stopped with fake stansted express ticket

[sheff1]

To those suggesting CCTV will help, it won't. If anything it will strengthen the case against the OP by showing a ticket being bought otherwise than from a booking office or TVM.

The OP readily admits he bought the ticket. I assume the idea of the CCTV is to try and identify the conmen who sold it to him.

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP readily admits he bought the ticket. I assume the idea of the CCTV is to try and identify the conmen who sold it to him.

The OP admits he bought the ticket, but in my view (not everyone's), the OP's culpability is exacerbated by admitting he purchased an A4 paper e-ticket from some Eastern European chaps hanging around the station. I don't think the "reasonable man" test would fall in favour of the OP there!

Going to the police will certainly assist in catching the conmen, but that isn't the OP's concern.

I would align, again, with Fare-Cop's advice and suggest he waits for further contact.

 

[DaleCooper]

The OP admits he bought the ticket, but in my view (not everyone's), the OP's culpability is exacerbated by admitting he purchased an A4 paper e-ticket from some Eastern European chaps hanging around the station. I don't think the "reasonable man" test would fall in favour of the OP there!

In that case who does he say he bought it from "a old gentleman in a pin striped suit and bowler hat"? What you're suggesting is just the start of a slippery slope of lies which could end in more trouble. Let's say they have CCTV evidence of the transaction but the OP lies about it, what good will that do him?

 

[najaB]

To those suggesting CCTV will help, it won't. If anything it will strengthen the case against the OP by showing a ticket being bought otherwise than from a booking office or TVM.

That presumes that AGA intend to prosecute for the relatively minor offence of buying a ticket from an unauthorised seller, rather that the much more serious offence of making a fake ticket with intent to defraud.

 

[AlterEgo]

In that case who does he say he bought it from "a old gentleman in a pin striped suit and bowler hat"? What you're suggesting is just the start of a slippery slope of lies which could end in more trouble. Let's say they have CCTV evidence of the transaction but the OP lies about it, what good will that do him?

Let me clarify - I do not expect or advise the OP to lie. That would be a horrendous strategy.

All I am saying is:

1) The OP is in deep doo-doo. Nobody reasonable would think that buying an A4 paper ticket off some Eastern European guys hanging around the station meant they'd legally discharged their duty to pay the fare due.

2) It is not wise - in my view - to go running to the police, who are NOT involved, and freely admit to a crime of avoiding payment of the fare which may or may not be being prosecuted privately by AGA, just so some CCTV can be obtained.

3) CCTV will be of probably limited value to the police/AGA unless the offenders are serial and known to the police or AGA.

and

4) Just my POV - freely accept the OP is in a dilemma here; I guess the ball is in his court to weigh up the pros and cons.

 

[DaleCooper]

Let me clarify - I do not expect or advise the OP to lie. That would be a horrendous strategy.

All I am saying is:

1) The OP is in deep doo-doo. Nobody reasonable would think that buying an A4 paper ticket off some Eastern European guys hanging around the station meant they'd legally discharged their duty to pay the fare due.

2) It is not wise - in my view - to go running to the police, who are NOT involved, and freely admit to a crime of avoiding payment of the fare which may or may not be being prosecuted privately by AGA, just so some CCTV can be obtained.

3) CCTV will be of probably limited value to the police/AGA unless the offenders are serial and known to the police or AGA.

and

4) Just my POV - freely accept the OP is in a dilemma here; I guess the ball is in his court to weigh up the pros and cons.

Understood.


I was concerned about the situation if the TOC invite the OP for an interview where they might well ask who sold him the ticket. At that stage it would be important to be truthful.

 

[AlterEgo]

Understood.


I was concerned about the situation if the TOC invite the OP for an interview where they might well ask who sold him the ticket. At that stage it would be important to be truthful.

Agreed.

 

[sheff1]

Nobody reasonable would think that buying an A4 paper ticket off some Eastern European guys hanging around the station meant they'd legally discharged their duty to pay the fare due.

From a modern British viewpoint. In some countries such behaviour would seem far more normal. Don't forget, also, that the fraudsters had a plausible story.

Going back a few years to the time of Ken Livingstone's "Fares Fair" policy it was common at London rail termini for people to be giving away, or selling for a nominal sum, tickets for which they had no further use.

 

[sheff1]

It is not wise - in my view - to go running to the police, who are NOT involved, and freely admit to a crime of avoiding payment of the fare which may or may not be being prosecuted privately by AGA, just so some CCTV can be obtained.

The reason for contacting the police was the reporting of people illegally selling ticket(s). In my view, crimes of this nature should be reported to the police. If they are not, patterns of persistent offending will not be picked up as soon as they could be.

CCTV can be obtained without the need to involve the police. As I recall, the suggestion was that the police may be able to get it more easily.

 

[najaB]

The reason for contacting the police was the reporting of people illegally selling ticket(s). In my view, crimes of this nature should be reported to the police. If they are not, patterns of persistent offending will not be picked up as soon as they could be.

CCTV can be obtained without the need to involve the police. As I recall, the suggestion was that the police may be able to get it more easily.

That was one reason why I made the initial suggestion to contact the BTP. The other is this: the OP has been found using a fake ticket. As far as AGA are concerned they have him bang to rights on a Byelaw 20 offence and potentially could investigate them for a fraud offence. They have no need or reason to look anywhere else for blame.

By reporting the fact that they bought were conned into buying the fake ticket from someone else the case for a fraud charge is weakened considerably. Yes, it does open the OP up to a Byelaw 21 offence but that's a better (less bad) place to be in than they could potentially end up.

Edit: If they don't report it to police they'll still end up the in the same situation wrt the Byelaw 21 offence as their defence against the Byelaw 20 offence is "I didn't make the ticket, I got it off someone else."

 

[cuccir]

Are we certain that the act of using a faked ticket is not itself, at least potentially, in violation of the fraud act? In particular, in the context of having purchased a ticket through an obviously-not-formal route? I'm on the side of waiting.

 

[najaB]

Are we certain that the act of using a faked ticket is not itself, at least potentially, in violation of the fraud act?

No, it isn't. To be found guilty of fraud the prosecution has to prove mens rea - if the OP didn't have reason to believe the ticket was fake (and he says this kind of thing is common practice in Italy) then no fraud occurred on his part.