all end up in the same place for the non-fare paying passenger - that is where they were when first stopped but having incurred more costs. And on the few occasions where defect has been found, then policies and procedure have been changed.

Over a hundred years is a good amount of time to spend on something to try and get it right!

 

[Roryyb]

What is the point of this post?There is well over a hundred years' worth of 'stories', attempts at re-describing incidents of fare evasion, of trying to find fault with the Railway Company after not having paid a fare, of speculating about hypothetical scenarios, and the like, and do you know what? They nearly all end up in the same place for the non-fare paying passenger - that is where they were when first stopped but having incurred more costs. And on the few occasions where defect has been found, then policies and procedure have been changed.

Over a hundred years is a good amount of time to spend on something to try and get it right!

Because it's exactly what happened. Would this be worth mentioning in the written mitigation. Purely as advice to them. Again I'm not trying to defend my actions. Also, would you read my written mitigation?
Thanks

I keep reading these threads and seeing "Court", "Prosecution", "Criminal Record". This is starting to consume me, I'm genuinely really worried about the outcome of this. I don't even want to
tell my parents. I've really got no idea what I've got myself into. I'm I getting too worked up about this??

 

[bb21]

Because it's exactly what happened. Would this be worth mentioning in the written mitigation. Purely as advice to them.

Why? How is it relevant to the central issues of your case?

Whatever system is put in place, not everyone will be caught. It provides no mitigation for you simply because some other people are not caught.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still can't see the relevance to the questions before us, which are these:

Did you, or did you not board a train without having previously paid your fare?
Did you or did you not demonstrate an intent to avoid paying the fare due by passing an opportunity to pay your fare?

The 'flaw in the system', if there is one, is that despite the efforts of railway operators, inspectors and prosecutors, thousands of passengers continue to travel without having paid the fare due.

 

[Roryyb]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I still can't see the relevance to the questions before us, which are these:

Did you, or did you not board a train without having previously paid your fare?
Did you or did you not demonstrate an intent to avoid paying the fare due by passing an opportunity to pay your fare?

The 'flaw in the system', if there is one, is that despite the efforts of railway operators, inspectors and prosecutors, thousands of passengers continue to travel without having paid the fare due.

I passed an opportunity to pay for my fare. The real reason behind avoiding the fare is just from peer pressure on that day. But thats going to count for nothing. Yes Im an idiot, yes Im scared, yes I feel out of my depth.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Fare evasion (which is a Fraud, not a theft).

Fraud and Theft pretty much means the same to me

 

[Flamingo]

Why? How is it relevant to the central issues of your case?

Whatever system is put in place, not everyone will be caught. It provides no mitigation for you simply because some other people are not caught.

An old guard put it this way to me once - "When I go fishing, I don't think I'll catch every fish in the river"...

 

[30907]

What happens if there is a flaw in their system to catch people out?
For example if there was an underpass in the station. The far exit takes you out to a carpark and the middle exit takes you to the middle platform. And the other far exit/entrance takes you to the furthest out platform.

Only the exit to the carpark exit is being watched over by Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit and nobody is at the middle exit to catch people out. So theoretically you could get off your train from the furthest platform, walk to the middle platform and then catch your next train without the risk of being caught or not having to pay your fare.

It isn't a flaw in the system, quite the contrary. While you remain on the station or another train you still have the opportunity to pay your fare (there are discussions on this forum about what constitutes an opportunity, but that's another story) - when you attempt to leave the premises it is clear that you have chosen not to, which simplifies the train companies' task.

 

[Roryyb]

Update: Sent off my written mitigation this afternoon. First class recorded delivery of course. Feel a lot better for doing that, going to forgot about it for now.

 

[tony6499]

An old guard put it this way to me once - "When I go fishing, I don't think I'll catch every fish in the river"...

With experience an old fisherman knows where to catch the biggest and juiciest fish. Why waste resources ?

 

[34D]

Some people tend to state that they were in a rush ('running late'), were feeling unwell that day, and that the one time that they were stopped is also the one time that they didn't have a ticket. These are going to be unacceptable as adequate excuses.

You omitted "studying law at college" which is a popular one on here.

 

[Emyr]

In which case they might take the attitude that despite cuts in Legal Aid, you'll still be able to earn back their pound of flesh once you've finished your traineeship...

Good luck.

Don't do it again.