TFL fare evasion help

[furlong]

so I wonder if this could look like a fraud case rather than the more simple fare evasion.

That was my assumption, using an interview template designed to attempt to elicit an admission of fraud (which bears a high standard of proof).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

. He thinks they will back date all his travel and with court costs it could end up being £50,000+

Just to come back on this point: we don't know about costs but this could be a substantial overestimate for the travel.

I'll guess that OP's husband makes a long journey on the Underground to central London. If I arbitrarily choose Chesham to Waterloo, then TfL's fare finder ( https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/find-fares/single-fare-finder) tells me that has a peak time Oyster fare of £8.80 or a cash fare of £10.30.

If I take the cash fare and round it down to £10 to make the sums easy, that would be £20 that TfL would want back for every day of travel.

If OP's husband commutes for 250 days a year, that's 250 x £20 = £5000 per year.

So that's 10 years of commuting every day to reach £50,000. Which isn't impossible, but it seems to me that a lower figure is more likely.

 

[Swedenorer]

That was my assumption, using an interview template designed to attempt to elicit an admission of fraud (which bears a high standard of proof).

I don't see how any admission of fraud is required in this case. All they need to ask is "Where do you live?" No doubt they have plenty of data on how much the card has been used. The fact that Condition 4 was not complied with is enough to start the ball rolling and a serial fare evasion case must be quite easy to mount. Given the number of enforcement staff who showed up on the OP I suspect TfL are pretty sure of a) their ground and b) the seriousness.

 

[Deerfold]

Just to come back on this point: we don't know about costs but this could be a substantial overestimate for the travel.

I'll guess that OP's husband makes a long journey on the Underground to central London. If I arbitrarily choose Chesham to Waterloo, then TfL's fare finder ( https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/find-fares/single-fare-finder) tells me that has a peak time Oyster fare of £8.80 or a cash fare of £10.30.

If I take the cash fare and round it down to £10 to make the sums easy, that would be £20 that TfL would want back for every day of travel.

If OP's husband commutes for 250 days a year, that's 250 x £20 = £5000 per year.

So that's 10 years of commuting every day to reach £50,000. Which isn't impossible, but it seems to me that a lower figure is more likely.

As the OP said (and it's been repeated) the 50k figure included estimated court costs.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As the OP said (and it's been repeated) the 50k figure included estimated court costs.

Indeed. Which is why I started with

Just to come back on this point: we don't know about costs but this could be a substantial overestimate for the travel.

(with added italics for emphasis)

 

[Deerfold]

Indeed. Which is why I started with

(with added italics for emphasis)

The point is, it wasn't an estimate for the travel.

 

[AlterEgo]

As the OP said (and it's been repeated) the 50k figure included estimated court costs.

What court costs? They're imagined too. It's clear the OP's husband is unnecessarily catastrophising about this and they need to be told so. A solicitor costs maybe £1000-1500 at the very most, and TfL's costs are extremely limited. So what, £48,000 of evasion then? Doubtful.

 

[furlong]

I don't think it's helpful to mention ranges like that, as the question about how long this was going on hasn't been answered (but the description hinted at quite a number of years), and in the worst case dealing with a fraud case (potentially in the Crown Court) may involve substantially higher sums than the forum is accustomed to seeing (and then there's the Legal Aid situation).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2026 ==

I don't see how any admission of fraud is required in this case.

Not required but it might affect the selection of the charge, making it easier to prove all the elements of a more serious offence are present to the necessary degree.
(For more serious potential charges, the conditions you reference may be of little assistance if it can't be proved that the bearer was aware of them.)

 

[Swedenorer]

(For more serious potential charges, the conditions you reference may be of little assistance if it can't be proved that the bearer was aware of them.)

Agreed it all depends on what course TfL decide to take.

I suspect the OP would have mentioned any ignorance of the conditions earlier. If the holder weren't given this with the card https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1604-2021/CoU-Staff nominee May 2015.pdf I would be surprised but the condition relating to residence is also on the application form. Anyway it is up to the holder of any concessionary pass of any kind to make themselves aware of any conditions attached to it.

 

[WesternLancer]

Agreed it all depends on what course TfL decide to take.

I suspect the OP would have mentioned any ignorance of the conditions earlier. If the holder weren't given this with the card https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1604-2021/CoU-Staff nominee May 2015.pdf I would be surprised but the condition relating to residence is also on the application form. Anyway it is up to the holder of any concessionary pass of any kind to make themselves aware of any conditions attached to it.

Occurs to me to ask, do you get annual/ periodic reminders for the card and those regs.

Or do you get them once when card issued and then the onus is on you to surrender the card in line with rules, which if you’ve been cohabitating with the person from which entitlement is derived could have been many years before.

 

[Deerfold]

Occurs to me to ask, do you get annual/ periodic reminders for the card and those regs.

Or do you get them once when card issued and then the onus is on you to surrender the card in line with rules, which if you’ve been cohabitating with the person from which entitlement is derived could have been many years before.

When I worked for TfL, you'd get a new leaflet every time the validity changed.

That will have happened when TfL took over the extremities of the Elizabeth line. I'm not sure if there's been any changes since then.

 

[WesternLancer]

When I worked for TfL, you'd get a new leaflet every time the validity changed.

That will have happened when TfL took over the extremities of the Elizabeth line. I'm not sure if there's been any changes since then.

Thanks - that makes sense but I would have thought there is an argument for eg annual or every 2 years or so info and even a card to be re-issued say every 2 years where you have to actively declare entitlement remains etc - I guess a load of costs to that in fairness to card provider side - whether that be TfL or TOC issued cards / legacy BR priv cards etc.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When I worked for TfL, you'd get a new leaflet every time the validity changed.

That will have happened when TfL took over the extremities of the Elizabeth line. I'm not sure if there's been any changes since then.

From your time with TfL, can you say how long a nominee pass lasts before reissue?

I'm thinking this would either give an upper bound on how long someone could misuse a pass for, or suggest that the nominator could be in trouble for having received and passed on a nominee pass to someone no longer entitled to it.

 

[AlterEgo]

i think it's really unhelpful to mention fraud when we know this isn't TfL's MO - they prosecute under the Bylaws, ask for offences to be taken into consideration, and withdraw facilities in cases like this.

It seems clear that the OP's husband is not of sound mind and was doom-minded about the outcomes because they had just been shocked by a doorstep visit. It is not helpful to assist in doubling down on this. TfL visited the address to obtain proof he lived there, clearly.

There are loads of people who think they'll be charged £100 penalty fares and go to jail etc for each historic instance. If this is £50,000 worth of evasion I'll eat my hat. An insane amount for TfL journeys! Would be helpful if the OP confirmed more details, but hopefully they've got legal advice and don't come back here, tbh.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm thinking this would either give an upper bound on how long someone could misuse a pass for, or suggest that the nominator could be in trouble for having received and passed on a nominee pass to someone no longer entitled to it.

My take is the nominator is probably retired (OP said worked for - as in used to work for) so presumably their is some sanction possible but would this be any more than removal of their own pass? if they were party to the matter.

The OP mentions their husband is concerned for their own job prospects (presumably husband not employed by TfL) if they are prosecuted by TfL for this matter - not sure I have seen any advice given on that point yet, but I think I would be trying to establish how accurate that is - eg checking their employment contract, checking with the union if they are a member where they work, funding out what they may have to disclose if this went to court etc etc. As you have often posted on this aspect @Fawkes Cat it's far from a given that someone would lose their job over this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2026 ==

i think it's really unhelpful to mention fraud when we know this isn't TfL's MO - they prosecute under the Bylaws, ask for offences to be taken into consideration, and withdraw facilities in cases like this.

It seems clear that the OP's husband is not of sound mind and was doom-minded about the outcomes because they had just been shocked by a doorstep visit. It is not helpful to assist in doubling down on this. TfL visited the address to obtain proof he lived there, clearly.

There are loads of people who think they'll be charged £100 penalty fares and go to jail etc for each historic instance. If this is £50,000 worth of evasion I'll eat my hat. An insane amount for TfL journeys! Would be helpful if the OP confirmed more details, but hopefully they've got legal advice and don't come back here, tbh.

Points well made in my view.

 

[Haywain]

i think it's really unhelpful to mention fraud when we know this isn't TfL's MO - they prosecute under the Bylaws, ask for offences to be taken into consideration, and withdraw facilities in cases like this.

We also know that going to people's homes isn't TfL's MO, but it happened in this case. Given that we have pretty much universally recommended that the OP's husband gets professional legal advice and assistance, any further discussion should be purely theoretical.

 

[AlterEgo]

We also know that going to people's homes isn't TfL's MO, but it happened in this case. Given that we have pretty much universally recommended that the OP's husband gets professional legal advice and assistance, any further discussion should be purely theoretical.

Agreed. OP hasn't been back for several days and hopefully they have taken on a solicitor.

 

[Hadders]

We really need further information from @Hello316 to be able to give appropriate advice. Without this information discussion inevitably drifts into guesswork and speculation and so for the time being we have locked this thread.

@Hello316 - when you are ready to give us more information about the case report this post by clicking the report button in the bottom left of the screen which will alert the moderating team to reopen the thread.