TfL fare evasion

[26231421]

If you've received a court summons TfL have decided to prosecute you. They aren't going to give you a formal warning.

Because my court summons is for a pre-trial hearing to clarify my plea, does this mean there is still no chance of receiving a formal warning?

I’ve reviewed TfL's Revenue Protection and Prosecutions Policy, and I have a question about section 8.1:

"TfL will have regard to the following factors in favor of prosecution:

a) The offender has a previous conviction for a relevant offence or has committed a similar offence on any TfL or Train Operating Company services.
b) The offender has previously been issued a Penalty Fare on any TfL or Train Operating Company services.
c) The offender has previously been issued with a Formal Warning by TfL.
d) The offender has committed any of the offences of a serious nature as set out in paragraph 5.1 of this policy.
e) The offender has failed to pay for the service or failed to have sufficient Oyster card or Contactless Payment credit before boarding a relevant service. Where a contactless payment/electronic ticket is concerned, the previous usage history may be taken into consideration.
f) The offender has unlawfully used or transferred a Freedom Pass, Staff Pass, or other concessionary passes or travel documents issued to named holders other than the offender.
g) The offender has behaved in an aggressive, unacceptable, or uncooperative manner.
h) The offender has used aggressive, obscene, or unacceptable language."

The factors that seem relevant to my situation are (e) (and (f)?), I believe. Since many other factors do not apply to me, could this work in my favour?

Additionally, section 8.6 states:

"TfL may decide, in exceptional circumstances, to dispose of an offence by way of a Warning Letter in lieu of prosecution after considering several factors:"

a) The offender has admitted the offence.
b) The offender is willing to accept the warning.
c) There must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted.
d) The offence is not one where a prosecution is required in the public interest.
e) There is likely to be a low risk of re-offending.
f) Satisfactory mitigation has been provided."

Is the formal warning something TfL decides rather than the court? If so, does that mean the only way to request this now is at the hearing, or could I still request it when restating my plea in my email so they can decide in my absence? Is it even likely that this could be an outcome, or am I being overly hopeful? After reading the list, I feel like all of these factors apply to me (except perhaps the last, if they don’t consider my mitigation satisfactory).

At what point can you receive a formal warning? Is it only possible in the early stages, or could it still happen at the stage I’m at now, even if unlikely? If I end up attending the hearing, could I emphasize again that this behavior is completely out of character for me, that I’ve always complied with the law, and that I can assure them it will never happen again? Might they then consider giving me a warning? Could the fact that this situation is causing me significant anxiety make a difference? (I’m certain I won’t be able to hide how distressed I am if I attend the hearing.)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thank you for the advice. I think I’ll speak to my line manager after the court hearing, before I receive the letter with the penalty, to give her a heads-up and get her advice. Once I receive the letter, I’ll contact the ICAEW and see what they say.

They were dismissed not because they had been convicted of the offence, but because they had not disclosed it either to the employer, or to the actuarial professional body, as they were required to do.

Can I ask what the offence was? I just want to compare it to my situation to understand how serious my offence might be considered by my employer.

I have no particular knowledge of the ICAEW, or of accountants’ employment practices, but it seems to me that your plan is still based on making as little disclosure as possible. I don’t see that as a good approach.

The thing is, on the harshest interpretation of the rules, you could be sacked: that’s because on the basis of what you have told us, you have committed an offence - you must have known that the rules don’t allow you to use someone else’s Zip card. So if you want your employer and the Institute to take a more lenient view, you need to be seen to be absolutely open and honest with them.

That means you need to talk to your manager right now (I.e. first thing on Monday morning) to reveal the trouble you are in. And you need to understand that the dismissal that @John R refers to was for the lack of disclosure, not for the original offence. So the seriousness of the original offence doesn’t matter: simply put, if the employer is not going to be sympathetic and stick by the harshest interpretation of the rules, any offence at all is wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is the formal warning something TfL decides rather than the court?

Yes. TfL have decided to prosecute you instead of giving you a warning.

If so, does that mean the only way to request this now is at the hearing or could I still request it when restating my plea in my email so they can decide in my absence? Is it even likely that this could be an outcome, or am I being overly hopeful?

It’s not likely to be the outcome. The hearing will clarify your guilty plea and it can’t be used to beg not to be prosecuted. You can try to talk to the TfL prosecutor of course before the hearing (if they are even there - they may not be, if the hearing is only to ascertain the clarity of your plea) but they have already decided to prosecute you and they do not give a warning at this late stage. They have already considered your mitigation.

If I end up attending the hearing, could I emphasize again that this behavior is completely out of character for me, that I’ve always complied with the law, and that I can assure them it will never happen again?

Yes but you’d be stating this to the court having already accepted your guilt, and having pleaded guilty.

 

[some bloke]

An obligation you have on disclosure is to read the regulator's policy, your employment contract and any other document carefully enough, including the part quoted above about a charge for an offence involving dishonesty.

The responsibility for interpreting the rules is yours.

You can ask for advice from the regulator, or perhaps a trade union or a lawyer. "I asked on Railforums and an anonymous poster told me this was OK" may not be the kind of thing which a regulator or employer would be impressed by, and may not be a proper basis for decisions by you.

You might consider whether disclosure is best done in writing, in a form which provides you with evidence of having disclosed - such as an email. A written acknowledgement would confirm the email was received.

 

[Haywain]

Is the formal warning something TfL decides rather than the court? If so, does that mean the only way to request this now is at the hearing,

The role of the court us to decide whether you are guilty or not of the offence you have been charged with and, if guilty, what you will be ordered to pay as a result. The court cannot issue a warning.

 

[some bloke]

Where there's mitigation, a court can decide on, for example, an absolute discharge rather than a fine.

But you aren't close to that position. You are guilty of the more serious offence of travelling with intent to avoid a fare, and we might say also fraud. TfL has instead charged you with a lesser offence.

 

[Pushpit]

Can I ask what the offence was? I just want to compare it to my situation to understand how serious my offence might be considered by my employer.

I fear you are missing the point here. Not disclosing something that you must disclose is often more problematic than the offence itself. What else are you lying about? How can we trust what you tell us? These are the questions that an employer or professional body would have in mind. A byelaw offence for fare evasion isn't so interesting, but any attempt at cover-up would be taken seriously.

 

[sh24]

I don't have experience with ICAEW, but I've seen a good friend deal with a disclosable matter to a professional body. Being very clear, up front and honest is by the far the best way to go. You may get away with hiding things. You probably won't and the consequences will be much worse as a result.

 

[some bloke]

It may be worth ringing the ICAEW Ethics Advisory Service for advice - their phone number is on page 2

These may also be helpful:

The student support service

Fit and proper

When you apply for membership, your qualified person responsible for training (QPRT) will need to confirm that you are a fit and proper person to be admitted.

www.icaew.com

and "Sources of guidance" near the start of the Code of Ethics:

About the ICAEW Code of Ethics

All ICAEW members have a professional duty to comply with the Code of Ethics. They must familiarise themselves thoroughly with the current version of the Code. Find out more about the Code and how to use it.

www.icaew.com

 

[26231421]

So can I just confirm once again—getting a warning at this stage is basically impossible? I’m planning to send my email tonight, and if that’s the case, I won’t mention it. I’ll simply state again that I am pleading guilty and request to attend the hearing remotely or not attend at all, as I’d prefer to avoid the stress if the only possible outcome is prosecution.

Regarding disclosing this to the ICAEW, I do plan to inform them, but I’m unsure how to explain the situation. I’ll deal with that when the time comes, and I’ll speak to my line manager first so she is aware before I tell the ICAEW.

I also wanted to ask if anyone knows what typically happens in situations like this. I’ve read many people asking for advice, but I haven’t seen much about the outcomes—whether everything turned out okay in the end or if it had a significant impact on them. This likely won’t be resolved for another month or two, and some reassurance would be really helpful, as I’m constantly stressing about this every day.

 

[John R]

I'm not sure we get to hear any impact on employment, as a) in most cases we see, they don't go to prosecution and b) where they do, the OP has normally had all the advice they need from us, and I'm not sure we would expect people to give us an update on their employment situation.

 

[AlterEgo]

So can I just confirm once again—getting a warning at this stage is basically impossible?

Correct. TfL are prosecuting you. They have already decided this and it is only because you erroneously entered an equivocal plea instead of just pleading guilty that the court is holding a hearing at all.

I’ll simply state again that I am pleading guilty and request to attend the hearing remotely or not attend at all, as I’d prefer to avoid the stress if the only possible outcome is prosecution.

This seems reasonable, as there is no need to attend court if you are being prosecuted under SJPN and are pleading guilty.

Regarding disclosing this to the ICAEW, I do plan to inform them, but I’m unsure how to explain the situation. I’ll deal with that when the time comes, and I’ll speak to my line manager first so she is aware before I tell the ICAEW.

You will simply have to explain what happened, and tell them the truth. That is your duty to your regulatory body. You will need to do this at least immediately upon conviction and as others have observed, you probably already ought to have told them there are criminal proceedings against you. That you are still humming and haahing about what to say and when to tell them probably isn’t good. The suspicion of concealment is at least as bad as committing the offence, because the regulator has to trust you to be honest, including disclosing any mistakes or errors or judgment you have made. Chartered accountancy is a very high trust occupation. I can tell you this because my wife is one (registered with SAICA, which is a different regulator).

I also wanted to ask if anyone knows what typically happens in situations like this. I’ve read many people asking for advice, but I haven’t seen much about the outcomes—whether everything turned out okay in the end or if it had a significant impact on them. This likely won’t be resolved for another month or two, and some reassurance would be really helpful, as I’m constantly stressing about this every day.

As you are subject to the decisions of a highly regulated field in chartered accountancy, I don’t think this forum will generally be able to advise on the impact to you re: employment or registration. Other chartered accountants who have been through the same process might, though.