SJP received from Chiltern

[addyt]

Looking for some help and guidance please.

I have received an SJP for fare evasion as I bought my ticket 4 minute before the train arrived into the station on a 15 minute journey. My ticket was scanned by the RP officers.

The incident occurred in summer, I received a notice of intended prosecution first, 2 weeks ago which I replied to and now an SJP.

I cannot afford to get a criminal conviction. I have found this distressing and I feel very anxious. Can anyone please advise the best way forward.

Thank you in advance.

 

[RobertsN]

Hi @addyt,
The experts will surely be around shortly to offer advice. However, it will be helpful if you can provide the information as linked in the sticky post of the forum (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/please-read-before-posting-in-disputes-prosecutions.77759/) to help them understand the situation and give advice.

 

[Haywain]

The incident occurred in summer, I received a notice of intended prosecution first, 2 weeks ago which I replied to and now an SJP.

Please post both of these letters as it will help us to offer appropriate advice.

 

[addyt]

Please post both of these letters as it will help us to offer appropriate advice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2025 ==

I have attached my letters. I did not get a covering letter with the SJP.

I didn’t get on well with officer who stopped me due to quite a few reasons. He has noted in his statement I was difficult and uncooperative. I had a ticket but because I had boarded the train without a ticket I now understand this is an offence.

Any help would be grateful, thank you.

 

[John R]

What ticket did you buy, and was it from the station you boarded, or a nearer station to your destination? Also, were you checked on the train, or at Moor St?

 

[addyt]

I bought a ticket for the station I boarded but almost at the end of my journey. I was not checked on the train only at moor street. The documents read the officer believes had he not have questioned me at the time I would have evaded the fare.

I got my ticket at 14.22 my train arrived at 14.24 (2mins earlier than expected) he scanned my ticket at 14.26.

Thanks s

 

[AlterEgo]

What did you say in reply to the notice of intended prosecution? In what way were you “uncooperative” and why didn’t you “get on well” with the ticket officer? Chiltern usually settle, so it feels like we may be missing context here.

 

[Haywain]

I have attached my letters. I did not get a covering letter with the SJP.

We could also do with seeing the letter you sent in response.

 

[addyt]

I found him aggressive and rude and he didn’t explain his role to me I had no idea he was an officer etc. I did not feel comfortable giving him my date of birth because I felt unsafe him having all my personal details. He said if I didn’t give him my DOB, I’d have to stand there for a really long time until his colleague came over and said that was incorrect he could just note down refused. I contacted Chiltern about it on the day it happened as I didn’t feel his manner was right they said they would complete an iternal investigation but I had committed and offence etc.

I attach my reply to the notice of intended prosecution.

 

[John R]

I found him aggressive and rude and he didn’t explain his role to me I had no idea he was an officer etc.

So who did you think someone was who was stopping people at the gateline checking tickets with a machine that could read them and see that you only purchased it a few minutes previously?

It doesn’t feel like a particularly good excuse for being uncooperative, and unfortunately having “failed the attitude test” (though it’s not clear how other than refusing to give your DoB) is unlikely to have done you any favours in trying to resolve the matter.

 

[RevenueProtect]

Looking for some help and guidance please.

I have received an SJP for fare evasion as I bought my ticket 4 minute before the train arrived into the station on a 15 minute journey. My ticket was scanned by the RP officers.

The incident occurred in summer, I received a notice of intended prosecution first, 2 weeks ago which I replied to and now an SJP.

I cannot afford to get a criminal conviction. I have found this distressing and I feel very anxious. Can anyone please advise the best way forward.

Thank you in advance.

 

[AlterEgo]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2025 ==

hi - which act did they prosecute you under - 2018 or 2022?

This is a Bylaw 18 prosecution.

Also what was the reason for issuing you with a penalty fare notice?

They haven't been issued with a penalty fare notice.

 

[Titfield]

My interpretation of this, is that Chiltern are rejecting your representations because they are convinced that you intended to avoid the fare and that your behaviour on being stopped was unacceptable. Your actions were not consistent with that of the "honest mistake" of boarding a train without a valid ticket and then purchasing one to rectify the matter.

I think your options are (and my view of chances of success):
(1) Resubmit a letter of apology and ask they withdraw the SJPN. Chance of success: low to very low.
(2) Solicitor sends a letter of apology on your behalf etc. Chance of success: medium
(3) Plead not guilty and being found not guilty: Chance of success: zero
(4) Plead guilty and accept the consequences which follow: (conviction, fine, victim surcharge, fare and tocs costs).

The only question I think is whether the consequences of conviction (which have been fully ventilated on this forum) are worse than the financial impact of paying a solicitor which of course is no guarantee of success ie you end up paying the solicitor and being found guilty.

 

[Haywain]

(1) Resubmit a letter of apology and ask they withdraw the SJPN. Chance of success: low to very low.

This might have a better chance of success if it addressed the behaviour at the time of being stopped.

 

[Titfield]

This might have a better chance of success if it addressed the behaviour at the time of being stopped.

I did assume that the OP would realise this but thank you for highlighting it. The problem I foresee is that it will still sound insincere, ie only being said when effectively compelled to do so.

It is my opinion (and I accept that there is no proof of this) that some TOCS view engaging a solicitor is a form of financial sanction and thus they are then more likely to offer an out of court settlement because the passenger has incurred that cost which certainly will encourage compliance going forward.

EDIT
The two objectives of a TOC are (1) paying for fares (part or full) avoided in the past (2) compliance going forward. An out of court settlement with a solicitor involved achieves this. I am sure they want to avoid prosecution except where all else has failed as not only is it heavy handed but it appears heavy handed to the uninformed or illinformed especially politicians.

 

[Haywain]

The problem I foresee is that it will still sound insincere, ie only being said when effectively compelled to do so.

This is a risk but has no adverse consequences, in my view.

It is my opinion (and I accept that there is no proof of this) that some TOCS view engaging a solicitor is a form of financial sanction and thus they are then more likely to offer an out of court settlement because the passenger has incurred that cost which certainly will encourage compliance going forward.

This certainly appears to be the case with TfL, but I'm not so sure about the TOCs. Certainly the OP would need to weigh up whether the cost of a solicitor, likely around £750 with the TOC settlement on top, is worth it to avoid the minor consequences of being prosecuted.

 

[Titfield]

This is a risk but has no adverse consequences, in my view.

This certainly appears to be the case with TfL, but I'm not so sure about the TOCs. Certianly the OP would need to weigh up whether the cost of a solicitor, likely around £750 with the TOC settlement on top, is worth it to avoid the minor consequences of being prosecuted.

Agreed. The OP has to weigh up the consequences for themselves based on their own unique personal circumstances. I think for many (but not those in regulated professions) it is a minor inconvenience.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suspect a more likely turn of events is this:

1) Chiltern are very close to the 6 month deadline
2) OP submits mitigation and request to settle
3) This has not been read yet
4) They issue a summons to protect their option to prosecute within 6 months

I think there is still a good chance of settling here.

 

[Hadders]

It is possible that letters have crossed in the post.

@addyt tells us they received Chiltern's initial letter two weeks ago. We don't know when the reply was sent but it seems CHiltern were rather quick off the mark sending the SJPN.

The response sent would normally result in an out of court settlement but @addyt appears to have failed the 'attitude test' and this might explain why Chiltern are taking a harder line. I would contact Chiltern and ask if they received your reply?