TFL Court summon , conviction implications ?

[RJ]

One question that might be relevant to the OP is: is that 16+ valid?

That other thread says end of last April they were 18. As I understand it, 16+ is available to those who are under 18 on 31 Aug, which only would have left less than a 4 mth window for renewal, as they must be 19 now.

Possibly worth enquiring as that might possibly affect things if it's not?

It's available to those who are under 19 on the 31st August prior to the start of higher education academic year. I had a 16+ Oyster until the 30th September following my 19th birthday, as I was still in full time education (and working full time at the same time!)

 

[Camden]

It's available to those who are under 19 when term starts in September. I had a 16+ Oyster when I was 19, as I was still in full time education (and working full time at the same time!)

I'm not aware of that rule, but even so it would be the same thing.

Last April (ie before 31 Aug (term start Sept)) was stated OP was 18 then. As such that still only left the 4 mth window for renewal to get the ticket it's now one year on from then (and the OP must either be 19 by now or in the next few days), so the question as to whether the 16+ is valid still stands unanswered, and may be relevant as to the situation.

 

[PermitToTravel]

They have a photo of the holder and aren't issued without proof of full-time student status.

 

[TheEdge]

mus9, I have an earth shattering idea for you. You might wan't to take a seat, this is a big one.

Stop. Doing. This.

You've admitted in this thread to making this "mistake" at least twice, possibly three times. Plus I buy mojo's logic that the other thread of someone else getting caught at Greenford on a 16+ Oyster with £2.80 is probably you as well. Surely having already paid £300 for this "mistake" you would make sure to not do it again?

Or you'll keep doing it and the next summons for your "mistake" (or Maz5's mistake at Greenford!) will be a Regualtion of Railways Act offence and that will cause you problems.

Is that not the loophole you wanted to hear?

 

[Camden]

They have a photo of the holder and aren't issued without proof of full-time student status.

I'm aware of the process for them being issued. It doesn't answer the question asked, which can be answered very simply by the OP themselves.

 

[bb21]

As far as the spelling errors etc are concerned this isn't a marked and graded website ,

well someone told me if convicted on byelaws it doesn't get put on your CRB

Also I had £2.80 on the card it cost 0.75£ on 16+ oyster as soon as the officer let me go I tapped in and left I didn't top it up because there was sufficient amount.

Anyway thanks all even the guys who like to bring my integrity into it

Ignoring all the chitchats, I get the impression that either you are not fully appreciating the severity of your actions, or you are not taking this very seriously at all.

With regard to your previous records, there is only so much people can try and suggest you do each time this sort of thing happens, and everytime you do something like this, your options will reduce. Eventually you will run out of options and they will put you in jail. I am not scaremongering. I fear that if you cannot learn after paying £300 to get yourself out of a sticky situation, there is not much that can make you learn. So for your own sake, next time, if the gate does not open, don't push through it, ask a member of staff for help. If you have a habit of running late, leave yourself a bit more time so you are not always in a rush. If you miss that train, waiting half an hour is better than your pocket being several hundred pounds lighter, or worse.

So back to this matter in hand, as others have mentioned, you don't really have any ground to challenge it, so plead guilty, pay the fine, and make sure you don't play with fire again, that is, if you want a clean record for the sake of your future career.

(I also have questions over the legitimacy of your 16+ card, but since you did not bring it into the question, I am not going to ask. I make the assumption that it was used legitimately. If it were a factor in getting you in trouble this time, things may not be so easy.)

 

[RJ]

I'm not aware of that rule, but even so it would be the same thing.

Last April (ie before 31 Aug (term start Sept)) was stated OP was 18 then. As such that still only left the 4 mth window for renewal to get the ticket it's now one year on from then (and the OP must either be 19 by now or in the next few days), so the question as to whether the 16+ is valid still stands unanswered, and may be relevant as to the situation.

If they were 18 last April and still 18 on the 31st August last year, they could have a 16+ card that's valid until 30th September this year.

Still, mistakes are made - a friend in my class at college had an 11-15 Oyster issued instead of a 16+ that had an expiry date in the year she was 20!

 

[tony_mac]

Do you guys think i should go to court ? Or just plea guilty via paper ? Because aslong as it doesn't effect my future e.g going to USA , coming up on my CRB check I wouldn't mind because it's cheaper £150 for the court payment it says on the letter .

Anecdotally, courts appear to be a little more lenient on those that appear in person.
I've no idea what the 'cheaper £150' is about. You do get a discount for pleading guilty, but that is the same by post or in person.
This doesn't appear to be an issue for US immigration.

 

[island]

Anecdotally, courts appear to be a little more lenient on those that appear in person.
I've no idea what the 'cheaper £150' is about. You do get a discount for pleading guilty, but that is the same by post or in person.
This doesn't appear to be an issue for US immigration.

My reading of it is that the "£150" refers to a statement on the paperwork that the prosecutor will apply for costs in that sum in the event of a conviction, and an incorrect assumption by the OP that this would be the total amount payable on conviction in court.

I also echo the posts by TheEdge and bb21.

 

[DaleCooper]

My reading of it is that the "£150" refers to a statement on the paperwork that the prosecutor will apply for costs in that sum in the event of a conviction, and an incorrect assumption by the OP that this would be the total amount payable on conviction in court.

It certainly would be odd to get away with £150 when an offer of £500 has been rejected.

 

[DownSouth]

Dependent on where he lives, the OP may find his case reported in local newspapers. One of my local weekly free papers includes a section reporting all penalties imposed by the local magistrates - and this will almost certainly register in an on-line search for the offender's name.

Perhaps naming and shaming, combined with a bit of basic search engine optimisation, is a tactic that the rail companies should consider making better use of in the case of repeat offenders that they can only get on non-recordable charges.

 

[Deerfold]

As far as the spelling errors etc are concerned this isn't a marked and graded website ,

Do you really think it's only worth using capital letters and full stops and spelling correctly if you're going to be marked on it? I wouldn't want you teaching my children.

Though I am in no position to enforce them, the forum rules do say:

All contributions should be readable and understandable. You should avoid the use of excessive formatting, and make reasonable efforts to use legible fonts and correct spelling, punctuation and grammar in all your contributions.

Your complaints to people give the impression that nothing is your fault - not your ticket irregularities, your posts... I'd advise not taking that attitude to court.

 

[Llanigraham]

I repeat my advice from earlier, with an alteration!!

Advice 1: learn from your mistakes.
Advice 2: learn from your mistakes.
Advice 3: go OR WRITE to the Court, by very apologetic and contrite and hope that the Magistrates are feeling lenient.
Advice 4: learn from your mistakes.

However I have one addition:
Advice 5: write to the Magistrates in a way that they understand, using correct grammar and punctuation. They will invariably be much older than you!!

 

[DaleCooper]

I wouldn't want you teaching my children.

Neither would I.

However I have one addition:
Advice 5: write to the Magistrates in a way that they understand, using correct grammar and punctuation. They will invariably be much older than you!!

Advice 6: You can't always buy your way out of trouble.

 

[Darandio]

Advice 6: You can't always buy your way out of trouble.

Unless your name is Bernie Ecclestone.

 

[DownSouth]

It certainly would be odd to get away with £150 when an offer of £500 has been rejected.

A quick search reveals that a new £150 fee (for pleading guilty to a summary offence, goes up to £520 if found guilty at trial) came into effect a couple of weeks ago which is in addition to the fine, victim surcharge and costs. I can't imagine that the company's costs would be as low as £150 if it did actually end up going to court.

Either way, the actual costs that the company would claim for in court are irrelevant to the amount that the company may (or may not) want to accept for a monetary settlement. They have to play fairly at court, they don't when they are negotiating a settlement.

Unless your name is Bernie Ecclestone.

<reconsiders opposition to having a Like button on posts>


In the unlikely event of Mr E debasing himself to catch a train with the proletariat, do you think he would pay for a ticket? Would any rail staff be brave enough to try and inspect it?

One to ponder.

 

[tony_mac]

A quick search reveals that a new £150 fee (for pleading guilty to a summary offence, goes up to £520 if found guilty at trial) came into effect a couple of weeks ago

I think that doesn't apply as the offence date was well before the cutoff.
Even if it did, it would be the same for pleading guilty in person or by post, so neither will be 'cheaper'.