Travel irregularity back fine

[AlterEgo]

IANAL, but on the information available to the railway, I think there's grounds to prosecute: their understanding is that a number of railcard-discounted tickets were bought by someone who did not have a railcard.

Which is not an offence.

The Bylaw offence is failing to show a valid ticket on request. As a minimum you would need to have proof of identity of a person stopped, and show they were asked to show their ticket on request, which is not possible.

Nonetheless, the OP is best advised to engage with LNER and be under no illusions that their provided defence, which LNER will have noted from the content of their posts here, is weak. They can still prosecute for the single offence where the OP was stopped, regardless, and may or may not choose to do so.

 

[AdamWW]

Which is not an offence.

The Bylaw offence is failing to show a valid ticket on request. As a minimum you would need to have proof of identity of a person stopped, and show they were asked to show their ticket on request, which is not possible.

Nonetheless, the OP is best advised to engage with LNER and be under no illusions that their provided defence, which LNER will have noted from the content of their posts here, is weak. They can still prosecute for the single offence where the OP was stopped, regardless, and may or may not choose to do so.

Isn't there also an offence of boarding a train with the intent to travel without a valid ticket? But you'd still need proof that this happened.

What I presume they are doing here is using the threat of prosecution for the one offence they can prosecute to demand an out of court settlement for that one offence, plus other offences that could not reasonably be prosecuted.

Not a pleasant situation to be in.

But given that going to court as the accuse isn't (as I understand it) fun, there might be an argument for the OP to share their defence ahead of time, so that the railway would understand why a prosecution wouldn't work, and decide not to take it to court in the first place.

I don't think there needs to be a defence. Since the bylaw offences are strict liability the prosecution doesn't have to show intent, but it must have to show some evidence that the "guilty act" took place, rather than just assert that it did and require the defendent to prove otherwise.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Since the bylaw offences are strict liability the prosecution doesn't have to show intent, but it must have to show some evidence that the "guilty act" took place, rather than just assert that it did and require the defendent to prove otherwise.

In the absence of anything else, the fact that someone bought tickets that they couldn't travel on is evidence of fare evasion. Not particularly strong evidence, but (in my opinion, and again IANAL) good enough to bring a prosecution without being accused of abusing the court process. But if the person being pursued can demonstrate that they didn't use the tickets (and the easiest way of doing this is to demonstrate that someone else used the tickets) then the purchase of the tickets isn't the only evidence in play: there's something against it, and that something may be enough to deter prosecution.

There's a difference between what's needed for prosecution and what's needed for conviction.

 

[AdamWW]

In the absence of anything else, the fact that someone bought tickets that they couldn't travel on is evidence of fare evasion.

In absence of anything else I can't see how that's true - the conditions of travel say you are permitted to buy tickets for others.

 

[Haywain]

prove to LNER they did not do those other journeys in a clear and unambiguous / evidenced manner in the hope that LNER reduce the sum demanded

There is nothing the OP has posted so far that makes a convincing case for this, so we can expect this to be particularly difficult as it will be read in the light of previous correspondence.

 

[island]

Which is not an offence.

The Bylaw offence is failing to show a valid ticket on request. As a minimum you would need to have proof of identity of a person stopped, and show they were asked to show their ticket on request, which is not possible.

There is also the possibility, if the OP fails or refuses to provide details and/or Railcard particulars of the alleged other people whom they allegedly purchased tickets for, that they may be prosecuted for transferring a ticket to another person with the intent to allow them to avoid paying the fare.

Nonetheless, the OP is best advised to engage with LNER and be under no illusions that their provided defence, which LNER will have noted from the content of their posts here, is weak. They can still prosecute for the single offence where the OP was stopped, regardless, and may or may not choose to do so.

Agreed.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Which is not an offence.

Buying tickets for other people might not be a crime but perjury is, and a serious one at that. People on here keep saying that TOCs need to prove guilt. They don’t. They need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and I doubt anybody could say for certain what a magistrate would conclude if presented with the facts of 7 tickets being purchased for the same journey, with the same railcard discount by the same online account unless the OP can convince their “friends” to turn up at court and swear under oath the tickets were purchased for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Buying tickets for other people might not be a crime but perjury is, and a serious one at that. People on here keep saying that TOCs need to prove guilt. They don’t. They need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and I doubt anybody could say for certain what a magistrate would conclude if presented with the facts of 7 tickets being purchased for the same journey, with the same railcard discount by the same online account unless the OP can convince their “friends” to turn up at court and swear under oath the tickets were purchased for them.

This is why the OP has been, shall we say diplomatically, "deeply unwise", by introducing this less-than-believable fact to the train company. Because, other than that, there is no evidence or suggestion that anyone else used those tickets. In fact the company believes - I suggest correctly - that the OP did buy all those tickets for themselves and did indeed benefit from the discount when it was not due. But - and here's the rub - if that's so, then that's not an offence in and of itself.

Here the TOC is leveraging the OP's purchase history, and now, perhaps, also their dishonesty during the investigation, to extract a large settlement. They'd be due much less than £1200 in a court, because only evidence for a single offence seems to exist, but the OP is motivated to avoid the Bylaw conviction.

 

[Haywain]

They'd be due much less than £1200 in a court, because only evidence for a single offence seems to exist, but the OP is motivated to avoid the Bylaw conviction.

Whilst the train company might receive less from the court case, I suspect that the OP may not find there is a significant saving to be made by going to court as the fine and additional charges will probably make up most of the difference.

What may be relevant to advice being given here is if the OP can post both the communication received from LNER and the reply that was previously sent (with personal information redacted, of course). Whilst this may be recognisable to the relevant people in LNER I don't think that is important as, if they are following this forum, they will already have recognised and be well aware of the case under discussion.

 

[Egg Centric]

but the OP is motivated to avoid the Bylaw conviction.

Are they though? It's not completely clear what "cannot afford to go to court" means. For some people (we don't know whether this applies to the OP) they'd be best advised taking the very minor conviction.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are they though? It's not completely clear what "cannot afford to go to court" means. For some people (we don't know whether this applies to the OP) they'd be best advised taking the very minor conviction.

The OP says:

also don’t want to risk the repercussions of a record with the job I am in