Notice of intention to prosecute

[kwerty]

So would statement a) mean you usually buy the top up on board or at Birmingham ticket office?

If the information about the run was told to the RPI was told, me may have raised it further in the knowledge that it takes overr an hour to walk between the two stations - so if you were in work gear, whatever that might me, it might have raised an eyebrow. Usually information like that, which isn't necessary, raises my curiosity furtherr

Moor Street ticket office.

Sorry, I don't really understand the second paragraph. I only told the RPI about the running when he asked why I had bought a return from Hatton in the morning but was returning to Warwick in the evening. Plus I was still carrying my trainers, etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You say there is no way to get it back to a penalty fare, that's because one was not offered in the first place as the rpi decided there was more to this and as such didn't warrant a penalty fare.

Yes, I know a penalty fare wasn't offered in the first place.

It's the RPIs decision whether to offer a penalty fare or go down the prosecution route but they may well be doing this without all of the evidence.
eg. an RPI stops someone with a railcard ticket but no railcard. Are they pulling a fast one or have they just left a valid railcard at home and didn't realise when they picked up their ticket? The RPI has no way of knowing which is the case and can only guess. RPI thinks something is a bit suss so refers for prosecution. Turns out person does have a valid railcard. They can't contest the case as they didn't have a valid ticket so were definitely breaking the rules. But as it has gone down the prosecution route they end up with a way larger penalty than penalty fare would have been. And that's purely down to the RPIs decision. I'm sure RPIs are good at spotting when people are trying it on but I bet they get it wrong occasionally too.

 

[yorkie]

Absolutely.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Unfortunately, as is always the case on a forum such as this we only have one perspective from which to view any allegation. That put at a later time by the person who is accused of an offence.

The RPI and his / her prosecution office have both the version of events put by that person at the time of questioning and the evidence of his / her own observations. Sometimes there will be other evidence such as observations recorded over a preceding period of time.

No-one would deny that staff will sometimes make mistakes just as do travellers. No-one is perfect.

Without both points of view being examined in fine detail it isn't possible for casual observers to provide a definitive answer, only for suggestions to be made as to how the person seeking advice might respond to any allegation.

 

[andykn]

To use an analogy. Its like being pulled over for a minor speeding offence which would always just get £60 and 3 points fixed penalty. But for whatever reason the cop thinks you have done something more serious e.g. Driving without insurance. You can prove that you weren't guilty of the more serious offence but you still have to pay the police's costs for the time they spent investigating as well as the £60 and 3 points.

The regulars on here aren't too fond of analogies for the rail industry but I seem to remember that, in the earlier days of Fixed Penalty offences before computerised records if you couldn't convince a Police officer of your bona fides you'd end up having to plead guilty by post and end up with a higher fine and costs.

 

[kwerty]

Hi again

Sent off letter pretty much as you all advised setting out the details of what happened. Have got another letter in return

"Ref xxxxxx 'Travel on a train without a valid ticket contrary S5.3.a Regulations of Railways 1889

Thank you for your letter in respect of this case, we have noted your comments in response to our letter and the report of failing to show a valid rail ticket.

It is always the travellers responsibility to pay the correct dare due and to obtain a valid ticket before boarding any train where pre-purchase facilities are available for the traveller to do so.

The rail company report of this matter alleges that you had failed to pay the fare correct due (sic) and had boarded a train with the intention of travelling without having previously paid the correct amount. The company is entitled to consider whether a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' could be alleged. These are matters that may be summonsed for a hearing before a Magistrates Court.

When asked to show a valid ticket, it is alleged that you failed to do so and that you had failed to pay the appropriate dare due in accordance with the rules in force. You did not tender a valid ticket and the company does consider an attempt to avoid liability may be alleged. This left the inspector with no alternative but to report the incident.

We have enclosed further information detailing the reporting procedure (this is just a copy of the relevant legislation) and rules concerning ticketing and travel. If you wish to make any further comment or representation please do so in writing as soon as possible. We are advised that the Rail Company sees no reason why this matter should not proceed as previously advised.

An application for the issue of Summons may now be made. If you wish to comment further before this matter proceeds please respond in writing within 14 days.

I don't know how to respond to this and would welcome any advice.

In my letter I acknowledged that I didn't have a valid ticket for this journey but explained that it was a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid the fare and that I had bank statements etc. to prove frequent previous purchases of tickets for the full journey.

The letter refs pursuing a prosecution under RoRA - which I understand would need to prove actual intent to avoid the fare. I don't see how they (or I for that matter) can really prove intent (or lack) of for just that one journey.

I can possibly understand why the inspector may initially have suspected deliberate evasion but I don't get why they still want to pursue this having seen my explanation, proof of my journeys as explained and a track record of previous frequent ticket purchases for the full journey from Brum to Warwick. I would have thought that this would stand me in good stead to argue against this.

What do you think is going on?
Do you think it likely they would pursue a RoRa prosecution?
Do you think they just haven't read my previous letter properly and I should respond briefly reiterating my initial points?

Any advice gratefully received.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The letter refs pursuing a prosecution under RoRA - which I understand would need to prove actual intent to avoid the fare. I don't see how they (or I for that matter) can really prove intent (or lack) of for just that one journey.

This legislation has been well tested in the Courts, as has the principle of 'intent'. In brief, 'intention' is demonstrated by a persons actions and words and there is no requirement for the law to attempt to look into the mind of a person accused of 'intent'.

The application of 'intent' in relation to the RoRA S.5 is clarified in Case Law (Corbyn v Saunders (1977)) and is triggered by a passenger passing an opportunity to pay for the required ticket, that failure does not need to be a long-term 'intention' but simply a moment in which an opportunity to pay was present and the passenger let that opportunity pass.

Your 'track record' is very commendable, but unfortunately doesn't assist in challenging the apparent evidence that, on the date in question, you did not take the opportunity to pay the fare for the journey you took.

I'm sorry to say that I would not be surprised if the Company continues to pursue this incident to a prosecution against you. Although you appear to find this surprising, I guess it would be helpful to you if you could see why the Company finds the evidence against you to be so persuasive. I hope my brief explanation of the interpretation of the applicable law, when coupled with the known scale of routine and widespread fare evasion which rail Companies experience every day (systematic and opportunist), makes that interpretation so attractive. With that in mind, you are still at liberty to contact them again (indeed their letter appears to encourage you to do so!) with any additional information that is relevant to the specific instance where you travelled without a ticket for the entire journey, and with a view to making the evidence less persuasive of evasion; I expect that the Company would be happy to resolve the issue without the time and expense of a prosecution. A settlement can often be reached, even if it is late in the day. But it would have to be a realistic and proportionate settlement and would have to remove any remaing suspicion that you are a regular or opportunist fare evader, which I guess is the suspicion which must hang over every passenger detected without a ticket on a random inspection (and which tends to be a justifiable presumption).

 

[kwerty]

The application of 'intent' in relation to the RoRA S.5 is clarified in Case Law (Corbyn v Saunders (1977)) and is triggered by a passenger passing an opportunity to pay for the required ticket, that failure does not need to be a long-term 'intention' but simply a moment in which an opportunity to pay was present and the passenger let that opportunity pass.

Ok - can't really argue with case law. But taking that definition of intent - what is the practical difference between RoRA prosecution, Byelaw prosection or just issuing a penalty fare? As by this definition not having the correct ticket (for whatever reason at all) a traveller is showing intent to travel without the correct ticket so if any punishment is due at all they would always be liable to RoRa prosecution.

 

[cuccir]

Ok - can't really argue with case law. But taking that definition of intent - what is the practical difference between RoRA prosecution, Byelaw prosection or just issuing a penalty fare? As by this definition not having the correct ticket (for whatever reason at all) a traveller is showing intent to travel without the correct ticket so if any punishment is due at all they would always be liable to RoRa prosecution.

A prosecution under the Regulation of the Railways Act requires the TOC to prove intention to avoid a fare. By contrast, a Byelaw prosecution requires simply that the passenger does not have a valid ticket.

The prosecutions department will evaluate what evidence they have, and what they think it shows, and will proceed accordingly. You're correct that in many cases, the same actions could probably be covered by either a RoRA or a Byelaw prosecution: it is the evidence available to the train operating company that will likely drive their decision.

A Penalty Fare is intended to be given where an RPI is happy that a passenger without a valid ticket has made a mistake. To that extent, they're essentially a quicker and administratively cheaper way of dealing with offences that might otherwise become Byelaw prosecutions. Once an RPI has decided not to offer a Penalty Fare, that option has gone, even where the prosecutions department later decides that there is either no case/evidence sufficient for prosecution, or where they decide a Byelaw prosecution would be most appropriate.

Chiltern (I would hazard a guess) will argue that you showed, through your actions, an intent to avoid paying the fare at one or both of the following moments: when passing the ticket office at Birmingham; when showing an out of date ticket to the RPI. Because of this, it looks like they are strongly considering a RoRA prosecution.

Nonetheless, I do think that this incident seems to be at the lower end of the amount of proof that might be required to proceed with a RoRA prosecution. Is there a phone number for the prosecutions department? It may be useful to speak with someone in person. If you end up writing back to them, I'd reaffirm that this was an error, that you're now familiar with the rules, and that you're prepared to settle both the fares and to cover administrative costs. However as this has not worked once, calling first might help!

 

[kwerty]

Just got a third letter from Transport Investigations and they are willing to drop it for an admin fee of £76.50.

Frankly p***ed off about the cost but I'll grudgingly pay up for the peace of mind in bringing this to a close.

Having read this and their previous letters it really seems that this is all it has been leading up to. I'm not convinced that they (TI/Chiltern) ever had a real intention to prosecute. I think they might have done if pushed but an inflated cash settlement is clearly their preferred option and the whole point of the exercise. The chain of letters really seems like a way of intimidating people into accepting a settlement regardless of how much it is.

If they truly wanted to secure a prosecution surely they would go straight for a byelaw charge with a nailed on guilty plea/verdict rather than intimating a RoRA prosecution where they would have to prove intent and things are a lot less clear cut. By mentioning RoRA which could result in a criminal record it just seems that they are ratcheting up the pressure and therefore making people more anxious and more likely to cough up.

I still maintain 100% that I made one genuine mistake which I had no opportunity to rectify and that I had no intention to avoid the fare. So to me £76.50 feels like an incredibly harsh punishment. Even harsher considering that Chiltern operate a penalty fare scheme (which as far as I'm aware they advertise at all their stations) and which specifically mentions "travelling beyond the destination on your ticket" as an example offence for which a penalty fare may be issued.

Also - as somebody above pointed out - I could have been more economical with the truth and just told the inspector that I had got on at Hatton instead of Birmingham and avoided the whole thing completely. So much for telling the truth!

This has left me with four thoughts:
1) - the ticketing and penalty system is an gigantic mess which is crying out for rationalisation and consistency.
2) - Chiltern have lost a massive amount of goodwill from me. I've started getting a lift to Coventry with my partner and commuting to Brum from there on Virgin/London Midland whenever I can. Take that Chiltern!
3) I'm going to check my tickets a lot more thoroughly in future so that this doesn't happen again
4) people should be made more aware of quite how much sh%t one small error can get you into.

One silver lining though is that it made me find this forum which really is excellent. Thank you all for your responses and advice.

 

[Greenback]

Just got a third letter from Transport Investigations and they are willing to drop it for an admin fee of £76.50.

First of all, thanks for coming back with an update.

Frankly p***ed off about the cost but I'll grudgingly pay up for the peace of mind in bringing this to a close.

It's entirely your decision whether to pay this sum or risk a court appearance.

Having read this and their previous letters it really seems that this is all it has been leading up to. I'm not convinced that they (TI/Chiltern) ever had a real intention to prosecute. I think they might have done if pushed but an inflated cash settlement is clearly their preferred option and the whole point of the exercise. The chain of letters really seems like a way of intimidating people into accepting a settlement regardless of how much it is.

Most people prefer a settlement to a day in court. As I said, you don't have to accept this offer!

But, while there is truth in what you say, in so far that an out of court settlement is likely to result in better financial outcome for the company, it is also likely that if you are convicted you will be looking at a higher amount of money to pay in the way of a fine, costs and surcharges, even if you don't get a criminal record.

If they truly wanted to secure a prosecution surely they would go straight for a byelaw charge with a nailed on guilty plea/verdict rather than intimating a RoRA prosecution where they would have to prove intent and things are a lot less clear cut. By mentioning RoRA which could result in a criminal record it just seems that they are ratcheting up the pressure and therefore making people more anxious and more likely to cough up.

The only want to prosecute when there is sufficient evidence to secure a guilty verdict. And, as I explained, they may decide that a prosecution is not the best decision in every case where there is such evidence. A lot will depend on the explanation provided by the traveller, whether they have done this sort of thing before, and a host of other factors, including their caseload.

I still maintain 100% that I made one genuine mistake which I had no opportunity to rectify and that I had no intention to avoid the fare. So to me £76.50 feels like an incredibly harsh punishment. Even harsher considering that Chiltern operate a penalty fare scheme (which as far as I'm aware they advertise at all their stations) and which specifically mentions "travelling beyond the destination on your ticket" as an example offence for which a penalty fare may be issued.

A penalty fare is not a right. If you feel strongly enough about it, you still have the option of letting a court decide whether you should be punished, and if so, in what way.

Also - as somebody above pointed out - I could have been more economical with the truth and just told the inspector that I had got on at Hatton instead of Birmingham and avoided the whole thing completely. So much for telling the truth!

Maybe your honesty has been taking into account in the amount of the settlement. You may not have gotten away with telling a lie in any case, and may have found yourself in even more trouble!

This has left me with four thoughts:
1) - the ticketing and penalty system is an gigantic mess which is crying out for rationalisation and consistency.

I have sympathy with that view!

2) - Chiltern have lost a massive amount of goodwill from me. I've started getting a lift to Coventry with my partner and commuting to Brum from there on Virgin/London Midland whenever I can. Take that Chiltern!

That's your choice, but I doubt that will influence them in changing their procedures.

3) I'm going to check my tickets a lot more thoroughly in future so that this doesn't happen again

That's a very good idea and I hope you don't find yourself in this sort of situation again.

4) people should be made more aware of quite how much sh%t one small error can get you into.

This is very true. Most of then people who come here looking for advice have no idea how serious the consequences of not paying the correct fare can be. There have been discussion on this in other threads here recently.

One silver lining though is that it made me find this forum which really is excellent. Thank you all for your responses and advice.

Thank you for the nice words! I think the forum is an excellent resource for the rail traveller. If you stick around you will come across many interesting discussion and hopefully also find additional ways to save money on train tickets.

 

[Haywain]

A couple of points:

I'm not convinced that they (TI/Chiltern) ever had a real intention to prosecute. I think they might have done if pushed but an inflated cash settlement is clearly their preferred option and the whole point of the exercise. The chain of letters really seems like a way of intimidating people into accepting a settlement regardless of how much it is.

If you want to test that theory, you have the option of not paying in order to find out.

I still maintain 100% that I made one genuine mistake which I had no opportunity to rectify and that I had no intention to avoid the fare. So to me £76.50 feels like an incredibly harsh punishment. Even harsher considering that Chiltern operate a penalty fare scheme (which as far as I'm aware they advertise at all their stations) and which specifically mentions "travelling beyond the destination on your ticket" as an example offence for which a penalty fare may be issued.

Also - as somebody above pointed out - I could have been more economical with the truth and just told the inspector that I had got on at Hatton instead of Birmingham and avoided the whole thing completely. So much for telling the truth!

You seem to be overlooking the fact that you presented an expired ticket in the first instance. This is viewed more seriously than travelling beyond your destination, and is much more likely to be indicative of fare evasion. This is most likely why things have progressed to where they are now.