Prosecution UPDATE

[some bloke]

1. Is the priority now to send the plea within the 14 days so that the case isn't heard in Sam's absence, with contacting the company as a second priority?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==


2.

it's the criminal conviction that will truly ruin my future

I'm not clear that any employers or professional regulators would view conviction here as a serious matter, especially as they would be expected to ask you about the circumstances if there were any concerns. There is no dishonest intent implied in a breach of Byelaw 21 (2), and there may be nothing particularly embarrassing about how you or your mother have acted. Did you or your mother know the ticket wouldn't be valid? Even if the answer is yes, it may not be clear how that would significantly affect fitness to practise in a job.

If your future career were really at risk, then you could pay an expensive fare evasion specialist solicitor. But at this stage you could get more information about how convictions are viewed, even if just to reassure yourself, such as by asking your student union for advice, and checking information on a professional regulator's website. It may be worth asking the student union/looking on its website to see they offer free legal advice.


3. Some university courses, such as medicine, need the student to tell the university if they're charged.


4. Would it be appropriate for Sam to tell the company "I intend to ask the court for an absolute discharge with no award of costs, on the grounds that GTR suffered no financial loss in terms of fares owed and was not at risk of suffering any such loss, and I had no intention of depriving GTR of any fare" - could it help dissuade them from continuing the prosecution?

If the fare or maximum fare was deducted, then although they didn't suffer financial loss in respect of a fare, it might be argued that there is a cost to the company from such things as checking, investigation and administration as a result of people using the "wrong" tickets.


5. I don't understand this in the Statement of Facts:

"Key card...that had no data showing for journey on the card".

It's perhaps unclear why they have written that if the card recorded a tap in.


6. The summons reads "signed by District Judge [and so on]". Is there actually a signature?

 

[kristiang85]

I find this grossly inappropriate by the railway - the full fare has been paid by the passenger (if not more than would have been paid via another way), thus there is no revenue loss. How is this illegal? The crazy thing is that the OP could have stolen their mother's debit card and paid by contactless, which in the laws of the land would be an illegal act, using their railcard discount to pay less and the railway wouldn't have cared. Surely a warning not to use the Keycard again or to apply for one of their own would have been appropriate.

If this was me I would not be settling for anything; I would be going full guns blazing to the media and my local MP. Especially given the amount of people I see being allowed the hop barriers without challenge; the OP just seems to be an easy target.

 

[some bloke]

We have yet to find out whether this is sharp practice, one or more mix-ups, a technology failure, postal failure, something else or a combination.

You could give the named person a call on the number shown, and/or email, asking politely:

- whether they received your previous letter explaining the circumstances;

- what the Statement of Facts means by "no data showing for journey on the card": you can say, if it's true, that you believe that as you tapped in, normally the start of the journey would have been registered and payment of at least the correct amount would have been taken;

and

- whether "The outstanding fare avoided is £27.40" means that they received no payment from your mother via the card.


It could be that they have misstated something significant on the application for the summons.

 

[43096]

I find this grossly inappropriate by the railway - the full fare has been paid by the passenger (if not more than would have been paid via another way), thus there is no revenue loss. How is this illegal? The crazy thing is that the OP could have stolen their mother's debit card and paid by contactless, which in the laws of the land would be an illegal act, using their railcard discount to pay less and the railway wouldn't have cared. Surely a warning not to use the Keycard again or to apply for one of their own would have been appropriate.

If this was me I would not be settling for anything; I would be going full guns blazing to the media and my local MP. Especially given the amount of people I see being allowed the hop barriers without challenge; the OP just seems to be an easy target.

You'd hope that if it did get to court that the court would throw the case out as a waste of time and award costs against GTR.

The sensible course of action on this would be to warn the card holder and the "borrower" that the card is not transferable. The response by GTR is grossly disproportionate and another reason why the TOCs cannot be trusted to be victim, investigator, prosecutor and beneficiary of the outcome. This badly needs reforming and those powers removing.

 

[Yankee01]

Certainly can be confusing. Other PAYG instruments, like TfL Oyster is explicitly transferable if it is only associated with PAYG credit. Though, alas, the rules are the rules, and are all over the map.

 

[spag23]

Since the TOC received immediate payment, it's almost like they are complaining that they were paid cash from the OP's mum purse, rather than the same cash from the OP's wallet. As the OP and his mother were both OK with this, what has the TOC got to moan about?
It was a PAYG journey, for heaven's sake; something the SmartCard conditions clearly haven't taken into account.
There never was any loss, no fraud, and no misused discount. So just a procedural warning would have been the best action in this case.

 

[WesternLancer]

Since the TOC received immediate payment, it's almost like they are complaining that they were paid cash from the OP's mum purse, rather than the same cash from the OP's wallet. As the OP and his mother were both OK with this, what has the TOC got to moan about?
It was a PAYG journey, for heaven's sake; something the SmartCard conditions clearly haven't taken into account.
There never was any loss, no fraud, and no misused discount. So just a procedural warning would have been the best action in this case.

Yes. Agree. I wonder how the OP is getting on with this.