Single Justice Procedure Notice from Chiltern Railways

[fandroid]

I wonder if the OP should now follow up their original email with one providing more information, to head off the purpose of that interview request. In my opinion they should say that they've never failed to pay the correct fares for their journeys. They should also point out that they live close to Hall Green station, so it's quite appropriate that their tickets are from there to Moor Street. Additionally explain that the return journey is almost always by bus, giving the route number and the departure time, with the reason being that the evening train timetable does not usefully fit their work shift pattern.

I'm putting this in to get reactions from other forum members. The OP should wait until some sort of consensus is reached amongst us.

 

[Wolfie]

Is their approach not consistent with the usual approach of discounting any price paid for a ticket which was not valid in coming up with a settlement offer? In this case it was not purchased before travel so was not valid, therefore a completely new ticket has to be paid for.

I agree that comment about approach is true. It was the reported comment l found confusing. I was trying to work out what sort of ticket was involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2024 ==

I think it is a good letter although given the one way journey that you make and the fact this is a station they see a lot of short faring from I wonder if it would be worth including the reason it was a single in your response and highlighting that this is your local station.

On a separate note it seems we are seeing this a lot now, a SJP is issued as the opening gambit of the TOCs negotiation. Is this a proper use of SJPs? As well as the short timescales involved for the expected response to an interview request, a copy will / should have been filed with the court, and will have to be formally withdrawn if a settlement is agreed. Chiltern’s letter states ‘as we have yet to conclude our investigation’ which seems completely at odds with a decision to file charges. Imagine the police filing charges before they had even finished investigating.

The media, and the Evening Standard in particular, have an active campaign about misuse of the SJP process. They have obviously mentioned the Post Office/Horizon thing too. I would think that TOCs ought to be bloody careful in doing any such thing as you suggest in your last para or they may just find that they lose their ability to prosecute.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is their approach not consistent with the usual approach of discounting any price paid for a ticket which was not valid in coming up with a settlement offer? In this case it was not purchased before travel so was not valid, therefore a completely new ticket has to be paid for.

The fact a ticket was purchased after boarding, and indeed after committing a Bylaw offence, doesn't make it invalid. If the guard had sold them a ticket it wouldn't be an invalid ticket.

In any case we are still discussing a few quid here when we all know the OP is likely going to have to settle for between £100 and £200; it all seems academic.

 

[Moppet]

As Hall Green is regularly mentioned on these pages as a donutting / short faring origin hotspot, I would imagine Chiltern and the original inspector are reading a lot more into the possible situation here. I expect it's very rare for them to find someone with an address actually local to the station when they follow up the investigation.

Thanks for mentioning this, I didn’t realise Hall Green was a problem spot for them. The original inspector says in his statement that he did verify my address by asking to see ID, which I complied with.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2024 ==

That's my thought too, might be not because a valid anytime day ticket was bought (even if bought late on the train, which would be problem if caught on the train), but because his home address is at at a station frequently used by short faring. The travelling out by train, back by bus means probably also need to give evidence of stating return by bus, otherwise they will presume buying singles to get through barriers, but getting free ride home.

The only real charge is boarding without valid ticket, as a ticket was in existence at point of being stopped. That is the charge being applied under bylaw 18(1) entering train without valid ticket.

Unless Op admits to waiting until on the train to buy previous tickets (and thus incriminates himself), Chiltern don't really know if he bought on app whilst still on platform, and got later train on previous occasions (I know it gives date in history, but does it also record time of starting transaction, or just when completing transaction). So best bet is to confirm buy on app, but whilst waiting for train, although on this occasion train arrived before you bought ticket

Thanks for your reply. I wasn’t sure if they could see the time I’d scanned the ticket to get through the barriers. So if I exited my destination before the next train had even arrived, they would realise I’d bought my ticket after boarding a train

 

[spag23]

So if I exited my destination before the next train had even arrived, they would realise I’d bought my ticket after boarding a train

Yes. You could perhaps have just lurked around the platform till the next train arrived. But if the RPI saw you doing this, you could still have got caught. And pointless, since you could have achieved the same result by actually catching that next train (having bought the ticket before boarding it!)

 

[Moppet]

Thank you to everyone for their help. I received a response to my email requesting me to provide some information, including information about a few journeys which seem suspicious. I am responding by explaining why I made these journeys, even though they seem different to my regular commute to work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2024 ==

Thank you to everyone for their help. I received a response to my email requesting me to provide some information, including information about a few journeys which seem suspicious. I am responding by explaining why I made these journeys, even though they seem different to my regular commute to work. I have legitimate reasons for making those journeys, which can be backed up by evidence. So am in the process of responding.

 

[greychairarm]

Thank you to everyone for their help. I received a response to my email requesting me to provide some information, including information about a few journeys which seem suspicious. I am responding by explaining why I made these journeys, even though they seem different to my regular commute to work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2024 ==

Hi Moppet, please do let me know if you were able to settle this matter via administrative disposal and how long this process took?

 

[Fermiboson]

Hi Moppet, please do let me know if you were able to settle this matter via administrative disposal and how long this process took?

If you are in need of help, please start your own thread so that forum members are able to give advice targeted to your case. While cases might look identical at first instance, there are often specific nuances that changes the advice we would give.