Wrongly accused of overwritten carnet by FCC

[shedguy]

I'm writing on behalf of my partner who is a commuter and regular carnet user between our home in Letchworth and King's cross. He uses "Sharpie" permanent markers to validate his ticket and usually validates his outbound and return tickets before leaving the house in order to minimise the chances of making a mistake with date or smudging it etc.

On this occasion we were travelling together off-peak on a Saturday from Letchworth to Finsbury Park when an inspector checked our tickets and accused my partner of having overwritten his carnet which my partner denied.

The inspector called in his colleague and said something along the lines of "look, he's overwritten his ticket", before actually handing him the ticket and the second inspector then agreed with him.

I asked to see the ticket myself and could see a thin line beneath the main mark from the pen - it looked to me that a fibre from the tip had gone astray or a piece of fluff had been caught on the marker and left a trail. My partner couldn't make it out - he's somewhat older than I and getting a bit long-sighted.

The inspector insisted that not only had the ticket been overwritten, but that the overwritten date was different from the actual date which we both rejected. He filled out a report, got off at Finsbury with us and got my partner to sign it, reading him his rights. Beyond denying the accusation my partner made no further comment.

He has now received "Notice of intention to prosecute" letter from FCC asking for a response with the following details:

On the above date you were stopped and questioned in regard to the following alleged offences(s):

- entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel.
- Altering a ticket with intent
​

Might also be worth adding that I believe the barriers were operating at Letchworth that day and that his ticket had passed through them without problem

If it's not clear from the above, my partner had not overwritten the ticket and had no intention to defraud FCC or to travel without a valid ticket. If he's guilty of anything it's not having sharp enough eyesight to spot that his pen was a bit dodgy (heaven help anyone with a severe visual impairment.)

I have looked though this forum and others and not found any similar instances where any kind of useful outcome was posted.

Given that "altering a ticket with intent" sounds a lot like an accusation of fraud to me, my inclination would be to go straight to a lawyer rather than risk writing something that might might taken the wrong way - am I wrong in thinking this? We don't really want to take the hit on this if we can't get the money back, but if it avoids being hauled through the courts, it is probably money well spent - we are not fighters by nature.

If/when we go with a solicitor can anyone recommend a suitable firm? The stock advice is "Check the law society website" - when searching on their website, the most appropriate category I can find is "Transport, road and rail", however the actual firms that come up in this category seem to specialise in infrastructure/contract/commercial type things rather than fare evasion. Searching the web, I have found the following - any thoughts on these?

http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/railway-fare-evasion.html

http://www.goldmanbaileysolicitors.co.uk/crime.html

http://www.penmanjohnson.com/ForIndividuals/CriminalDefence/FareEvasion/FareEvasionCases.aspx

The last link is interesting reading even if the firm don't claim to be specialists in transport law.

Any helpful advice would be welcome at this time - I will be travelling over the next few days so may not be able to respond to any additional questions straight away, but hopefully what i've put here is comprehensive enough to get on with.

 

[Ferret]

Question : was the offending ticket withdrawn as evidence?

Question 2 : how confident are you that the ticket does not even appear to have been altered?

 

[Swirlz]

A solicitor may arrange for independent forensic analysis of the ticket to be conducted, and if it comes back in your favour, it is likely to result in a successful "Not Guilty" verdict, along with a costs order, also in your favour.

Indeed, the mention of "forensics" and "experts" in any defence statements, with a stern letter from a solicitor advising that the case will be fully contended, and an application for hefty costs, could result in FCC deciding that it is more hassle that they can be bothered with, and simply drop the matter. (Although you could still pursue any costs).

If it doesn't however...

NB:
Whilst Penman Johnson LLP list a number of "successful" outcomes, particularly in relation to First Capital Connect, it should be noted that there are 11 successful cases listed, since December 2011. The reality is, FCC will have prosecuted 1000+ successfully over the same period.

In 2012, TfL (Rail) prosecuted as follows:

No ticket (835)
Out of Date ticket (6)
Transferred Freedom Pass (1154)
Transferred Oyster Card (585)
Altered ticket (7)

==Total 2587==

I would imagine the likes of FCC statistics will be even higher.

 

[shedguy]

Question : was the offending ticket withdrawn as evidence?

Sorry, I forgot to mention that; my partner also showed the inspector the return ticket he had validated for the day - the inspector pocketed that and the outbound ticket. Both tickets had the same fine secondary marking from the pen.

Question 2 : how confident are you that the ticket does not even appear to have been altered?

To my eyes it looked obvious that the marks were aberrations from the same pen and there is certainly no evidence of indentation which you might if a finer pen had been used initially.

That said, I *know* the ticket wasn't altered so I can certainly see why a more suspicious mind might initially think otherwise. What I can't understand is what other date you could make of it - it was last Saturday, the 16th - it wasn't obvious to me how those marks could be interpreted as any other date.

It's especially annoying as I had my camera on the day, but didn't think to record it when I had the opportunity.

 

[swj99]

It sounds like you've done some good research already by finding those particular firms.

Gray Hooper Holt say they do a free initial consultation, which is always a bonus.

I've never had dealings with any of them, but I like the presentation on the case study section of the Penman Johnson website, so I think if it was me, I'd have a chat with them first.

* Edited to add...

The case study page of the Penman Johnson website demonstrates the concept that many intended prosecutions are dropped once a TOC realizes they have a fight on their hands. As with other types of litigation, companies often back down once they realize an individual is willing to defend an action rather than throw in the towel. They tend to prefer people who make an admission, or offer to pay, just to 'make something go away' even when they are actually innocent.

The meek shall inherit the earth ? I doubt it somehow.

 

[shedguy]

A solicitor may arrange for independent forensic analysis of the ticket to be conducted, and if it comes back in your favour, it is likely to result in a successful "Not Guilty" verdict, along with a costs order, also in your favour.

Indeed, the mention of "forensics" and "experts" in any defence statements, with a stern letter from a solicitor advising that the case will be fully contended, and an application for hefty costs, could result in FCC deciding that it is more hassle that they can be bothered with, and simply drop the matter. (Although you could still pursue any costs).

If it doesn't however...

Yes, I got that impression from other threads and the Penman Johnson link above. So if we got a solicitor at the earliest possible stage (i.e. now, before any summons) and they dropped it, would they still be able to claim back costs?

On the flip side, how much damage could an unadvised response at this stage cause us if we worded it incorrectly?

 

[Ferret]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that; my partner also showed the inspector the return ticket he had validated for the day - the inspector pocketed that and the outbound ticket. Both tickets had the same fine secondary marking from the pen.



To my eyes it looked obvious that the marks were aberrations from the same pen and there is certainly no evidence of indentation which you might if a finer pen had been used initially.

That said, I *know* the ticket wasn't altered so I can certainly see why a more suspicious mind might initially think otherwise. What I can't understand is what other date you could make of it - it was last Saturday, the 16th - it wasn't obvious to me how those marks could be interpreted as any other date.

It's especially annoying as I had my camera on the day, but didn't think to record it when I had the opportunity.

Well, I can only concur with 'swirlz'. If you're confident of your case, you know what to do!

 

[shedguy]

It sounds like you've done some good research already by finding those particular firms.

Gray Hooper Holt say they do a free initial consultation, which is always a bonus.

I've never had dealings with any of them, but I like the presentation on the case study section of the Penman Johnson website, so I think if it was me, I'd have a chat with them first.

Yes, I'm inclined to prefer the Penman Johnson site for the same reasons, but worried that's just a gut instinct - no reference to rail or transport for them on the law society website, but then Gray Hooper Holt doesn't get a mention for that are either, nor fraud!

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=lawfirmdetails&orgid=471932&searchType=L

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=lawfirmdetails&orgid=440654&searchType=L

 

[Swirlz]

Yes, I got that impression from other threads and the Penman Johnson link above. So if we got a solicitor at the earliest possible stage (i.e. now, before any summons) and they dropped it, would they still be able to claim back costs?

On the flip side, how much damage could an unadvised response at this stage cause us if we worded it incorrectly?

I would just write a particularly short letter stating your intentions, in a "to the point" manner, i.e.:

1) You intend to deny all of the offence(s) listed
2) You intend to defend the claim(s)
3) You intend to instruct legal counsel if they persue the matter.
4) You intend to make an application for defence costs incurred
5) You intend to commission an independent forensic analysis of the evidence and the costs from this will applied for.

Finally, advise FCC that once they have fully investigated the case, you are confident they will form the same opinion that the case cannot, and should not be pursued.

But only if you are 100% sure the ticket has not been altered... otherwise it may upset them.

Once they drop the case, (which hopefully they will do), write them another letter requesting compensation for an unspecified amount for distress, time responding to their letter(s), any delay to your journey when cautioned, and breaching your contractual rights under Section 20 National Rail Condition of Carriage, (assuming you did not receive a receipt).
Don't expect more than £50-£100 though. If they don't pay out, progress it to the corporate HQ with a "letter before action".
Probably not worth a punt taking it to (civil) court though.

 

[BestWestern]

Sorry to hear that you've had such an encounter. Train operators do their bit to catch out the 'dodgers, but sadly some can try a little too hard. Just worth mentioning, it would be a good idea to sit down with your other half and write down as best you can recall exactly what took place and what was said, by whom and when. The likelihood is that the solicitor will want to know as much as possible about the actions of the Inspectors and the process they undertook, which you've already suggested may not have been squeaky clean. There is perhaps nothing directly 'wrong' in the comment made when the first Inspector showed the ticket to his colleague, but he clearly felt a second opinion was warranted and might well have influenced that by saying what he did. Quite possibly completely irrelevant, but worth a mention I would think.

Do let us know how it goes, and best of luck.

 

[spacehopper]

Hmm... off topic but reading some of those successful defences it seems if your rich enough or desperate enough than justice can prevail... at a cost.

You can have a cardboard cut out YP but still get off scot free.

 

[shedguy]

Sorry to hear that you've had such an encounter. Train operators do their bit to catch out the 'dodgers, but sadly some can try a little too hard. Just worth mentioning, it would be a good idea to sit down with your other half and write down as best you can recall exactly what took place and what was said....

Trying hard, indeed - one thing he said was along the lines of "We've been told to crack down on the carnet tickets; there's been a lot of people abusing them." I've got no problems with them being heavy handed with serial offenders and people who are obviously out to play the system, but using this 'zero tolerance' approach against all and sundry no matter how flimsy the material evidence could help explain why FCC are so popular with their users.

With regard to recording what was said my partner has already drafted a document and I have made corrections from my experience as it is, but recalling stuff from the heat of the moment is so frustratingly difficult. Actually this dialogue is helping me pick up on things I might have forgotten, so thank you for that. Neither of us have had any significant run-ins with the law - I'm really worried how much of this I could dredge up in a court if I had to...

In 2012, TfL (Rail) prosecuted as follows:

No ticket (835)
Out of Date ticket (6)
Transferred Freedom Pass (1154)
Transferred Oyster Card (585)
Altered ticket (7)

==Total 2587==

I would imagine the likes of FCC statistics will be even higher.

Those stats are interesting - 7 altered ticket prosecutions (were they successful?) is not that many. The problem is that carnets are not tube tickets - they depend on manual marking from the user and all the room for doubt associated with that.
I would be curious to know how many of these cases FCC have actually followed through - the system is open to abuse and my partner has mentioned to me how many people start furiously filling in their ticket when an inspector boards the carriage.
Then there are issues with marking the damn things; prior to using the Sharpie markers, he used a ballpoint pen and had had inspectors questioning the flaking that had occurred around the pen with some tickets, suggesting he may have fiddled with the ticket. - why is there so much room for interpretation here?

I would just write a particularly short letter stating your intentions, in a "to the point" manner, i.e.:

1) You intend to deny all of the offence(s) listed
2) You intend to defend the claim(s)
3) You intend to instruct legal counsel if they persue the matter.
4) You intend to make an application for defence costs incurred
5) You intend to commission an independent forensic analysis of the evidence and the costs from this will applied for.

Finally, advise FCC that once they have fully investigated the case, you are confident they will form the same opinion that the case cannot, and should not be pursued.

But only if you are 100% sure the ticket has not been altered... otherwise it may upset them.

Once they drop the case, (which hopefully they will do), write them another letter requesting compensation for an unspecified amount for distress, time responding to their letter(s), any delay to your journey when cautioned, and breaching your contractual rights under Section 20 National Rail Condition of Carriage, (assuming you did not receive a receipt).
Don't expect more than £50-£100 though. If they don't pay out, progress it to the corporate HQ with a "letter before action".
Probably not worth a punt taking it to (civil) court though.

Thank you for that - we will consider an approach such as this - certainly I'm getting the impression 'less is more' when it comes to drafting a response. I also suspect almost no scrutiny has been performed by FCC at this point - they are simply forwarding the inspector's thoughts without any independent verification. As you point out, it is a dangerous game, but showing signs of resistance will no doubt force their hand. What irks me about all this is that there are potentially months of uncertainty and stress that could follow our response - the last week has been horrible enough with us worrying about it

 

[DelayRepay]

If an independent forensic examination were carried out, and the examination concluded that the ticket had been altered, how would it be proven that the alteration did not occur after the ticket was confiscated? Was it placed in a sealed evidence bag, in the same way that the Police would? I am not suggesting that the inspector would have altered the ticket but if the correct procedures were not followed this may help the OP's partner's case further.

Within any complaint to FCC, please be sure to include the value of the replacement ticket which I assume had to be purchased for the return journey.

 

[yorksrob]

This system seems to be a recipe for disaster.

I believe carnet tickets are an excellent product (alongside traditional seasons), however l wonder whether it would be better if stations had something similar to a factory punch clock which carnet, rover and 'box' users would be required to 'clock in' with before travelling.

There you go Britains railway. You can have that one for free!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . So if we got a solicitor at the earliest possible stage (i.e. now, before any summons) and they dropped it, would they still be able to claim back costs?

No! Any such claim would not be considered seriously. That's the risk anyone takes when instructing a Law firm. to defend a claim.

Please think carefully about the costs you will incurr from any firm before instructing them; you could be looking at a figure over £5k if the matter is contested in Court (and only following a Decision in your favour in Court can costs be awarded).

I'm not familiar with Johnson Penman, but am with Gray Hooper Holt.

On the flip side, how much damage could an unadvised response at this stage cause us if we worded it incorrectly?

Any poorly expressed defence runs the risk of being interpreted and presented to incriminate the Defendant. The maximum risk in the maximum penalty and costs for the Offence being prosecuted.
I tend to feel some confidence in the industry's forensic analysis of alledgedly altered tickets. If it had been altered, then the risks of contesting the claim are high. If it had not been altered (and there are no other relevant factors) then a local Law Firm should be able to assist, if necessary by obtaining the evidence of an independant expert witness.

I'm not persuaded that these "specialist" Law Firms will be particularly helpful in your situation, and that a local Law Firm with good Criminal Defence experience should be able to assist - the element of railway-specific specialisation is barely significant.

 

[island]

For future reference, FCC is now giving out approved carnet pens.

 

[rdwarr]

It's a nice concept but it just doesn't work. FCC seem to think that any ticket that looks slightly dodgy is evidence of fraud and no commuter in the know whould touch one with a bargepole for fear of facing the same that the OP's partner is in.
Giving out "special pens" helps a bit but not much. You could still start to write 22/02 then change it to 23/02 because you forgot the date and not realise that you were leaving yourself open to all sorts of unfounded accusations. It's also an admission that not being able to write on the tickets has been a problem in the past.

 

[34D]

Surely the solution for FCC is to simply require that everyone write MON 25 FEB 2013 on tickets?

Or as others have said, validation by machine/staff.

The 10 journey carnet is an ideal product for ITSO.... But I won't go there.

 

[nedchester]

It's a nice concept but it just doesn't work. FCC seem to think that any ticket that looks slightly dodgy is evidence of fraud and no commuter in the know whould touch one with a bargepole for fear of facing the same that the OP's partner is in.
Giving out "special pens" helps a bit but not much. You could still start to write 22/02 then change it to 23/02 because you forgot the date and not realise that you were leaving yourself open to all sorts of unfounded accusations. It's also an admission that not being able to write on the tickets has been a problem in the past.

Also there's a lot of people out there who do not have excellent handwriting. Taking someone to court because 'it looks a bit dodgy' without any real evidence is very poor practice and heavy handed.

I have often thought the same when I have been dating 4 in 8 rovers when you're writing it balancing it on your knee, the pen runs out and you have to go over the date etc.

As usual the FCC bounty hunters are being heavy handed without any real evidence that an offence has taken place.

 

[island]

Surely the solution for FCC is to simply require that everyone write MON 25 FEB 2013 on tickets?

Then everyone gets prosecuted for using an invalid abbreviation of February!

 

[maniacmartin]

This discussion came up before. I still think having passengers write the date on the non-glossy rear would be the quickest fix for FCC.

 

[district]

Why can't FCC keep up with other companies such as London Underground, who even before 2004 when they sold carnet tickets had validator machines and allowed them to be validated through ticket barriers or standalone carnet validators?

Furthermore, FGW also sell carnets in the Devon and Cornwall area. These are also for the passenger to validate themselves, so why do they not get so much trouble?

Infact, this thread also suggests Virgin, Chiltern and EMT also sell carnets. I have rarely, if at all heard of any problems with these tickets used on these TOCs.

 

[michael769]

Carnet tickets with write on dates are obviously subject to abuse and easy frauds, and of course FCC should take reasonable steps to deter and detect abuse.

But I would argue that issuing tickets on stock that is not fit for purpose (you cannot easily write the date with a normal everyday pen), and then threatening passengers with the law is not a reasonable step.

I agree that the obvious solution is validator machines, but would need to come with a period of educate to get passengers to understand the need to use them.

Even better if they manned all their stations staff could validate them for passengers as they enter.

If they feel that losses due to fraud ate less that staffing or equipment costs then surely investing in ticket stock that of fit for this purpose should be the minimum adequate requirement, and I would call on the DfT to order FCC to desist from taking action until they meet at leas this requirement.

WOW! I just saw a pig fly past my window!

 

[shedguy]

Back now.

Please think carefully about the costs you will incurr from any firm before instructing them; you could be looking at a figure over £5k if the matter is contested in court (and only following a decision in your favour in court can costs be awarded).

Well if it gets to prosecution, risking 5k is a bit daunting, but less so than risking a criminal record. The Penman Johnson stuff would seem to indicate costs can be reclaimed if the prosecution subsequently drop the case before it gets to court.

i'm not familiar with johnson penman, but am with gray hooper holt.

And do you have any opinions on them (that you are willing to share?)
I can't really find any other fare evasion specialists on the net, but maybe that's just because local solicitors are perfectly capable of dealing with it?

i tend to feel some confidence in the industry's forensic analysis of alledgedly altered tickets. If it had been altered, then the risks of contesting the claim are high. If it had not been altered (and there are no other relevant factors) then a local law firm should be able to assist, if necessary by obtaining the evidence of an independant expert witness.

Imagine a world where they scrutinize the ticket before contacting you and coming back with an apology and a refund instead of terrorizing their passengers on the basis of an inspector's opinion alone - I think I just saw michael769's pigs fly by...

Anyhow a question: If the offence is "altering a ticket with intent" then surely they need to prove "intent"? It is not as simple as not having a ticket or having the wrong ticket. What is considered sufficient evidence to do this?

At the very least, the magnetic stripe information should be able to prove that the ticket hadn't previously passed through a barrier except on the day of travel. (We are reasonably, but not 100% sure the Letchworth barriers were operating that day - either way the ticket will show as unsused or used on the day of travel)

What is the meaning of the "Entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel," if the altering a ticket offence was dropped - is this some kind of insurance for them so they could simply prove the ticket is not valid on account of the stray markings on it?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I am quite satisfied that Gray Hooper Holt are fully able to defend any person who is defensible (with perhaps the proviso that the accused person does nothing further to incriminate themselves or to limit the available lines of argument). But it's also my suspicion that their costs may come as a surprise.

The 'intent' that has to be proven will be derived from your observed actions (and as noted by the Inspector), your replies to questioning, and, if necessary, to a presumption informed by that marked carnet ticket which your partner will have admitted to marking; and only from those. You are right that 'intent' does not follow from simply not being in posession of a ticket; the "and" in the offence requires both the omission of a valid ticket (or a wrongly market ticket) and evidence of 'intent'.

You are also correct in considering the claim "Entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel" is a fall-back position. This is a Railway Byelaw Offence and is therefore much less serious (and in my opinion is not worth the services of a remote law firm). If the claim of 'intent' fails but the carnet is still deemed to be so poorly marked that it is demonstrably not properly valid, then the Byelaw Offence could (and perhaps would) still be pursued against your partner.

Only your partner will know whether there was 'intent' in the ordinary sense of wishing to take advantage of the Company. I can't comment on that, but as I wrote a few days ago, the ticket itself will be the most compelling evidence, supplimented by the forensic report, and followed by the statement made to the inspector at the time.
As none of us have access to those details, we can't help in assessing the probabilities.

 

[shedguy]

I am quite satisfied that Gray Hooper Holt are fully able to defend any person who is defensible (with perhaps the proviso that the accused person does nothing further to incriminate themselves or to limit the available lines of argument). But it's also my suspicion that their costs may come as a surprise.

Okay. While cost isn't the primary issue here, my inclination, (backed up by your thoughts) is that one of our local firms has the distinct advantage of being able to to talk directly to my partner and clear up any misunderstandings in the process.

The 'intent' that has to be proven will be derived from your observed actions (and as noted by the Inspector), your replies to questioning, and, if necessary, to a presumption informed by that marked carnet ticket which your partner will have admitted to marking; and only from those. You are right that 'intent' does not follow from simply not being in posession of a ticket; the "and" in the offence requires both the omission of a valid ticket (or a wrongly market ticket) and evidence of 'intent'.

After some initial misunderstanding we made it pretty clear we denied any accusation of overwriting the ticket; the inspector noted this on the form.

I don't see how the observations of the inspector would be enough to prove intent to evade a fare in this case - surely for that to be proven, the ticket must have demonstrably been used before - provable by ticket barrier or CCTV logs or similar. Am I wrong in thinking this?

You are also correct in considering the claim "Entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel" is a fall-back position. This is a Railway Byelaw Offence and is therefore much less serious (and in my opinion is not worth the services of a remote law firm). If the claim of 'intent' fails but the carnet is still deemed to be so poorly marked that it is demonstrably not properly valid, then the Byelaw Offence could (and perhaps would) still be pursued against your partner.

The date on the ticket was clearly readable - there is no way it could be misinterpreted. I can understand how this fall-back would work if you had written one number on top of another to correct a date, creating an ambiguity, but the secondary markings (in my opinion) in this case were very fine and did not obviously spell out any other date. I don't know if the terms of use are sufficiently detailed to cover such a situation - I doubt it.

Only your partner will know whether there was 'intent' in the ordinary sense of wishing to take advantage of the Company. I can't comment on that, but as I wrote a few days ago, the ticket itself will be the most compelling evidence, supplimented by the forensic report, and followed by the statement made to the inspector at the time.
As none of us have access to those details, we can't help in assessing the probabilities.

In recent months he has been absolutely paranoid about complying with the rules and indeed the spirit of the rules - he has had inspectors casually question the legitimacy of the dating on his tickets before to his great resentment. He has no trust in the system any more. He is a shift worker, so season tickets are not a useful option here.

My slightly facetious suggestion was to get the Letchworth gate staff to date the tickets themselves both as a form of protest and as a form of insurance, but that's not that practical during rush hours and also not fair to them since there's not much they can do about it anyway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Okay. While cost isn't the primary issue here, my inclination, (backed up by your thoughts) is that one of our local firms has the distinct advantage of being able to to talk directly to my partner and clear up any misunderstandings in the process.

I'm inclined to agree - (though my opinion is not based on a full assessment of all the facts).
I would reverse that opinion if the Company was, for example, claiming a recurring and repeated abuse of tickets.

The 'intent' that has to be proven will be derived from your observed actions (and as noted by the Inspector), your replies to questioning, and, if necessary, to a presumption informed by that marked carnet ticket which your partner will have admitted to marking; and only from those.

I don't see how the observations of the inspector would be enough to prove intent to evade a fare in this case - surely for that to be proven, the ticket must have demonstrably been used before - provable by ticket barrier or CCTV logs or similar. Am I wrong in thinking this?

That depends on the evidence. If the interview was under Caution, if another Officer Witnessed the suspicious actions, if their report forms were adequately completed, and if the actions observed were incriminating, then Yes. 'Intent' has regularly been demonstrated by such evidence, and I'll guess that in most cases, it has been quite correctly identified.

But I fear I'm leading you towards more concern than might be necessary in m attempt to explain the situation your partner is in - it has been demonstrated, as others on here have posted, that the ability to write on those carnet tickets is unreliable and the procedures are unsatisfactory. I'm surprised that no one has yet claimed that they are 'not fit for purpose'.
I'll guess that rather than spend four figures on a specialist law firm, you seek an 'expert witness' to confirm the problems with those tickets.

Better still from my point of view (though perhaps not yours) if you have the financial resources, would be to let them prosecute you without the expert witness, and succeed, and then for you to Appeal the Decision and have those carnet tickets discredited in a higher Court. I'd have some confidence that you would succeed, would recover all costs, and create a helpful precedent for all of us, making future rail travel just a little less miserable. . . . . . But that's not an answer to any of the questions you've asked!

 

[Fare-Cop]

He is a shift worker, so season tickets are not a useful option here.

This is off the main track of your thread a little and I'm sure that you must have a reason for having considered and rejected this, but I just wondered why you think season tickets are not an option for your partner.

Season (including weekly) tickets generally have few train restrictions.

I know that there are peak & off-peak variations in some cases, but in general, longer period seasons will offer the best service availability and fare savings.

 

[shedguy]

This is off the main track of your thread a little and I'm sure that you must have a reason for having considered and rejected this, but I just wondered why you think season tickets are not an option for your partner.

Season (including weekly) tickets generally have few train restrictions.

I know that there are peak & off-peak variations in some cases, but in general, longer period seasons will offer the best service availability and fare savings.

Typically he works 12 hour shifts, meaning 3-4 days a week on average with times varying from 730-1930 to 1130-2330 to 2130-930 and the occasional 9-5 day chucked in for various reasons. Season tickets don't fit that very well.

 

[jon0844]

This discussion came up before. I still think having passengers write the date on the non-glossy rear would be the quickest fix for FCC.

That's the advice I was given and shared on here, but I guess you could still potentially tamper with the ticket and so not be believed.

I.e. you date your ticket initially and travel, avoiding the gateline - then later you modify the date on the front and make a real mess. Only now do you write the date on the back and argue that your pen messed up/damaged the date box. You can then use the gateline, so even that doesn't prove it hadn't been used before.

This is a fraud I've thought of since being given the advice about writing the date on the back, so even that might not work.

I must point out that because of the hassle with using them (not operating some gates even when in date and not previously used, as well as the ease at which you can be accused of fraud depending on a subjective opinion from an RPI and the near instant support from colleagues) I no longer buy them. Nor have I, or would I, ever seek to tamper with a ticket in the above mentioned way - it's just that I can see how it is pretty easy for FCC to be defrauded (yet, what sympathy do they deserve for continuing despite being fully aware of the frauds and how easy they are to carry out).

One thing of concern when I was 'held' by an RPI for some four hours [for an unrelated ticket irregularity that wasn't] was that his colleague, who had to hang around doing nothing for the same time, sided with the RPI - but when I spoke to him some weeks later, after I'd been given a full apology by FCC, the action dropped and some compensation, he admitted he hadn't been sure I was at fault at all, but couldn't disagree with a colleague and side with a passenger. So, don't even believe that a second person going 'yeah, definitely altered' meant anything at all. Of course, it doesn't look good if it goes to court (but would the other RPI have still been willing to say that he believed it was modified then?).

One thing to also consider; when were the carnet tickets issued (that will be on the ticket(s). Is the supposed date that was modified before the time the ticket was purchased?

Frankly, those FCC carnet tickets are an absolute nightmare and it isn't impossible to start writing the wrong date and then realise you've effectively just wasted £5 (in my case) as to correct the date will instantly arouse suspicion. It's frustrating as having tickets already in your possession makes it quicker to travel than having to queue up and buy a ticket (or try a TVM that has a queue or is out of ticket stock etc).

But that's what I'll now do as I don't feel confident with carnet tickets, especially if I was ever to encounter the same RPI that might feel like having another go at me.