Prosecution Letter

[PuffingBilly0612]

I have been issued with a Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter, giving the date and time an inspection took place and for not having a valid ticket en route from the relevant stations.

I had my Oyster Card with me that day and it didn't register on the inspector's scanner as having paid for my ticket. I got on board the train at a station fully staffed by barrier personnel, with active barriers in place. If I got through the barriers, either the Oyster didn't register as having beeped in or the staff let me through and asked me to pay on board. At the start of my journey I had sufficient funds on the card to pay the journey - it was not ambered on the beep; nor was I told to 'seek assistance'. So I assume the Oyster registered green, opened the barrier for me but didn't register the journey in time for the inspector's call.

He asked me for my Oyster and I gave it to him unhesitatingly, without expecting any problems with it. That is when he told me I hadn't paid. I then offered to pay the fare but he refused and said I had to pay a penalty fare of £20. He then proceeded to explain two ways in which to pay it - neither of which I understood. He had a thick accent. Another passenger then remonstrated with me that I was making too much noise. I angrily told him to mind his own business because I felt annoyed he was not supporting me but enjoying the situation I was in.

The inspector then asked for my details - to issue the full penalty fare he claimed at the time - so I gave him my driving license immediately. When he took it he immediately cautioned me. I then stopped him in his tracks and he said he needed my details to issue a prosecution. I was furious because I felt duped in giving up my details and he claimed he was prosecuting me for swearing at the man behind me. I then asked the inspector for his details to issue a complaint against him, and he gave me his first name only and then he walked away without giving me any penalty fare notice.

When I got off the train in Central London I immediately reported his actions to the station manager, who let me through the barrier after first allowing me to beep in the journey. So I have now paid for it and this can be proven from my statement. He also gave me a complaints procedure form and I phoned the train company and left a call back request and received nothing from them. It is Southern Trains.

I thought this whole matter had been dropped, after four months, but obviously I was wrong. This Notice of Intention to Prosecute makes no reference to what grounds they are thinking of prosecuting, nor does it issue the facts to be relied upon to inform their decision to do this or not. What has swearing at a man behind me got to do with my Oyster card problems? It is just an intention to prosecute letter, which is meaningless if there is no Act and Section to base it around, which should be clearly spelled out and something any lawyer would need to know too. They have asked me to give my side of the story but it seems to me that this letter - far from assisting me to give my story in a 'let's be fair to you' manner - is likely to be more of a fishing exercise, rather like a police interview, to get more solid reasons to bring a prosecution against me when they currently have insufficient evidence without it. If they had sufficicient grounds to prosecute why bother asking me to write at all? The letter makes no mention of asking me to pay a penalty fare either.

I have now written back to them demanding they put in the grounds and facts to be relied upon, should they decide to prosecute, and until then I can't possibly respond as I have no substance to put together any kind of defence. In other words I am exercising my 'right to silence' remotely.

Have I done the right thing? I rang the Southern Rail office today to try to get them to provide the grounds (Act and section) and facts underpinning their claim and some assistant refused to give them to me and instead just read out part of the same letter, which was not at all helpful and when I told her so she just slammed down the receiver rudely after accusing me of being rude to the ticket inspector, according to the file (which implies the ticket inspector has lied too).

My instincts tell me to ride this out and fight it all the way. The rules of evidence in criminal matters are very clear: the prosecution provide the evidence to the defence and they must have sufficient grounds to charge. This letter, it seems, is little more than a fishing exercise to see if I can generate such grounds for them (couched in concern for hearing my side first), for which they currently have none when intention (mens rea) must be proven in criminal cases like this.

Am I doing the right thing? What should I do to halt this matter to save wasting time and risk being fitted up like a kipper?

Your help would be appreciated.

 

[bb21]

I am slightly confused.

How did you enter the station? If you were there then surely you know whether you were manually let through or whether your Oyster card opened the gates, unless I understood you wrong?

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

I am sure I just touched in and got through that way, but I'm not sure why the card didn't register.

 

[bb21]

If you can't remember what happened that day then it becomes much trickier to contest the matter.

In all likelihood they have not yet made their mind up as to whether to proceed with prosecution or not, and normally this letter gives the passenger a chance to put his side of the story to them, so that they can decide whether they have sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution or take an alternative course of action. If you can't recall what happened on the day then I am not really sure how you are going to dispute the account provided by the RPI.

You can of course maintain your silence, however if they do decide to proceed with prosecution then your silence might not be looked on favourably by the court. You can try and find out what Act they intend to prosecute you under. The most common ones are either the Railway Byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act. The former does not require intent to be proven, whereas the latter does.

My gut instinct says that you might need to consult a solicitor on this.

 

[transmanche]

In all likelihood they have not yet made their mind up as to whether to proceed with prosecution or not, and normally this letter gives the passenger a chance to put his side of the story to them, so that they can decide whether they have sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution or take an alternative course of action. If you can't recall what happened on the day then I am not really sure how you are going to dispute the account provided by the RPI.

If the OP's Oyster PAYG statement shows the journey, then surely they cannot prosecute?

To the OP, have you spoken to the TfL Oyster helpline? Are they able to provide 'certification' to Southern that the journey was paid for? The problem being that journey history is only kept for eight weeks, so will soon disappear (if not already.)

 

[bb21]

If the OP's Oyster PAYG statement shows the journey, then surely they cannot prosecute?

But the OP did not touch in at the beginning of his journey (or a failed touch-in). He only touched in (and out) at his destination. That is how I understand it.

To the OP, have you spoken to the TfL Oyster helpline? Are they able to provide 'certification' to Southern that the journey was paid for? The problem being that journey history is only kept for eight weeks, so will soon disappear (if not already.)

As four months have elapsed since the incident, I think the chances are that he may not be able to obtain any detailed statement for the Oyster card. He can try, but unlikely.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

I do have the statement, and it clearly states that the journey was paid for on the day and that the Oyster card had sufficient funds on it at the start of the journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you can't remember what happened that day then it becomes much trickier to contest the matter.

In all likelihood they have not yet made their mind up as to whether to proceed with prosecution or not, and normally this letter gives the passenger a chance to put his side of the story to them, so that they can decide whether they have sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution /QUOTE]

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all, bb21.

Why would they not make their mind up to prosecute me without my input in a letter first? What would that achieve to benefit me? If they have enough to prosecute they would do that anyway, without any further input from me from a letter. Either they have enough evidence or they don't - as things currently stand. If they need my input first to decide to prosecute then I am stupid enough to assist them to do that if I put in some information that might be inadvently incriminating; but if my input doesn't help them to decide to prosecute and I need not have written the leter at all, they still won't prosecute anyway? Therefore the courts won't look unfavourably upon my silence becuase there will be no case to answer.

Furthermore, I am not in a position to contact a solicitor without first knowing the grounds. That is the first thing any good solicitor will want to know, followed by the facts to support these grounds. At present, I am in no position to seek legal advice. My hunch is that this letter is little more than an invitation to invite self incrimination -far from being a nice cosy chat to help us resolve this out of court - and that I would be better off appearing to cooperate by asking for the grounds but not furnishing them with any material facts to support my defence that they can use as evidence against me over and above what they believe they already have, which is presumably insufficient at present. At the time of the ticket inspector's illegitimate caution (no grounds again), I refused to answer any questions thereafter. So effectively anything I said to him beforehand cannot be used as evidence against me either.

For a sucessful prosecution for breach of the Railways Act (criminal, not civil bylaw breach resulting in PFare) they would have to prove mens rea. They have no grounds at all for that and no way of proving it. Now it seems they are trying to use this invitation to reply as a way of generating mens rea.

No chance. I wasn't born yesterday.

 

[bb21]

Having sufficient credit to pay your fare may reduce the likelihood of you being prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act, however this does not provide you with a defence under the Railway Byelaws if you failed to touch in at the beginning of your journey. So if they proceed with prosecution under the Byelaws, it would be almost impossible to defend. (The good thing is that conviction under the Byelaws should not lead to a criminal record.)

It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances if you genuinely believed that you touched in, but cannot recall the exact details for sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry, I don't understand your point at all, bb21.

Why would they not make their mind up to prosecute me without my input in a letter first? What would that achieve to benefit me? If they have enough to prosecute they would do that anyway, without any further input from me from a letter. Either they have enough evidence or they don't - as things currently stand. If they need my input first to decide to prosecute then I am stupid enough to assist them to do that if I put in some information that might be inadvently incriminating; but if my input doesn't help them to decide to prosecute and I need not have written the leter at all, they still won't prosecute anyway? Therefore the courts won't look unfavourably upon my silence becuase there will be no case to answer.

They may already have sufficient evidence.

It is a valid point about inadvertently incriminating yourself, and some people do unfortunately do that.

It is a chance for you to put forward your side of the story and any mitigating circumstances. Remember that the TOC only has the RPI's account of the events. Your own account of the events may persuade them to drop the prosecution as there may be certain issues that they are not aware of.

For a sucessful prosecution for breach of the Railways Act (criminal, not civil bylaw breach resulting in PFare) they would have to prove mens rea. They have no grounds at all for that and no way of proving it. Now it seems they are trying to use this invitation to reply as a way of generating mens rea.

A Byelaw prosecution does not require mens rea to be proven.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

Having sufficient credit to pay your fare may reduce the likelihood of you being prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act, however this does not provide you with a defence under the Railway Byelaws if you failed to touch in at the beginning of your journey. So if they proceed with prosecution under the Byelaws, it would be almost impossible to defend. (The good thing is that conviction under the Byelaws should not lead to a criminal record.)

It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances if you genuinely believed that you touched in, but cannot recall the exact details for sure.

But I don't need to recall the exact details. From what I understand of the rules of evidence, it is up to the Prosecution to prove their case against me; it's not my role to prove my innocence in this matter. All I need do is present evidence from the website that the barriers operated; there were staff at the barriers and that the only way I could get through those barriers is if someone let me through or the Oyster reader didn't register in the abence of any police involvement or other proof I jumped the barriers, pushed passed a guard or tailgated another passenger - none of which have been suggested. If that were not the case on that day, the prosecution would need to prove that to be the case, not me. It seems to me that if I had not produced a valid ticket at the time the inspector called round, this is far more grounds for a .....

.....civil dispute in county court and issuance of a penalty fare. If the ticket inspector didn't issue a P/F at the time, instead cautioning and threatening prosecution (with no grounds given to me at the time) then I fail to see how they can drum up grounds for issuing a P/Fare now, particularly now that I have paid the fare in full and had done so on the day and seemingly with cooperation from the destination station's own station manager.

Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land in this now blatently obvious Big Brother police state we now live in?

I also feel that if they persist in bullying me with no legal basis in which to do so, just to drum up some incriminating grounds based on actions they have already started and for which they have no real justification for, then I have perfectly just cause to action them for obtaining property by threats , which is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968.

 

[bb21]

I am not talking about a Penalty Fare, but the possibility of a Byelaw prosecution.

They probably have enough evidence, in the form of an unvalidated Oyster card, from what you have described. That is all they need to secure a Byelaw prosecution. No intent required and nothing else needs to be proven.

All those things you mentioned would be true if they were to persue a conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

Having sufficient credit to pay your fare may reduce the likelihood of you being prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act, however this does not provide you with a defence under the Railway Byelaws if you failed to touch in at the beginning of your journey. So if they proceed with prosecution under the Byelaws, it would be almost impossible to defend. (The good thing is that conviction under the Byelaws should not lead to a criminal record.)

It is a rather unfortunate set of circumstances if you genuinely believed that you touched in, but cannot recall the exact details for sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They may already have sufficient evidence.

It is a valid point about inadvertently incriminating yourself, and some people do unfortunately do that.

It is a chance for you to put forward your side of the story and any mitigating circumstances. Remember that the TOC only has the RPI's account of the events. Your own account of the events may persuade them to drop the prosecution as there may be certain issues that they are not aware of.

A Byelaw prosecution does not require mens rea to be proven.

All I need say in a letter is that they appear not to have sufficient grounds in which to prosecute and if they do to please go ahead and do so. I need not produce any other information to them. Once prosecution proceedings start, they will then have to produce their own evidence to me to prove mens rea and only then would I put up my defence. They won't be able to do that becuase if they could do that already they would still be able to prosecute even without my letter. If I provide it for them they will still prosecute. They aren't going to write back and say...

Dear Ms Passenger,

Thank you for being so honest and considerate in admitting your criminal act, or providing evidence that one took place whether you claim it was on purpose or not. As a reward we have decided not to prosecute you. :roll:

Yours sincerely
Rail Company

For your second point, I was referring to the prosecution and criminal acts, not civil action based on strict liability offences.

 

[Nick W]

I don't really see how a prosecution could succeed. If the OP claims that on the day he/she entered through a barrier station and that all indications were that the oyster card was validated, i.e. a visual and audio notification and opening of barriers, how can the TOC possibly refute the claim?

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

I am not talking about a Penalty Fare, but the possibility of a Byelaw prosecution.

They probably have enough evidence, in the form of an unvalidated Oyster card, from what you have described. That is all they need to secure a Byelaw prosecution. No intent required and nothing else needs to be proven.

All those things you mentioned would be true if they were to persue a conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act.

Unfortunately, without providing the grounds, I have no way of being able to answer this letter. They need to do that first. I thought you said that Regulation of Railways Act was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Or did I misunderstand you?

 

[transmanche]

I do have the statement, and it clearly states that the journey was paid for on the day and that the Oyster card had sufficient funds on it at the start of the journey.

So you have a statement which shows that you touched in at your starting station before meeting the RPI - and touched out at your destination station after meeting the RPI? And that the appropriate fare was charged (i.e. not just that a maximum fare was charged due to a missing touch-in)?


For the avoidance of doubt, a 'maximum fare' is not the same as a 'penalty fare'. A maximum fare is what the Oyster system charges automatically for 'incomplete' journeys; i.e. where you haven't touched-in or touched-out correctly.

So if you failed to touch-in correctly, but did touch-out correctly a maximum fare would be charged on exiting the system. But if you met an RPI en-route (having failed to touch-in properly) then a penalty fare would be correctly charged.

 

[bb21]

Unfortunately, without providing the grounds, I have no way of being able to answer this letter. They need to do that first.

I am a little bit confused here. Do you mind providing an extract of what it says on the letter exactly please (obviously redacting confidential details)? It would seem strange that it is a "Notice of Intention to Prosecute" letter without mentioning either legislation.

I thought you said that Regulation of Railways Act was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Or did I misunderstand you?

Both the RoRA and the Byelaws are criminal matters, with the latter strict liability.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

I don't really see how a prosecution could succeed. If the OP claims that on the day he/she entered through a barrier station and that all indications were that the oyster card was validated, i.e. a visual and audio notification and opening of barriers, how can the TOC possibly refute the claim?

That is what my instincts tells me too. By asking me to write in and 'explain my point of view' they are merely trying to use that as evidence to decide that (a) there is no grounds for mens rea and (b) there is grounds for a strict liability offence (assuming I've mentioned the material facts in relation to what happened).

By saying nothing and instead forcing them to display their 'cards' before I play mine, and not revealiong anything to them at thi stage the grounds will have to be set in stone and they will either have to play that same hand after I've replied or drop the matter entirely. With no further information from me, I suspect they have no sufficient grounds to pursue either course of action becuase (a) they did not issue a penalty fare in the first place and my fare is already paid anyway by now and (b) they have insufficient grounds to proceed with a s.5 prosecution requiring mens rea.

They just want me to admit they have grounds to pursue a strict liability route, which presumably they don't currently have.

 

[transmanche]

I suspect they have no sufficient grounds to pursue either course of action becuase (a) they did not issue a penalty fare in the first place and my fare is already paid anyway by now and (b) they have insufficient grounds to proceed with a s.5 prosecution requiring mens rea.

Well we don't know if a) is correct until you answer the question I asked in post #14.

 

[swt_passenger]

When I got off the train in Central London I immediately reported his actions to the station manager, who
let me through the barrier after first allowing me to beep in the journey.
So I have now paid for it and this can be proven from my statement.

Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean here by 'beep in the journey' please?

Sounds very much like a touch in followed immediately by touching out to me, and that isn't the same as paying the normal fare AFAIK...

 

[bb21]

I'm even more confused now. Where did you start your journey and what does your statement say?

I was under the impression that at your destination you were allowed to both touch in and out. My understanding of the situation was repeated in Post 6 and you didn't dispute this. Perhaps you missed it?

Was I correct in my understanding of your situation or did I completely get the wrong end of the stick?

I don't really see how a prosecution could succeed. If the OP claims that on the day he/she entered through a barrier station and that all indications were that the oyster card was validated, i.e. a visual and audio notification and opening of barriers, how can the TOC possibly refute the claim?

For a Byelaw prosecution, the evidence would be an unvalidated Oyster card, if what I understand of the OP's situation is correct. Indications are irrelevant.

There are plenty of ways how a passenger can get through barriers without validating his Oyster card correctly. (I am not going to say what they are for obvious reasons.)

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean here by 'beep in the journey' please?

Sounds very much like a touch in followed immediately by touching out to me, and that isn't the same as paying the normal fare AFAIK...

When I arrived at the destination stop for my journey and complained about my treatment on the train by the ticket inspector, I was permitted to use my Oyster card to leave the station entirely - by touching out using the same Oyster card. That meant that the entire journey from start to end had been paid for just by deault of doing this becuase the whole single fare shows up on my statement.

Clearly, by process of deduction there was a fault with the card reader at the start of the journey if I touched in, it also beeped green and so the barrier opened and and it still didn't register the journey as being paid for when the ticket inspector checked touch in status. So the card, with sufficient funds onit, obviously hadn't bought a ticket or else a guard opened the barrier remotely from a distance and I did not realise that they had and I thought my card had done so as I passed through the opening barrier like eveyone else does when they too touch in and it beep is green. Otherwise, how would I get through the barriers that were fully shut and operational and with staff there to correct any problems with Oysters beeping Amber or Red when barriers don't open and assistance is sought?

In short, there is nothing at all in the prosecution's case to suggest that my predicament is anything more than a mechanistic error to do with the card reader, unbenown to me up to and until the time the inspector came to check my card.

It is also worth mentioning, at this stage, that I had nothing at all to gain by fare evading or even being careless by forgetting to touch in. My client was paying my fare for that journey and it would have been reimbursed on production of a valid ticket (statement of proof of journey, in this case). So getting a free journey at the expense of the train company would not have yielded double dividends with a free journey and a reimbursement worth twice the journey price. No proof of payment, no company paying. So what would be the point of trying to screw the train company and bring all this aggro upon myself when I had nothing at all to gain from doing so?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am a little bit confused here. Do you mind providing an extract of what it says on the letter exactly please (obviously redacting confidential details)? It would seem strange that it is a "Notice of Intention to Prosecute" letter without mentioning either legislation.



Both the RoRA and the Byelaws are criminal matters, with the latter strict liability.

I won't provide a verbatim account of the letter but I will tell you what it contains broadly.

1. The title: Notice of Intention to Prosecute (in bold red). No Act or Section mentioned (no grounds, in other words).

2. First para: Facts relating to the ticket inspection: day, date, time and place only and that details were taken from me.

3. Second Para: Intention to inform me of their intention to take this case to the Magistrates Court and the enclosed form provides me with the opportunity to tell them what happened. A warning that any information I provide should be factual and honest.

[There is no Act or Section mentioned in this para or the first two]

4. Third para: a preach about fare evasion and how that is costing the rail industry over £400 m per year......zero tolerance policy stuff etc. This is followed by a list of sentences imposed.

5. Last para: A single sentence in bold red print to reply using the attache form within 7 days.

6. Salutations.

 

[transmanche]

When I arrived at the destination stop for my journey and complained about my treatment on the train by the ticket inspector, I was permitted to use my Oyster card to leave the station entirely - by touching out using the same Oyster card. That meant that the entire journey from start to end had been paid for just by deault of doing this becuase the whole single fare shows up on my statement.

For you to get accurate advice it's really important to be absolutely precise. You didn't answer the question I asked back in post #14, so perhaps you can confirm the the following:

What station is shown on the touch-in on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-in shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time did you meet the RPI? (What time is shown on any documentation you received from the RPI/Southern?)
What station is shown on the touch-out on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-out shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What fare was charged?

 

[island]

I echo transmanche's questions.

Note that ignoring this is most unlikely to make it go away.

 

[MikeWh]

When I arrived at the destination stop for my journey and complained about my treatment on the train by the ticket inspector, I was permitted to use my Oyster card to leave the station entirely - by touching out using the same Oyster card. That meant that the entire journey from start to end had been paid for just by deault of doing this becuase the whole single fare shows up on my statement.

For you to get accurate advice it's really important to be absolutely precise. You didn't answer the question I asked back in post #14, so perhaps you can confirm the the following:

What station is shown on the touch-in on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-in shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time did you meet the RPI? (What time is shown on any documentation you received from the RPI/Southern?)
What station is shown on the touch-out on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-out shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What fare was charged?

From the answer above there will be no station shown as touch in and no time. The journey will be described as incomplete and will be charged the relevant maximum charge for the time of day. This charge goes to TfL and is NOT distributed to the appropriate TOC. If you had got the incomplete details entered using the online refund system then it is possible that the fare would have been apportioned and that you might then have a case. Unfortunately it is way too late now.

 

[Nick W]

For a Byelaw prosecution, the evidence would be an unvalidated Oyster card, if what I understand of the OP's situation is correct. Indications are irrelevant.

No the OP has the Oyster card, and in any case, its insecurities are public domain and it provides no ability to certify transactions so it would not be credible evidence even if the TOC had it.

If you had got the incomplete details entered using the online refund system then it is possible that the fare would have been apportioned and that you might then have a case.

It's the TOC that is bringing prosecution not the OP. They have to prove that the OP's card was not validated, and there is no way, with the technology, that they can do that. They would have to rely on the OP incriminating themselves or a witness at the station where the OP boarded.

 

[transmanche]

From the answer above there will be no station shown as touch in and no time. The journey will be described as incomplete and will be charged the relevant maximum charge for the time of day.

This is what I suspect, but wanted to give the OP the opportunity to clarify the position. I'm suspecting that the reason they've failed to answer the question is that it's a cut & dried case of a failed touch-in, for which the appropriate action by the RPI is to issue a penalty fare.

I'm not sure what changed the RPIs mind so that it was reported for possible prosecution (possibly the OP's attitude?). But the option of a penalty fare is no longer available.

If (as you suspect) the OP has been charged a maximum fare, then I think their only course of action is to reply to Southern's letter explaining the mistake, apologising for the error and offering to settle out-of-court.

I strongly suspect that responding to them in an aggressive manner and discussing the ins-and-outs of mens rea will not result in a favourable outcome.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

For you to get accurate advice it's really important to be absolutely precise. You didn't answer the question I asked back in post #14, so perhaps you can confirm the the following:

What station is shown on the touch-in on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-in shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time did you meet the RPI? (What time is shown on any documentation you received from the RPI/Southern?)
What station is shown on the touch-out on your Oyster PAYG account?
What time is the touch-out shown as on your Oyster PAYG account?
What fare was charged?

Answers:

I won't validate material facts (where I got on and where I got off, etc.) on a forum like this. Besides, the letter I got sent states the wrong station I got on at anyway. This might make their case weaker still - if they have no clue where I boarded the train. I won't make it easier for prying eyes on this forum, in case the authorities read it and attribute posts to particular live cases they are dealing with.

The Oyster statement shows quite clearly a question mark (on the journey start and a touch in/out at the destination stop and the full fare paid for the entire journey, which did not exceed the amount already loaded onto the card beofre I boarded the train. What matters, I should think, is that the fare has now been paid - and on the day - and I can prove I have paid. Who has the money is neither here nor there when I pay by Oyster anyway. So the train company would have got the money by now just as they would in any other instance not in dispute.

All that matters in law is that the station I boarded the train at was fully operational with manned barriers and that these did not appear to function in accordance to my attempt to touch in, which did not register a fare having been paid even though I was unaware of that at the time and the barrier opened up to let me through. It is now up to the prosecution to prove that is not so if they feel that they can. I am pretty certain that they can't at this stage and fail to see how this amounts to breaches under strict liability or mens rea. It is simply a technical error that does not amount to any fault on my part based on a mistake, carelessness or anything else attributed to fault on my part. Otherwise we would all be subject to prosecution for any technical error resulting from actions or machines controlled elsewhere.

If the rail company does not know my station of origin and can't fish out the details for the touch in failure to prove that on paper I did not pay in time to board, I fail to see how they can successfully bring a case. Presumably they want to me spill the beans on this and other matters to help bring a case. I won't help them do that. The letter does not stipulate where I boarded the train and, instead, seems to assume I boarded it at a stop I did not board it at, so presumably that could be any station before the time the ticket inspector checked my card.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is what I suspect, but wanted to give the OP the opportunity to clarify the position. I'm suspecting that the reason they've failed to answer the question is that it's a cut & dried case of a failed touch-in, for which the appropriate action by the RPI is to issue a penalty fare.

I'm not sure what changed the RPIs mind so that it was reported for possible prosecution (possibly the OP's attitude?). But the option of a penalty fare is no longer available.

If (as you suspect) the OP has been charged a maximum fare, then I think their only course of action is to reply to Southern's letter explaining the mistake, apologising for the error and offering to settle out-of-court.

I strongly suspect that responding to them in an aggressive manner and discussing the ins-and-outs of mens rea will not result in a favourable outcome.

What mistake? You've lost me now. Did you not read my first post about what happened? A 'mistake' is a wanton act of negligence or carelessness that was avoidable. It is not a circumstance someone finds themself in owing to a technical breach not of their doing, which they could not foresee or rectify to avoid the problem first occurring as later discovered.

Humans are being subjected to this kind of inhumane treatment. Don't support it by implying, in this case, that the passenger is always wrong and the authorities are always right. They are not. I also don't like your tone either, when you suggest that I should grovel to the company to avoid prosecution. Either they feel that they have a case or they don't. Grovelling and apologising won't make the slightest bit of difference to that fact and I certainly will not be subjected to any of your implied nonsense along the lines of paying them to keep quiet and to drop any threats of prosecution like I have read elsewhere on this forum. Pay up and shut up. That is a criminal offence in itself to extract monies by threats in this way and, frankly, anyone that allows themselves to be subject to this kind of bullying is just making it far worse for others who find themselves being harassed by these revenue extracting bullies.

 

[transmanche]

The Oyster statement shows quite clearly a question mark (on the journey start and a touch in/out at the destination stop and the full fare paid for the entire journey, which did not exceed the amount already loaded onto the card beofre I boarded the train. What matters, I should think, is that the fare has now been paid - and on the day - and I can prove I have paid.

Unfortunately for you, the fact you paid a fare after the event, is not relevant. The material fact is that you weren't able to produce a validated Oyster card at the time the RPI spoke to you.

From the Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services:

If you do not touch in at the station where you start your journey and touch out at the station where you end your journey, you may be charged more than the advertised Oyster single fare, and any daily price cap to which you may be entitled will not apply. You may also be liable to a Penalty Fare and/or you may be prosecuted.

 

[maniacmartin]

Why do they even need to know where you boarded anyway? I don't think they even need to know this to bring a case. It doesn't alter the fact that they believe you were travelling without touching in.

Their 'evidence' is the RPI's statement which was made at the time of the incident, stating that his reader said you didn't touch in. If needs be, they can call the RPI to court to testify that what he/she wrote is the truth.

There are ways to get through without touching in at the barriers. You could have tailgated, touched in then touched out immediately without leaving the station or even travelled from an ungated station, changing trains perhaps. They gates could have been left open whilst the staff went to deal with something else.

To be able to win in a Railway Byelaw prosecution, which is what this almost certainly will be if it reaches court, I think you would have to prove that the gates go open without updating the card. There have only been a few cases of that being reported on this forum, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them made it to court.

You seem to have come here wanting to advise us rather than the other way round. If this does make it to court, I wish you all the best, because I think you'll have a difficult time convincing the court that the events transpired as you claim

 

[island]

Ok. You have committed an offence under section 18 of the Railway Byelaws by entering a train without having with you a valid ticket entitling you to travel. This is a strict liability offence and the fact that you later also paid a maximum Oyster fare does not cause your offence to be stricken. Nor are you excused by the Oyster card allegedly not validating.

They do not have to prove where you boarded, merely that you entered the train without a valid ticket, which will be proven by the RPI's evidence that you were on it.

I suggest you enquire of Southern what amount of money they might accept in return for the matter being taken no further, and pay it. Unfortunately you appear to have several misconceptions as to the law in this matter and I urge you to take the counsel that is being offered you.

 

[transmanche]

Humans are being subjected to this kind of inhumane treatment. Don't support it by implying, in this case, that the passenger is always wrong and the authorities are always right. They are not.

This is not the place to debate the rights and wrongs of Penalty Fares. As it happens I don't like them, but they are a reality. So we all have to deal with them.

I am not Southern Railway. I am not the one who is 'against you'.

I also don't like your tone either, when you suggest that I should grovel to the company to avoid prosecution.

I didn't say 'grovel' But I did offer a suggestion that will help you avoid court (remember that a RoRA conviction will result in a criminal record). If you'd read through similar threads on here, you'd see this is often a successful way of making a prosecution 'go away'.

Grovelling and apologising won't make the slightest bit of difference to that fact and I certainly will not be subjected to any of your implied nonsense along the lines of paying them to keep quiet and to drop any threats of prosecution like I have read elsewhere on this forum.

You came here for advice. You don't seem to like the advice you were given - and seem to prefer insulting and lecturing those trying to give you advice.

That's your choice, but don't expect any more help from me. Good luck with trying to defend yourself if taken to court - you will lose.