Notice to Prosecute received

[jkc]

Hi Please can someone offer me advice!
I have recieved a Notice of intention to Prosecute from Thameslink Railway for "failing to hand over a rail ticket for inspection".

The insident occured on 12th August but I have only just received the letter dated 9th Oct.
I remember being stopped by the RPI but dont recall what i said in my statement at the time.
I always pay for my fare and I cannot get through the ticket barries at Slough without a ticket. Stupidly i threw my ticket away after going through the barries so had nothing to produce at the station except for my Oyster card. So i lied and said i forgot to touch in my oyster at Southall as i didnt think he would believe me throwing away my ticket. The RPI took this statement but after I signed it he said they will look at CCTV evidence to see if I did board at Southall. So I told him the truth and he asked if I had bought the ticket at the counter or via credit card. I bought it from the machine with cash so the only evidence i could give him was the last ticket I had bought for the same journey a week ago. He said it may help my case.

Now I am not sure how to respond to the ITP. I couldn't produce a valid ticket so I am willing to pay a fine but dont want to be prosecuted and end up with a criminal record.

I have never had any previous convictions and I have been travelling on the trains and tubes for the last 20 years!

Please can you advise on how I should respond? And if the NTP has been issued within the given period?

 

[andykn]

To help the more knowledgeable members who I'm sure will be along soon, I think they'll want a clearer picture of the sequence of events.

Did you buy a single ticket at Slough with cash from the machine, use it to go through the barriers then throw it away before the end of your journey? Where was the ticket to? And where were you stopped?

 

[reb0118]

....I am willing to pay a fine but don't want to be prosecuted....

Normally to pay a fine it is a requirement to prosecuted and convicted. We shall, however, leave that to one side at present.

Others may be along shortly to give you full chapter & verse on your options but to help them give you the correct advice we need the following basic information:-

1) Your journey details, origin & destination stations, &c.
2) What ticket(s) you held
2) Where you were stopped

In any case when responding to a letter of this type you should respond factually in a clear and concise matter, no waffle. You should acknowledge any mistakes of errors that you have committed and that you have learned from the said mistakes.

It seems at the very least that there is enough evidence to convict under the Railway Byelaws but you may have aggravated the situation by involving your oyster card. Have a look at this section of our fares guide here.

 

[Abpj17]

How did the story get from Slough, Southall to Thameslink? Or were you going from Southall to Slough? It's very confusing.

Thameslink is a brand. The letter would have been from First Capital Connect?

Throwing away your ticket does sound rather unbelievable. Do you usually do this? How did you plan to exit the station at the other end?

If you actually bought it with cash, you could ask them to check CCTV at Slough.

 

[SPADTrap]

How did the story get from Slough, Southall to Thameslink? Or were you going from Southall to Slough? It's very confusing.

Thameslink is a brand. The letter would have been from First Capital Connect?

Throwing away your ticket does sound rather unbelievable. Do you usually do this? How did you plan to exit the station at the other end?

If you actually bought it with cash, you could ask them to check CCTV at Slough.

OP probably means Govia Thameslink Railway?

 

[Abpj17]

But the offence predates their contract. Unless GTR is sending out penalties from FCC days. (Delay repay, you are directed to FCC still tho for things that predate)

 

[jkc]

Thanks for the responses. The letter is from Govia Thameslink Railway and yes
I bought a single ticket at Slough with cash from the machine used it to go through the barriers then throw it away before the end my journey at Ealing broadway Where I was stopped?
They will have CCTV footage of me buying a ticket at the slough machines.

 

[furlong]

And if the NTP has been issued within the given period?

Yes - in normal cases they can take up to six months before involving a court.

 

[jkc]

Yes throwing away my ticket is very stupid & I haven't done it since!
I don't need my ticket at Ealing Broadway as there are no barriers and I touch in my Oyster card to get onto the central line where I continue my journey

 

[ian959]

Whilst the limited information provided does not help, certain things in general can be said about the situation.

Firstly, a TOC has 6 months in which to lay the charge against you so the letter you have received is correctly issued and there is still plenty of time in which the charge can be aid against you by way of issuance of a summons (if it gets that far).

Whatever the reasons for not having your ticket, it is an offence under the Railway Byelaws if you fail to produce a ticket when asked to do so. It is clear that you have committed this offence and therefore have no defence.

This offence does not carry a criminal record.

At this time you should simply reply to the letter explaining what happened sticking only to the facts. You should apologise and express regret for your error and offer to settle the matter by way of payment of the fare and an amount to cover their costs incurred.

If you have never been caught before then as a first offender your offer is likely to be accepted.

However....

If you travel regularly you would surely know that you need to show your ticket at some point of time so to throw your ticket away once on Slough station is an exceedingly odd thing to do.

To then lie to the RPI when caught potentially takes your offence into a much more problematic area. If you story was completely genuine, why would you claim to have travelled from Southall? The truth is the truth whether believable or not. By lying, suspicions have been heightened. Again most odd. By lying to the RPI you may have raised the bar from this being a simply strict liability case with no criminal record into something that could likely lead to a criminal record if the TOC chose to pursue that route.

Oh and to be pedantic a fine can only be issued by a court, not by a TOC.

 

[jkc]

Thanks for all the replies so far .
Yes throwing away my ticket was a very stupid thing to do & I haven't done it since. In my defense I have always used an Oyster card but recently moved house so have started to buy paper tickets. I only travel 2/3 times a week and not always from slough station.
I bought my ticket from slough station going to ealing broadway from the ticket machine.
I was stopped at ealing broadway where I was going to change for the central line & use my oyster to touch in the start oft tube journey.
I should have be honest in the first place but I did tell the RPI the truth and he did try & help me by taking the last ticket I bought from slough & said he would send it with my statement.

 

[bnm]

You have been issued a notice of intention to prosecute by 'Thameslink Railway'? What was the journey undertaken in full, including changes? At what station were you stopped?

It's difficult to work out the chronology of events from the OP. To get from Slough/Southall to a Thameslink station I'm guessing Oyster was used at some point for the cross-London transfer if a paper ticket had been thrown away.

One thing I will say though, someone who has been using trains for twenty years must surely know by now that they should retain their ticket until they leave the system.

 

[najaB]

Now I am not sure how to respond to the ITP. I couldn't produce a valid ticket so I am willing to pay a fine but dont want to be prosecuted and end up with a criminal record.

I have never had any previous convictions and I have been travelling on the trains and tubes for the last 20 years!

Please can you advise on how I should respond? And if the NTP has been issued within the given period?

Bad news: You are guilty of a railway byelaws offence since you couldn't produce a valid ticket when requested to.
Good news: Conviction of a byelaws offence doesn't incur a criminal record.
Bad news: Lying to the RPI about the journey you had taken moves the case into the realm of a Regulation of Railways offence, for which a conviction does leave a criminal record.
Possibly good news: The wording of the letter "failing to hand over for inspection" suggests (to me at least) that they are intending to prosecute under the byelaws, since (I would expect that) the RoRA wording would be more along the lines of "travelled without a valid ticket".

Layperson's suggestion: Write back to them explaining exactly what happened with no waffle. Apologise for making this mistake and causing them to have to use their valuable time to pursue this mattter. Ask if they are willing to settle out of court, rather than continue with the prosecution as you have learned how wrong your actions were.

 

[reb0118]

They will have CCTV footage of me buying a ticket at the slough machines.

I am sure that if you step back from the situation and look your above statement from the position of the railway that you will notice many flaws.

Firstly, are you sure that the CCTV recordings have been retained for the date/time in question?

Secondly, what are you hoping that the CCTV will prove? That you bought a ticket, and even if so, will the CCTV prove what actual ticket you did purchase - I could counter without prejudice that you did in fact purchase the cheapest ticket that would have allowed you to pass the barriers at Slough!

You see that CCTV can in fact be a double edged sword. N.B. I am not accusing you of anything but sometimes it is best left well alone. From what you have stated in your posts I feel the railway may and I stress may have enough evidence to suspect that "dumbbelling" or "doughnutting" has been taking place. If they do decide to trawl through CCTV what else will they find? Only you will know if that is true.

At the very least, as I and others have previously stated, it appears that the criteria for a successful byelaws prosecution have been satisfied. You would be advised to co-operate with the investigation and it may even be possible to arrange an out of court settlement.

The moral of the story is:-

Don't throw away any, and I mean any, tickets pertaining to your throughout journey until you have completed that throughout journey.

 

[furlong]

will the CCTV prove what actual ticket you did purchase

Transaction logs from the ticket machine concerned would show the actual ticket purchased at the time on the CCTV.

Even without CCTV evidence, people can be caught out if they claim to have purchased a ticket where ticket machine logs prove that no such ticket was issued to anybody during the period of time in question.

 

[bnm]

What are Govia Thameslink Railway doing stopping people at Ealing Broadway?

Its a First Great Western/TfL station. Are GTR handling prosecutions on FGWs behalf?

I'm suspecting dumbelling or similar. It's possible the barriers were open at Slough and no ticket was actually purchased. OP hoping to just use Oyster between Ealing Broadway and destination. That's my suspicion based on what I've read thus far. Or it could be that a Slough - [cheapest destination] single was purchased.

I still can't square the circle as to why GTR are intending to prosecute though. jkc, can we see a scan of the letter received, redacted of personal information?

 

[bb21]

What are Govia Thameslink Railway doing stopping people at Ealing Broadway?

Its a First Great Western/TfL station. Are GTR handling prosecutions on FGWs behalf?

I'm suspecting dumbelling or similar. It's possible the barriers were open at Slough and no ticket was actually purchased. OP hoping to just use Oyster between Ealing Broadway and destination. That's my suspicion based on what I've read thus far. Or it could be that a Slough - [cheapest destination] single was purchased.

I still can't square the circle as to why GTR are intending to prosecute though. jkc, can we see a scan of the letter received, redacted of personal information?

Blimey you are in a cynical mood today?!

I however completely agree that I find it very odd that Thameslink are in any way involved in this. By the OP's admission, he must have been "caught" before Ealing Broadway, but I can't think why Thameslink, or even Govia, would be involved in revenue protection on the Great Western Mainline at all.

OP, I think you need to clarify where exactly you ran into the RPIs, as something doesn't seem to add up here.

 

[bnm]

Blimey you are in a cynical mood today?!

Spidey senses with this one. Particularly as I've seen blocks in operation at Thames Valley stations and the RPIs are most definitely FGW employees. They've even featured on television.

Oh. And the OP did say he was stopped at Ealing Broadway.

As for the cynicism. I hope the OP can prove me wrong and that the somewhat jumbled and piecemeal account given thus far is close to his actual actions on the day in question.

Ultimately though the byelaw offence is complete - failure to show a valid ticket when requested. If there's no evidence of intent then that'll be that and it's either a non-recordable (no criminal record) byelaw prosecution or the OP may be able to convince whoever is intending to prosecute to deal with the matter administratively rather than prosecute. That rather depends how the response to the notice of intention to prosecute is worded, particularly when there are, by the OPs own admission, two stupid mistakes. One, throwing away a valid ticket before journey's end and two, lying about origin station.

That second one is interesting. After throwing away evidence of the actual journey paid for, why lie about boarding at barriered Slough saying you boarded at unbarriered Southall?

I'd still like to see a redacted copy of the letter apparently received from 'Thameslink Railway'.

 

[bb21]

Oh. And the OP did say he was stopped at Ealing Broadway.

Yes, he did. I somehow forgot about it, though the question marks still hangs.

 

[class313]

I don't usually post on here, but thought I would break the habit. FCC used to help out with revenue blocks at Ealing and various other locations on the Thames Valley FGW network, the contract might still be in place as both FGW and TL use the same PF company as such. Just a thought as it matches up with what the OP has said. And since it was technically a FGW case, it might have been carried across to TL, rather than still being dealt with be FCC's remaining revenue department.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Clip]

Im sure there was a thread on here not so long ago with a very similar story and involving FCC at Southall ....

 

[island]

I don't usually post on here, but thought I would break the habit. FCC used to help out with revenue blocks at Ealing and various other locations on the Thames Valley FGW network, the contract might still be in place as both FGW and TL use the same PF company as such. Just a thought as it matches up with what the OP has said. And since it was technically a FGW case, it might have been carried across to TL, rather than still being dealt with be FCC's remaining revenue department.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That was my thought process also. Given that anyone can prosecute the offence of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection which the OP committed, I think the obsession of certain members with trying to pick non-existent holes in the story is a bad use of everyone's time.

 

[bnm]

Who's obsessed?

Just an unusual set of circumstances that has led to Govia Thameslink Railway, operator of the Thameslink route, the successor to First Capital Connect, intending to prosecute a user of First Great Western's services.

I wasn't asking to try and pick holes in the story, just seeking clarification. If it's a bad use of everyone's time then there was no need for you to waste yours replying.

 

[bb21]

That was my thought process also. Given that anyone can prosecute the offence of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection which the OP committed, I think the obsession of certain members with trying to pick non-existent holes in the story is a bad use of everyone's time.

I think that is a rather unfair criticism.

I would rather forum members pointing out possible inconsistencies and questions in stories than remaining silent, since it may turn out to be significant.

 

[RPI]

We used to do quite a few joint operations with FCC at Ealing Broadway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The question of third-party prosecutions crops up on here from time to time. The answer is:

The inspection of tickets may be conducted by third parties, across the UK.
The contractural arrangements between the paties are not necessary conditions when bringing any evidence forward to a subsequent Prosecution.

An investigation into suspected Offences may be conducted by third parties, across the UK.

A Criminal Prosecution (including Byelaw Offences) may be brought about, or continued, by a third party in England or Wales. Third party Prosecutions in Scotland are technically possible but in practice are not likely to be admitted.

An Appeal or Judicial Review against a conviction brought by a third party may be permiited if they were a party to the Judgement under challenge, but would not normally be admitted by a third party who had not been a party to the first action, in any jurisdiction.

Third parties seeking to influence litigation may do so by assisting either of the parties (including a named and represented 'Interested Party').

 

[Urban Gateline]

Ealing Broadway does have Barriers, just not between National Rail and London Underground platforms but the exit/entrance is Barriered!

Is intent to evade the fare shown by (attempting) touching in an Oyster card without having a Ticket for the full Journey that was undertaken? I would say yes!

 

[afc]

"Thameslink" as we once knew it, used to prosecute for fare evasion on behalf of it's sister company "Thames Trains" - this was the case up until around 2002 when I personally formed the prosecutions set up for Thames Trains. The 2 TOCs continued a close working relationship carrying out "station Blocks" on each others patches until Thames Trains lost its franchise and became FGWLink - Since FGW have taken over this working relationship has eroded with managers moving on etc etc -

With regard to the Thread starter, the courts get extremely frustrated with having to disect a defendants journey, so be clear in what you are saying and rest assured, that you will get caught out if you are fabricating - since privatisation the rail network has become a nightmare for "outsiders" to understand and extremely easy for those in the know to lead you on and trip you up!

If you did intentionally avoid your fare, the best thing you can do is phone the office that issued the letter and asked to settle out of court - this is the easy option all round -it saves you a fine and a day in court. The TOC gets its money without any fuss. They will usually ask for costs plus the fare avoided (£100 plus the fare from memory)

 

[jkc]

Thanks for all the advice so far.
I will respond back to the letter accepting my mistake and see what happens!