It is true though I have done it before quite a few timesSo they are going to prosecute you but will offer an out of court settlement but only if you go to a voluntary interview which could further incriminate you?
Is this normal as this is wild to me? Am I reading this right?
I can't my job requires an enhanced DBSNobody can possibly answer your question without more information but the three main questions regarding what should you do are:
How much do you want to avoid a criminal conviction?
What have you been up to?
Do you do you have the money to pay Chiltern the amount they will request?
I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS
Erm... how much can they see? I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
That depends on how much it would be
I suspect the cost will likely be similar, whichever option you choose.
Are you asking for suggestions as to names of firms of solicitors who could possibly provide you with specialist legal representation?Can anyone recommend who yo ask about legal advice it says in the letter it should be someone who knows about fares but how can you know that?
Which may be relevant given the comment about an enhanced DBS being required for employment.Agree - though a criminal record is thrown in for free with option 2.
The motivation is they suspect the OP has evaded their fare on multiple occasions and they want any settlement amount to reflect that. Depending on exactly what has happened this may well be significantly more expensive than pleading guilty but obviously it avoids a criminal record.So they are going to prosecute you but will offer an out of court settlement but only if you go to a voluntary interview which could further incriminate you?
Is this normal as this is wild to me? Am I reading this right?
This is probably a fairer approach than what we see sometimes where they simply add up all the fares they think have been evaded and present a take it or leave it settlement based on that.
I suspect it may be advisable for the OP not to answer that on a public forum, given Small Heath is the Birmingham equivalent of Wembley Stadium when it comes to wanting to get through the barriers.A further question. Do I presume that Small Heath is the obvious local station in relation to your home address or place of work? If not then they may have suspicions of short-faring that they could bring up in an interview.
Indeed, but it’s a material point in terms of deciding whether to rock up to an interview.I suspect it may be advisable for the OP not to answer that on a public forum, given Small Heath is the Birmingham equivalent of Wembley Stadium when it comes to wanting to get through the barriers.
I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
The only way that letter could be described as confusing is if you are deliberately trying to be confused. It is straightforward - choice 1, get prosecuted for the offence you've been stopped for or choice 2, avoid prosecution but pay everything you've avoided.Yet the letter still manages to be a confusing mess of sequential steps taken in parallel. Investigations, charge, interview, settlement offer all rolled into one "have my cake and eat it" letter! Is this one investigation or two? Just because this isn't as bad as the worst we've seen doesn't make this right! (There may even be procedural arguments where the letter itself can be used to undermine some of the things it envisages!)
So when you do buy a ticket, how do you decide in advance if it’s “just to get through a barrier“ or if it’s for “someone to check” it?I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS
Erm... how much can they see? I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
That depends on how much it would be
Depending on the precise charge and your precise job role, it may not show up on an Enhanced DBS. But that's missing the point really: if you are in a role that requires EDBS then you have to declare your criminal history anyway - it's not what comes back on from DBS that causes problems, it is the failure to disclose something that you are required to disclose that can have life changing consequences.I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS
Thanks for the update. I assume their analysis of your tickets was near enough correct.Thank everyone for your advice. I decided to bite the bullet and contact them direct on the e mail, they explained everything to me and sent me something with all the tickets I had bought. It was quite embarrassing as there were quite a lot but they were actually really nice. I offered them £750 to make it go away but they got back to me and said my offences actually only came to 302 and the admin on top made it £477. I thought that was really good of them actually.
Agreed. This seems to be a new tactic employed by some train companies. It's as though they want to show they're serious about prosecuting if you don't co-operate.For our future reference, sending the SJPN and a settlement offer in the same envelope seems to be a new development.
TOCs cannot easily prove historic offences (after trawling retailer histories) in court, and hence on balance most of them will prefer to settle with the threat of prosecution for the single red-handed offence (the one where the person was caught while travelling) as an incentive. This recoups the most money and is the most pragmatic course of action for them.There's some basic carrot and stick logic at play here, surely? There's three bases you can claim ... not guilty / might be guilty / guilty of (potentially) repeated evasion
Asking someone to attend an interview under caution is likely to scare most into being honest.
Now that it's clear that TOCs and their representatives can chase down your history across many on-line retailers, i'm a little surprised offers to settle are still made.
Maybe there's a thin line between being naughty and willfully committing fraud that isn't obvious? i'll assume the TOCs prefer to take a settlement rather than pay for legal representation?