Prosecution from Southern trains

bb21 · 7 Jan 2019

Posts discussing GDPR which are not relevant to the core topic are in this thread.

You are reminded that posts in the disputes area of the forum must be strictly relevant to the original topic to avoid cluttering up threads and burying important posts.

RailUK Forums

MJN11 · 12 Jan 2019

Kite159 said:
Do the Southern services towards Epsom play automatic announcements before Ewell warning that "this is the last station where oyster/contactless/freedom passes without a suitable extension are valid" like they do on the SWR services?

No they don’t. However for some reason they do a display only notification informing this after East Croydon for services that skip Gatwick Airport.

ConcernedTok · 27 Apr 2019

Apologies for resurrecting an older thread.

Today I got a letter of "notice of intention to prosecute". The offence is "entering a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel"

There is no mention of the foul language or false details.

What is my best course of action from here?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

najaB · 27 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
The offence is "entering a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel"

That is pretty much Byelaw 18.1 word for word.

ConcernedTok said:
What is my best course of action from here?

Based on what you posted initially, I can't see that you have a valid defence so, were I in your position, I would apologise again and if that doesn't work plead guilty to reduce the fine.

Stigy · 27 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
Apologies for resurrecting an older thread.

Today I got a letter of "notice of intention to prosecute". The offence is "entering a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel"

There is no mention of the foul language or false details.

What is my best course of action from here?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Reply to the letter as guided (they should give you an opportunity to reply?). If there were other offences which aren’t listed in the letter, it would appear you hit lucky with just a charge under Byelaw 18(1). This is your opportunity to apologise and offer to meet their reasonable costs to stay out of court. Don’t mention other offences.

ConcernedTok · 27 Apr 2019

thanks guys - are there any good examples of how to word the apology and offer to meet reasonable costs?

Also, should i mention the mitigating circumstances i.e. i'm not local and had expected to be able to use contactless since it was advertised at gatwick etc?

najaB · 27 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
thanks guys - are there any good examples of how to word the apology and offer to meet reasonable costs?

It's best to write your own rather than appearing too formulaic.

ConcernedTok said:
Also, should i mention the mitigating circumstances i.e. i'm not local and had expected to be able to use contactless since it was advertised at gatwick etc?

You can mention them but I wouldn't belabour the point too much because: (a) Byelaw 18.1 is strict liability - either you have a valid ticket or one of the exceptions in 18.3 apply - otherwise that's it; and (b) it can be seen as trying to place blame elsewhere rather than accepting full responsibility.

some bloke · 27 Apr 2019

The Byelaws state,

"“valid ticket” means a ticket...entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use."

How certain can we be that a higher court would not interpret "service" as implying transport as far as Epsom, since the OP did not deny that was his intention?

Consumer law favours the consumer's interpretation of ambiguity in a contract. But is that enough of a guarantee for the OP here?
Or does "service" clearly mean service to any station, rather than specifically to Epsom?

some bloke · 27 Apr 2019

If the OP is very concerned about the prospect of a conviction, is specialist legal advice a good idea?

ForTheLoveOf · 27 Apr 2019

some bloke said:
The Byelaws state,

"“valid ticket” means a ticket...entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use."

How certain can we be that a higher court would not interpret "service" as implying transport as far as Epsom, since the OP did not deny that was his intention?

Consumer law favours the consumer's interpretation of ambiguity in a contract. But is that enough of a guarantee for the OP here?
Or does "service" clearly mean service to any station, rather than specifically to Epsom?

The mention of the word "boarding", as differentiated in other laws and conditions from "travelling" (or remaining on board), makes it quite clear that the Byelaw is concerned with those who fail to make use of available ticketing facilities to buy any ticket at all.

I don't think it is supportable to claim that service can be interpreted to mean journey, by any means - many people's journeys involve taking more than one service; it would be perfectly legal for the purposes of the Byelaws to board your first train on a multi-leg journey, with a ticket that only covered you to your first interchange station, and then to buy a ticket onboard this first train to cover the rest of your journey. In other words, you do not need to have a ticket that covers your entire journey merely to start it.

The prosecution is far from having a slam-dunk case as may have been taken as being implied by previous posts. I don't think specialist advice is necessary by any means, given the relatively less serious nature of the prosecution (i.e. it isn't a case for long-term fraud of thousands of pounds), but the OP may wish to avail themselves of an initial consultation with a criminal defence solicitor, which is usually free or very low cost.

some bloke · 28 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok's concerns relate to working in the US.
As there's no allegation of dishonesty, is there nothing to worry about?

I don't know if it's of any significance, but the "Personal Data Sheet" referred to here http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/travelling-america-usa/
https://photos.state.gov/libraries/164203/cons-visa/VCU01_London.pdf
requests information in Section Two on summonses and charges as well as convictions.
However, given the minor nature of this allegation perhaps we might expect no problems apart from more paperwork.

ConcernedTok said:
A lot of my work is currently in the states and any criminal conviction will put my job at risk, and subsequently getting another job.

I have been naive and silly and reading these forums, it looks like I'm in a lot of trouble.

Could questioning a charge of "entering..." lead to a more serious charge, in the context of the altercation, the work address and giving the old flat's address?

(despite the staff member's wrong mention of a "fine" and the fact that giving the work address may be reasonable)

ForTheLoveOf · 28 Apr 2019

some bloke said:
Could questioning a charge of "entering..." lead to a more serious charge, in the context of the altercation, the work address and giving the old flat's address?

Given the time limits for any prosecution, I severely doubt Southern would be able to lay a more serious charge before the Courts if the OP pled guilty and the matter was heard. Not to mention the fact that it is not necessary to disclose your intended defence until much nearer the Court date, and it is very rare, if not unheard of, for a TOC to go for more serious charges later on. And quite apart from all that, the Courts would likely take a very dim view of what would be seen as an attempt at intimidating the OP into an inappropriate guilty plea.

some bloke · 28 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Given the time limits for any prosecution, I severely doubt Southern would be able to lay a more serious charge before the Courts if the OP pled guilty and the matter was heard. Not to mention the fact that it is not necessary to disclose your intended defence until much nearer the Court date, and it is very rare, if not unheard of, for a TOC to go for more serious charges later on. And quite apart from all that, the Courts would likely take a very dim view of what would be seen as an attempt at intimidating the OP into an inappropriate guilty plea.

In that case, perhaps it's hard to see circumstances where this - a prosecution with no allegation of dishonesty - should cause any problems for work in the US.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

Hi all

I have pulled together the letter in response (attached).

Any feedback/adjustment suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

some bloke · 28 Apr 2019

Seems good.

If you have good reason to believe a conviction would risk causing work problems - or administrative/immigration problems - then you could briefly describe the risk(s).

Is this the actual wording that appears continuously on the letter to you? If so it seems muddled:
“that on the XXXX upon inspection at Epsom (EPS) entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel.”

The last sentence could be:
"I would be very grateful if you could accept this offer to pay the original fare in full and all administrative costs incurred by Govia Thameslink Railway for handling this incident."

some bloke · 28 Apr 2019

Could it be worth ConcernedTok attaching proof of touching in/being charged a maximum TfL fare?

ForTheLoveOf · 28 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
Hi all

I have pulled together the letter in response (attached).

Any feedback/adjustment suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

It's up to you, but that letter would be highly detrimental to your case if they rejected your offer (as they have every right to do, and as I would expect them to do if they have sent the letter they have). I would strongly suggest obtaining legal advice from a criminal defense solicitor before sending anything to the TOC. An initial consultation merely to get an idea of your position would likely be free. The Law Society's website has a Search tool that you may find useful.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

some bloke said:
Seems good.

If you have good reason to believe a conviction would risk causing work problems - or administrative/immigration problems - then you could briefly describe the risk(s).

Is this the actual wording that appears continuously on the letter to you? If so it seems muddled:
“that on the XXXX upon inspection at Epsom (EPS) entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel.”

Yep - word for word it says:

Details of Offence:
On the above date you were spoken to in regard to the following alleged offence(s):
- That you on [DATE] upon inspection at Epsom (EPS) Entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel.

In terms of the immigration/admin problems associated with work - others on here where I have read have suggested not including this (as the prosecutors are unlikely to care)?

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
It's up to you, but that letter would be highly detrimental to your case if they rejected your offer (as they have every right to do, and as I would expect them to do if they have sent the letter they have). I would strongly suggest obtaining legal advice from a criminal defense solicitor before sending anything to the TOC. An initial consultation merely to get an idea of your position would likely be free. The Law Society's website has a Search tool that you may find useful.

Understood - a bit unsure about how to use that website - what lawyer type do i search for? Fraud??

some bloke · 28 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
that letter would be highly detrimental to your case

I'm sorry - I had a lapse of concentration when commenting on the letter and failed to take account of the previous discussion.

ForTheLoveOf · 28 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
Understood - a bit unsure about how to use that website - what lawyer type do i search for? Fraud??

"Crime - general" is the most appropriate category in my view.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

some bloke said:
I'm sorry - I had a lapse of concentration when commenting on the letter and failed to take account of the previous discussion.

Apologies if i'm being a bit thick here - but is my situation (as described previously) any different from others who have been pulled up on travelling without the right ticket? Are the other elements also being taken into account by the prosecutor? I'm understanding that it is only the 1 thing I am being charged for?

furlong · 28 Apr 2019

Each situation is considered on its own merits - yours is different because of the use of contactless, something introduced after the relevant laws were created, which increases the amount of legal uncertainty regarding the various issues that are in play here. Did the train you used stop somewhere within the contactless area but before Epsom such that you held a valid ticket for the first part of (and indeed almost all) your journey when you boarded? Was your card in fact charged for the first part of the journey? If so, how does that amount charged - and already paid - compare with the correct fare for the complete journey? Have you under- or over-paid and by how much? Was there clear signage or an announcement on the trains regarding the limit of validity? Is there evidence that might show beyond reasonable doubt that you "knowingly" travelled beyond the distance covered by the amount charged to your card? Or in other words, paths to a successful prosecution in situations like the one you described are not straightforward.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

furlong said:
Each situation is considered on its own merits - yours is different because of the use of contactless, something introduced after the relevant laws were created, which increases the amount of legal uncertainty regarding the various issues that are in play here. Did the train you used stop somewhere within the contactless area but before Epsom such that you held a valid ticket for the first part of (and indeed almost all) your journey when you boarded? Was your card in fact charged for the first part of the journey? If so, how does that amount charged - and already paid - compare with the correct fare for the complete journey? Have you under- or over-paid and by how much? Was there clear signage or an announcement on the trains regarding the limit of validity? Is there evidence that might show beyond reasonable doubt that you "knowingly" travelled beyond the distance covered by the amount charged to your card? Or in other words, paths to a successful prosecution in situations like the one you described are not straightforward.

It was a company credit card that was used (its not my company). I have checked the expense statement that we receive for the month that the offence occurred, but nothing appears to have been charged.

At the time, Epsom was 1 stop outside of the contactless zone. As I understand it now (I haven't been back since), Epsom is now part of the contactless zone.

furlong · 28 Apr 2019

Did you register the contactless card on the website and look up the travel record?

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

furlong said:
Did you register the contactless card on the website and look up the travel record?

On the train company website? Not done that as I hadn't needed that (before now)

ForTheLoveOf · 28 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
On the train company website? Not done that as I hadn't needed that (before now)

On the TfL website, that would be.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
On the TfL website, that would be.

Nope, never done that. There is a Tfl charge on the credit card for the same day however.

ForTheLoveOf · 28 Apr 2019

ConcernedTok said:
Nope, never done that. There is a Tfl charge on the credit card for the same day however.

TfL is the organisation that would make the charge for any contactless journeys within London, as they manage the system.

You can register now and I believe you would still be able to view the history going back up to 12 months.

ConcernedTok · 28 Apr 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
TfL is the organisation that would make the charge for any contactless journies within London, as they manage the system.

You can register now and I believe you would still be able to view the history going back up to 12 months.

My company card has since been replaced (lost on a team night out :oops:

) which would be an issue for doing that as I don't have that card number to register.

I am however going to call them up and see if they can provide me a contactless log from the previous card.

Prosecution from Southern trains

Emeritus Moderator

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member