[UPDATED] Reported for having no train ticket

[lucyjacobs89]

A few days ago I was stopped by a Northern Rail personnel and asked if I had a ticket. When I didn't have one, he took my details.

I'd like to say I'm not denying that it's my fault, and I should have just bought a ticket - this is NOT me complaining that it's unfair. This thread is about the results of what I've done.

I hadn't paid at the station I'd boarded the train at, and no one came down the train selling tickets. I expected the people at the train station exit to be selling tickets if I was stopped. He said because I'd walked through the exit, I couldn't just pay for my journey now. He said it appeared I'd purposely avoided the personnel by walking past one of the exits I could I have used. He asked me would I have paid if he hadn't stopped me, to which I said, "I probably wouldn't have" which kind of throws me under the bus a little. I don't really know what else I could have said other than being honest, because it's not like anyone would believe I would pay afterwards somehow, I don't believe many people would.

He took my details, and wrote our conversation down, I signed that, and he said I'd receive a letter.

What I wanted to ask is what the outcome of this will be? This would be my first offense, any kind of offense. But it seems pretty clear that I will be said to have intended to evade fares.

Will I just get a hefty fine or will this result in prosecution, court and a criminal record?

 

[bb21]

Some more details would be useful in determining exactly where you stand, such as what your journey was, what time of the day you travelled (and whether it was a weekday? Saturday?), which exit at the destination you used, where you were stopped exactly, etc.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Some more details would be useful in determining exactly where you stand, such as what your journey was, what time of the day you travelled (and whether it was a weekday? Saturday?), which exit at the destination you used, where you were stopped exactly, etc.

Journey was Wigan to Preston on a weekday around 5:00pm I think. I was stopped at the Fishergate exit.

 

[Gathursty]

Is your username your actual name?

This is the second thread today in Disputes & Prosecutions where the username is most likely OP's name.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Is your username your actual name?

This is the second thread today in Disputes & Prosecutions where the username is most likely OP's name.

No it's not.

 

[insidetrack77]

Playing devil's advocate here, but assuming there are no mechanical barriers at the station what would be stopping the OP from ignoring the revenue protection staff and leaving the station?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can't see what possible assistance this is to the OP:

Playing devil's advocate here, but assuming there are no mechanical barriers at the station what would be stopping the OP from ignoring the revenue protection staff and leaving the station?

The answer to this question is that it is the law "stops the OP from ignoring the . . . staff" and it is actually likely to make things worse for the OP. The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.2 states

(2) If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

But the OP is not in this position, so it is immaterial, whether 'playing devil's advocate' or not.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Playing devil's advocate here, but assuming there are no mechanical barriers at the station what would be stopping the OP from ignoring the revenue protection staff and leaving the station?

I am not the type of person who could ever ignore a authoritative figure when asked to come aside. So, as Dave's reply says, this has nothing to do with my situation.

 

[cuccir]

Northern Rail will likely write to you asking for your account of events within the next few weeks or months. You should reply to this; it is usually best to offer a succinct, honest and apologetic account of what happened. On receiving your response, Northern will chose to either

• Drop the case (unlikely)
• Ask for a £80 fixed charge
• Proceed to prosecute

Were you past the exit of the station? That combined with your answer that you would not have paid the fare due might be enough to persuade them to prosecute under the harsher Regulations of the Railways Act, which requires evidence of intent to evade a fare, and comes with a fine + criminal record. However, they do also often offer the fixed charge in these circumstances anyway.

 

[6Gman]

Journey was Wigan to Preston on a weekday around 5:00pm I think. I was stopped at the Fishergate exit.

That additional information is useful, but - I fear - places you in even deeper doo-doo.

I imagine that the ticket office at Wigan was manned and open at that time. You walked past it (and past any ticket machines). You made no effort to seek out on-train staff during the journey. You then used an exit from Preston which avoids the main entrance (and the ticket office). That is powerful evidence of intent to evade payment.

If you are very lucky, and put together a very convincing case, you might escape with payment of fare plus a substantial financial payment to achieve an out of court settlement. Professional legal advice may well be appropriate.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

If you are very lucky, and put together a very convincing case, you might escape with payment of fare plus a substantial financial payment to achieve an out of court settlement. Professional legal advice may well be appropriate.

Thank you for your response. Can I ask what prosecution entails?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can I ask what prosecution entails?

Your reply tot he inspector that you probably wouldn't have paid if you hadn't been stopped must be admired for its clear truthfulness.
However, it suggests that you would be liable for consideration for a Prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act Section 5. 3 (a)

(3) If any person—
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; . . .
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine . . . .

Following a sucessful prosecution for a first offence, the fines are typically around £150 - £400 plus the unpaid fare due and 10% victim surcharge (VS).

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Following a sucessful prosecution for a first offence, the fines are typically around £150 - £400 plus the unpaid fare due and 10% victim surcharge (VS).

So does that include court and criminal record?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A 'Guilty' plea can be made by post, avoiding Court, but I'm sorry to tell you that a RoRA offence on conviction does trigger an entry in your 'criminal record'.

On the other hand, and as cuccir has outlined, you are likely to be able to reach the point where you can try to accept an agreement with the Company's Prosecutor under which you offer to make a settlement in respect of their costs in bringing the matter this far, and of course, in respect of the fare unpaid (or in your case, might it be fares unpaid?) and the Company will close ther file on the matter.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

A 'Guilty' plea can be made by post, avoiding Court, but I'm sorry to tell you that a RoRA offence on conviction does trigger an entry in your 'criminal record'.

On the other hand, and as cuccir has outlined, you are likely to be able to reach the point where you can try to accept an agreement with the Company's Prosecutor under which you offer to make a settlement in respect of their costs in bringing the matter this far, and of course, in respect of the fare unpaid (or in your case, might it be fares unpaid?) and the Company will close ther file on the matter.

I see. So there is a possibility of me just paying a certain amount to close it? Would the criminal record impact my future greatly?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I see. So there is a possibility of me just paying a certain amount to close it? Would the criminal record impact my future greatly?

Yes, there is a realistic possibility - the oddes depend on circumstances and any intelligence that we don't know on here.

The impact of a 'criminal record' depend on your choices in your career and voluntry work. There is plenty information elsewhere which should help you. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is becoming more focussed on aligning the relevance of personal history with the role, so that irrelevant convictions are not disclosed where thy have no bearing on the role, while ensuring that vulnerable people are not supervised by persons with a record of exploitation.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Yes, there is a realistic possibility - the oddes depend on circumstances and any intelligence that we don't know on here.

The impact of a 'criminal record' depend on your choices in your career and voluntry work. There is plenty information elsewhere which should help you. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is becoming more focussed on aligning the relevance of personal history with the role, so that irrelevant convictions are not disclosed where thy have no bearing on the role, while ensuring that vulnerable people are not supervised by persons with a record of exploitation.

I see. Thank you for your response it's been very helpful. I'll just have to wait for the letter I guess.

 

[Chapeltom]

It is also worth pointing out a successful prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act could bar you from travelling to particular countries. I'm not sure how true this is, but a criminal conviction could have implications if you were to say want to visitors visit a country where VISAs ask if you have a criminal record.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

It is also worth pointing out a successful prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act could bar you from travelling to particular countries. I'm not sure how true this is, but a criminal conviction could have implications if you were to say want to visitors visit a country where VISAs ask if you have a criminal record.

I believe it is still possible to apply and be accepted for a VISA through an interview though? I was just searching this related to the USA.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have a question.

If I was to write back to them explaining my situation but not defending myself (aka pleading guilty) what does that result in? Would that just be an immediate fine and record, no more questions asked, no court/trial and such?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If I was to write back to them explaining my situation but not defending myself (aka pleading guilty) what does that result in? Would that just be an immediate fine and record, no more questions asked, no court/trial and such?

It's a possibility that they would still accept an offer of a settlement, but they have complete discretion in how they deal with your incident. Hundreds go forward for prosecution every week, just as similar numbers are settled administratively, by way of a payment of costs.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

It's a possibility that they would still accept an offer of a settlement, but they have complete discretion in how they deal with your incident. Hundreds go forward for prosecution every week, just as similar numbers are settled administratively, by way of a payment of costs.

Okay, thank you for the info and your help.

 

[34D]

Playing devil's advocate here, but assuming there are no mechanical barriers at the station what would be stopping the OP from ignoring the revenue protection staff and leaving the station?

Especially if they are staff of a third party contractor ie G4S, trainpeople, etc....

Comments this are however not liked by the respected persons of this forum, so I will say no more.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Am I correct in thinking that on this forum it was recently suggested that there was a chance of getting found not guilty at court purely because the witnesses required etc were not be present at the hearing?

 

[Romilly]

If a criminal prosecution gets as far as the court hearing of the case, and the accused person is pleading not guilty, the prosecutor needs to prove that the offence was committed. If to do that the prosecutor needs witnesses to give evidence, and the witnesses are not there and the court will not allow the case to be adjourned, that may indeed mean that the charges are dismissed and the prosecution comes to an end.

 

[lucyjacobs89]

Am I correct in thinking that on this forum it was recently suggested that there was a chance of getting found not guilty at court purely because the witnesses required etc were not be present at the hearing?

The witness being the guy who took my details?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a criminal prosecution gets as far as the court hearing of the case, and the accused person is pleading not guilty, the prosecutor needs to prove that the offence was committed. If to do that the prosecutor needs witnesses to give evidence, and the witnesses are not there and the court will not allow the case to be adjourned, that may indeed mean that the charges are dismissed and the prosecution comes to an end.

Honestly though, even I could do that in order to get not guilty, I don't think I could go through all the stress and worry of a court hearing. I'd rather get it over and done with as quickly as I can, even if that involves me paying a lot of money.

 

[Tibbs]

It's a possibility that they would still accept an offer of a settlement, but they have complete discretion in how they deal with your incident. Hundreds go forward for prosecution every week, just as similar numbers are settled administratively, by way of a payment of costs.

The interesting question is how many people go forward for prosecution who have engaged with the TOC and broached the subject of a settlement?

Now there's no way to know, and it's likely that the TOCs themselves don't know, but I would strongly suspect that the majority of people who are put forward for prosecution have just ignored the letters in the hope that it's gone away. Those who have engaged with the TOC, seem to get a postitive response.

Based on the experiences of posters here, hardly representative I know, the vast majority of people get an offer of some kind of settlement.

There is evidence of even serial offenders not going to court with the application of enough money. TOCs are not interested in justice remember, they're driven by profit.

And, please, it's not just costs. The idea that every infraction costs Northern exactly £80 no matter the circumstances is laughably absurd. This is another revenue stream for Train Companies.

 

[Haywain]

There is evidence of even serial offenders not going to court with the application of enough money. TOCs are not interested in justice remember, they're driven by profit.

In the case of the big settlement by the city trader, he paid vastly more than the season tickets would have cost, and may have saved Southeastern a very expensive court case. It's a matter of weighing up what works best. HMRC regularly work in the same way in dealing with tax evasion cases, and they are not profit driven.

And, please, it's not just costs. The idea that every infraction costs Northern exactly £80 no matter the circumstances is laughably absurd. This is another revenue stream for Train Companies.

£80 won't be the cost in every event, but do you suggest they should additionally calculate the cost of each case, and then add in the cost of working that out? That would just increase the costs overall. And if you are thinking that sending letters doesn't cost money, just try asking a solicitor to send one for you.

 

[Tibbs]

In the case of the big settlement by the city trader, he paid vastly more than the season tickets would have cost, and may have saved Southeastern a very expensive court case. It's a matter of weighing up what works best. HMRC regularly work in the same way in dealing with tax evasion cases, and they are not profit driven.


£80 won't be the cost in every event, but do you suggest they should additionally calculate the cost of each case, and then add in the cost of working that out? That would just increase the costs overall. And if you are thinking that sending letters doesn't cost money, just try asking a solicitor to send one for you.

Do you honestly think that any infraction costs Northern anywhere near £80? They have major efficiency issues if it does.

The process seems to be:

Send out letter
Read response
Send out request for £80
Possibly send out reminder
Bank Cheque.

Given that they send out hundreds/thousands of these every year, there is no way that they can incur £80 of costs in making this happen, even allowing for equiment and utilities etc. If it came to more than a tenner for every case I'd be amazed.

Do you think they have solicitors sending out these letters!? It'll be an admin assistant on £8.50ph.

And HMRC are revenue driven (the clue is in the name). The whole reason for their existance is to ensure revenue for the government. They're not interested in justice either.

 

[Greenback]

Do you honestly think that any infraction costs Northern anywhere near £80? They have major efficiency issues if it does.

The process seems to be:

Send out letter
Read response
Send out request for £80
Possibly send out reminder
Bank Cheque.

Given that they send out hundreds/thousands of these every year, there is no way that they can incur £80 of costs in making this happen, even allowing for equiment and utilities etc. If it came to more than a tenner for every case I'd be amazed.

The amount is set not to reflect the actual amount of work that goes into it, but to act as a deterrent to people doing it again.

A lot of fare evaders are happy to pay the occasional Penalty Fare and enjoy free travel for the majority of their journeys. They are still saving money. The probably won't if they have to pay £80 instead.

Do you think they have solicitors sending out these letters!? It'll be an admin assistant on £8.50ph.

It depends on what the letter is about. Some will be written by/dictated by a solicitor, some by a paralegal, some will be stock letters that can be used for common situations and enquiries.

Again, the cost of a letter form a solicitor is not a reflection of the actual costs of producing that letter, but also includes a contribution to such expenses as heating and lighting, phones, internet, fax, rent, ratesthe training of the legal staff, indemnity for a mistake made by the solicitor and so on.

It's the same with conveyancing. Firms will usually have a set fee, but no case will actually cost the same amount as another. Some will be relatively easy, others will be more complex and require more correspondence and enquiries. The business will trust that they will turn in a reasonable profit over a period of time, regardless of the intricacies of individual cases.

 

[Tibbs]

The amount is set not to reflect the actual amount of work that goes into it, but to act as a deterrent to people doing it again.

A lot of fare evaders are happy to pay the occasional Penalty Fare and enjoy free travel for the majority of their journeys. They are still saving money. The probably won't if they have to pay £80 instead.



It depends on what the letter is about. Some will be written by/dictated by a solicitor, some by a paralegal, some will be stock letters that can be used for common situations and enquiries.

Again, the cost of a letter form a solicitor is not a reflection of the actual costs of producing that letter, but also includes a contribution to such expenses as heating and lighting, phones, internet, fax, rent, ratesthe training of the legal staff, indemnity for a mistake made by the solicitor and so on.

It's the same with conveyancing. Firms will usually have a set fee, but no case will actually cost the same amount as another. Some will be relatively easy, others will be more complex and require more correspondence and enquiries. The business will trust that they will turn in a reasonable profit over a period of time, regardless of the intricacies of individual cases.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

Haywain was saying (in essence) that £80 is the average cost of administering the process, and I feel strongly that is isn't, there is also a profit element (which also functions as a deterrent). You seem to be agreeing with me.