West Midlands fare evasion - potential prosecution

[MuffinMan]

Hi all. I wanted to seek advice on a potential posecution I am waiting for.

Yesterday, I was accused of evading a train fare 3 stops after where I actually got off. There is a record of it happening 10 times over 6 months. Obviously, I want to settle this out of court and will make sure to be more vigilant with my bookings. I am awaiting a letter to come through and have been anxious about it since happening. The total I am being claimed to 'owe' would probably be approx £30. I have no criminal record and this would be my first run in with the law.

I am wondering if I should get solicitors involved as I want to aim to settle this out of court. If so, what solicitors around the West Midlands would be recommended? How long should I expect the letter to take?

Thanks all.

 

[Sultan]

If it was only yesterday then you will have to wait (up to 6 months, but usually only a few weeks) for their letter. There isn't anything you can really do until you know exactly what the offence is (we can but guess).

IN the meantime, please tell us exactly where you travelled from, the destination of your ticket, the type of ticket, and also the station where you got off.

Usually the TOC will offer a settlement, which is the standard single fare to wherever you got off plus an admin fee of approx £100. But they are well within their rights to take you straight to court, especially if there is significant evidence of repeat offending - you don't have a right to a settlement.

Sadly it's just a case of waiting and not repeating. Post the letter once you receive it.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Yesterday, I was accused of evading a train fare 3 stops after where I actually got off.

This is confusing. Please be more explicit as to what happens in terms of what ticket you held (from where, to where), and the journey you actually took.

There is a record of it happening 10 times over 6 months. Obviously, I want to settle this out of court and will make sure to be more vigilant with my bookings.

Again, can you explain in more detail. "Being more vigilant" suggests it was a mistake. But happening 10 times points more towards deliberate action to avoid the correct fare.

I am wondering if I should get solicitors involved as I want to aim to settle this out of court.

Almost certainly not. Most of these cases can be settled out of court, for a cost, without involving a solicitor, which is likely to cost you several hundred pounds, and possibly make no difference to the eventual outcome.

Meanwhile, make sure you don't come to the railway's attention for any reason, and that includes any train operating company, and in particular make sure any railcard is in date and you always buy a ticket before you set foot on a train - even if buying on an App. You don't want anything else to prejudice your chances of getting an out of court settlement.

 

[Hadders]

West Mildands Trains are generally one of the better train companies to deal with when it comes to this sort of thing.

What happens next is they will send you a letter in the next few weeks asking for your version of events before deciding how to proceed. The letter will appear quite threatening but that's the normal template used to get people to take notice of it.

I suggest you send a short, concise reply mentioning the following:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

West Midlands Trains are usually prepared to offer an administrative settlement (commonly known as an out of court settlement) for people who engage with the process and who haven't come to their attention before. We cannot guarantee this and the train company is within their rights to prosecute you in the magistrates court should they choose to do so.

My view is there's no need to involve a solicitor at this point. They can often speed up a case but the solicitors costs are often considerable.

Out of court settlements typically cost around £150 plus the fare avoided. A settlement might appear to be a fine, but technically it isn't (only a court can impose a fine as a punishment upon conviction) and you won't have a criminal record as a result of accepting one.

Feel free to post a copy of the letter when it arrives (but do redact any personal details before doing so) along with your draft reply and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.

 

[MuffinMan]

Thank you for everyone's help! It's settled my nerves a bit. I will wait until I receive the letter and go from there.

 

[jbi123]

Thank you for everyone's help! It's settled my nerves a bit. I will wait until I receive the letter and go from there.

Have you heard anything more yet?

 

[Haywain]

Have you heard anything more yet?

If you are after advice please start your own thread. It is forum policy to only have one case per thread so that messages do not get mixed, and every case is different, no matter how similar they may appear at first glance.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Have you heard anything more yet?

@MuffinMan seems not to have logged back on the forum for over a month.

 

[jbi123]

If you are after advice please start your own thread. It is forum policy to only have one case per thread so that messages do not get mixed, and every case is different, no matter how similar they may appear at first glance.

Cheers mate I have made my own thread it is waiting approval it says

@MuffinMan seems not to have logged back on the forum for over a month.

Thanks mate I have made my own thread and it’s waiting approval if you have any advice please respond to the thread

 

[MuffinMan]

Hi all. I have just recieved an email (I was expecting a letter through the post) about it. It seems as though the it's been sent in a threatening tone, I am obviously remoresful and will aim to reply in an apologetic tone asking to settle this outside of court?

Further investigations into this matter have been carried out, including a review of the ticket records. It would appear, at this stage, that this may be a case of fraud. West Midlands Trains take travel fraud extremely seriously and is committed to prosecuting all cases of fare evasion to the full extent of the law. Travelling on the railway with the intent to avoid paying the full fare is an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Such an offence carries a maximum fine of £1,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment and, in either case, a criminal record. It must also be considered whether this matter amounts to a much more serious offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

At this stage we would be grateful if you would provide any evidence to support the claim that none of the above legislation has been contravened to prevent further action being contemplated.

We look forward to hearing from you.

I don't think a solicitor would be worthy at this point? Any advice would be grateful. Thanks.

My current response;

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is the first time that I have been contacted regarding a fraudulent matter and I am extremely sorry for what has happened. I understand how serious the consequences are and I apologise for the amount of railway time it has taken to look into this. I hope that you can see, by scanning through my recent ticket history, that I have understood and learnt from it.

Please allow me to pay for any outstanding fares and your administrative costs in dealing with this matter. I hope by doing this it will resolve this case as I will not be making this mistake again.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[Fermiboson]

Well, it’s not a mistake, is it?

The letter is in a threatening tone, but they will generally offer you out of court settlements if they are convinced you have learned your lesson and won’t fare evade again. To do this, you need to apologise for and come clean (i.e. don’t attempt to hide) on the fare evasion you have committed (but no need to incriminate yourself, as usual), demonstrate that you understand the public interest argument against fare evasion (i.e. that it costs the taxpayer millions of £s every year), and that you hope the train company will give you an opportunity to settle - see Hadder’s post, above.

”First time” etc is unnecessary - it doesn’t matter to the TOC - and using “mistake” could be seen as trying to hide/deflect responsibility for your intentional act. You also want to be specific with exactly what you have done to ensure correct ticketing - season ticket/purchase of railcard where applicable/etc?

For example, one could instead write:
… I understand that fare evasion costs the taxpayer millions of pounds every year, and I am extremely sorry to have contributed to that. Since the incident, I have been paying the full fare for every journey made between A and B from [date] to [date]… in order to ensure that I will not be fare evading again. I hope this will be able to reassure you to this effect.

I would be very grateful for the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and I am prepared to pay for the outstanding fares and any administrative costs incurred… Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond…

As to the settlement: For every journey you have fare evaded on, take the cost of the undiscounted Anytime Single for each leg of the journey; then add ~£150 to the amount as the administrative fee. You will want to start gathering this sum now, as the TOC will expect very prompt payment, usually within 2 to 3 weeks, once they do offer an settlement.

 

[30907]

To add to Femiboson's thorough reply.

1. This is a standard email, and a prosecution under the Fraud Act is highly unlikely based on what you have posted.

2. It is helpful to quote the case reference in your reply.

 

[superkopite]

At this stage we would be grateful if you would provide any evidence to support the claim that none of the above legislation has been contravened to prevent further action being contemplated.

How can one be expected to respond to this when specific allegations have not been made?

 

[Fermiboson]

How can one be expected to respond to this when specific allegations have not been made?

In the vast majority of cases, the person receiving the email will know exactly what they have done and exactly what they are being accused of.

There are occasional threads on the forum where the person is invited to an “interview under caution”, or something to that effect - the common view is that if you have done nothing, then there is no need to entertain them.

In the end the TOC is the one calculating the out of court settlement amount, not you - if you know that you have committed fare evasion, and you know the TOC knows you have committed fare evasion, then you might as well admit to committing fare evasion, even if you have no obligation to incriminate yourself and do the investigating for them.

 

[superkopite]

In the vast majority of cases, the person receiving the email will know exactly what they have done and exactly what they are being accused of.

Perhaps, but I am not sure I agree, it sounds a prompt to incriminate oneself

In the end the TOC is the one calculating the out of court settlement amount, not you - if you know that you have committed fare evasion, and you know the TOC knows you have committed fare evasion, then you might as well admit to committing fare evasion, even if you have no obligation to incriminate yourself and do the investigating for them.

I have no idea why you are telling me this or why it is relevant to what I said.

 

[MuffinMan]

Thanks everyone, very helpful. I have taken the advice and have reworded some parts. I obviously do not want to incriminate myself so there is a fine line, I only want to refer to the specifc time they have accused me of.

 

[Fermiboson]

Perhaps, but I am not sure I agree, it sounds a prompt to incriminate oneself

To some extent, yes - but if you have committed a criminal offence, it is generally considered wise to be cooperative and try to get out of a conviction, as opposed to trying to exploit every legal principle available to you for a defence that ultimately won’t work (because of strict liability, or otherwise).

I have no idea why you are telling me this or why it is relevant to what I said.

In that there is no need to tell the TOC what they do not know in response to such a prompt.