The 'fraud letters' process

[The exile]

I disagree. I have an habit of not taking a basket if I plan to get only a couple of items. Then I see something at an attractive price, grab it, and go to get a basket which are typically outside

At most supermarkets I know they might be “outside” the security screens, but they are still inside the confines of the store.

 

[AlterEgo]

And you're claiming we're disproportionately likely to commit petty crimes?

The fact so many people in London on visas are committing crime is driven by, well, the fact that a huge number of people in London are on visas! Not because they're worse people or something.

My comment was more around the fact that so many people are stupid and reckless enough to risk their immigration status by indulging in what is basically - in any other circumstance - plain old fraud or theft. There is a substantial additional level of jeopardy involved for those people, especially if they are wishing to gain ILR or citizenship.

(My wife arrived here on a Tier 2 visa and when we lived in Silvertown she occasionally suggested just bunking the DLR! Like girl are you stupid??)

 

[Gaelan]

The fact so many people in London on visas are committing crime is driven by, well, the fact that a huge number of people in London are on visas! Not because they're worse people or something.

My comment was more around the fact that so many people are stupid and reckless enough to risk their immigration status by indulging in what is basically - in any other circumstance - plain old fraud or theft. There is a substantial additional level of jeopardy involved for those people, especially if they are wishing to gain ILR or citizenship.

(My wife arrived here on a Tier 2 visa and when we lived in Silvertown she occasionally suggested just bunking the DLR! Like girl are you stupid??)

Right, okay, I dramatically misread your original post. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[gembercannelle]

At most supermarkets I know they might be “outside” the security screens, but they are still inside the confines of the store.

In supermarkets I visit trolleys are physically outside of the building, a few meters from the entrance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2026 ==

My wife arrived here on a Tier 2 visa and when we lived in Silvertown she occasionally suggested just bunking the DLR! Like girl are you stupid?

I guess she simply has not realised that TfL gives you a criminal conviction...

 

[Egg Centric]

I guess she simply has not realised that TfL gives you a criminal conviction...

Again judging by the threads we get here (which may or may not be representative) many don't. Honestly it's not intuitively obvious how serious it is if you ask me. Since we're not talking about an actual OP here I think can open up a bit more about immigration law without breaking forum rules - a single conviction is up to a 3 year delay to citizenship by my reading of the previous more prescriptive rules and more could even be permanent bar. Although now things are vaguer I suspect this is no longer actually the case, and will depend a lot on how things are presented.

I'm not sure how many people who haven't been involved with immigration stuff realise a) how expensive it is - our family's immigration adventures aren't going to have much change from 20k although admittedly some of that involves me and my daughter getting Zambian citizenship as well as my wife getting UK citizenship and b) how arbitrary it is. Hence why there's the prohibition upon discussing it in the forum (as I often point out, it is not illegal to discuss it as while there's a clause that basically says "you can't do immigration advice if you're not an immigration adviser/lawyer" there's a subsequent clause which essentially says "when you're doing this in the course of business") and many other places, it's just a very bizarre set of law. And yet it's a law that is a bit like as @AlterEgo says about railway law very much operates on the consent of those who agree to be governed by it, if you just take the mickey and do what you want then what you can get away with is just enormous...

 

[Tetchytyke]

(My wife arrived here on a Tier 2 visa and when we lived in Silvertown she occasionally suggested just bunking the DLR! Like girl are you stupid??)

I guess she simply has not realised that TfL gives you a criminal conviction...

Again judging by the threads we get here (which may or may not be representative) many don't. Honestly it's not intuitively obvious how serious it is if you ask me.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

People don't realise that bunking your fare is a criminal offence. Most people think that the worst that will happen is that you'll get a Penalty Fare and it'll be annoying but nothing more. With TfL this is usually the case, unless you are misusing a Freedom Pass or a discounted Oyster, in which case they (rightly) go for prosecution unless you have some very good mitigation and can express that mitigation well (which is where the lawyers come in).

It does make me smile how so many people coming here for guidance are aghast at the fact that the TOCs are calling it fraud. Of course it's fraud. What else is it?

Hence why there's the prohibition upon discussing it in the forum (as I often point out, it is not illegal to discuss it as while there's a clause that basically says "you can't do immigration advice if you're not an immigration adviser/lawyer" there's a subsequent clause which essentially says "when you're doing this in the course of business") and many other places, it's just a very bizarre set of law.

The prohibition is rightly there, tbh. As you say, immigration law is extremely complex and it is very very easy to give someone the wrong advice and even a slight misstep can sink everything.

As you say, it isn't illegal to give advice unless it is as part of a course of business, and most of what people post on here wouldn't even really be advice anyway. Advice and guidance are not the same thing. But the only sensible response on a train form has to be "go and speak to an expert."

 

[The exile]

In supermarkets I visit trolleys are physically outside of the building, a few meters from the entrance.

The original comment was about going back for a basket, not a trolley.

 

[Haywain]

it isn't illegal to give advice unless it is as part of a course of business,

The question that could arise is whether the forum is a business and posts on the forum are the course of that business.

 

[gembercannelle]

The original comment was about going back for a basket, not a trolley.

Apologies, I meant trolley. I often have a heavy backpack, so try to shop with a trolley if it is more than a pound.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The question that could arise is whether the forum is a business and posts on the forum are the course of that business.

Realistically, the answer would be 'no, it's not a business'. There are no paying customers for advice/guidance, and (as far as I know) no one successfully extracts either pay or profit from the forum. In the absence of either buyers or money-making sellers, it's not a business.

And you need to think who would be likely to challenge the forum on the basis of alleged illegality of advice. If anyone, it would be government (whether national or local through trading standards or similar). And realistically, they're going to be much more interested in people setting themselves up as 'immigration agents' or 'advisers' and looking to exploit the desperate for profit. Unless I've badly misunderstood this forum, that ain't us.

So do I think we should be venturing into immigration advice/guidance? No. As both @Egg Centric and @Tetchytyke have rightly said

it's just a very bizarre set of law.

The prohibition is rightly there, tbh. As you say, immigration law is extremely complex and it is very very easy to give someone the wrong advice and even a slight misstep can sink everything.

As you say, it isn't illegal to give advice unless it is as part of a course of business, and most of what people post on here wouldn't even really be advice anyway. Advice and guidance are not the same thing. But the only sensible response on a train form has to be "go and speak to an expert."

It's better for everyone if we stick to something we have some chance of understanding (and where no one will get thrown out of the country if we get it wrong)

 

[davp]

Realistically, the answer would be 'no, it's not a business'.

It acts as an affiliate or agent for selling tickets, and that activity is sometimes encouraged by forum staff and members. That is commercial activity even if it is designed solely to cover running costs. I have no problem with the forum doing any of this, but I think it would be a stretch to claim it's effectively an entirely private endeavour. However for all sorts of reasons, many mentioned, I agree that forum members shouldn't be offering immigration advice.

I also think the legislation is maybe more nuanced than some of the discussions are suggesting. The practice note linked below gives an example of a support group wanting to offer immigration advice to a member. The support group would require to be registered.

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended)
The Immigration and Asylum Act (IAA) 1999 (as amended) requires persons providing immigration advice and services within the UK to be qualified to do so. To provide immigration advice and services when not qualified is a criminal offence.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended, defines ‘immigration advice’ (section 82) as advice relating to a particular individual given in connection with one or more ‘relevant matters’ by a person who knows that he is giving such advice.

This does not include advice given in connection with representing an individual before a court in criminal proceedings or matters ancillary to criminal proceedings.

‘Relevant matters’ are defined in the act as including:

• a claim for asylum

• an application for, or for the variation of, entry clearance or leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom

• an immigration employment document

• unlawful entry into the United Kingdom

• nationality and citizenship under the law of the United Kingdom

• removal or deportation from the United Kingdom

• an application for bail under the Immigration Act or under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997

• an appeal against, or an application for judicial review, in relation to any decision taken in connection with a matter referred to above

The 1999 act defines ‘immigration services’ as the making of representations, in connection with one or more relevant matters, on behalf of a particular individual either in:
a. civil proceedings before a court, tribunal or adjudicator in the United Kingdom
b. in correspondence with a Minister of the Crown or government department

Such services are regulated when provided in the course of business, whether or not done for profit. This includes occasional help offered to members of a community. Organisations that undertake these activities as an ancillary service to their main business (for example, colleges assisting students to apply for visas) still need to be regulated by the OISC.

Most voluntary and community organisations and most businesses that offer immigration advice or services in the UK need to apply to the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) for registration. The Commissioner’s  Immigration Assistance Practice Note  provides information on activities that may however be carried out without the need for regulation.

Second tier advice is advice given by one advice service to another. If you only provide second-tier advice or signpost clients to other advisers, you do not need to apply for regulation by IAA.

The Commissioner’s clarification on the IAA’s jurisdiction provides further guidance on ‘relevant matters’.

It is a criminal offence for a person to provide immigration advice or services in the UK unless their organisation is regulated by the IAA or is otherwise covered by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

 

[Gaelan]

Realistically, the answer would be 'no, it's not a business'. There are no paying customers for advice/guidance, and (as far as I know) no one successfully extracts either pay or profit from the forum. In the absence of either buyers or money-making sellers, it's not a business.

The forum has adverts and (as I understand it) some sort of revenue-sharing scheme with the associated ticket booking site. I suspect this just about covers operational costs, if that, but I doubt a court cares if a business is profitable.

 

[Hadders]

Just to be clear, established forum members on here are very experienced in railway ticketing matters, including disoutes and prosecutions, and are able to offer appropriate guidance and advice to people seeking advice in these areas.

We are not experts in immigration issues, so regardless of the legal position we should not be offering immigration advice.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I also think the legislation is maybe more nuanced than some of the discussions are suggesting. The practice note linked below gives an example of a support group wanting to offer immigration advice to a member. The support group would require to be registered.

It is more nuanced, charities can be conducting advice as a business even if they don’t charge for their advice (e.g. Citizens Advice). But signposting, guidance, advice, and advocacy/ representation are all different things. Advice and advocacy/representation are prohibited, signposting and guidance is not. Even leading aside the “carrying on as a business” thing, I don’t think what we can offer on a railway forum (even if the forum rules allowed it) is actually advice anyway.

FWIW I was, about fifteen years ago, actually authorised to give Tier 1 immigration advice (basic initial advice). I still wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole now or here, the law is a nightmare and the consequences arising from a misstep are too high. Point people to the Law Society website and tell them to speak to an immigration solicitor.

Oh, and tell them to pay their bloody fares.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It is more nuanced, charities can be conducting advice as a business even if they don’t charge for their advice (e.g. Citizens Advice). But signposting, guidance, advice, and advocacy/ representation are all different things. Advice and advocacy/representation are prohibited, signposting and guidance is not. Even leading aside the “carrying on as a business” thing, I don’t think what we can offer on a railway forum (even if the forum rules allowed it) is actually advice anyway.

FWIW I was, about fifteen years ago, actually authorised to give Tier 1 immigration advice (basic initial advice). I still wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole now or here, the law is a nightmare and the consequences arising from a misstep are too high. Point people to the Law Society website and tell them to speak to an immigration solicitor.

Oh, and tell them to pay their bloody fares.

The practical upshot of all this is that when someone asks for a steer on their immigration issue, we don't need to say 'it's illegal for us to give immigration advice' (because that might not be true) but we can say 'our policy is not to give immigration advice' (because that's undoubtedly true).

 

[gembercannelle]

The practical upshot of all this is that when someone asks for a steer on their immigration issue, we don't need to say 'it's illegal for us to give immigration advice' (because that might not be true) but we can say 'our policy is not to give immigration advice' (because that's undoubtedly true).

Based on my humble experience in immigration matters, I would suggest to advice them to read carefully the Caseworker Handbook relevant to their visa/immigration path (which is freely available online and comprehensive, but can be rather difficult to digest), and, if in doubt, contact an immigration lawyer.

 

[jumble]

I actually think TfL have a better attitude in terms of revenue protection and prosecution. For bog-standard issues they give out a Penalty Fare. For more serious matters, misuse of Freedom Pass etc, they go straight to prosecution.

In my opinion the issues come because the TOCs have a financial interest in not issuing Penalty Fares and, instead, threatening prosecution. If they don't issue a Penalty Fare then none of the administrative headache and costs of the appeals process applies, and they can ask for more than £100 in "admin costs." They can ask for what they want as a settlement and, in most cases, the person has a choice of paying up or being prosecuted.

The increase in the Penalty Fare to £100 knocked the 'penalty fake' nonsense on its head for a bit, but it seems to be gradually creeping back in.

TfL only prosecute stuff which deserves to be prosecuted.

May I just caveat that my understanding is that TFL default to give the benefit of the doubt by issuing penalty fares to people who have both not come to their attention in the previous 12 months and are not abusing high value passes
I agree a second time offender deserves to be prosecuted

 

[Haywain]

May I just caveat that my understanding is that TFL default to give the benefit of the doubt by issuing penalty fares to people who have both not come to their attention before and are not abusing high value passes
As you say a second time offender deserves to be prosecuted

I don't think that's true - we have seen a good few cases here of people being prosecuted for improper use of gatelines.

 

[mmh]

I agree a second time offender deserves to be prosecuted

Whether someone "deserves" anything is irrelevant - people come to this part of the forum for advice and information, not judgement.

The pinned posts in this section detail this well.

Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions

Guidance for those asking for advice: Please bear in mind the following, when asking for advice in this section: We need to know all relevant facts in order to assist you, including, for example: The stations* where you actually started & finished your journey The stations* where you changed...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Haywain]

people come to this part of the forum for advice and information, not judgement.

It's entirely possible to give people good advice while being judgemental. Sometimes people need to be told how their behaviour looks to others.

 

[davp]

It's entirely possible to give people good advice while being judgemental. Sometimes people need to be told how their behaviour looks to others.

It is indeed possible to give good advice while being judgemental. But people are much more likely to take things on board if they don’t have a defensive response to what is being said to them.

When we can frame the same advice without appearing judgemental then it has a much better chance of being effective.

 

[Watershed]

It's entirely possible to give people good advice while being judgemental. Sometimes people need to be told how their behaviour looks to others.

The forum's rules state that:

• We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.

It doesn't seem terribly likely that a judgemental post will create a friendly environment.

 

[Haywain]

It doesn't seem terribly likely that a judgemental post will create a friendly environment.

I quite agree, but I didn't say anything about using a judgemental tone in a post.

 

[Watershed]

I quite agree, but I didn't say anything about using a judgemental tone in a post.

Let's not beat around the bush; your post very much implied that was what you meant.

 

[jumble]

Let's not beat around the bush; your post very much implied that was what you meant.

To be fair I am unable to determine which individual has been disrespected?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Whether someone "deserves" anything is irrelevant - people come to this part of the forum for advice and information, not judgement.

I agree, but this thread is a bit more of a policy discussion rather than an advice thread. I don't see an issue with being a bit more judgmental in this thread. There are people who come to us for advice who absolutely deserve to be absolutely clobbered for what they have done, and there are people who come to us who are absolutely just swinging the lead.

There was one a week or two ago involving someone who managed to get a payment extension from XC then was trying to renege on that payment because the extension took them beyond the six months limit for a Byelaws prosecution. I am absolutely judging that sort of behaviour.

I don't think that's true - we have seen a good few cases here of people being prosecuted for improper use of gatelines.

I think it depends on how they have misused the gateline and there's probably a dose of the good old subjective attitude test going on.

We've also seen cases where the RPI has simply told the person to touch on the revenue inspection reader, which will cost them a 'penalty' of £16.30 but won't result in any further action.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

We've also seen cases where the RPI has simply told the person to touch on the revenue inspection reader, which will cost them a 'penalty' of £16.30 but won't result in any further action.

Did we not see a "confession" by someone who regularly failed to touch in or out or pushed through barriers, but if challenged or even just saw a revenue inspection in progress would simply touch out or present a contactless card? This would incur no more than the inspection charge. As a consequence he avoided having his name and address taken and being threatened with a fare evasion prosecution.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did we not see a "confession" by someone who regularly failed to touch in or out or pushed through barriers, but if challenged or even just saw a revenue inspection in progress would simply touch out or present a contactless card? This would incur no more than the inspection charge.

Very probably, but if too many failed inspection charges get applied to the same card then TfL block it. There are ways around it, of course, but it adds friction.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Retailers are also starting to use private prosecutions - there are now companies specialising in taking them out on behalf of retailers:

This is why, at least in England and Wales, the best advice is never to cooperate with anyone in a 'uniform' without legal representation present, beyond what the law requires you to do.

Very probably, but if too many failed inspection charges get applied to the same card then TfL block it. There are ways around it, of course, but it adds friction.

That used to be an issue in the past, but now it's pretty easy and seamless to get a new card that it probably pays off in the long run.

 

[Egg Centric]

This is why, at least in England and Wales, the best advice is never to cooperate with anyone in a 'uniform' without legal representation present, beyond what the law requires you to do.

Good advice but a lot of people - heck I'd say vast majority - won't know what that requirement is when it comes to railway staff.

I'd say it would be excellent practice to make it clear both that requiring a name and address is a legal requirement and under exactly what circumstances (complicated in itself) for much the same reasons that we have the wodrds of a standard caution - but I'm not sure if any TOC does?