TfL Prosecution

[aedsoll]

Hello everyone, I want to ask for advice on a TfL prosecution case.

Context:

• I’m 19, not in education or employment
• On 16 June 2026 I was caught using my younger sister’s Zip Oyster photocard on a bus, to which I was not entitled
• The card is heavily worn — the photo and expiry date are completely illegible
• When approached by the inspector I cooperated fully, confirmed my age, told him it was my sister’s card, handed it over, and gave my full details
• I had used the card on at least one previous occasion a couple of months prior
• I received a NIP letter dated 17 June, case number *redacted*, with a 10-day response window
• I intend to respond accepting full responsibility with no excuses

What I’m asking:

I’m not looking for sympathy, I committed an offence and I own that and want to take accountability which is why im asking. What I want to know is:

1. Given full cooperation and honest disclosure of prior use, what is the realistic range of outcomes here?
2. Does the illegibility of the card (no visible photo, no expiry) change how TfL typically classifies this — fare irregularity vs fraud?
3. Is there anything specific I should or shouldn’t include in my response letter?

Any advice appreciated.

 

[SuspectUsual]

You should edit your post and remove the case reference number

 

[aedsoll]

You should edit your post and remove the case reference number

Thank you so much

 

[SECR 65]

Welcome to the forum,

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to reply properly in full detail. Hopefully others can add.

TfL prosecute in the vast majority of cases, so that is the most likely outcome here. Occasionally, or more commonly with the use of a solicitor, a final warning can be achieved and prosecution avoided. Forum members can list firms who others have used previousl; you would want a specialist in fare evasion.

We can help draft you letter. I'm afraid that without a solicitor, you are highly likely to be prosecuted.

 

[AlterEgo]

Given full cooperation and honest disclosure of prior use, what is the realistic range of outcomes here?

Either:

- a warning letter (uncommon, or
- prosecution under the TfL Bylaws in the magistrates' court (the most common, happening 15,000 times a year)

Does the illegibility of the card (no visible photo, no expiry) change how TfL typically classifies this — fare irregularity vs fraud?

Well it doesn't look good, because that can really only have been done by someone looking to misuse it, but TfL does not prosecute things as fraud as a matter of course.

Is there anything specific I should or shouldn’t include in my response letter?

If you are serious about wanting not to be prosecuted you need to instruct a solicitor, which will cost somewhere around £600 to £1000.

 

[aedsoll]

Welcome to the forum,

I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to reply properly in full detail. Hopefully others can add.

TfL prosecute in the vast majority of cases, so that is the most likely outcome here. Occasionally, or more commonly with the use of a solicitor, a final warning can be achieved and prosecution avoided. Forum members can list firms who others have used previousl; you would want a specialist in fare evasion.

We can help draft you letter. I'm afraid that without a solicitor, you are highly likely to be prosecuted.

I see that makes sense. Where can I find a solicitor though?

 

[aedsoll]

Either:

- a warning letter (uncommon, or
- prosecution under the TfL Bylaws in the magistrates' court (the most common, happening 15,000 times a year)


Well it doesn't look good, because that can really only have been done by someone looking to misuse it, but TfL does not prosecute things as fraud as a matter of course.


If you are serious about wanting not to be prosecuted you need to instruct a solicitor, which will cost somewhere around £600 to £1000.

Thanks a lot for the advice, it’s really appreciated

I already wrote the letter immediately and I was just fully honest and didn’t try to make it seem like I did it for a justified reason, because it’s still an offence no matter the mitigating circumstances. This was advice from someone who also was in this position and wasn’t prosecuted.

At the end of the day I can only hope for the best and expect the worst, it was due to my own actions to begin with.

It’s taught me either way to not take things lightly, as though I am typically considered a “good citizen” I suppose I took this specific issue not a seriously due to the amount of people who do it.

 

[SECR 65]

Here are some firms who forum members have used before. Note that I have no affiliation to any of the below and nor do I have any experience of their services.

Manak Solicitors

Fare Evasion Solicitors | Kent & London | Manak Solicitors

manaksolicitors.co.uk

Makwanas

Fare Evasion Solicitors London | High Success Rate | TFL Solicitors

www.makwanas.co.uk

http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/default.asp?id=30

https://penmansedgwick.com/fare-evasion/

 

[jumble]

Either:

- a warning letter (uncommon, or
- prosecution under the TfL Bylaws in the magistrates' court (the most common, happening 15,000 times a year)


Well it doesn't look good, because that can really only have been done by someone looking to misuse it, but TfL does not prosecute things as fraud as a matter of course.


If you are serious about wanting not to be prosecuted you need to instruct a solicitor, which will cost somewhere around £600 to £1000.

To be fair the photo printing on an over 60 oyster is absolutely dire.
My photo faded to being unrecognisable in less than 6 months.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be fair the photo printing on an over 60 oyster is absolutely dire.
My photo faded to being unrecognisable in less than 6 months.

Perhaps, but you are missing the context in which the OP has given us that information.

 

[aedsoll]

Here are some firms who forum members have used before. Note that I have no affiliation to any of the below and nor do I have any experience of their services.

Thanks much appreciated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2026 ==

Perhaps, but you are missing the context in which the OP has given us that information.

The thing is it was faded away naturally. When I was asked who it belonged to when it was being confiscated, I made it clear that it was my sister’s rather than lie about it, so perhaps they won’t see it as intentional misuse. This is also due to the fact that it was clearly naturally faded rather than for instance, being scribbled over or just the picture being rubbed out.

 

[SuspectUsual]

When I was asked who it belonged to when it was being confiscated, I made it clear that it was my sister’s rather than lie about it, so perhaps they won’t see it as intentional misuse. This is also due to the fact that it was clearly naturally faded rather than for instance, being scribbled over or just the picture being rubbed out.

I think this is very unlikely I'm afraid - they will see it as you knowingly using something you know isn't yours; the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious to the inspector whose card it really was is neither here nor there, and besides you've given them that information

 

[aedsoll]

Here are some firms who forum members have used before. Note that I have no affiliation to any of the below and nor do I have any experience of their services.

I hope you’ve been well.

They sent my sister a letter today as well saying that they want an explanation as well. Of course I will make sure what is sent is coherent, that it was her card being used by me, and although she had given me access to the card before, she wasn’t aware in this specific incident.

I wanted to ask if it’s normal procedure for them to send a letter to my sister also, and if I need to correct anything I said above.

Thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2026 ==

I think this is very unlikely I'm afraid - they will see it as you knowingly using something you know isn't yours; the fact that it wasn't immediately obvious to the inspector whose card it really was is neither here nor there, and besides you've given them that information

Oh yes of course, I wanted to just be honest there.

I agree, in any case I guess it’s hope for the best and expect the worst.

 

[SECR 65]

I hope you’ve been well.

They sent my sister a letter today as well saying that they want an explanation as well. Of course I will make sure what is sent is coherent, that it was her card being used by me, and although she had given me access to the card before, she wasn’t aware in this specific incident.

I wanted to ask if it’s normal procedure for them to send a letter to my sister also, and if I need to correct anything I said above.

I appreciate that these questions are potentially addressed to me, but I'm afraid that I don't have the experience or knowledge to be able to answer properly. I'm sure another member will be able to assist.

I suspect it's fairly normal for them to send correspondence to the pass holder. Maybe she would stay out of trouble more if she said she did not give permission for you to use it. I don't think that would change how TfL would treat you. Not that I neccecarily think it's a good idea to lie, though. Hopefully we can have some other opinions on this.

 

[furlong]

And how old is your sister?