Unfair Fare Evasion Prosecution Letter?

UnFareEvasion said:

I emailed [email protected] on the day the letter arrived outlining what had happened and requested that they retracted the prosecution. Thankfully today I got a response to say that they have reviewed the evidence and have decided they will not be pursuing the case and have removed it from their records.

Thanks to all on this forum for their help, and I'm very glad to have had this dropped!

Click to expand...

I'm glad that someone in SWR has common-sense (and/or reading this forum). This is one of those cases where the sheer brutality of process, with the odds stacked against the traveller who has in this case paid their fare, seems to be an abuse of power to me.

With the pressure now off, perhaps the OP might want to submit a formal complaint about the staff's conduct.
It's not vindictiveness, but it might just prevent further misconduct.
(Beware that pig flying past )

spag23 said:

With the pressure now off, perhaps the OP might want to submit a formal complaint about the staff's conduct.
It's not vindictiveness, but it might just prevent further misconduct.
(Beware that pig flying past )

Click to expand...

I too have been reflecting on what options are open to the OP, in terms of deterring the TOCs from heavy-handedness. I suspect the answer is policy related (political, in other words) so perhaps the OP will want to consider writing to their MP with a specific request that it is raised with the Secretary of State. This has the merit of the MP perhaps finding similar cases from the same location.

A few years ago I was involved, at a tangent, with someone who was falsely accused of shoplifting. He had been stopped leaving a well known supermarket and accused of stealing a box of chocolates.

He loudly (and correctly) explained it had been purchased elsewhere but he was frogmarched past his friends and neighbours to the back office past the entire store on a busy Saturday. He continued to protest his innocence, and the police were called, despite the fact that the product didn't scan on the supermarket's system - because they didn't sell that particular item. This was in the days when the police would turn up for shoplifting. They didn't do much but supervised the shop asking questions, taking his personal details, and retaining the item. The next day a police officer turned up at his house, returning the chocolates - that officer knew nothing of the case or even why he had to return the box. No explanation, no apology.

Well, they got the wrong guy, he was an affluent businessman, the only thing that mattered to him was his reputation, so on Monday morning he was in his solicitor's office, and soon he moved legal proceedings on the supermarket for false allegations, so potentially leading to a private prosecution for perverting the course of justice. He named the supermarket manager in these proceedings. Obviously as soon as HQ legal's team were aware they tried to negotiate a settlement, initially for £500! But it ended up a much bigger sum - I think £20,000 - with about £5k being legal costs. The supermarket's biggest concern was about broadcasting this settlement, but they couldn't stop the businessman discussing it with their MP.

Pushpit said:

I too have been reflecting on what options are open to the OP, in terms of deterring the TOCs from heavy-handedness. I suspect the answer is policy related (political, in other words) so perhaps the OP will want to consider writing to their MP with a specific request that it is raised with the Secretary of State. This has the merit of the MP perhaps finding similar cases from the same location.

A few years ago I was involved, at a tangent, with someone who was falsely accused of shoplifting. He had been stopped leaving a well known supermarket and accused of stealing a box of chocolates.

He loudly (and correctly) explained it had been purchased elsewhere but he was frogmarched past his friends and neighbours to the back office past the entire store on a busy Saturday. He continued to protest his innocence, and the police were called, despite the fact that the product didn't scan on the supermarket's system - because they didn't sell that particular item. This was in the days when the police would turn up for shoplifting. They didn't do much but supervised the shop asking questions, taking his personal details, and retaining the item. The next day a police officer turned up at his house, returning the chocolates - that officer knew nothing of the case or even why he had to return the box. No explanation, no apology.

Well, they got the wrong guy, he was an affluent businessman, the only thing that mattered to him was his reputation, so on Monday morning he was in his solicitor's office, and soon he moved legal proceedings on the supermarket for false allegations, so potentially leading to a private prosecution for perverting the course of justice. He named the supermarket manager in these proceedings. Obviously as soon as HQ legal's team were aware they tried to negotiate a settlement, initially for £500! But it ended up a much bigger sum - I think £20,000 - with about £5k being legal costs. The supermarket's biggest concern was about broadcasting this settlement, but they couldn't stop the businessman discussing it with their MP.

Click to expand...

Back in the 70s two teenage sons of friends of my mum and dad went into the town centre branch of a well known store to purchase some batteries for I think a radio controlled model car. They took with them the original flat batteries from the car so they could be sure of getting the right ones. Someone saw them checking the batteries, putting the originals back in their pockets and alerted the store management. The boys were stopped taken to the managers office and the police called. The boys protestations were waived away until eventually the batteries were checked and discovered to be a brand not stocked by the store and of course they werent in any packaging.The boys were then let go and went home. Recounted the story to their dad who rang the store and complained. His complaints were dismissed with the manager saying something like your boys shouldnt be so stupid as to bring goods into a store take them out and then put them back in their pockets. I remember it quite clearly as my mum and dad were shocked and told me and my brother never to have anything in our pockets in case it happened to us and if we bought something to make sure we had it in a bag and to keep the receipt.

Just reading this back what shocks me now is I routinely buy stuff in a store, I dont get offered a bag and I refuse the receipt because after all who needs paper!

Sounds like SWR found out in retrospect that their machine wasn't working.

I can't think of any reason / motive that the OP, having purchased a valid ticket, would then deliberately (with knowledge) travel without obtaining said ticket from facilities at the departure station, which presumably they had specified as how to receive them. It would be a pointless exercise, especially if given the ability to print them at the next available opportunity (having being unable to before departure). What could possibly be gained, apart from some remote chance they could reach their ultimate destination unchallenged, and seek a refund for apparent non-use? But even this remote chance is dispelled from them saying they voluntarily approached a member of gateline staff immediately on arrival at Waterloo to explain their predicament (and were not stopped for a specific check). So yes, it does seem extremely heavy-handed and possibly shows how Revenue Officers might be target-oriented rather than Customer-focussed.

And did anyone notice that the letter from SWR says the OP was spoken to at 05:53? I would read that as am, whereas the OP says they were on the 17:16 from Claygate. A minor issue perhaps, but given how serious these letters can read, getting the basics correct can't be that difficult.

island said:

If this proceeds to court, which it will if you do not pay the sum requested, the burden of proof will be on yourself to show that there was no ticket issuance facilities at the station where you boarded the train. It does not sound like you have any proof of this, and as such, you will almost certainly lose in court and end up with fines, costs, and surcharge in excess of £500.

Click to expand...

It needn't be quite this bad as the train company bears a duty to approach all reasonable lines of enquiry and evidence impartially while investigating, and as such it would have to disclose to the defendant any ticket machine evidence relevant to that potential line of defence.

furlong said:

It needn't be quite this bad as the train company bears a duty to approach all reasonable lines of enquiry and evidence impartially while investigating, and as such it would have to disclose to the defendant any ticket machine evidence relevant to that potential line of defence.

Click to expand...

All academic now as the case was quickly dropped. (See post 27).

Brissle Girl said:

All academic now as the case was quickly dropped. (See post 27).

Click to expand...

But if the OP does wish to make a complaint, this is a matter that appears worthy of explanation - seeking an apology for sending the original letter. Originally they wrote: "On review, we feel there is sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute you..." To write that, procedurally, they must already have investigated the ticket machine situation dispassionately and judged that it would not provide an adequate defence. Do they still believe that they possess sufficient evidence for success, or was the original investigation flawed such that they made a mistake in sending that letter? If it was a mistake, what steps are they taking to avoid making similar mistakes in future and have other passengers been affected by similar mistakes? They were already in possession of the passenger's explanation so why did the passenger providing it a second time cause them to change their mind if they had already reviewed this once and performed their duties as investigator? Couldn't they have made the same decision in the first place and not ever needed to send that original letter?

A suspicion might be that (1) they might be sending out letters like that too early, prior to completing an appropriate investigation in accordance with their duties; or (2) they might routinely be failing to capture the passenger's full explanation at the time of the incident, or failing to review it adequately, leading to mistakes. (Note that the initial letters we see on here from TfL are worded differently and avoid this problem, as they explicitly invite additional information PRIOR to their decision-making.)

For comparison, deep into one of the allegations of abuse of process against the Post Office are claims that it sent letters (seeking settlements) implying it had sufficient evidence to prosecute particular offences when a proper investigation of all the evidence in its possession might have shown that to be incorrect.

So with SWR, I'm left to muse over what the "sufficient evidence" for the successful prosecution of a RORA offence might have been in this specific case. (If there was none, then the letter could not mention RORA.) I think there's a risk that if the investigations into the Post Office later expand to encompass other private prosecutors, if any settlements with railway companies were agreed under false pretences they could be deemed unenforceable leaving the train company having to repay them plus interest and compensation.

Seems to me that when the OP approached staff at the waterloo gateline, the staff had the opportunity to determine whether or not the OP was trying to evade fares because (as others have pointed out) they could simply have accompanied him to a TVM and verified that the tickets existed and hadn't already been printed out.
But they didn't, they effectively chose to assume he was lying and/or chose to issue a notice without taking reasonable steps to see if it was justified.
If I was making a complaint that's what I'd be focusing on.

BRX said:

Seems to me that when the OP approached staff at the waterloo gateline, the staff had the opportunity to determine whether or not the OP was trying to evade fares because (as others have pointed out) they could simply have accompanied him to a TVM and verified that the tickets existed and hadn't already been printed out.
But they didn't, they effectively chose to assume he was lying and/or chose to issue a notice without taking reasonable steps to see if it was justified.
If I was making a complaint that's what I'd be focusing on.

Click to expand...

Absolutely (as already discussed). But was that problem compounded by what might be characterised as an unjustified attempt, using what looks on the face of it like a similar method to one of those uncovered in the Post Office scandal, to intimidate the OP into agreeing to pay for an unnecessary settlement?

furlong said:

It needn't be quite this bad as the train company bears a duty to approach all reasonable lines of enquiry and evidence impartially while investigating, and as such it would have to disclose to the defendant any ticket machine evidence relevant to that potential line of defence.

Click to expand...

That doesn’t happen in practice.

island said:

That doesn’t happen in practice.

Click to expand...

Then TOCs are breaking the standard disclosure requirements for the Courts and will rightly find themselves in the same world of hurt that the Post Office is in.