Please help! Facing prosecution for an invalid oyster

UPDATE:

I've now received confirmation from the courts that they have received my Stat Dec form (waiting for them to confirm it was the one signed by myself, not the one filled in for me by SJS). The email stats the SD will be processed in due course, including a notification to the fines company (fingers crossed this gets them off my back for now).
They've sent me the first correspondence that went to my old address. I've forwarded this to my friend at TFL so she/a colleague she trusts can look through and tell me what my chances are...

The original charge is this:
You have been charged with the following offence:
That you, on Friday 17th August 2018 at Liverpool Street, did enter a compulsory ticket area
without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London
Railway Byelaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act
1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.

Statement of Facts
On Friday 17th August 2018 Ms ----- travelled from Hackney Downs station to Liverpool
Street station. At 08:18 hours she produced a standard retail Oyster card which on being
checked was shown not to have been validated. This Oyster card had not been validated and
was invalid for travel.

As you can see, they've not mentioend anything about the oyster being registered to someone else, and it seems they havent noted the number etc. They also havent recorded my telling them that the staff at hackney downs allowed me to enter the barrier, so... guess i'd have to relay on cctv to prove this??

If they have accepted you started at Hackney Downs, that's a good thing (if they accept you had a Z1-3 Travelcard).

Their "facts" don't mention the Travelcard, which may explain why they prosecuted.

I don't know if magistrates would refuse to void a conviction because the plea was emailed separately from the posted declaration, but that is what my suggestions above are about - ensuring the technicalities are covered.

some bloke said:

I don't know if magistrates would refuse to void a conviction because the plea was emailed separately from the posted declaration, but that is what my suggestions above are about - ensuring the technicalities are covered.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand how i could have included a plea in my statutory declaration, since I never received the original SJN on which I would have ticked a box (literally, it's a tick box) to say guilty and want to go to court/guilty and don't want to go to court/not guilty and need to go to court. There was nothing on my SD that referred to a plea, no section where I would have included this information.

I hate how difficult they make it for someone to fight their case, this information is not readily available and a lot of information i have received is contradictory :/

I sympathise. The form does refer to a plea, in that instruction 5 says an SJPN has to be responded to.

It may not be a problem, but perhaps magistrates might say "we have no power to overturn the verdict if there's no plea" if staff don't submit the emailed plea to the mags at the same time, or if you need to do more than email the plea.

some bloke said:

I sympathise. The form does refer to a plea, in that instruction 5 says an SJPN has to be responded to.

It may not be a problem, but perhaps magistrates might say "we have no power to overturn the verdict if there's no plea" if staff don't submit the emailed plea to the mags at the same time, or if you need to do more than email the plea.

Click to expand...

I've been away!

Technically, you are supposed to include the plea with the SD and if you made the plea at a solicitors office they should have picked up on this. Sometimes it isn't clear that the prosecution was a result of a SJP notice. The best you can do now is respond to that, preferably in writing to the court referencing the SD and the date it was made. It would be very churlish of the court to deny the SD on this basis.

As for pleading guilty/not guilty the legitimacy of your travelcard is beyond my ticketing knowledge; my area of experience is the court process and, more specifically, in the courtroom.

Puffing Devil said:

The best you can do now is respond to that, preferably in writing to the court referencing the SD and the date it was made.

Click to expand...

Could another phone call today be worth it, to:

a) see if the staff acknowledge the emailed plea is received and agree that emailing it was adequate, and they are submitting it to the mags; or if not,
b) let them know a plea on paper is coming, so they can hold off submitting the declaration (hopefully the 21 days won't be up)?

some bloke said:

Could another phone call today be worth it, to:

a) see if the staff acknowledge the emailed plea is received and agree that emailing it was adequate, and they are submitting it to the mags; or if not,
b) let them know a plea on paper is coming, so they can hold off submitting the declaration (hopefully the 21 days won't be up)?

Click to expand...

No harm in calling - though the SD is up and running and will no doubt be passed to TfL who need to action it by setting a new trial date. If they spot it's the result of a SJP notice they may send out a new notice.

Hopefully TfL will drop the matter once you show evidence relevant to it being a Z1-3 Travelcard.

Even if it's a technical requirement to touch in with it, that's different from what they claimed in the paperwork, which was that a normal Oyster was not validated. As they seem to accept you came from Hackney Downs (Z2), it's hard to see that they could have suffered a loss by you not touching in.

It's odd that the card didn't scan at Hackney, then on the basis of a scan at Liverpool St TfL says it was a "standard retail Oyster card" rather than a Travelcard. Maybe those two things are linked, maybe not.

How could the OP have entered a plea with the Statutory Declaration without knowing what the charge was?

Haywain said:

How could the OP have entered a plea with the Statutory Declaration without knowing what the charge was?

Click to expand...

She was told.

Jo81 said:

i have been charged with being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket. Under byelaw 17 (1)

Click to expand...

some bloke said:

She was told.

Click to expand...

The details of the charge. I believe (perhaps naively) that everyone is entitled to know the specifics - not just the offence, but how, when and where the offence was alleged to have been committed.

Haywain said:

The details of the charge. I believe (perhaps naively) that everyone is entitled to know the specifics - not just the offence, but how, when and where the offence was alleged to have been committed.

Click to expand...

The charge is on the SJPN and the SD is "one size fits all" - they may have enough detail from recently forwarded correspondence to be able to make a plea. They may also not have enough information and may opt for an appearance in court. In this case, there is not enough information to go on, so a not guilty plea and the option to appear in court is the best option.

Puffing Devil said:

The charge is on the SJPN and the SD is "one size fits all" - they may have enough detail from recently forwarded correspondence to be able to make a plea. They may also not have enough information and may opt for an appearance in court. In this case, there is not enough information to go on, so a not guilty plea and the option to appear in court is the best option.

Click to expand...

I'm so confused about the plea... there literally isn't a space on the form for me to include it? There is a small space to write about how i became aware of the case, and at the end it has a warning saying if you knowingly make a stat dec that is false in a material particular,then you are guilty of an offence etc." I've read through it several times and I can't see whereI would have entered a plea?

Jo81 said:

I'm so confused about the plea... there literally isn't a space on the form for me to include it? There is a small space to write about how i became aware of the case, and at the end it has a warning saying if you knowingly make a stat dec that is false in a material particular,then you are guilty of an offence etc." I've read through it several times and I can't see whereI would have entered a plea?

Click to expand...

The instruction on the form is number 5 in "How to use this form".

The instruction is to respond to the notice (if your case began with an SJPN), rather than to write the response on the form.

some bloke said:

see instruction 5 on the form

Click to expand...

The requirement is to serve notice of a plea - see this image and the web address for the rules:

some bloke said:

Including a plea or notice of intention as to plea is a requirement under the Criminal Procedure Rules

Click to expand...

Jo81 said:

UPDATE:

The original charge is this:
You have been charged with the following offence:
That you, on Friday 17th August 2018 at Liverpool Street, did enter a compulsory ticket area
without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London
Railway Byelaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act
1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.

Click to expand...

If found guilty under this charge, the criminal record will it show up on CRB/Enhanced CRB check as I am aware its a bylaw so its non recordable- can someone confirm?

J4u4u2c said:

If found guilty under this charge, the criminal record will it show up on CRB/Enhanced CRB check as I am aware its a bylaw so its non recordable- can someone confirm?

Click to expand...

Byelaw convictions are non-recordable, so no criminal record, but please ask in your own thread if you have one.

bb21 said:

Byelaw convictions are non-recordable, so no criminal record, but please ask in your own thread if you have one.

Click to expand...

This is reassuring... My understanding was that it might show up but only for a year? To be fair I haven't looked into it much

UPDATE:
(firstly, sorry for the slow reply, I haven't been getting email notifications, nothing in my spam folder either...)
So the good news is my stat Dec form has been accepted and the case reset, south south magistrates court emailed me to say I will receive a new court summons in due course. Enforcement agents have been informed so no worrying about bailiffs at the door and have been able to (mostly) enjoy Christmas.

Now, I need to write to TFL to basically beg them to settle out of court. Here is what I've drafted up (not structured properly yet); I have sent this to a friend who's a commercial solicitor and may be able to help with wording. If anyone has any advice before I send this I would be enormously grateful. Thank you all so much! :

Dear TFL customer services,

I'm writing in regards to case ****** in which I have been charged with being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket under Byelaw 17 (1) of the TFL railway byelaw. I was charged with this offence without my knowledge as the first correspondence relating to the case was posted to me 4 months after the offence, and also 12 days after I moved house.

This correspondence has since been forwarded to me by HMCTS, and I have attached it here for your information.

I'm appealing to TFL for the opportunity to settle the matter out of court. Below is my own statement of events on the day of the offence, how I became aware of the charges against me, and the steps I have now taken.

On 17th August 2018 I travelled on the London Overground line from Hackney Downs to London Liverpool St. At Hackney Downs, my Oyster card would not work on the ticket barrier, even though I had put a zone 1-3 monthly ticket on it within one month of this date. Please see attached my bank statement from July -August 2018 which shows I paid £153.60 (the price in 2018) at a Greater Anglia ticket office on 31st July 2018.
I explained this to the staff member and he opened the ticket barrier for me, stating that I would have to explain the situation to the staff at Liverpool Street station. I explained everything to the staff at Liverpool St, and told them that I'd been able to travel because the staff member at Hackney Downs allowed me to go through the barrier. The man took down my details including my address at the time: ***** He then let me through the barrier without charging me a penalty fare.

On 15th December 2018 I moved out of the above address and into my current address: *****
Please see attached my tenancy agreement for ***** starting 13th December 2018, and my notice to quit ****** departing from the property on 15th December 2018. (may be totally unnecessary to include this as they won't care about me not knowing, and I've taken care of that part now anyway).

I first became aware of the charges against me on the 14th December 2019 when I opened the attached letter sent from Collectica to my current address, stating I owed their client (HMCTS) £788.50.

On 16th December 2019 I telephoned HMCTS and explained to them that I hadn't received any correspondence relating to this fine prior to Collectica's letter. They stated the fine was for entering a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket on the aforementioned date, and confirmed that the first correspondence had been sent to my previous address 27th December 2018.

On 18th December 2019 I submitted the attached Statutory Declaration form to Lavender Hill Magistrate's Court, which was witnessed and signed by a Commissioner of Oaths. This has now been processed and the relevant parties have been informed. Please see attached email from South London Magistrate's Court.

Under byelaw 17 (3) (iii), it states that:
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

If the man who let me through the ticket barrier was indeed authorised to do so, I was not in breach of Byelaw 17 (1), the legislation under which I have been charged. As I had been allowed access, I reasonably assumed I had licence to travel, and did not have reason to question this man’s authority. CCTV footage from Hackney Downs ticket office on the aforementioned date would show me trying to scan in with my Oyster card, speaking to the staff member, and him opening the gates to allow me to travel. The station staff did not give a disclaimer that I was undertaking a risk by travelling without having scanned in, only that I would need to explain my situation to the station staff at Liverpool Street.

This was an honest mistake and I did not realise I was in the wrong. I have never attempted to evade rail fare, and I am not attempting to evade a penalty fare now. I followed the instructions of the station staff at Hackney Downs after he permitted me entry through the barrier, and I cooperated with the staff at Liverpool Street who asked for my information. It is unfortunate that the situation has escalated to this state due to me not receiving the intial correspondence relating to this charge.

I am very sorry for the inconvenience caused. I would like the opportunity to settle this out of court, and to pay the original penalty fare and any admin costs that may have incurred.

Yours sincerely,

Jo81 said:

<snip>

Click to expand...

The letter is far too long and needs quite a lot of editing to get it to a length that will encourage someone to read it (which I didn't do completely). Also you need to be clear on what you want. If you want to settle out of court forget all the stuff about how you are not guilty of an offence as it isn't relevant (the settlement acknowledges that an offence was committed); on the other hand, if you are telling them you are not guilty, don't tell them you want to settle.

Address it to the prosecution department, and try for more like 250 words than 800.

A key point to emphasise is this:

You have evidence relevant to it being a Travelcard, whereas the prosecution - apparently wrongly - alleged it was a "standard retail Oyster".

With a Travelcard, it's at most a technical breach of the Byelaw, with no loss to TfL. It's not clear they would prosecute, or even ask for a settlement, if they accept you had a Travelcard. Also, August 2018 is a long time ago.

Just in case: Is there any possibility they were right, because you had another Oyster card with you? It might seem a surprising mistake for them to claim it was a standard Oyster.

You can simply say you didn't receive the pre-charge correspondence until xx date. You can leave out the parts on not knowing about the charge, because the court should notify them anyway.

Omit CCTV - too long ago to be likely.

Perhaps say that the permission at Hackney "might be considered permission to travel without a valid ticket". The byelaw wording might be taken as meaning "permission to travel when it was agreed the person didn't have a valid ticket"; here the staff member provisionally accepted your claim that you did, or at least was not sure.

Agree with the comments that it is too long. The main thing that you need to focus on is that you had a valid Travelcard stored on your Oyster, so the Byelaw 17 charge doesn't make any sense.

It makes sense in that the TfL Conditions say you have to touch in and out with a Travelcard, but it doesn't make sense for TfL to pursue the case based on that pure technicality.

Agree with some of the other comments regarding length, and what you want to achieve. Phrases like "it was an honest mistake" when you've previously given evidence that shows you weren't in the wrong, are likely to confuse the reader. Suggest you concentrate on the facts that a) you had a valid travelcard loaded and b) you were given permission to enter, so therefore you were entitled to travel.

On the grounds that you held a valid ticket, and therefore had paid for your fare, you should be requesting that the matter is dropped without any further payment due by you. However, you might, to show that you are a totally reasonable person, acknowledge that they have incurred additional costs as a result of you not having put in place a redirect service when you moved, and so they continued to send information relating to the case to the wrong address, and offering to pay them something to cover this. That wouldn't seem unreasonable, and might just help draw the matter to a speedy conclusion.

Brissle Girl said:

However, you might, to show that you are a totally reasonable person, acknowledge that they have incurred additional costs as a result of you not having put in place a redirect service when you moved, and so they continued to send information relating to the case to the wrong address, and offering to pay them something to cover this.

Click to expand...

If they prosecuted on the wrong basis that it was a standard Oyster and wouldn't have if they had correctly recorded it as a Travelcard, it's their fault for pursuing it in the first place.

some bloke said:

If they prosecuted on the wrong basis that it was a standard Oyster and wouldn't have if they had correctly recorded it as a Travelcard, it's their fault for pursuing it in the first place.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point, but again, had they been able to contact the OP then it would all have been resolved at a much earlier stage in the process, and certainly before court.

Tough!

some bloke said:

Tough!

Click to expand...

Fine. I was just making a suggestion as to how the OP might come across as reasonable, looking at the other side's point of view, in an attempt to defuse the situation and bring it to a conclusion. You obviously don't agree, but no need to be abrupt to someone else trying to help.

I'm sorry if it came across that way - I wasn't meaning to be abrupt to you, but trying to comment on TfL. @Jo81 can't be held liable for the consequences of TfL pursuing a case on the wrong basis, as the law is clear that if you don't know about the case the conviction can be annulled.

I do agree that it's good to come across as reasonable - so acknowledging the technical requirement to touch in and out would be sensible.

Part of the reason I said "Tough!" may be this: I think that by her account @Jo81 has suffered enough (including with correspondence from bailiffs).

Haywain said:

The letter is far too long and needs quite a lot of editing to get it to a length that will encourage someone to read it (which I didn't do completely). Also you need to be clear on what you want. If you want to settle out of court forget all the stuff about how you are not guilty of an offence as it isn't relevant (the settlement acknowledges that an offence was committed); on the other hand, if you are telling them you are not guilty, don't tell them you want to settle.

Click to expand...

Yes you're right, I definitely need to edit it! Will post an update soon, and good point re the "settling", I will change this to dropping the charges instead

some bloke said:

Address it to the prosecution department, and try for more like 250 words than 800.

A key point to emphasise is this:

You have evidence relevant to it being a Travelcard, whereas the prosecution - apparently wrongly - alleged it was a "standard retail Oyster".

With a Travelcard, it's at most a technical breach of the Byelaw, with no loss to TfL. It's not clear they would prosecute, or even ask for a settlement, if they accept you had a Travelcard. Also, August 2018 is a long time ago.

Just in case: Is there any possibility they were right, because you had another Oyster card with you? It might seem a surprising mistake for them to claim it was a standard Oyster.

You can simply say you didn't receive the pre-charge correspondence until xx date. You can leave out the parts on not knowing about the charge, because the court should notify them anyway.

Omit CCTV - too long ago to be likely.

Perhaps say that the permission at Hackney "might be considered permission to travel without a valid ticket". The byelaw wording might be taken as meaning "permission to travel when it was agreed the person didn't have a valid ticket"; here the staff member provisionally accepted your claim that you did, or at least was not sure.

Click to expand...

It was an oyster I was trying to travel with, and I'd put a monthly travel card on the oyster about 2 weeks before this date. As I mentioned earlier, the oyster card was registered to my friend, so there is evidence of there being a monthly travel card on it, but I don't want to bring that up if I don't have to since there might be a penalty for using a card in someone else's name. But I definitely only carried ONE oyster card, and it couldn't have been mixed up with another.
The only evidence I can provide on that is my bank statement - I could show them my statement for every month which would show I was paying for a monthly card every month and thus was always covered for travelling!

Agree re the wording of having permission, there is probably a technicality behind it, but as I've said it is a reasonable assumption, if the staff member allows you through the barriers, that they have given you permission to travel..he could have refused.