TFL - Verification Letter (Letter of Potential Prosecution)

[anon135]

Update 02/04/2025:
Resolved - Issued a warning; contacted Manak Solicitors to represent me.

Hello,

This post is to let others know what happens from my experience, and any potential insights other members could perhaps provide.

I am new to the forums, but after some initial research, I have already contacted the three main solicitors that are recommend on this forum.
Two have got back to me (Manak & Makwana), but as I recieved the letter only yesterday, and the deadline is within the next couple of days I picked the first solicitor that got back to me.
In this case it was Manak.
I have found from the initial consultation that I recieved so far, it has been helpful, if a little disheartening; the solicitor informed me that I have a 50/50 chance of this becoming a warning letter.
This is prior to some of the information I have now gathered below and "Newer issues".
With some new information (such as my blocked payment methods, and a few instances of forgetting to tap in/out (where I have tapped in, but not tapped out, and vice versa)) I assume this has chance has dropped.

I have contacted a solicitor as I am a recent graduate, who has spent the past 8 months actively looking for a job and being rejected, it is only within the past 10 days, I finally landed an offer. Which is right around the time I was caught comitting the offence.
Having a criminal record could potentially stop my career before it has even begun.
I am aware that if convicted, it is unlikely to show up on a regular DBS check, but I cannot risk it (ironic as I risked this fare).
I have future intentions of going into the financial sector and cybersecurity.

The scenario:
- I was travelling between Canary wharf and Mudchute stations on the DLR.
- I was rushing as I was already late for a meetup (this was around 9:00pm - 9:30pm). Not an excuse but it was for a person I had not seen in just under a year, I realise it was an idiotic decision to do this.
- I did not "Tap in" to the station, as I wanted to make the train that just arrived.
- As I was leaving mudchute station there were several ticket officers waiting, at which point I was caught, and complied with the ticket offiicer and provided valid ID.

Newer issues:
During this time I did have a blocked contactless payment (Apple pay), which is what I provided to the officer. Which he made a comment that it's been blocked and that he will need to take my information down.
I did not know what the root cause of the blocked payment method was and so I never fixed it, so I have been using my contactless card for my trips.
Retrospectively, this looks unfavorably towards me as it makes me appear as a habitual fare evader.
This is the first offence, and I have not had a previous Verification Letter from the TFL.

I do not have a habit of frequently avoiding fares, but upon further research by registering on the TFL website and checking my payments as advised by the solicitor.
It appears I have 2 seperate blocked contactless payments, first one is The Apple pay.
The second I'm confused about, as I only have my card and Apple pay, so I don't understand why there are 3 registered payment methods.
The last payment method is my valid card.
My assumption is that somehow this is related to my old phone's contactless.

 

[zaswat]

Have Manak been able to assist?

 

[anon135]

Manak was able to assist.
Appeared very proffesional, and was upfront and gave honest idea of what success rate I had. Including what I had to do.

I was asked to write an apology letter, provide TFL journey history, contact TFL customer support to unblock my payment methods and provide 2 character references (that were not family).
He wrote a draft response to TFL to be sent, which I was then asked to review before it was sent off.
The response itself contained my circumstances involving what happened, asking for a warning, it was my first offence and so on.
Unfortunately it takes 12 weeks for TFL to respond.

I hope this answers your question?

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for updating us on profgress with your case. It will be helpful to know the outcome so we can offer good assistance to other people in the future.

 

[anon135]

It's been resolved!
Received an email from Manak Solicitors earlier today (as well as 2 missed calls, sorry Manak) that TFL has issued a warning!

-1/10 would not recommend this experience to anyone, don't think I've ever been this stressed.
Genuinely thought that a lot of my aspirations/future career would be over, and that it would be climbing an uphill battle for the forseeable future.

10/10 for Manak, would recommend given my experience and the transparency.
Although admittedly this rating would have changed given a different outcome.
That said, it was brought up that the conviction could be spent instantly(?) or that Manak would have offered to further represent me in the event that TFL decided to press the issue. This claim may be slightly incorrect or misremembered, so please do not take this as fact.


I'm unsure what I can and cannot say on this forum, but I'll be happy to give more information as well as who represented me and any other additional details.

 

[Titfield]

It would be helpful to forum members if you could advise what Manak charged for the assistance they gave you?

A spent conviction, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, is a criminal conviction that is no longer considered part of a persons basic criminal record after a specific period of time, meaning it doesn't need to be disclosed for most jobs and situations. Being spent instantly means there is no period of time within which it has to be disclosed for most jobs and situations.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Nearly every case with a solicitor involved seems to end up with a final warning (some exceptions of more serious evasion) vs. nearly every case without ending in a prosecution. I wonder what the reason is for this?

 

[anon135]

The first call was free.
It was £125 for the consultation.
£900 for the representation/letter to TFL.
This is including VAT.

In concerns for the price.
Manak offered me 3 different packages which were essentially the level of communication throughout the process.
All 3 include the representation/letter, the updates and any queries you have are what vary for each package.
The range is £600 - £1,200.

So you can save yourself more money by going with the first package they offer, but I wanted at least update between the letter being sent and the response TFL would provide.
I was already stressed and waiting for a response would have made it worse.
There is no difference in terms of representation.

 

[WesternLancer]

The first call was free.
It was £125 for the consultation.
£900 for the representation/letter to TFL.
This is including VAT.

In concerns for the price.
Manak offered me 3 different packages which were essentially the level of communication throughout the process.
All 3 include the representation/letter, the updates and any queries you have are what vary for each package.
The range is £600 - £1,200.

So you can save yourself more money by going with the first package they offer, but I wanted at least update between the letter being sent and the response TFL would provide.
I was already stressed and waiting for a response would have made it worse.
There is no difference in terms of representation.

Thanks for updating in such a detailed way. I think this will be of help to others in future as they consider their options.

 

[Manak]

The first call was free.
It was £125 for the consultation.
£900 for the representation/letter to TFL.
This is including VAT.

In concerns for the price.
Manak offered me 3 different packages which were essentially the level of communication throughout the process.
All 3 include the representation/letter, the updates and any queries you have are what vary for each package.
The range is £600 - £1,200.

So you can save yourself more money by going with the first package they offer, but I wanted at least update between the letter being sent and the response TFL would provide.
I was already stressed and waiting for a response would have made it worse.
There is no difference in terms of representation.

Thank you for the kind words. I am delighted we were able to assist you. I wish you well for the future and thank you for your trust in us.

 

[Hadders]

Nearly every case with a solicitor involved seems to end up with a final warning (some exceptions of more serious evasion) vs. nearly every case without ending in a prosecution. I wonder what the reason is for this?

I'm not sure that this conculsion can be drawn. We only see a tiny proportion of the cases TfL deal with on this forum.

What we do know to be true is that TfL take a more robust line than their National Rail counterparts.
A solicitor cannot change what has happened but they are often able to present mitigation in a better way than a person may feel able to do themselves.

 

[pdq]

Nearly every case with a solicitor involved seems to end up with a final warning (some exceptions of more serious evasion) vs. nearly every case without ending in a prosecution. I wonder what the reason is for this?

This topic is possibly worth a spin-off thread...
I have wondered if TfL consider that a person using a solicitor at the letter stage would also use one at court. This would mean TfL would probably also need to field a solicitor who's really up to speed on that individual case. Maybe this isn't felt to be worth the investment.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nearly every case with a solicitor involved seems to end up with a final warning (some exceptions of more serious evasion) vs. nearly every case without ending in a prosecution. I wonder what the reason is for this?

In the OP’s case it is worth remembering the offence is of the lowest severity. We almost never see how TfL treat the sillle matter of failing to tap in - in fact, I wager these are mostly dealt with by penalty fares.

If you abuse a high value pass over a long period this is clearly a whole different kettle of fish to the relatively banal offence described in the OP.

 

[notmyrealname]

This topic is possibly worth a spin-off thread...
I have wondered if TfL consider that a person using a solicitor at the letter stage would also use one at court. This would mean TfL would probably also need to field a solicitor who's really up to speed on that individual case. Maybe this isn't felt to be worth the investment.

I thought there was a discussion thread recently but I can't find it now.

 

[AlterEgo]

This topic is possibly worth a spin-off thread...
I have wondered if TfL consider that a person using a solicitor at the letter stage would also use one at court. This would mean TfL would probably also need to field a solicitor who's really up to speed on that individual case. Maybe this isn't felt to be worth the investment.

The solicitors aren’t there to help the defendant plead not guilty. They’re clearly guilty, of a strict liability offence. I’m not sure it really moves the dial for them on that, but it does show the defendant understands the seriousness of what happened. I think this probably counts for a lot.

 

[Haywain]

In the OP’s case it is worth remembering the offence is of the lowest severity. We almost never see how TfL treat the sillle matter of failing to tap in - in fact, I wager these are mostly dealt with by penalty fares.

Although having presented a blocked card at the inspection that isn't a simple failure to tap in but a clear intention not to pay, and with no barrier requiring a tap out.

 

[anon135]

In response to some of the comments left and for anyone reading the thread:

The letter written by Manak was signficantly better than anything I could produce. I'm not convinced that without Manak's help I would have been given a warning letter instead of a SJPN.
As others have said perhaps TfL does become slightly more forgiving when using a solicitor. I forgot the exact wording but it was along the lines of incuring some financial loss by getting one or as @pdq pointed out that they would need bring a solicitor up to speed with the individual case which they may deem not worth the investment. @AlterEgo also makes a good point, as "understanding the seriousness" was even outlined in the letter written by Manak.

Admittedly @Haywain is right, but it wasn't premeditated and I panicked when I was caught and rather stupidly provided my blocked payment (which I shouldn't have done) but at the time I didn't understand why/how it was blocked. I had chalked it up to being an issue with my phone payment. I'm unsure of what scenario would have played out had I provided my valid one.
I bring this up as I am curious as what other members know/read on the forum about situations like I found myself in.
As while I am not admitting to knowing these people personally nor am I condoning the behaviour; I know of a couple of instances where individuals were in identical situations as I found myself in, but did not have blocked payment, and were just given a fine of £100.
Granted one of instances was not an intentional case of fare evasion from my understanding.
Not sure what determines being reported to the TfL and what results in a fine.
If it is dependent on the TfL Staff member that you encounter, or if they provided unblocked payments and then lied and said they forgot to tap in or any other scenario.

 

[jumble]

Although having presented a blocked card at the inspection that isn't a simple failure to tap in but a clear intention not to pay, and with no barrier requiring a tap out.

Ho Hum
My Debit card on Apple Wallet was declined last week in a shop
The same physical card 2 minutes later was not declined
This means this technology by definition does not always work correctly
If I had presented the my iphone at the barrier there is no way that anyone could reasonably suggest that I had any intention not to pay

 

[AlterEgo]

Ho Hum
My Debit card on Apple Wallet was declined last week in a shop
The same physical card 2 minutes later was not declined
This means this technology by definition does not always work correctly
If I had presented the my iphone at the barrier there is no way that anyone could reasonably suggest that I had any intention not to pay

If the card is blocked it’s been done so by TfL because it has failed (multiple?) revenue inspections before. That’s not the same.

 

[jumble]

If the card is blocked it’s been done so by TfL because it has failed (multiple?) revenue inspections before. That’s not the same.

Well lets hope so.

 

[anon135]

As I disccovered, your payment method will be blocked if it fails revenue inspection twice over the period of 12 (it might be 6, but I'm fairly confident it's the former) months.

 

[jumble]

If the card is blocked it’s been done so by TfL because it has failed (multiple?) revenue inspections before. That’s not the same.

Just for clarity if you know the answer
If a debit card has been blocked by the bank for online transactions only owing to a suspected fraudulent on line transaction does it pass or fail a revenue inspection?

Just for clarity if you know the answer
If a debit card has been blocked by the bank for online transactions only owing to a suspected fraudulent on line transaction does it pass or fail a revenue inspection?

Also do we know if the revenue inspector used their hand held unit or if they made the OP touch on a reader and would this make a difference?

 

[island]

Just for clarity if you know the answer
If a debit card has been blocked by the bank for online transactions only owing to a suspected fraudulent on line transaction does it pass or fail a revenue inspection?

You're conflating a few different concepts here.

A card being blocked by the bank does not have a direct connection to whether it's blocked by TfL.
Reasons a card may be blocked can include:

• Payment for a journey made using the card has been declined by the issuer.
  • This will be resolved when the correct payment has been collected.
  • Sometimes the system manages to do this automatically, and sometimes the cardholder will need to ring TfL to sort it out.
  • In either case there may be a delay of up to 30 minutes before the card becomes usable again.
• The card has experienced multiple "failed inspections" in a period of (I believe) 12 months.
  • A "failed inspection" occurs when an inspector, other than on a bus, scans the card and it later transpires that at the time of the scan, the card was not touched-in.
  • The failure is not apparent to the inspector at the time, as a revenue inspection device (RID) does not know whether or not a card is currently touched in. It is worked out later by the back office, and a failed inspection fee is assessed to the card.
  • Usually, on the first occasion that the card has been blocked for excessive "failed inspections", the cardholder can call TfL and if they give an adequate explanation, the card will be unblocked.

As alluded to by others, a TfL block will only affect one "instance" of a card, be that the physical card or one specific device that it's been added to. Other "instances" of the same card won't be affected.

A card blocked by TfL will give seek assistance code 74 when an attempt is made to touch-in at a station/on a bus and show up as such on the RID when scanned. This is different to a failed inspection: a blocked card will result in the passenger being dealt with by the inspector for not having a ticket.

Also do we know if the revenue inspector used their hand held unit or if they made the OP touch on a reader and would this make a difference?

Inspectors will use their RID.

 

[jumble]

Many Thanks
I have in the past had an inspection on my Over 60 at a DLR station and was directed to touch it on a reader but this may be an exception

 

[Cuthbert]

There is a case on the forums where the person used a solicitor and TfL still prosecuted.