Notice of Intention to Prosecute Letter

CanalWalker · 27 May 2019

They misspelled your name? How badly? That happened to me last year when an ITP letter was sent to my address but addressed to Mr Brain instead of Mr Brown

I simply marked the letter and a subsequent letter as "not known at this address" and put it back in the post. And that was the end of it.

RailUK Forums

najaB · 27 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Whilst this is of course the approach to take if you simply want a settlement, it means that if they turn around and refuse a settlement, you have needlessly incriminated yourself. The OP needs to be very careful before making any such statements to GTR.

I agree that care needs to be taken, but I disagree that such a statement is necessarily self-incriminating since, as you pointed out yourself, it's the intent to avoid payment that's the criminal act.

Simply restating the facts already in evidence and apologetically asking for the matter to be solved administratively leaves the OP in no more legal jeopardy than they currently are.

ForTheLoveOf · 27 May 2019

najaB said:
I agree that care needs to be taken, but I disagree that such a statement is necessarily self-incriminating since, as you pointed out yourself, it's the intent to avoid payment that's the criminal act.

Simply restating the facts already in evidence and apologetically asking for the matter to be solved administratively leaves the OP in no more legal jeopardy than they currently are.

The issue is that a promise not to do it again, and an offer to pay all costs incurred, is almost fundamentally incompatible with later trying to claim you are not guilty. If you did write that and then plead guilty I would expect a competent solicitor acting on GTR's behalf to suggest that an inference of guilt should be accepted.

In other words, innocent people don't apologise for their actions, certainly not for something that might go to Court.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to both request a settlement and plead not guilty, but it is certainly very challenging to come up with a suitable wording that doesn't have the potential of causing issues down the line.

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

CanalWalker said:
They misspelled your name? How badly? That happened to me last year when an ITP letter was sent to my address but addressed to Mr Brain instead of Mr Brown
I simply marked the letter and a subsequent letter as "not known at this address" and put it back in the post. And that was the end of it.

address and first name is correct but they got the last letter of my surname wrong, I googled the supposed name and they are lots of people with that name

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

najaB said:
I agree that care needs to be taken, but I disagree that such a statement is necessarily self-incriminating since, as you pointed out yourself, it's the intent to avoid payment that's the criminal act.

Simply restating the facts already in evidence and apologetically asking for the matter to be solved administratively leaves the OP in no more legal jeopardy than they currently are.

Thanks NajaB how best can I respond to this letter?

ForTheLoveOf · 27 May 2019

OFFWHITE said:
address and first name is correct but they got the last letter of my surname wrong, I googled the supposed name and they are lots of people with that name

Don't try and get out of this through minor technicalities such as this. It's only going to make you look silly. If you ignore it because of this, you'll be found guilty at Court and then the bailiffs will have no qualms knocking at your door or taking the fine out of your wage/salary. Best not to go down that path.

OFFWHITE said:
Thanks NajaB how best can I respond to this letter?

I'm not NajaB, but if you wanted to reply to them you might want to write something like this:

Dear Sir / Madam,

I write in response to your letter of [insert date] regarding a journey on [insert date].

I understand that one should always buy a ticket that covers one's entire journey before boarding a train. It was not my intention to avoid payment of the fare for my journey, and indeed, at the point I boarded the train at Haywards Heath I only intended to travel as far as Wivelsfield, which was the destination of my ticket (see first attachment).

However, after I had boarded the train, I received a text message from my friend (see second attachment), where he/she [delete as appropriate] suggested we meet at Burgess Hill. I did not want to have to get off the train at Wivelsfield to pay the additional fare to Burgess Hill, as this would have taken too long to get back on the same train, and would therefore have entailed waiting half an hour for the next train. I intended to pay the additional fare onboard the train, or alternatively at the ticket office upon arrival at Burgess Hill.

At the point I boarded the train I did hold a valid ticket, and I showed it when I was asked for my ticket by the member of staff onboard the train. I am therefore not guilty of an offence under Byelaw 18 of the Railway Byelaws 2005. Equally, at no point did I intend to avoid payment of the fare (as shown by the timing of the text message), so I am not guilty of an offence under Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

I would, of course, like to pay the remaining fare as soon as possible, and I therefore enclose a cheque to the value of the Anytime Day Single from Wivelsfield to Burgess Hill, £1.90. I hope that you are able to accept this in settlement of the matter at hand.

Thank you in advance.

Yours faithfully,

[OFFWHITE]

Encs: photograph of ticket held, screenshot of text message, cheque for £1.90

There is of course a risk that this will be seen as trying to 'get out' of what you have done, and some may say that this is inadvisable. Were it not for the text message, I would agree. However, provided you can evidence the existence of the text, and provided its timing matches up with the timings of the train as it ran (it would be helpful if you could tell us what date and time the train was, so we can look up the running records), I think that this is one where you are not in the wrong on the basis of the laws they have quoted, and therefore it would not be appropriate to try and pretend you think you are.

It is perfectly possible for an innocent person to change their travel plans mid-journey (especially in relation to an unexpected meet-up/pickup etc.) and I don't think a reasonable person would say you must delay your journey to buy an additional ticket at the expiry station of the ticket you hold, in order to not be "avoiding" payment of the additional fare.

OxtedSignaller · 27 May 2019

Two things here. You said you purchased a ticket on the app and had proof on there, do you mean you had a ticket on there but not collected it? As if that is the case, that would be why you got dealt with the way you did. Many people now days seem to buy uncollected tickets when they see somebody coming round checking tickets instead of purchasing it before they boarded. That would make more sense. Fare evasion is dealt with quite seriously on the Brighton Mainline as majority of trains originating from Brighton up to London run DOO and they only get ticket checks on them once in a while which is why they take a hardline approach. Next time in future it may be worth making the effort to go and seek out the Inspector before they get to you as there is not a lot they can say if you actually go up to them and approach them.

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

OxtedSignaller said:
Two things here. You said you purchased a ticket on the app and had proof on there, do you mean you had a ticket on there but not collected it? As if that is the case, that would be why you got dealt with the way you did. Many people now days seem to buy uncollected tickets when they see somebody coming round checking tickets instead of purchasing it before they boarded. That would make more sense. Fare evasion is dealt with quite seriously on the Brighton Mainline as majority of trains originating from Brighton up to London run DOO and they only get ticket checks on them once in a while which is why they take a hardline approach. Next time in future it may be worth making the effort to go and seek out the Inspector before they get to you as there is not a lot they can say if you actually go up to them and approach them.

I purchased from the app and collected them from the machine, so I had the tickets with me , I have evidence of the purchase of the tickets in my email as the app sent a confirmation

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

ForTheLoveOf said:
Don't try and get out of this through minor technicalities such as this. It's only going to make you look silly. If you ignore it because of this, you'll be found guilty at Court and then the bailiffs will have no qualms knocking at your door or taking the fine out of your wage/salary. Best not to go down that path.

I'm not NajaB, but if you wanted to reply to them you might want to write something like this:

There is of course a risk that this will be seen as trying to 'get out' of what you have done, and some may say that this is inadvisable. Were it not for the text message, I would agree. However, provided you can evidence the existence of the text, and provided its timing matches up with the timings of the train as it ran (it would be helpful if you could tell us what date and time the train was, so we can look up the running records), I think that this is one where you are not in the wrong and therefore it would not be appropriate to try and pretend you think you are.

It is perfectly possible for an innocent person to change their travel plans mid-journey (especially in relation to an unexpected meet-up/pickup etc.) and I don't think a reasonable person would say you must delay your journey to buy an additional ticket at the expiry station of the ticket you hold, in order to not be "avoiding" payment of the additional fare.

My apologies , thanks for the letter, I feel if I try to quote sections of the law they might go heavy on me , I'm thinking an apologetic sort letter admitting the offence and plead for leniency as it is a one off

island · 27 May 2019

The relevant offence here is section 103 Railway Consolidation Clauses Act 1845 (passenger wilfully failing to quit the carriage upon arrival at the point to which the fare is paid). A prosecution for this offence would be bound to succeed, as intent to avoid the payment of a fare need not be proven, only intent not to leave the train.

Whether GTR will in fact prosecute this, or will attempt to prosecute under the Railway Byelaw 18 (1), which would be bound to fail, or section 5 (3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which could go either direction, is another matter.

ForTheLoveOf · 27 May 2019

island said:
The relevant offence here is section 103 Railway Consolidation Clauses Act 1845 (passenger wilfully failing to quit the carriage upon arrival at the point to which the fare is paid). A prosecution for this offence would be bound to succeed, as intent to avoid the payment of a fare need not be proven, only intent not to leave the train.

Whether GTR will in fact prosecute this, or will attempt to prosecute under the Railway Byelaw 18 (1), which would be bound to fail, or section 5 (3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which could go either direction, is another matter.

Agreed, this is the only offence which is clearly made out. However whilst prosecutions under it do still happen from time to time it is a rare offence, and accordingly I wonder whether GTR's prosecutions team would even think of it.

OFFWHITE said:
My apologies , thanks for the letter, I feel if I try to quote sections of the law they might go heavy on me , I'm thinking an apologetic sort letter admitting the offence and plead for leniency as it is a one off

But you have not committed the offence they are accusing you of. I don't know why you would admit to a crime you've been accused of that you haven't committed, or why you'd admit to a crime you've potentially committed but not been accused of. Pleading for leniency is going to 100% stymie any kind of 'not guilty' plea if they refuse a settlement.

If you reply with that letter and then they come back saying "we're sorry, actually we meant Section 103" (as alluded to by @island) then the situation changes a little. At the moment, I would not bring that up. The letter I've drafted does not say you have done nothing wrong, but I think it goes toward insinuating it without spelling it out so much that it can be used as evidence against you.

Remember, it is one of the key tactics that US police forces use, to invite defendants to write a letter of apology to "ensure a lesser sentence" when in fact it is nothing but a ploy to make them waive their right to silence and try and get them to incriminate yourself.

This is not exactly the same situation, but it is analogous. GTR are not asking for your response because they feel sorry for you and want to let you off with a slap on the wrist. They are sending the letter to ensure they get the best outcome for themselves here (be that to aim for a settlement if they realise they don't feel they have a case for Court, or to get evidence if they do feel they can prosecute).

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

This is part of the letter I received, is this standard letter, the wording of it ? the scary part of it is when they "our intention to take this case to magistrate court"

ForTheLoveOf · 27 May 2019

OFFWHITE said:
View attachment 63626
This is part of the letter I received, is this standard letter, the wording of it ? the scary part of it is when they "our intention to take this case to magistrate court"

Standard wording. They really wouldn't go out of their way to write a letter specially just for you, certainly not at this stage. As for the "we always ask that the Courts impose the maximum penalty" wording, this is frankly just a load of bovine excrement designed to make you worry. The Court is obliged to act in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. They don't have discretion to apply a harsher sentence simply because the prosecution has requested it. They must justify whatever sentence they give.

island · 27 May 2019

I mean, it's probably factually accurate that they ask for the maximum penalty. The court is most unlikely to impose it, but they do ask

some bloke · 27 May 2019

Does Offwhite need to consider this?

OFFWHITE said:
I proceeded to the next stop which has barriers and would offer to pay the fare there.

furlong said:
barrier at your destination...did you actually buy a ticket?

OFFWHITE said:
The barriers were open

Was there an opportunity to pay?

swt_passenger · 27 May 2019

some bloke said:
Does Offwhite need to consider this?

Was there an opportunity to pay?

The ticket check took place between the stations, according to the first post...

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

some bloke said:
Does Offwhite need to consider this?

Was there an opportunity to pay?

I offered but refused

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

swt_passenger said:
The ticket check took place between the stations, according to the first post...

Yes it took place between the stations

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

My question now to those that have been members here long , does GWR usually go for settlement out of court or they are keen on going all the way to magistrate court?

swt_passenger · 27 May 2019

OFFWHITE said:
I offered but refused

That isn’t what is meant by an “opportunity to pay”. The question is about whether the railway provided you with an opportunity to pay before you were checked...

some bloke · 27 May 2019

Offwhite said he intended to take the opportunity to pay at the destination.

The question is whether the apparent fact that he didn't pay is of any relevance.

ForTheLoveOf · 27 May 2019

OFFWHITE said:
My question now to those that have been members here long , does GWR usually go for settlement out of court or they are keen on going all the way to magistrate court?

As previously stated, in most cases a settlement is possible. But it is by no means the only way in which such an incident can be resolved. Cases are routinely dropped where they do not consider a prosecution worthwhile so you do not need to be convinced that Court or settlement are the only two options.

swt_passenger · 27 May 2019

some bloke said:
Offwhite said he intended to take the opportunity to pay at the destination.

The question is whether the apparent fact that he didn't pay is of any relevance.

I don’t think something that might or might not have happened in the future is relevant.

yorkie · 27 May 2019

some bloke said:
Offwhite said he intended to take the opportunity to pay at the destination.

The question is whether the apparent fact that he didn't pay is of any relevance.

No.

If there were facilities at the origin station where he started the journey, then the extension ticket should have been purchased before the journey commenced. There is no suggestion from the OP that there was no opportunity to buy before boarding.

Offering to pay at the destination isn't relevant if an opportunity, or multiple opportunities, have been missed.

RunawayTrain · 27 May 2019

What is unclear to me is that OFFWHITE received a text during his journey which meant that it was at that point that he made a decision to extend his journey. Therefore it is hard to see the relevance of earlier opportunities to buy as he already had the correct ticket for the journey he intended to make at that time. As Fortheloveof said up-thread, it is perfectly possible for an innocent person to change their plans during their journey. The time and content of that text message could be valuable evidence I think.

some bloke · 27 May 2019

yorkie said:
No.

If there were facilities at the origin station where he started the journey, then the extension ticket should have been purchased before the journey commenced. There is no suggestion from the OP that there was no opportunity to buy before boarding.

Offering to pay at the destination isn't relevant if an opportunity, or multiple opportunities, have been missed.

Yes, I understand that. My point is in the context of the proposed reply.

ForTheLoveOf draft letter said:
It was not my intention to avoid payment... I intended to pay the additional fare ...alternatively at the ticket office upon arrival at Burgess Hill. ...at no point did I intend to avoid payment

The proposal is that he say that he intended to pay at the destination. If he didn't, then is that of any relevance to the draft letter? It's a different, if naive, question.

On a different point, as I understand it the OP has been asked but has not yet said whether he has the text.

Edit: He did say he had the text. I don't know if I missed it or perhaps the post appeared after a delay because of his being a new member.

OFFWHITE · 27 May 2019

I will let you all how it goes .I did indeed travel between the two stations without a ticket , so it is now just a case of asking them to be lenient as going to magistrate will be harsh and will affect a lot of things in my life.Thank you all for your help for now.

CanalWalker · 27 May 2019

furlong said:
It's a bit confusing - what ticket did you actually hold - single or return and what type and what price was it? Did the train you were on stop at Wivelsfield, but you didn't get off and stayed on beyond the destination you had paid for?

The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 says:
5(3)If any person—
...
(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;
...
he shall be liable on summary conviction...

That would appear to excuse anyone who falls asleep on the train and overruns the distance for which he has paid, something I have done on several occasions.

nuts & bolts · 27 May 2019

CanalWalker said:
That would appear to excuse anyone who falls asleep on the train and overruns the distance for which he has paid, something I have done on several occasions.

You are right there when passengers are over carried late into the evening, it's been along day the comfortable secure surroundings send you off I can see the legitimate side of that. But I have experienced so called sleepers in the early/afternoon peak who have boarded at an ungated station without a ticket to travel hoping to reach the safety of a tfl fare zone!
Each situation may well have it's own merits, but legitimate passengers must abide by the regulations and take steps to avoid being penalised.

OFFWHITE · 28 May 2019

Details of the Offence

"Upon inspection ; Had entered a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, without a ticket entitling travel"

Notice of Intention to Prosecute Letter

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member