Potential Prosecution for Fare Evasion

[Concerned777]

Greetings everyone,

I - like many among you - have a concern I would like to raise. Yesterday evening I was heading to a secondary, follow-up interview at Finchly and Frognal and was tagged for the acrimonious charge of fare evasion. I took the London Overground from Woodgrange Park to Gospel Oak. Normally, I use my Natwest card for short, intermediate travels on buses. Because the train I wanted to catch was rapidly approaching the station, I tapped my Natwest card thinking it would be suitable for travel. However, it was on the train I was told that the Natwest card I had is not usable for train travel on the London Overground. I pulled out my Oyster card hoping there was money on it, but there was only 1.35 pounds available. I was pulled aside, given the standard procedural questions, and asked to pay the minimum 40 pound penalty. I told the LO agent I needed to make a bank transfer as I only had a sufficient amount of money for travel on my bank card. He consistently refused and told me if I didn't pay immediately he would file a Witness Statement for Prosecution. We haggled for a bit, but ultimately he chose to file for Prosecution under "Fare Evasion". I admitted to the agent that my intent was NEVER to evade fare, but that I assumed that my Natwest card would be sufficient for travel as it is for travel on buses. He listened but continued to file the documents.

I am an American citizen with the right to remain here in Britain, and I am not entirely familiar with all the legal contours of a prosecution. However, a night's search led me to a few webpages stating unambiguously that a successful prosecution will lead to a criminal conviction!

I would like to know if there's any way I could make an out of court settlement as this is my first offense (either in the U.K. or in the U.S.), I had no intent whatsoever to dodge paying (as I had to top-up to leave the train station), and a criminal conviction would be severely detrimental not only to my career but my right to remain here in the U.K.

Post Script: The agent asked me why I didn't notice the "red" sign on the tap board at Woodgrange. My reason was that I had my ipod in and given the train was approaching I failed to look back to make sure. Otherwise, I would have noticed.

Thank you for your assistance

sincerely,

Concerned Ex-pat

 

[island]

Unfortunately you have committed a criminal offence by entering a train without a valid ticket. Had you touched in your Oyster card at Woodgrange Park it would also have rejected as it didn't have enough credit to cover the minimum fare of £1.50. The inspector offered you the option of paying a Penalty Fare which you seem to have declined, and this ended up in you getting reported for prosecution.

While inspectors do not have to offer a Penalty Fare, it is not usual in my understanding to require the full amount to be paid on the spot.

TfL companies, being public, are often less keen to offer out of court settlements but you never know.

 

[londiscape]

Unfortunately you have committed a criminal offence by entering a train without a valid ticket. Had you touched in your Oyster card at Woodgrange Park it would also have rejected as it didn't have enough credit to cover the minimum fare of £1.50. The inspector offered you the option of paying a Penalty Fare which you seem to have declined, and this ended up in you getting reported for prosecution.

While inspectors do not have to offer a Penalty Fare, it is not usual in my understanding to require the full amount to be paid on the spot.

TfL companies, being public, are often less keen to offer out of court settlements but you never know.

Does the OPs action in stating that a bank transfer would be necessary to cover the PF constitute a refusal to pay a PF? For example, if the OP had telephone or Internet banking then a transfer of funds could have been made there and then using a smartphone - would it really be that unreasonable for the RPI to allow the passenger 5 mins or so to get his/her affairs in order (without leaving the station) and then pay the PF?

 

[sheff1]

Does the OPs action in stating that a bank transfer would be necessary to cover the PF constitute a refusal to pay a PF?

I do not see how it could be construed as declining to pay .... but the anti-passenger line on here seems to be getting more and more strident recently. A very different forum to the one I originally joined, unfortunately - it used to be 'ask questions to get to the facts'. Now it is 'jump straight in with the condemnations'.:cry:

 

[timbo58]

Perhaps it was a case of 'no valid ticket held/ no ability to pay immediately?'
One of 'strict liability?'

 

[Flamingo]

The OP would need to clarify were they going to make a transfer there and then using a smartphone, or did they mean the next day in the bank?

They do not say when they were going to transfer the money, and how. Conclusions are being jumped to, by more than the "anti-passenger" lobby...

 

[londiscape]

The OP would need to clarify were they going to make a transfer there and then using a smartphone, or did they mean the next day in the bank?

They do not say when they were going to transfer the money, and how. Conclusions are being jumped to, by more than the "anti-passenger" lobby...

Apologies - I was just thinking, having been PFed once before and having had cash on me to cover it, was cogitating that had I been in a position where I was capable of paying, but just needed a few mins to do some financial restructuring with Internet banking, I would hope that an RPI would allow this.

 

[island]

Ultimately the offering of a PF is always at the inspector's discretion.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Not hearing the bleep warning will and not responding to the visual red light & seek assistance indication is unlikely to help you much I'm afraid. Because you failed to pay the fare before travelling and didn't have a ticket a Byelaw offence can be charged.

Not having a valid ticket and not having the means to pay the fare due either does make it more serious and is likely to lead to a charge of fare evasion. The fare is due at the time of travel, not later. The inspector was right not to issue a penalty fare notice in these circumstances.

Really, all you can do at this stage is await the letter and once it arrives you will know the reference number for your case, then you can write with an explanation and request to consider resolution out of Court.

 

[sheff1]

The OP would need to clarify were they going to make a transfer there and then using a smartphone, or did they mean the next day in the bank?

They do not say when they were going to transfer the money, and how. Conclusions are being jumped to, by more than the "anti-passenger" lobby...

Exactly

 

[bb21]

Unless I am mistaken, a Penalty Fare issued by representatives of Transport for London do not require a minimum payment to be made on the spot, should the passenger provide his name and address correctly and promptly.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I do not see how it could be construed as declining to pay .... but the anti-passenger line on here seems to be getting more and more strident recently. A very different forum to the one I originally joined, unfortunately - it used to be 'ask questions to get to the facts'. Now it is 'jump straight in with the condemnations'.:cry:

The OP gives clear detail of their journey and the amount that they were able to pay at the time of being asked to show a ticket, that being £1.35

The fare is due before travelling (strict liability) however, if we accept that in some cases it might not be possible to pay before boarding, the fare must be paid at the time of travel. (Bremme 1964)

The fare due between Woodgrange Park & Gospel Oak would be a minimum of £1.60 (Oyster fare Mon - Fri) or £1.50 on Bank Holidays etc. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/tickets/faresandtickets/farefinder/current/

Therefore, by own admission, the traveller held no valid ticket and had started the journey with no ticket and without means to pay the fare due. No arrangement was in place for the traveller to pay later before the non-payment was detected. It is up to any traveller to make sure they hold a valid ticket or, if facilities are not available to do so before travelling, to be able to pay in full when asked. An offence can be proven.

It has been ruled that 'a person cannot give what he does not have' and that fact does not negate the liability for the person concerned to comply with legislation. An opportunity was given to show that the OP could pay the fare and he could not do so.

No-one is jumping to condemn so far as I can see, the OP gave a clear explanation of what occurred and others have explained the likely outcome.

It is possible that the OP might be able to negotiate an administrative resolution.

 

[Concerned777]

Fare-Cop,

Thank you for your detailed reply! It was most helpful.

Therefore, by own admission, the traveller held no valid ticket and had started the journey with no ticket and without means to pay the fare due.

I've been told this recently by someone else. Does "without means to pay the fare due" mean or imply that I had no means whatsoever to pay the fare? In my case, I had the sufficient means to pay the fare for my journey, principally £1.60. I topped up in front of the relevant agent after I signed the Witness form. Not only did I top up for travel, but I topped up to return home two zones away. So I had the sufficient funds.

If the claim is that I'm liable for not having the valid fare on my Oyster card, then I'm not sure how I see that as equivalent to fare evasion. As per my explanation, the reason my card was below the requirement (and untapped) was because I never intended to use my Oyster card in the first place. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Thanks again. I dearly appreciate your response.

Cordially,

Concerned Ex-Pat

 

[island]

Unless I am mistaken, a Penalty Fare issued by representatives of Transport for London do not require a minimum payment to be made on the spot, should the passenger provide his name and address correctly and promptly.

That's correct, but equally it is open to the RPI (or whatever LOROL calls them) to decline to issue a Penalty Fare for whatever reason and instead report for prosecution. It may be, and this is pure speculation, that the RPI felt that the factors of the case, such as the OP apparently not being permanently resident here and apparently not having the means to pay his fare, tended to suggest that a Penalty Fare would not be appropriate.

[I am leaving the distinction between LOROL and TfL aside, although there is a pedantic point that could be made.]