Inspector took my details - PLEASE HELP

[Flower]

Hi everyone,

On Thursday morning I took the Great Northern Line from New Southgate to Moorgate. I had £2.10 on my Oyester Card already, but because I was in a rush and was late, I boarded the train without swiping my Oyster Card in first. When I reached to Moorgate station, the ticket inspector checked my Oyster Card as Invalid Ticket and I mentioned to him that I missed swiping in.

I offered to pay the full fare there and then and I even offered to pay any penalty fare there and then. Instead the officer to my details down from my driving licence, and asked me a few questions and told me to sign the paper and stated that I will receive a letter in three weeks time and can explain to them.

This is the first time this has ever happened to me, as I always pay my fares. Please could someone tell me what this letter is. I am willing to pay the penalty fare. I do not want any problems. I do not want to be prosecuted or taken to court - I am willing to pay the Penalty fare.
Please can someone help me - i have been so upset since. Why wasn't I charged the penalty fare?

I spoke with two TFL staff and two Great Northern Line staff and they stated that I should've been charged the penalty fare. I have also emailed Great Northern Customer Services about this as well. Can I have an out of court settlement if worse case comes ?
Please can someone help me!

 

[Darandio]

A penalty fare can be offered for an honest mistake, your action wasn't.

 

[DaleCooper]

Forgive my ignorance as I don't use an Oyster card, how long does it take to swipe?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Forgive my ignorance as I don't use an Oyster card, how long does it take to swipe?

about 1 second.

 

[najaB]

I always pay my fares.

Clearly that is not the case...

I had £2.10 on my Oyester Card already, but because I was in a rush and was late, I boarded the train without swiping my Oyster Card in first.

If I'm reading this right, you deliberately chose not to swipe in because you didn't want to stop and top up you Oyster first. This makes you a fare dodger, and a penalty fare is not appropriate.

I offered to pay the full fare there and then and I even offered to pay any penalty fare there and then.

So you actually had the money to pay your fare.

Please could someone tell me what this letter is.

It will be one of two things - either an opportunity for you to explain to TfL why you shouldn't be prosecuted, or it will be an invitation for you to plead guilty rather than have to attend court.

I am willing to pay the penalty fare. I do not want any problems. I do not want to be prosecuted or taken to court...

But not willing to waste 2 minutes of your time to pay for your travel.

Why wasn't I charged the penalty fare?

As explained above, a Penalty Fare is for people who made a mistake.

Can I have an out of court settlement if worse case comes ?

Can you? Yes. Will you? Depends on how well you grovel at the feet of TfL's prosecutions team.

 

[Flower]

The train was about to board and leave when I got to the platform hence why I didn't have time to take my oyster out and swipe. I just jumped in the train. This is not an excuse for my actions - I take full responsibility of what I did and I know it was wrong what I did. As I have mentioned before- I ALWAYS pay my fares. This is the first time something like this has happened and I am very scared of the letter.

 

[Flower]

For your information naja B- I used the Great Northern Line- not the underground hence I won't receive the letter from TFL ......

 

[gray1404]

"I mentioned to him that I missed swiping in."

There lies the problem, you admitted that information to him. Otherwise, if you'd have simply not tapped in correctly (ie. done it incorrectly and it not registered and you didn't notice) then you might have been offered a PF.

On a separate note, the OP here gave over his driving licence? Am I correct in saying that you do you need to give over any such documentation? All you have to provide is your name and address? (you don't even have to give your name and address do you).

Also, the OP said he signed something... Am I also correct in saying that you are under no duty at all to sign anything?

 

[najaB]

On a separate note, the OP here gave over his driving licence? Am I correct in saying that you do you need to give over any such documentation? All you have to provide is your name and address? (you don't even have to give your name and address do you).

23. Name and address
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.

Also, the OP said he signed something... Am I also correct in saying that you are under no duty at all to sign anything?

You are correct that you are not obliged to sign anything, however it means that you cannot use any information contained in that statement in your defence.

 

[Jonfun]

On a separate note, the OP here gave over his driving licence? Am I correct in saying that you do you need to give over any such documentation? All you have to provide is your name and address? (you don't even have to give your name and address do you).

Also, the OP said he signed something... Am I also correct in saying that you are under no duty at all to sign anything?

If the inspector is choosing to deal with the matter by reporting a person for prosecution then no, you don't *need* to give any ID, but doing so is likely to make it easier for everyone concerned. If the inspector can't reliably verify the passenger's identity there's the chance that they'll involve the police to do so (it can and does happen), and if the passenger was uncooperative at the time of being challenged then it isn't going to look brilliant if further down the line they are writing in about learning their lesson from their "mistake" and wanting an out of court settlement.

If the inspector is choosing to deal with the matter by a PF, UPFN or other non-prosecution method then refusing to show ID or sign the form may well result in the inspector withdrawing that offer and going down the prosecution route, which isn't really beneficial to anyone, is it?

 

[cjmillsnun]

You don't have to supply proof of name and address, however giving false details is also an offence.

 

[najaB]

You don't have to supply proof of name and address, however giving false details is also an offence.

Indeed:

(3)If any person—...

(c)Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address, he shall be liable on summary conviction...

 

[clagmonster]

The Oyster single fares for a Zone 1-4 journey, such as New Southgate - Moorgate, are £3.80 peak, and £2.70 off peak. As you only had £2.10 on your Oyster card, if your explanation is that you didn't have time to touch in, you may well have to explain why you set out with insufficient funds on your Oyster card.

The one thing I would suggest doing at this stage, is obtaining a copy of your journey history on the Oyster online website. This should show the past 8 weeks activity on your Oyster account, so should presumably show a good history of you paying your fares, and always touching in and out. It won't be a defence, but it may help in mitigation. Also, keep any old paper tickets that you have.

 

[gray1404]

Thanks guys. I personally have never had a problem with tickets (although I do admit I have got on the train a few times in the past only to realise my season ticket was at home but there was no RPI out on that day so I was lucky to get away with it.). But I do not carry ID with me. Its just another "valuable" item I could loose if ever I lost my wallet so I leave stuff like that at home in a safe place. I used to live in a country where you "had" to carry ID around with you so I rather then the freedom of living in the UK without having to carry such documents.

I personally do not believe in signing anything. It makes it easier for them (the TOC) to gather evidence against you - not just in this but in any situation. Why help someone who is trying to bring bother onto you. By signing something you are giving it to them in writing that you have committed the said offence. My academic background is in law, I have seen so (soooooooo) many cases not make it to court due to a total lack of evidence. HOWEVER, in the event of a PF or UPFN I do accept that this is a way of disposing of it and that you don't really want them to take that options (esp. if its a UPFN as there is no additional fee on top of that).

I personally would not even like waiting around while they check the details. The fare guide on here says the customer does not have to. Does that mean then that once you've given your name and address and the RPI has said that they going to give you PF, you can insist on being given the slip and leave. Or, could you just walk off and leave without a slip having given the above and been told your being given a PF and merely send the monies to the TOC by cheque?

HOWEVER, is there even any requirement in the PF regulations for a customer to sign a slip in order for it to be issued, provided they've given their name and address already. Even giving a DOB is not needed is it? I do not believe it would be reasonable grounds to take away that offer, having offered it already, just because a customer will not provide their DOB or sign anything.

 

[bb21]

HOWEVER, is there even any requirement in the PF regulations for a customer to sign a slip in order for it to be issued, provided they've given their name and address already. Even giving a DOB is not needed is it? I do not believe it would be reasonable grounds to take away that offer, having offered it already, just because a customer will not provide their DOB or sign anything.

There is no require to sign for a Penalty Fare to be valid, but a Penalty Fare is always discretionary and any suspicion of foul-play the RPI should go straight down the reporting route.

Can we try and remain on topic please? None of this is any help to the OP. Any discussion about side issues can we please do so in a separate thread.

 

[Stigy]

You don't have to supply proof of name and address, however giving false details is also an offence.

Indeed it is, although you'd have to also be charged with an offence under s5(3)a of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for the 5(3)c to work. Not a difficult offence to prove as supplying incorrect name and address details usually go hand in hand with the 5(3)a (How would s/he have paid their fare or be contacted had the inspector taken the details given in the first instance?).

 

[najaB]

Indeed it is, although you'd have to also be charged with an offence under s5(3)a of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 for the 5(3)c to work.

Off topic, but seeing as the OP doesn't seem to want to continue the discussion... I don't read it that way, (a), (b) and (c) are separate and distinct. All that is required for (c) is that the person hasn't paid their fare and failed to provide their true name and address. They could be prosecuted for providing a false name and address even if they weren't prosecuted for the unpaid fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For your information naja B- I used the Great Northern Line- not the underground hence I won't receive the letter from TFL ......

That depends entirely on whose staff stopped you at the gateline.

 

[Stigy]

Off topic, but seeing as the OP doesn't seem to want to continue the discussion... I don't read it that way, (a), (b) and (c) are separate and distinct. All that is required for (c) is that the person hasn't paid their fare and failed to provide their true name and address. They could be prosecuted for providing a false name and address even if they weren't prosecuted for the unpaid fare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That depends entirely on whose staff stopped you at the gateline.

I can see why it would appear that way, but you would need the 5(3)a/b for the c to work. Even if you could prosecute for just the false details, what would be the point? There's clearly a revenue matter involved and more than likely one whereby intent to avoid payment was evident. If there's not evidence to prove a 5(3)a/b the safest charges would be a Byelaw 18 (for the ticket) and a Byelaw 23(1) (for refusing details)...Although open to interpretation, the Byelaw 23, or refusing to supply their name and address would apply because by giving false details they have, to all intents and purposes refused to give their name and address.

I believe the legislation, although mostly clear-cut, is open to interpretation as most is. But it's like Byelaw 23 in that you HAVE to be believed to have committed another Byelaw offence for refusing details to be enforceable.

 

[najaB]

I can see why it would appear that way, but you would need the 5(3)a/b for the c to work. Even if you could prosecute for just the false details, what would be the point? There's clearly a revenue matter involved and more than likely one whereby intent to avoid payment was evident.

Oh, I would expect that to be the case. Just pointing out that given the way the law is written it doesn't require either (a) or (b) to be prosecuted at the same time as there are 'or's between the sections. Though you are correct that it is unlikely to happen that way.

 

[Flamingo]

One thing to throw into the equation is that (on our guidelines, anyway), we can get BTP involved after the passenger can't / won't pay AND refuses to give name and address. It's the refusal to give name and address that's the game changer. Even if the passenger feels there are mitigating circumstances or it's unfair, we can issue a UFN and they can then appeal until either they get an apology or a court date. But the refusal to give details can be prosecuted even if they later turn out to have had a valid ticket or something else that they think should have been given the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Ritson]

One thing to throw into the equation is that (on our guidelines, anyway), we can get BTP involved after the passenger can't / won't pay AND refuses to give name and address. It's the refusal to give name and address that's the game changer. Even if the passenger feels there are mitigating circumstances or it's unfair, we can issue a UFN and they can then appeal until either they get an apology or a court date. But the refusal to give details can be prosecuted even if they later turn out to have had a valid ticket or something else that they think should have been given the benefit of the doubt...

Just throwing this out there (as a discussion point, nothing more, and I'm certainly not advocating doing it), but say you were at quite a rural station, no barriers, etc. etc., and couldn't produce a ticket when asked by some RPOs who were there and happened to be doing random checks, and you didn't give any details but just simply started walking away from the station, what could the RPO realistically do?
I'm guessing it would be something like a citizen's arrest, to forcibly detain you or something? But then it's not like the RPOs have handcuffs or anything.
Also, if they did call police, how long would the response time realistically be?

As I said, not advocating doing any of the above, I'm just interested to know what the rail companies' powers are regarding detaining unco-operative people.

 

[gray1404]

.....depending on the circumstances

Also, are you only required to give you name and address if you have committed an offence. Just like with the Police in fact, you only have to give them your name and address if they reasonably believe you have committed an offence. I know most people would find it easier to process in their heads "you MUST give you name and address when asked on the railway" and then start to get worried about the consequences and it becomes to much for them to process and fear sets in; but do you really have to if you are correctly ticketed and there is no grounds for reasonable suspension that you might have committed an offence.

Also, just because anyway (TOC, any company, any person) calls the Police doesn't mean they can do anything or that the complaint with by default be upheld.

depending on the circumstances.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Citizens Arrests can only be performed for indictable only (can only be heard in the Crown Court) offences (otherwise it is unlawful) and if the party that was detailed is found not guilty they can prosecute the party who performed the citizens arrest as it will have been unlawful detention.

 

[Ritson]

.....depending on the circumstances

Also, are you only required to give you name and address if you have committed an offence. Just like with the Police in fact, you only have to give them your name and address if they reasonably believe you have committed an offence. I know most people would find it easier to process in their heads "you MUST give you name and address when asked on the railway" and then start to get worried about the consequences and it becomes to much for them to process and fear sets in; but do you really have to if you are correctly ticketed and there is no grounds for reasonable suspension that you might have committed an offence.

Also, just because anyway (TOC, any company, any person) calls the Police doesn't mean they can do anything or that the complaint with by default be upheld.

depending on the circumstances.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Citizens Arrests can only be performed for indictable only (can only be heard in the Crown Court) offences (otherwise it is unlawful) and if the party that was detailed is found not guilty they can prosecute the party who performed the citizens arrest as it will have been unlawful detention.

Ah ok, so, in effect, a Rail Officer at a quiet, unbarriered station would in effect be pretty powerless to stop you walking away?

 

[najaB]

Ah ok, so, in effect, a Rail Officer at a quiet, unbarriered station would in effect be pretty powerless to stop you walking away?

Technically that is not the case:

(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.

However, practically speaking they would let you go.

 

[reb0118]

Also, are you only required to give you name and address if you have committed an offence. [?]

You MUST give your name & address to an authorised official if you are asked, even if that official merely believes or suspects that an offence has taken place.

Citizens Arrests can only be performed for indictable only offences (those that can only be heard in the Crown Court - otherwise it is unlawful) and if the party that was arrested is found not guilty they can prosecute the party who performed the citizens arrest as it will have been unlawful detention.

Citizens arrests can be made for most Common Law offences (a notable exception is Breach of the Peace). Regardless of whether the accused is later found not guilty or not proven the arrest will be deemed lawful if the arrestor held a reasonable belief that an offence had been committed and that the arrestee is involved. It should be noted that unlike a constable, who can act on the information of a credible witness, you can not perform a citizens arrest unless you, yourself, have witnessed the offence. [Scots Law]

 

[jon0844]

That depends entirely on whose staff stopped you at the gateline.

In my experience, it's GTR staff that block the corridor that allows people onward travel on the underground without touching out. Without a ticket you're effectively trapped there, although I suspect a fair few people double up through the gateline.

Perhaps they also check those, but that is more likely TfL staff, and I've not seen it - but Moorgate isn't a station I regularly use.

 

[Flamingo]

Just throwing this out there (as a discussion point, nothing more, and I'm certainly not advocating doing it), but say you were at quite a rural station, no barriers, etc. etc., and couldn't produce a ticket when asked by some RPOs who were there and happened to be doing random checks, and you didn't give any details but just simply started walking away from the station, what could the RPO realistically do?
I'm guessing it would be something like a citizen's arrest, to forcibly detain you or something? But then it's not like the RPOs have handcuffs or anything.
Also, if they did call police, how long would the response time realistically be?

As I said, not advocating doing any of the above, I'm just interested to know what the rail companies' powers are regarding detaining unco-operative people.

"Please do not walk away, as being rugby-tackled to the ground and having your head sat on may cause some discomfort"...

 

[Ritson]

Flamingo, I wasn't advocating doing that, it was merely to enquire what powers a Rail Officer had to detain someone.

What if they simply ran off? Some RPOs look pretty chunky/unfit-if a person of, say, athletic build simply ran out of the station and disappeared down a few side streets etc. there isn't a lot a Rail Officer could do, in all honesty, surely?

Rhetorical question (obvs) ??????

 

[Clip]

If you run off you run off. But Id be very careful about using those stations and line for while, you know, just in case

 

[Ritson]

If you run off you run off. But Id be very careful about using those stations and line for while, you know, just in case

As I said, 'tis all meant as a theoretical discussion (or, rhetorical(?) not really sure which word suits here)

But on a serious not, could a Rail Officer really "rugby tackle" a fare evader to the ground?