Prosecution Letter

[bb21]

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.

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.

If that is a good enough defence, then this would have been challenged a long time ago. The Oyster system has been in existence for a good number of years and it would be a pretty dangerous thing to do to challenge a prosecution on these grounds.

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 ---



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.

You sound like an intelligent guy so I will make this pretty blunt for you.

It sounds to me to be a pretty open and shut case of Byelaw infringement. You Oyster card was clearly not validated (for whatever reason) at the time you were spoken to for whatever reason. The situation as it stands is that if the TOC wishes to persue a Byelaw prosecution then it sounds to me that they have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction quite easily. The proof required, as I have already stated, is being shown an unvalidated Oyster card, which given that your statement shows no origin station is pretty obvious.

I have already told you that a Byelaw prosecution does not require mens rea to be proven. If this is what they plan to do, then you need to tread very carefully, as I am struggling to see any defence you can use. Railway law can be quite different in many respects so don't assume that you understand them without consulting a specialist. It can be a dangerous thing.

It is of course your decision what you want to do and we are just here to provide you with the best help we can. If you want to challenge the matter in court then of course feel free to go ahead, but my advice is not without seeking professional help first. There are plenty of examples of people choosing to defend themselves in court thinking that they can do so successfully only to find that it is completely the opposite.

That is all I can say on this matter. I don't think our forum members can help you any more on this matter. We don't always all agree with the way the system works, but unfortunately we can only advise you on how the system currently works, not how it should work. Whatever you choose to do, I wish you luck.

 

[PuffingBilly0612]

Remember me? That rather 'arsy person some of you on here thought would be heading for a conviction anyway if I fought my Oyster Card didn't work on the barrier case even after touching out at the exit station?

Well......good news came my way today!

In time for the plea hearing, I first hired a 1st rate Rottweiller lawyer who saw through these rail company jokers right away and concluded very quickly that the RPI had written the statement long after he'd stopped me on the train.

My lawyer sent them a letter and now the rail company have sent me an e-mail completely doing a U turn to tell me that they are going to withdraw the summons now, in time for the trial - set at the end of October - owing to lack of evidence. During the plea hearing, which I attended in person as a pro se (to save costs - my lawyer cost a fortune) they'd told the court they were going ahead with it owing to having sufficient evidence, and nothing material has changed at all since then. They have just realised that they can't bully me and get away with it.

The only thing that has changed is that I fought my corner, didn't back down and hired a big gun to point out that they would be wasting their time and that they didn't stand a cat in hells chance of winning.

What really makes me angry about all of this was what I witnessed at court in the plea hearing stage. A young pair of kids (teenagers or not much older) showed me their summons and there were no grounds on it. The male, who was being prosecuted, did not know what to do; he couldn't afford a lawyer at all and he decided to plead guilty. I advised him this was not a good idea because without the grounds being established the rail company would have no case at all and it would be chucked out. But he relented anyway by reasoning that he was in the wrong; he knew he'd bought a kids ticket owing to being a pound short of the adult fare. I know that is wrong, and dishonest but, frankly, a civil outcome would have been much more reasonable and in keeping with this rather silly error of judgement (provided he doesn't make a habit of it). Now he has potentially ruined his life. I think that is a far too high price to pay for something so trivial.

Now I just need to get my costs back. I am also inclined to screw this rail company for punitive damages too owing to the amount of stress, time out from work this has created for me.

The end result is this: the rail company took me on and lost and now they are going to cough up far more in costs than I would have been fined if I had buckled.

It certainly does pay to fight......

 

[island]

Thank you for coming back to tell us about your result and also for taking our suggestion of getting legal advice. I doubt you will get punitive damages but you should be able to fix Southern (it was Southern wasn't it?) with your costs. Some members may be in touch asking for your lawyer's details

 

[Yew]

Some members may be in touch asking for your lawyer's details

I'm pretty sure Yorkie knows every decent railway lawyer in the country

 

[Stigy]

Remember me? That rather 'arsy person some of you on here thought would be heading for a conviction anyway if I fought my Oyster Card didn't work on the barrier case even after touching out at the exit station?

Well......good news came my way today!

In time for the plea hearing, I first hired a 1st rate Rottweiller lawyer who saw through these rail company jokers right away and concluded very quickly that the RPI had written the statement long after he'd stopped me on the train.

My lawyer sent them a letter and now the rail company have sent me an e-mail completely doing a U turn to tell me that they are going to withdraw the summons now, in time for the trial - set at the end of October - owing to lack of evidence. During the plea hearing, which I attended in person as a pro se (to save costs - my lawyer cost a fortune) they'd told the court they were going ahead with it owing to having sufficient evidence, and nothing material has changed at all since then. They have just realised that they can't bully me and get away with it.

The only thing that has changed is that I fought my corner, didn't back down and hired a big gun to point out that they would be wasting their time and that they didn't stand a cat in hells chance of winning.

What really makes me angry about all of this was what I witnessed at court in the plea hearing stage. A young pair of kids (teenagers or not much older) showed me their summons and there were no grounds on it. The male, who was being prosecuted, did not know what to do; he couldn't afford a lawyer at all and he decided to plead guilty. I advised him this was not a good idea because without the grounds being established the rail company would have no case at all and it would be chucked out. But he relented anyway by reasoning that he was in the wrong; he knew he'd bought a kids ticket owing to being a pound short of the adult fare. I know that is wrong, and dishonest but, frankly, a civil outcome would have been much more reasonable and in keeping with this rather silly error of judgement (provided he doesn't make a habit of it). Now he has potentially ruined his life. I think that is a far too high price to pay for something so trivial.

Now I just need to get my costs back. I am also inclined to screw this rail company for punitive damages too owing to the amount of stress, time out from work this has created for me.

The end result is this: the rail company took me on and lost and now they are going to cough up far more in costs than I would have been fined if I had buckled.

It certainly does pay to fight......

Thanks for returning. I don't remember you, but I'll take your word for it that you were hard done by.

Regarding the adult on child ticket issue you saw, it may well be their first offence....Or at least the first time they've been caught. You're entitled to your opinion here, but these things rarely ruin lives, even a conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is unlikely to be ruining a life. Could it have an effect on a life? Maybe, for a while, but certainly not a life ruining effect.

 

[bb21]

Well, congratulations and well done. Fortune favours the brave. You fought your corner and you won. Why the train company decided not to pursue the case we will never know.

As with many cases, if one can find a good lawyer (and be able to afford him) then one stands a much better chance at succeeding. Unfortunately this is not always an option for many people who find themselves in such a situation, but if you can, there is no reason why you should not go ahead and fight it, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences if you lose the case.

It is good to know that people do take the advice onboard when they are told to consult a solicitor rather than challenge a prosecution themselves.