Notice of Intention to prosecute - No Railcard

Hiya,

I would really appreciate some advice on my recent situation! I've got an intent to prosecute letter through stating that I entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel. I have 14 days to reply with my version of events.

I did in-fact purchase a ticket for my full journey, but with a 16-25 railcard (that I didn't actually have to show the inspector - because I don't actually have one. Mistake I know). When he approached me I wasn't offered to pay the difference, or asked to pay a penalty fare (which I happily would have done so). Out of panic I said I didn't have my card on me - and the form he filled out just said to send it a copy of it to XYZ. Obviously I never sent it through, as I don't have one.

I've looked online and the single price of the fare between the two stations I was travelling between is the same price with or without a rail card too (under £10, so it's not a huge sum). Frustratingly I have been commuting back and forward to London on and off for years, paying full monthly season tickets - not that makes a difference, but I've spent thousands on trains in the past and a one off train journey has resulted in this.

In all honestly I wasn't aware of the severity of this action and I'm not 100% sure on what to do next. I have drafted a letter explaining how regretful I am to have wasted their time in investigating this issue and that I am more than happy to pay the usual penalty fare and any other costs they see fit (or do I need to specifically request to settle this outside of court)... any advice would be greatly appreciated!

chicken22 said:

Hiya,

I would really appreciate some advice on my recent situation! I've got an intent to prosecute letter through stating that I entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel. I have 14 days to reply with my version of events.

I did in-fact purchase a ticket for my full journey, but with a 16-25 railcard (that I didn't actually have to show the inspector - because I don't actually have one. Mistake I know). When he approached me I wasn't offered to pay the difference, or asked to pay a penalty fare (which I happily would have done so). Out of panic I said I didn't have my card on me - and the form he filled out just said to send it a copy of it to XYZ. Obviously I never sent it through, as I don't have one.

I've looked online and the single price of the fare between the two stations I was travelling between is the same price with or without a rail card too (under £10, so it's not a huge sum). Frustratingly I have been commuting back and forward to London on and off for years, paying full monthly season tickets - not that makes a difference, but I've spent thousands on trains in the past and a one off train journey has resulted in this.

In all honestly I wasn't aware of the severity of this action and I'm not 100% sure on what to do next. I have drafted a letter explaining how regretful I am to have wasted their time in investigating this issue and that I am more than happy to pay the usual penalty fare and any other costs they see fit (or do I need to specifically request to settle this outside of court)... any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Click to expand...

What station did you board at?

If it had ticketing facilities at the time you boarded, then it would be easy for the train company to show an offence under Railway Byelaw 18, which creates a strict liability offence of failing to have a ticket when boarding a train at a station with ticketing facilities. (Note that I disagree that Byelaw 18 is lawful, but until such point as it is challenged - whether by you or someone else - that is rather a moot point!)

If it did not have ticketing facilities (i.e. there was no way you could have bought a ticket with the method(s) of payment you had available), you still don't have a "get out of jail free" card - it just means that you can't be prosecuted under Byelaw 18.

A very relevant question would be whether, in fact, the ticket that you held costed the same as a non-Railcard-discounted ticket would have. It would be very unusual for this to be the case, but it is not inconceivable, and if it is the case then it does muddy the waters quite a lot.

Assuming the ticket you held was indeed cheaper than a regular "public-rate" ticket, it would probably not be difficult for the train company to show that you had committed an offence under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA). This is satisfied when you travel by train before paying the fare (your ticket was invalid without the Railcard, and in any case, the "fare" would have been the full undiscounted amount, which you did not pay), and have intent to avoid paying the correct fare (which using a Railcard discount without the requisite Railcard is strong evidence of!).

Note that an offence under RoRA is considered more serious than an offence under the Byelaws; a Byelaws conviction and a RoRA conviction would both result in a similar sort of fine, at around 75-150% of your weekly income, but a RoRA conviction would carry a criminal record for one year (then spent), which a Byelaw conviction would not.

Unless there is some mitigation that is relevant (but which you have not mentioned), I would try to come to an out of Court settlement with the train company. There is little point trying to deny what happened so I don't think there's any reason not to "fees up" and admit "guilt" if you like.

If you want to obtain a settlement, yoy would probably want to send a letter where you apologise for your incorrect behaviour, promise not to do it again, and offer to pay the fare due, plus their costs in investigating the matter, plus an administrative penalty. Whatever you write, keep it short, succint and to the point (oh, and don't mention a particular figure whilst "fishing" for a settlement).

Whether or not a letter like that will be effective in securing you a settlement is very much dependent on the particular train company involved, as well as the strength of the evidence which they have.

They won't be particularly interested in the 'I pay most of the time' defence with the season tickets. Furthermore it's not a mistake, it is at best an error of judgement and at worst a fraud. It does however sound as if this is being treated as a byelaw 18 offence. So there are a potential few defences to this prescribed in law:

• You did indeed have a valid ticket - or did not enter the train, the actus reus was not present
• There was a sign at the station authorising travel without a ticket, for example for the purpose of paying on the train
• There were no working ticketing facilities
• You were given authorisation (written or otherwise but ideally written) to travel without a valid ticket

Unless any of these apply I'm afraid they have you bang to rights. Don't try to justify it. Furthermore a penalty fare only applies on certain routes and companies and from certain stations. It would be helpful to know which company is threatening prosecution. In any event a penalty fare is more intended for mistakes and acts of carelessness, not deliberate attempts to evade the fare. Paying the difference does not apply to railcard discounts under official policy at least.

As for your last paragraph, the content of the letter from your brief description sounds about right, no need to ask for an out of court settlement in as many words, I think it's better if the words are yours.

You say the single fare was the same with or without the railcard. How sure are you of that? It's very important. (What journey? What time of train? What day of the week and what month? How did you buy the ticket - online, at a machine?) If the fares were truly identical (e.g. a minimum fare applied) then you should not have been sold the ticket that required the railcard.

mikeg said:

does however sound as if this is being treated as a byelaw 18 offence

Click to expand...

Does it? What makes you say that? I suspect you may have misread the opening post, unless I'm not understanding something myself?

At the moment the form you've been given is to allow people who've genuinely forgotten their Railcard to show that they do indeed have one. Given that you don't have one - and don't buy one and claim that you held it as they will be able to check when it was bought - the next step is lkekly to be them writing to you to establish the facts prior to considering prosecution.

Confirming the station travelled from and the train company would be useful for us in advising further, to help answer furlong's questions.

cuccir said:

Does it? What makes you say that? I suspect you may have misread the opening post, unless I'm not understanding something myself?

At the moment the form you've been given is to allow people who've genuinely forgotten their Railcard to show that they do indeed have one. Given that you don't have one - and don't buy one and claim that you held it as they will be able to check when it was bought - the next step is lkekly to be them writing to you to establish the facts prior to considering prosecution.

Confirming the station travelled from and the train company would be useful for us in advising further, to help answer furlong's questions.

Click to expand...

The wording 'entering a train without a ticket entitling travel' appears, which is the byelaw. Of course they could still go for a regulation of railways act prosecution at this early stage, or settle.

ForTheLoveOf said:

A very relevant question would be whether, in fact, the ticket that you held costed the same as a non-Railcard-discounted ticket would have. It would be very unusual for this to be the case, but it is not inconceivable, and if it is the case then it does muddy the waters quite a lot.

Click to expand...

It does not.

The OP was able to pay the incorrect fare for the journey, so clearly had an opportunity to pay the correct fare, and compounded this by lying about the location of a non-existent railcard.

They need to focus on this, not try to wesel out on trivialities. They didn't have a valid ticket.

mikeg said:

They won't be particularly interested in the 'I pay most of the time' defence with the season tickets. Furthermore it's not a mistake, it is at best an error of judgement and at worst a fraud. It does however sound as if this is being treated as a byelaw 18 offence. So there are a potential few defences to this prescribed in law:

• You did indeed have a valid ticket - or did not enter the train, the actus reus was not present
• There was a sign at the station authorising travel without a ticket, for example for the purpose of paying on the train
• There were no working ticketing facilities
• You were given authorisation (written or otherwise but ideally written) to travel without a valid ticket

Unless any of these apply I'm afraid they have you bang to rights. Don't try to justify it. Furthermore a penalty fare only applies on certain routes and companies and from certain stations. It would be helpful to know which company is threatening prosecution. In any event a penalty fare is more intended for mistakes and acts of carelessness, not deliberate attempts to evade the fare. Paying the difference does not apply to railcard discounts under official policy at least.

As for your last paragraph, the content of the letter from your brief description sounds about right, no need to ask for an out of court settlement in as many words, I think it's better if the words are yours.

Click to expand...

Hey - it was a Thameslink train. There were working ticket machines, as I did purchase one but with a discount added. At the time I can't quite remember whether the rate was the same as with or without a Railcard - but since searching online after, this is showing! I no longer have the ticket, as it was months ago.

mikeg said:

The wording 'entering a train without a ticket entitling travel' appears, which is the byelaw. Of course they could still go for a regulation of railways act prosecution at this early stage, or settle.

Click to expand...

The intent to prosecute mentions no mention of which law or regulation they want to prosecute under. Just: 'entering a train without a ticket entitling travel'

cuccir said:

Does it? What makes you say that? I suspect you may have misread the opening post, unless I'm not understanding something myself?

At the moment the form you've been given is to allow people who've genuinely forgotten their Railcard to show that they do indeed have one. Given that you don't have one - and don't buy one and claim that you held it as they will be able to check when it was bought - the next step is lkekly to be them writing to you to establish the facts prior to considering prosecution.

Confirming the station travelled from and the train company would be useful for us in advising further, to help answer furlong's questions.

Click to expand...

It was a Thameslink train. To be honest I didn't really read the form I was given - I just gave my correct name and address and signed on the line. They've written to me to establish the facts already, which is why I am kindly asking for some advice. I am aware of my mistake, and the facts are quite clear as I have no proof of having a railcard - but I would just like to know the possibility of this being settled out of court and whether I should fully admit to my error/will that make it worse!

chicken22 said:

The intent to prosecute mentions no mention of which law or regulation they want to prosecute under. Just: 'entering a train without a ticket entitling travel'

Click to expand...

The fact that they said this specific sentence suggests they are going for a Byelaws prosecution, as otherwise they would probably mention something about intent.

Personally, I would not be inclined to fight it in any way - as, if you do not have a Railcard, and the fare you paid (as it likely would have been) lower than the undiscounted fare, it would be trivial for a prosecutor to show intent to avoid payment.

If the names of the actual origin and departure stations were provided then we can check the railcard fare against the normal fare. In post #8 the OP seems to be confirming that the discounted fare is the same as the normal fare. But if the railcard fare is even a few pence lower then there’s an offence.

If the fares are exactly the same the OP might then have the “moral defence” that the TVM should not have sold the fare in the first place. We have had discussions about this glitch within the last few weeks.

swt_passenger said:

If the fares are exactly the same the OP might then have the “moral defence” that the TVM should not have sold the fare in the first place.

Click to expand...

This is not a legal defence.

najaB said:

This is not a legal defence.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I wrote “moral defence”...

swt_passenger said:

If the names of the actual origin and departure stations were provided then we can check the railcard fare against the normal fare. In post #8 the OP seems to be confirming that the discounted fare is the same as the normal fare. But if the railcard fare is even a few pence lower then there’s an offence.

If the fares are exactly the same the OP might then have the “moral defence” that the TVM should not have sold the fare in the first place. We have had discussions about this glitch within the last few weeks.

Click to expand...

I have blocked out stations...but you can see the same fare on the same journey - one with railcard and one without. However, I am unsure if I purchased a return or a single at the time. I literally cannot remember - and I assume they will take down the ticket number to keep a record of which ticket type it was. If it was return the fairs are in-fact different. Even so I didn't/don't have a railcard.

I am still going to write a letter apologising, accepting fault etc but would still appreciate your expertise and opinions on what may happen next!

ForTheLoveOf said:

The fact that they said this specific sentence suggests they are going for a Byelaws prosecution, as otherwise they would probably mention something about intent.

Personally, I would not be inclined to fight it in any way - as, if you do not have a Railcard, and the fare you paid (as it likely would have been) lower than the undiscounted fare, it would be trivial for a prosecutor to show intent to avoid payment.

Click to expand...

They don't need to show intent for a Byelaw 18 prosecution, they only need to prove the actus reus (guilty act).

No it wouldn't, you could hypothetically just say that you accidentally pressed the wrong button on the TVM, and didn't realise that the fare was discounted.
However that could be long winded and risky.

My advice to the OP would be to settle out of court, via a nicely worded letter apologising for their mistake.

najaB said:

This is not a legal defence.

Click to expand...

But that might then be one of those situations (no discount was actually applied - irrespective of what was printed on the ticket) where legal representation could be worthwhile, to attempt to persuade the court to stay any proceedings or, failing that, argue for a discharge.

To the OP, the reason fares can be the same is because on working days in the early morning there is a minimum fare before you can use the railcard. Perhaps the single is below the minimum fare but the return is higher than it. If you don't want to say on here, perhaps you would tell one of the contributors by private message the details of the journey, or check for yourself at the same machine at the station what happens if you select the same ticket again both with and without the railcard at that time of the morning. (It depends on the type of machine - some will prompt you and if it's a machine like that and you don't remember the prompt that might be sufficient to make it clear you got a return not a single.)

@chicken22

You lied to the inspector - end of.

Your ticket most likely had some notification on it that a railcard was used but when challenged, you (obviously) could not produce it and you were given the chance to send it in - which you didn't

To me, this was not a "mistake" but a deliberate attempt to defraud by purchasing a cheaper ticket by pretending to have a railcard.

Now you are trying to weasel your way out of it

furlong said:

But that might then be one of those situations (no discount was actually applied - irrespective of what was printed on the ticket) where legal representation could be worthwhile, to attempt to persuade the court to stay any proceedings or, failing that, argue for a discharge.

Click to expand...

Is incompetence a defence? There was a deliberate attempt to defraud the railway company. Just because they didn’t succeed doesn’t mean they haven’t committed an offence as the ticket they held wasn’t valid without a railcard. Wouldn’t the usual ‘I know I was wrong, sorry, won’t do it again, please can I shower you with cash?’ be more effective at reducing the likelihood of a prosecution?

robert7111a said:

@chicken22

You lied to the inspector - end of.

Your ticket most likely had some notification on it that a railcard was used but when challenged, you (obviously) could not produce it and you were given the chance to send it in - which you didn't

To me, this was not a "mistake" but a deliberate attempt to defraud by purchasing a cheaper ticket by pretending to have a railcard.

Now you are trying to weasel your way out of it

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm not trying to weasel out of it - I have legitimate queries in regards to ticket price. I've admitted I was wrong and am just asking for some advice on what may happen next.

I think a difficulty you could potentially face is that going to the effort of buying a railcard discounted ticket without being in possession of a railcard, with no pecuniary advantage to be had, may lead an officious bystander to conclude that the decision to purchase the "discounted" ticket was not a moment of inadvertence but rather an action committed through force of habit. I think some of the advice you've been given above is sound; write to them, apologise, explain that you want to put it right, and keep it to the point.

chicken22 said:

Thanks. I'm not trying to weasel out of it - I have legitimate queries in regards to ticket price. I've admitted I was wrong and am just asking for some advice on what may happen next.

Click to expand...

What time of day were you travelling?

221129 said:

What time of day were you travelling?

Click to expand...

About 6.15am

Harlequin said:

I think a difficulty you could potentially face is that going to the effort of buying a railcard discounted ticket without being in possession of a railcard, with no pecuniary advantage to be had, may lead an officious bystander to conclude that the decision to purchase the "discounted" ticket was not a moment of inadvertence but rather an action committed through force of habit. I think some of the advice you've been given above is sound; write to them, apologise, explain that you want to put it right, and keep it to the point.

Click to expand...

It genuinely was a one off! For the last 2 months I've been back to commuting so have a Season ticket have done for years in the past, not that this makes any difference or they'll even care that I've spent £6,000+ previously.

chicken22 said:

For the last 2 months I've been back to commuting so have a Season ticket have done for years in the past, not that this makes any difference or they'll even care that I've spent £6,000+ previously.

Click to expand...

It's not so much that they won't care, as much as it isn't relevant. To use an extreme example: "I know I killed this guy, but look at all the guys I didn't kill" doesn't work as a defence either.