Wife caught with Season Ticket

[rvd1231987]

Hi All,

After some advice please.

My wife stupidly took my Annual Season ticket without my permission, and was caught on her return journey with it in her possession. Journey was from LBZ to EUS. The ticket was confiscated by the inspector on the train, and then the matter was discussed with a revenue protection officer who was also conveniently on the train who said it would be referred.

My wife has received a letter from West Midlands Railway (Prosecution officer) inviting her to an informal interview where they will assess if this is a case of fraud, and suitable for court. They are even threating prison which we are petrified about. I appreciate the seriousness of the offence but is this standard wording that is used for scare mongering?

They are asking if we want Legal representation at the meeting, but I am of the view that this probably is not required at this stage, and may make this look as though she is a serious repeated offender etc. My wife being the hoarder that she is has copies of previous season tickets, and all her recent ticket purchases. Do you think this will help her case in terms of 'this was a stupid mistake, and an error of judgement' and that she is a regular paying customer.

My season ticket ran from the start of the year to the end of this year, so its a new season ticket which may help her case also given she can not be deemed a repeat offender, am I likely to ever get this back as a result of this stupid mistake? clearly the well being of my wife is the first and most important thing, and I am recommending this is done as an out of court settlement in the interview process and admitting the mistake.

I have seen some people on previous threads take legal support from the start, but I just do not know if that is the right approach.

Any help would be really appreciated.

 

[najaB]

My wife has received a letter from West Midlands Railway (Prosecution officer) inviting her to an informal interview where they will assess if this is a case of fraud, and suitable for court. They are even threating prison which we are petrified about. I appreciate the seriousness of the offence but is this standard wording that is used for scare mongering?

No, it's not scaremongering. A prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act brings a potential custodial sentence of up to three months. That said, unless there's enough evidence to prove that your wife is a serial offender it's highly unlikely that she'll face anything more severe than a large fine.

 

[rvd1231987]

Thanks najaB. As I said we are taking this very seriously. We have received the letter asking my wife in for interview, is there any advice or guidance you can give on the next steps? is my wife entitled to attend the interview or would it be worthwhile us consulting a solicitor to handle this further? I don't know how it would be perceived if we went down that route versus turning up face to face and tackling it head on. I have read on other forums that we are not obliged to attend an interview but clearly they would want a response within the 21 day period defined in the letter for making contact to arrange a f2f discussion.

 

[najaB]

is my wife entitled to attend the interview or would it be worthwhile us consulting a solicitor to handle this further? I don't know how it would be perceived if we went down that route versus turning up face to face and tackling it head on.

Either a solicitor or a very level-headed friend, but I definitely recommend taking someone.

I have read on other forums that we are not obliged to attend an interview but clearly they would want a response within the 21 day period defined in the letter for making contact to arrange a f2f discussion.

You aren't obliged to attend, but if you don't the train company will make assumptions (e.g. that the season ticket had been used multiple times) that you would be able to dispute if you attend.

 

[rvd1231987]

Either a solicitor or a very level-headed friend, but I definitely recommend taking someone.
You aren't obliged to attend, but if you don't the train company will make assumptions (e.g. that the season ticket had been used multiple times) that you would be able to dispute if you attend.

Thanks. For the avoidance of doubt we were hoping that by allowing the solicitor to respond on our behalf pleading our case that we would avoid the need to go for this interview and potentially settle out of court. It sounds like that might not be the right approach....

 

[najaB]

Thanks. For the avoidance of doubt we were hoping that by allowing the solicitor to respond on our behalf pleading our case that we would avoid the need to go for this interview and potentially settle out of court.

It is possible that an initial response from a solicitor could be enough to arrange a settlement, however if you aren't successful then it would be in your best interests to attend the interview.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The purpose of the interview is to establish the facts. And perhaps to a lesser extent, to make an assessment of the reliability of the interviewees evidence. The Company won't want to consider a prosecution until they have a firm grip of the facts, and, hopefully, a substantial amount of common ground between themselves and your wife as to what those facts are.

The facts will crucially include an assessment of the accumulated losses to the Railways, so the questioning might appear to be probing deeply in into the passenger's activities which are only indirectly related to their travel history.
The assessment of reliability might be influenced by their apparent honesty and credibility. For example, credibility would be stretched by a report of a string of coincidences in which the one and only time she presented another person's ticket was also the one time where she was detected and was also the one time where there was an RPI on board. Behavior and responses during questioning may contribute to the assessment of reliability. If the interviewee is deemed unreliable, then the reliability of evidence in the assessment of losses will be undermined.

The presence of a legal representative in itself does not raise suspicion, but if after a preliminary chat with the representative they then advise you to say as little as possible during the interview, then that policy is likely to raise adverse suspicions and the Company would be justified in assuming that their accumulated losses were on the high side. That outcome would leave you in the difficult position of having to find what fragments of evidence you can to reduce their estimate of loss.
If, on the other hand, your representative advises you to be as open and honest as you can, then the assessment of loss will be more likely to be based on what you report, what you can demonstrate, and what is credible.

If and when it does go to Court (and a settlement is always possible but please br prepared that it is likely to be 'when') then you will benefit from representation who has been a party to what was said at the inteview. All too often a hearing falters when a passing remark at an interview ("I might have done such and such, I don't remember, probably not") is quoted back at them months later as the basis for a claim following an alleged offence.

It is extremely unlikely that the investigating officer at the interview will be in a position to discuss an out of court settlement; that will not be within their remit.

Hope this helps.

 

[rvd1231987]

The purpose of the interview is to establish the facts. And perhaps to a lesser extent, to make an assessment of the reliability of the interviewees evidence. The Company won't want to consider a prosecution until they have a firm grip of the facts, and, hopefully, a substantial amount of common ground between themselves and your wife as to what those facts are.

The facts will crucially include an assessment of the accumulated losses to the Railways, so the questioning might appear to be probing deeply in into the passenger's activities which are only indirectly related to their travel history.
The assessment of reliability might be influenced by their apparent honesty and credibility. For example, credibility would be stretched by a report of a string of coincidences in which the one and only time she presented another person's ticket was also the one time where she was detected and was also the one time where there was an RPI on board. Behavior and responses during questioning may contribute to the assessment of reliability. If the interviewee is deemed unreliable, then the reliability of evidence in the assessment of losses will be undermined.

The presence of a legal representative in itself does not raise suspicion, but if after a preliminary chat with the representative they then advise you to say as little as possible during the interview, then that policy is likely to raise adverse suspicions and the Company would be justified in assuming that their accumulated losses were on the high side. That outcome would leave you in the difficult position of having to find what fragments of evidence you can to reduce their estimate of loss.
If, on the other hand, your representative advises you to be as open and honest as you can, then the assessment of loss will be more likely to be based on what you report, what you can demonstrate, and what is credible.

If and when it does go to Court (and a settlement is always possible but please br prepared that it is likely to be 'when') then you will benefit from representation who has been a party to what was said at the inteview. All too often a hearing falters when a passing remark at an interview ("I might have done such and such, I don't remember, probably not") is quoted back at them months later as the basis for a claim following an alleged offence.

It is extremely unlikely that the investigating officer at the interview will be in a position to discuss an out of court settlement; that will not be within their remit.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Dave. It does. I know you said more of a case of ‘when’ not if we go to court, but this doesn’t really seem to replicate many forums and threads who have had similar experiences. There was another thread on this forum who had exactly the same case and this did not make it to court and was handled by solicitors. This was my wife’s first and only stupid offense she committed. Most have been successful with an out of court settlement without even attending interviews? The intention of getting the solicitor involved now and writing a response to the letter was to try and reach a swift conclusion. The investigating officer may not be in a position to resolve this, but with at least the presentation of the facts in writing, and with my wife holding her hands up to the error in judgement, that I would hope lead to a deferral to the individual responsible for consideration of an out of court settlement given my wife’s precious history of season ticket purchases and individual tickets that we are able to provide as evidence.

 

[Starmill]

I know you said more of a case of ‘when’ not if we go to court, but this doesn’t really seem to replicate many forums and threads who have had similar experiences.

There are lots of threads and experiences where people have been issued with a Penalty Fare, or accused of a Bylaw offence, or of attempting to avoid paying for one journey, yes.

Perhaps this case is not like those though.

 

[najaB]

Thanks Dave. It does. I know you said more of a case of ‘when’ not if we go to court, but this doesn’t really seem to replicate many forums and threads who have had similar experiences. There was another thread on this forum who had exactly the same case and this did not make it to court and was handled by solicitors.

Equally, we hear from people who do end up in court. Each case is judged on its own merits and what happened in one won't necessarily occur in another.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not sure that I can add much to my previous advice.
Yes, there are many railway companies who, on investigating cases of the presentation of someone else's ticket, have been persuaded to accept a well-negotiated settlement. I don't deny the possibility of that outcome for you. Of course not.
But based on what you have reported on here (and specifically the report of the evidence already held by the Company), I am strongly inclined to the view that this incident will be at a high risk of reaching a prosecution.
Now, for your sake, I hope that I'm wrong, but in the balance of your finding that 'most have been successful with an out of court settlement' I have to remind you of the numbers who are prosecuted and convicted each year (if only I had an accurate figure !) - it seems to be running at about 4000 p.a. in England & Wales. Many cases of season ticket fraud do reach the courts.
And the opposing point of view which I want to put into the balance of predicting outcomes, (although it can only help you by understanding your adversity's point of view) is that the losses to the rail industry through fare evasion in its various forms was, the last time I calculated it, running at about £240mil p.a., using data gathered from a variety of sources. The greatest proportion of those losses will be from small sums on short journeys, but the biggest losses will be from abuses high value tickets. I just want you to know the bigger picture of what you're up against.

Its for these reasons, and my experience of other passengers being interviewed after having been detected using another person's season ticket, that I have reached the view that I'm offering here.

 

[furlong]

My wife being the hoarder that she is has copies of previous season tickets, and all her recent ticket purchases. Do you think this will help her case

Yes, particularly if there are no gaps, or where there are gaps she can show evidence she did not travel (e.g. holiday).

Two things the train company might have in mind and be seeking evidence from her to help it assess:
1) How much fraudulent travel occurred and how much money has it lost?
2) Were you also involved in the fraud?

Her conduct at the time she was caught might also be a factor - was there an immediate admission or were lies told?

Also note that the interview might increase the company's costs which it will try to claim on conviction (or if a settlement is reached).
If you were not a party to the alleged crime the company ought to return your ticket (or have it reissued) after the investigation and possibly let you reclaim the cost of additional tickets you purchased while it was in their possession. (I recall a case on the forum where that was reported as happening.)

in terms of 'this was a stupid mistake, and an error of judgement'

That sounds rather like "sorry I got caught" to me. Think more deeply about why it really happened, the consequences for the rail company of crimes like these, what she has now learned and how she'll change.

 

[robbeech]

Another question that is likely to be asked is why you were not using the season ticket on the day in question. If you were ill on the day but use it every other day this is further evidence that she could not have used it frequently. If you only work 2 or 3 days per week or at least only use your ticket as a rule then this may raise suspicions that it could have happened more frequently.

 

[rvd1231987]

All, as an update. My wife was fined, and my season ticket returned. A valuable lesson learned. This thread can be closed.

 

[Hadders]

Thank you for updating us. I wonder if you can expand on this a little. A fine can only be imposed by a court so was your wife prosecuted and convicted and given a fine or were you able to settle this matter directly with the train company without the need to go to court.

If you were able to settle out of court then although what was paid might feel like a fine, it isn't. Would you be able to tell us the amount you had to pay?

 

[rvd1231987]

Thank you for updating us. I wonder if you can expand on this a little. A fine can only be imposed by a court so was your wife prosecuted and convicted and given a fine or were you able to settle this matter directly with the train company without the need to go to court.

If you were able to settle out of court then although what was paid might feel like a fine, it isn't. Would you be able to tell us the amount you had to pay?

There was no court appearance or prosecution. It was resolved directly at a face to face informal interview with the train company. The 'fine' or 'penalty' however you want to position it, was under £300 and that is much information as i can provide.

 

[Hadders]

That's great, thank you for confirming.

 

[jumble]

I'm not sure that I can add much to my previous advice.
Yes, there are many railway companies who, on investigating cases of the presentation of someone else's ticket, have been persuaded to accept a well-negotiated settlement. I don't deny the possibility of that outcome for you. Of course not.
But based on what you have reported on here (and specifically the report of the evidence already held by the Company), I am strongly inclined to the view that this incident will be at a high risk of reaching a prosecution.
Now, for your sake, I hope that I'm wrong, but in the balance of your finding that 'most have been successful with an out of court settlement' I have to remind you of the numbers who are prosecuted and convicted each year (if only I had an accurate figure !) - it seems to be running at about 4000 p.a. in England & Wales. Many cases of season ticket fraud do reach the courts.
And the opposing point of view which I want to put into the balance of predicting outcomes, (although it can only help you by understanding your adversity's point of view) is that the losses to the rail industry through fare evasion in its various forms was, the last time I calculated it, running at about £240mil p.a., using data gathered from a variety of sources. The greatest proportion of those losses will be from small sums on short journeys, but the biggest losses will be from abuses high value tickets. I just want you to know the bigger picture of what you're up against.

Its for these reasons, and my experience of other passengers being interviewed after having been detected using another person's season ticket, that I have reached the view that I'm offering here.

It would be in my view even more interesting to know how many of these c4000 being prosecuted are first time offenders who engaged with the company positively rather than the type who raised the proverbial 2 fingers
Without these details I think it is hard to relate that figure to most of the people who seek advice here
Regards Jumble

 

[rvd1231987]

It would be in my view even more interesting to know how many of these c4000 being prosecuted are first time offenders who engaged with the company positively rather than the type who raised the proverbial 2 fingers
Without these details I think it is hard to relate that figure to most of the people who seek advice here
Regards Jumble

Jumble you are spot on with this comment. The response from Dave (although meant with the best of intentions i'm sure), did little to settle any concerns and raised the stress levels a little higher .....i believe the proactive approach and positive engagement for first time offenders (as was my wife in this case) goes a long way to helping resolve matters like this. The 'prosecution' and threat of 'prison sentences' are hardly helpful from anyone seeking advice here whether that be from members on this forum or the train companies themselves.

 

[Fare-Cop]

No, it's not scaremongering. A prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act brings a potential custodial sentence of up to three months. That said, unless there's enough evidence to prove that your wife is a serial offender it's highly unlikely that she'll face anything more severe than a large fine.

Just one little crumb of comfort that might lift the spirits a little, najab is spot on with the potential maximum penalty if convicted of an offence contrary to S.5(3) of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889], but this should be further qualified by saying that the custodial penalty available to Magistrates is reserved for cases of 'a second, or subsequent offence'. For that reason, and if your wife has never been convicted of an 'intention to avoid a fare' in the past, she can stop worrying about 'threats of going to prison'

DaveNewcastle's observations are perfectly correct of course. In a case such as identified here by the OP, the alleged abuse of a high value ticket in order to avoid paying the correct fare', it is very likely that prosecution will be the outcome. Having said that, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, by engaging a suitably qualified representative to attend any PACE interview along with your wife (that means someone who has good knowledge of criminal process and experience of similar matters), then the company might ultimately be persuaded to allow an alternative disposal.

The fact is that DaveNewcastle is right to identify that this sort of offence is viewed as a serious case of intent to avoid the traveller's liability and will be treated accordingly by the TOC prosecutor's office.

There is no guarantee that they will allow settlement and even if successful, it will likely be an expensive lesson for your wife, but it could possibly avoid the criminal conviction.

 

[sheff1]

Just one little crumb of comfort that might lift the spirits a little....

The case has been resolved - see post #16.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The case has been resolved - see post #16.

Thank you, serves me right for not reading the whole thread !

Jumble you are spot on with this comment. The response from Dave (although meant with the best of intentions i'm sure), did little to settle any concerns and raised the stress levels a little higher .....i believe the proactive approach and positive engagement for first time offenders (as was my wife in this case) goes a long way to helping resolve matters like this. The 'prosecution' and threat of 'prison sentences' are hardly helpful from anyone seeking advice here whether that be from members on this forum or the train companies themselves.

Of course rvd1231987 is quite right, there may be an increase in concern for some posters seeking advice, but surely it is far better that those facing potential prosecution for such offences are given clear and truthful information rather than unrealistic and in some cases downright false hopes.

In my experience the numbers of cases quoted by Dave are broadly accurate and given that in some areas the types of offending seem to be becoming either more sophisticated in the case of electronic tickets, fake refund or repay claims, or more blatant such as short-faring or misusing season tickets, passes and Railcards, as high as 50% or more may be first time, but very deliberate offenders in some Court lists.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Jumble you are spot on with this comment. The response from Dave (although meant with the best of intentions i'm sure), did little to settle any concerns and raised the stress levels a little higher .....i believe the proactive approach and positive engagement for first time offenders (as was my wife in this case) goes a long way to helping resolve matters like this. The 'prosecution' and threat of 'prison sentences' are hardly helpful from anyone seeking advice here whether that be from members on this forum or the train companies themselves.

I'm very grateful to you for your feedback, and delighted to learn of your outcome.
It is sometimes hard to know how to aim advice on here, without the benefit of a good understanding of the 'client'/'guest'/'member' 's position and all of the facts.
I believe it is my duty to explain the range of possible outcomes from the most lenient to the most severe, and those will always be a matter of fact.
I feel a similar wish to clearly explain the probabilities of the possible outcomes, so that a reasonable risk assessment can be made. But unfortunately, the nature of an internet forum can't provide the necessary insight into each person's full situation, and rarely will include knowledge of the other parties evidence, and so these can only be a matter of conjecture. In fact, a considerable number on this forum have, on further investigation, been found to have withheld vital facts facts which were known to the Prosecuting authority.
So I am stuck between, on the one hand, just laying out the range of possible outcomes and some of the means of reaching a resolution (but little by way of an assessment of probabilities), or on the other hand, trying to be supportive and encouraging, hoping that we are not giving false hope to someone who will, when the evidence is fully assessed, be one of those ca.4000 who are prosecuted each year for railway ticketing offences.

Thanks again.
Happy to discuss further, particularly if it will assist others.

 

[Abpj17]

Dave - you may be being modest...

Out of interest, what %age of the 4k cases p/a do you have insight to? (My impression as a mostly reader of the forum is that you've been involved in a semi-steady stream)

 

[rvd1231987]

Just one little crumb of comfort that might lift the spirits a little, najab is spot on with the potential maximum penalty if convicted of an offence contrary to S.5(3) of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889], but this should be further qualified by saying that the custodial penalty available to Magistrates is reserved for cases of 'a second, or subsequent offence'. For that reason, and if your wife has never been convicted of an 'intention to avoid a fare' in the past, she can stop worrying about 'threats of going to prison'

DaveNewcastle's observations are perfectly correct of course. In a case such as identified here by the OP, the alleged abuse of a high value ticket in order to avoid paying the correct fare', it is very likely that prosecution will be the outcome. Having said that, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, by engaging a suitably qualified representative to attend any PACE interview along with your wife (that means someone who has good knowledge of criminal process and experience of similar matters), then the company might ultimately be persuaded to allow an alternative disposal.

The fact is that DaveNewcastle is right to identify that this sort of offence is viewed as a serious case of intent to avoid the traveller's liability and will be treated accordingly by the TOC prosecutor's office.

There is no guarantee that they will allow settlement and even if successful, it will likely be an expensive lesson for your wife, but it could possibly avoid the criminal conviction.

I absolutely agree with the comment here ‘this should be further qualified by saying that the custodial penalty available to Magistrates is reserved for cases of 'a second, or subsequent offense’. I completely concur that all possibilities should be broadcast here for the posters seeking advice.

 

[rvd1231987]

I'm very grateful to you for your feedback, and delighted to learn of your outcome.
It is sometimes hard to know how to aim advice on here, without the benefit of a good understanding of the 'client'/'guest'/'member' 's position and all of the facts.
I believe it is my duty to explain the range of possible outcomes from the most lenient to the most severe, and those will always be a matter of fact.
I feel a similar wish to clearly explain the probabilities of the possible outcomes, so that a reasonable risk assessment can be made. But unfortunately, the nature of an internet forum can't provide the necessary insight into each person's full situation, and rarely will include knowledge of the other parties evidence, and so these can only be a matter of conjecture. In fact, a considerable number on this forum have, on further investigation, been found to have withheld vital facts facts which were known to the Prosecuting authority.
So I am stuck between, on the one hand, just laying out the range of possible outcomes and some of the means of reaching a resolution (but little by way of an assessment of probabilities), or on the other hand, trying to be supportive and encouraging, hoping that we are not giving false hope to someone who will, when the evidence is fully assessed, be one of those ca.4000 who are prosecuted each year for railway ticketing offences.

Thanks again.
Happy to discuss further, particularly if it will assist others.

Absoloutely Dave, I completely understand. I am very grateful for your help and advice regardless.

 

[farleigh]

A happy ending