Prosecution letter

[yorkie]

I would suspect they have rather snookered themselves what with the incident happening in the future and on a different train company. I'm sure it would be very very easy to prove in court that you didn't travel on South Eastern trains on the xx xx 2011!

True, but I am not sure it is wise to admit this now, as they may re-issue it (can they do that?) so the court will just see the correct details. It may be worth letting it go to court with incorrect details. I could be wrong though and legal advice should be sought.

He would, in the eyes of the law, have probably been better off (ie, treated more leniently) had he nicked a large TV from a store and told the employees to f off! Such are the insane laws we have in this country.

 

[Anvil1984]

Yep if that was stated they would surely just send a follow up letter with correct details

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Have you considered that there may be an employee from the prosecution office in question reading this thread?

 

[yorkie]

Have you considered that there may be an employee from the prosecution office in question reading this thread?

It is possible. I have now removed the letter.

 

[Old Timer]

Right the full story as relayed again tonight by mate!

He had only started working on Fridays having been on short weeks until then. Uses Virgin trains to/from Manchester so he can get cheaper Virgin only trains. However, going in during the peak you can't get the cheapest options which is peak single in and cheaper single back so he buys single in the morning and single at Man P to come back.

On this Friday there had been a couple of 'early doors' beers and when he got to the station there were the usual Friday queues that he wasn't expecting so he just jumped on the train. When tickets were checked he said he didn't have one and the guy said that machine was at other end of train so to pay on arrival in Macclesfield. This is where he went wrong, for whatever reason, and he just left the station.

As he went out of the doors after the ticket windows onto the road he was stopped by some inspectors who took his details 'for a caution' and said he would receive something through the post.

When the attached letter arrived he wondered if it was dodgy due to the content which is what I was asking about rather than whether he was in the wrong.

BTW - genuine friend, wish I could be whisked into Masnchester by Pendo each day rather than driving halfway across Cheshire! Must be one of the fastest commutes in the North.

Unfortunately your friend has acted in precisely the manner that a Court will accept as a valid basis for Prosecution.

He has no grounds for defence because he was told to pay at Macclesfield and failed to do so.

At this stage the matter appears NOT to have been progressed as he has not received a summons.

His best course of action at this stage is to respond immediately to the letter, which does not request any sort of information that cannot be established from a phone directory or the voters register.

I would have expected the letter to make reference to SET however do not rely on that to form a means of avoiding Prosecution, as the Courts will not allow a simple technical error to be used as grounds for setting aside a case - as many motorists will attest !

It may well be that your friend may be given the opportunity to pay, even at this stage. It depends upon what he said when interviewed under caution, and how he explained his failure to pay. Obviously the Train Manager called ahead and thus he was expected at Macclesfield.

I am very surprised to read that the Train Manager did not have his machine with him. From my experiences on travelling Virgin, I have never known a TM do a ticket check without one.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

At the risk of going off-topic, can I ask where the law says this? Unless there are barriers, I would guess a large proportion of the population would be happy to walk out of a station without a ticket if they'd got that far. It's easily possible to get that far without doing anything wrong (though this case is slightly different as there were facilities, just long queues).

Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 says:

(3) If any person—
(a)
Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(b)
Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(c)
Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F9 level 2 on the standard scale] [ F5 [ F10 level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [F9 level 2 on the standard scale] [ F5 [ F10 level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F11 three months].
(4) The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

I suspect in the case of someone leaving the station, they would say that he as had the chance to purchase a ticket before boarding the train, and when leaving the train, so therefore has some intent to avoid payment of the fare.

The Railway Byelaws also say:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

So he could be got on that one aswell!

 

[b0b]

I suspect in the case of someone leaving the station, they would say that he as had the chance to purchase a ticket before boarding the train, and when leaving the train, so therefore has some intent to avoid payment of the fare.

True, but the key is "intent", perhaps the friend could argue he satisfied the intent by attempting to buy a ticket from the Virgin TM.

This is probably all moot anyway, he probably sang his heart out under caution.

 

[323235]

This is an interesting one as i've never known Virgin Trains Barrier staff at Macclesfield to be outside the Ticket Office exit.

Usually they are stationed at the side gate off Platform 1 which bypasses the ticket office or at the door off the platform which goes into the ticket office. They usually have teams at both.

I would therefore have assumed based on experience that the OP's friend went to the team at the side gate, which sometimes have BTP with them.

 

[yorkie]

True, but the key is "intent", perhaps the friend could argue he satisfied the intent by attempting to buy a ticket from the Virgin TM.

But then failing to obey an instruction to buy at the station... so you may not get far with that argument. Perhaps a legal expert can comment, but I am sceptical.

 

[b0b]

I'm not an expert, but with the obvious flaws in the letter I'd consider sending it back with "NO" checked. After making a copy. Seems like the only outcomes can be:

(a) they don't realize their error and decide its too complicated to take further;
(b) they realize their mistake and send a corrected letter;
(c) the next step is taken anyway. This is where the copy comes in handy as perhaps you can use it to cast some doubt on whether they have all of their details correct.

Either way, I expect he said way too much under caution and it'll be a simple recital of that and a quick conviction.

I'm not a lawyer either.

 

[mathmo]

Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 says:
[snip]
I suspect in the case of someone leaving the station, they would say that he as had the chance to purchase a ticket before boarding the train, and when leaving the train, so therefore has some intent to avoid payment of the fare.

Yes, I was just coming round to that view myself. Obviously where the CTA applies and there were facilities available it's pretty clear-cut, but I don't think that's the case here. This does raise various questions such as Birdbrain describes where there is only a TVM at your destination though. And I still think that a large proportion of the population, when given the choice of an open door/gate or a queue at the ticket office, would take the obvious way out.

 

[b0b]

And I still think that a large proportion of the population, when given the choice of an open door/gate or a queue at the ticket office, would take the obvious way out.

Not to mention had you gone to the ticket window while there was a block on, with that kind of story, the first thing to happen would be for an RPI to be called over with the same outcome result. "you only went to the window because you saw RPIs etc"

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Yes, I was just coming round to that view myself. Obviously where the CTA applies and there were facilities available it's pretty clear-cut, but I don't think that's the case here. This does raise various questions such as Birdbrain describes where there is only a TVM at your destination though. And I still think that a large proportion of the population, when given the choice of an open door/gate or a queue at the ticket office, would take the obvious way out.

I suppose it is just one of those things whereby you look at what is and isn't reasonable or practical perhaps. Railway Byelaws say that technically in a NON CTA you are committing an offence by joining a train without a ticket if you had the chance to purchase one before hand. Do you prosecute every single person who joins at a staffed station who hasn't first purchased a ticket? No, that is completely impractical and stupid - but it is one of those things which is there as another "weapon" in a case like this and can be used if needs be when Revenue are doing a full block on station platforms and exists.

 

[b0b]

I feel bad for all the other people "caught" leaving Maccelsfield that day after having discarded their now used tickets.

 

[90019]

I'm not an expert, but with the obvious flaws in the letter I'd consider sending it back with "NO" checked. After making a copy. Seems like the only outcomes can be:

(a) they don't realize their error and decide its too complicated to take further;
(b) they realize their mistake and send a corrected letter;
(c) the next step is taken anyway. This is where the copy comes in handy as perhaps you can use it to cast some doubt on whether they have all of their details correct.

Either way, I expect he said way too much under caution and it'll be a simple recital of that and a quick conviction.

I'm not a lawyer either.

Personally, I'd send the copy, and keep the original.

 

[jon0844]

The local press didn't think it was a fair tactic when they got hold of the story.

Maybe, just maybe, someone should ask the local press if they think that people would like further fare rises to cover the losses to the railway - or at the very least, the overcrowding people have to suffer when some people are on the train that shouldn't be.

I wonder if they'd change their tune then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You arrive at the destination station still without a ticket and the station only has a Ticket Machine. Would you be expected to buy a ticket from the machine to the station you boarded at?

That's what I do when I go to Welwyn Garden City without being able to get a ticket extension from Hatfield. Okay, so the ticket I end up with is WGC to HAT (which I haven't done) but it's the exact same money and makes me feel content that I did the right thing, even though I could easily walk out (especially if I was actually let through by the gateline staff).

I then either keep the ticket or tear it up (so, no, I don't give it to someone else or use it!).

 

[AJP62]

Neither my mate nor I are querying whether an offence was committed - I was asking if the letter was genuine, given its inaccuracies, and if so what is the usual outcome.

Chatting to him this morning it sounds like he was targeted, along with some others. The check was upon leaving Man P and when he got off at Macclesfield the guy who did the check was on a mobile phone. My mate went out through the ticket office exit rather than the gate at the bottom of the stairs (which was locked) and was stopped on exiting the ticket office. It wasn't a general ticket check but they appeared to be looking for specific people - he was wearing a distinctive jacket!

Perhaps the check on the train wasn't by the Virgin TM but by a revenue guy hence no machine? Apparently it is fairly common for the checks to start on leaving Man P these days but mate wouldn't pay any attention to who was doing it.

The letter asks for date of birth and occupation which are details not readily availble in the public domain which is what made me wonder along with the other errors. So say a sophisticated scam - reply to this with details, letter comes back saying 'just a fare and covering fee', send you credit card details.

Now I know that 'Verified by Visa' only needs card details and your date of birth to reset your online password and off you go shopping...

Now he's at work he's checked the address and it says its a flat! It is near London Bridge mind.

As regards re-issuing letters I'm sure once there are a few replies along the lines of 'never heard of South Eastern Trains' or 'I haven't travelled in the latter part of 2011 yet' any correction allowed will be done.

I'll keep you up to date.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think you'd better post a copy of the letter, as per yorkie's post.

 

[cuccir]

I feel bad for all the other people "caught" leaving Maccelsfield that day after having discarded their now used tickets.

Is Macclesfield station a compulsory ticket area? If you have used your ticket and left the train than you are not breaking any bylaw or condition of carraige by throwing it away the second that you are out of the compulsory ticket area. In many stations, this would be within the station property. Not familiar with Macclesfield station though.

As regards re-issuing letters I'm sure once there are a few replies along the lines of 'never heard of South Eastern Trains' or 'I haven't travelled in the latter part of 2011 yet' any correction allowed will be done.

I'd have thought this would be the case, supported any notes made by the person who caught your friend!

 

[AJP62]

I think you'd better post a copy of the letter, as per yorkie's post.

I posted a copy last night but Moderators thought best to remove which is fair enough. Anything you'd like to know?

 

[John @ home]

I think you'd better post a copy of the letter

This was done, and it was later removed by a Moderator.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

This was done, and it was later removed by a Moderator.

Really? I must have missed it. Considering the person who suggested posting the letter was a moderator I am a but surprised!

 

[moonrakerz]

If you have used your ticket and left the train than you are not breaking any bylaw or condition of carraige by throwing it away the second that you are out of the compulsory ticket area. In many stations, this would be within the station property.

Absolutely, totally, 100% correct !

 

[MikeWh]

Really? I must have missed it. Considering the person who suggested posting the letter was a moderator I am a but surprised!

If you read the whole thread then you'll find that someone suggested that the department who sent the letter might be reading this forum. At that point yorkie agreed that it would be best to remove it.

 

[jon0844]

My mate went out through the ticket office exit rather than the gate at the bottom of the stairs (which was locked) and was stopped on exiting the ticket office. It wasn't a general ticket check but they appeared to be looking for specific people - he was wearing a distinctive jacket!

Why do all of these stories always have key information drip fed? If your 'mate' tried to exit elsewhere, found it was locked, then it was quite obvious that he had no intention to pay. Thus, a prosecution is perfectly justified - and if he was 'targeted' then that shows that the railway can actually do its job in protecting us (the honest fare payer).

But, there is the other issue which sounds like an admin error for the letter. SET manage penalty fares for FCC too (they wrote to me to tell me when my appeal was successful) so you may well get a letter from them - but it would have to include the correct date/details. Your mate could be lucky and get off on this technicality, which is a shame really - but maybe, just maybe, it will make him make more of an effort to remember to pay next time.

Give him some advice from me, tell him not to go into any shops with the same memory problems. I've seen how Tesco can deal with people who leave without paying - and being carried by 3 or 4 people and dragged kicking and screaming into a room doesn't seem very nice.

 

[Flamingo]

To be fare to the OP, his question is "Is the letter genuine, or how can it be confirmed that it is not a phishing scam?"

Can anybody give any number the OP can confirm it with?

 

[AJP62]

Why do all of these stories always have key information drip fed? If your 'mate' tried to exit elsewhere, found it was locked, then it was quite obvious that he had no intention to pay. Thus, a prosecution is perfectly justified - and if he was 'targeted' then that shows that the railway can actually do its job in protecting us (the honest fare payer).

I was clarifying for an earlier poster who was wondering which way he had exited. Coming from Man P to Macc you have to cross the bridge to exit the station. At the bottom of the steps is a gate which you have to pass and this is sometimes legitimately open for exit - on this occassion it wasn't so the usual route along the platform and through the ticket office was used.

He's not querying the prosecution as I've said before, just the genuiness of the letter and what happens next - that is mentioned in the same post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fare to the OP, his question is "Is the letter genuine, or how can it be confirmed that it is not a phishing scam?"

Can anybody give any number the OP can confirm it with?

Cheers - that's what I've been after all along!

 

[jon0844]

It seems rather coincidental that your mate is put forward for prosecution and a letter comes from the company that would supposedly do so. The fact that the details are wrong suggest an administrative error, not someone out to try and commit identity fraud.

Now if you or I got such a letter, it would be somewhat different.. or indeed any member of the public (such as someone who hasn't even been on a train).

But, someone would need to see a scan of the letter to comment - and I hope that some admins/mods did before it was removed/hidden. Certainly in my case, the letter is headed by a proper company name (in my case, an appeals board) with Southeastern only mentioned at the bottom of the letter, with the company registration details.

In his case, they may use headed paper based on what TOC is taking the action. If someone ticked the wrong box on a computer, it not only stated the wrong details but also picked the wrong headed paper. Sounds likely someone entered the wrong details to go against his name/address, and someone else may have got the letter with his details - and on the correct headed paper.

The upside is that it will probably be thrown out, but the downside is that even with the wrong details they're probably going to proceed with the prosecution.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My advice would be to reply with a separate letter, (not the form that was posted on here last night).
That letter would be sent from the address the form was sent to and will be worded like this:

"We are in receipt of correspondence from you requesting some assistance in a matter which refers to the railways. Your correspondence is receiving attention.

We will contact you again if we feel in a position to assist you with your enquiries."
- and not a word more.
Certainly no name or signature; just an acknowledgement.

The 'form' was clearly requesting information which would assist a prosecution and would be of no benefit to the passenger. I did not interpret the letter as part of any pishing or scam, but it is hard to see how, by giving the prosecutions department the information they need for a prosecution, it is going to result in anything other than a better informed prosecution than one without that information; information which more clearly identifies the passenger alledged to have committed the offence.

There is no point in trying to argue the matter with the prosecutions dept. if they are not in possession of confirmed personal details, that would only add to the evidence already available.
There is no need for anyone to voluntarily incriminate thmeselves, and the 'form' was just that, an 'invitation' to provide facts which would, I'm sure, further incriminate the passenger.

I have assumed that there has been no other request for a payment of any kind, which I would have advised paying immediately.

If the OP takes the advice of seeking legal assistance then even that short reply I'm suggesting should be left for a solicitor to consider.

 

[142094]

Another case of a TOC making up its own rules for a CTA ????

"CTAs can cause confusion if there are no barriers at the entrance to the platforms because people think that they are free to walk onto the platforms without a ticket. So it is very important that a CTA is clearly marked so that people know they must have a ticket or platform ticket before they enter that area." (DfT Rules for CTA)

Usually the ticket barriers.............not the entrance/exit to the station - unless clearly identified as such

The reason I said exit and barriers is that most of the stations on the network do not have barriers. At these stations you will find a big sign with the words "Now entering a compulosry ticket zone - you must have a valid ticket or will receive a £20 fine" (or words to that effect, can't find a picture at the moment).

At most stations this zone starts just after the ticket machines. If for example you couldn't buy a ticket due to a problem with the machine at your station, you have to contact control on the help point to let them know, then buy your ticket at the destination. If an inspector gets on they can contact control to check the reason, otherwise it is a £20 fine or going to court.

At some of the underground stations such as Monument, Central and Gateshead, there are many entrances and shops/newsagents/travel centres within the station so the compulsory ticket zone is now where the barriers start, as you don't need a valid ticket to use the amenities there. Before anyone points out that there are no barriers in use, I'm well aware of that but the old barriers are still in place at the underground stations, and also Heworth.

All the regulations are part of the Metro byelaws which came in when Metro was inaugurated. So no problem there.