Letter from TFL - Investigation Appeals and Prosecutions Team

joshcamera · 6 Mar 2024

Hi,

My partner was travelling on the underground a few weeks ago. Her phone died and she didn't have her card on her. She was in a group of three. Long story short, one person went through, and she asked her mum to tap her in so she could go through. I guess, what was down to a bit of miscommunication her mum went through directly behind her. My partner was quickly stopped by BTP.

After she was stopped she realised what has happened, she apologised said she would pay the fare, but he took all her details and sent her on her way stating a letter would come through the post within 10 days, and it's just arrived.

It doesn't actually say the offence... "you were reported to TFL for an offence(s) on the TfL Public Transport Network. The facts of this incident and being considered and I must advise you that legal proceedings may be taken against you in accordance with TFL's prosecution policy"

How should we respond to the letter?

"if you deny committing an offence, please explain why and provide evidence"

"If you accept committing an offence, provide reasons as to why TFL should no proceed with a prosecution"

How would you go about answer the questions? If you accept the offence, do you automatically get a criminal record?

Not denying there was wrong doing, but it was a bit of a mistake and totally out of character, she travels on the tubes most days.

Any advice would be appreciated please, quite stressed here!

RailUK Forums

Titfield · 6 Mar 2024

I think you need to explain it a bit better so we can fully understand this rather than making assumptions.

This will also help you better explain it to TfL.

Your partners phone died. How is this relevant. Did she attempt to use the phone to pay for her travel ie present it to the yellow validator?

So what happened next? She turned to her mother and said"........."

Then what happened? Why did BTP stop your partner and not her mother or both of them?

I am not sure that the phrases "bit of a mistake" and "totally out of character" are compatible.

Totally out of character suggests that the person knew what they were doing was wrong but not their usual behaviour,

A bit of a mistake is an error made unwittingly (not knowingly).

It could be argued that the person making the mistake was your partners mother who followed through rather than stopping and thinking "oh what do i now do".

joshcamera · 6 Mar 2024

Titfield said:
I think you need to explain it a bit better so we can fully understand this rather than making assumptions.

This will also help you better explain it to TfL.

Your partners phone died. How is this relevant. Did she attempt to use the phone to pay for her travel ie present it to the yellow validator?

So what happened next? She turned to her mother and said"........."

Then what happened? Why did BTP stop your partner and not her mother or both of them?

I am not sure that the phrases "bit of a mistake" and "totally out of character" are compatible.

Totally out of character suggests that the person knew what they were doing was wrong but not their usual behaviour,

A bit of a mistake is an error made unwittingly (not knowingly).

It could be argued that the person making the mistake was your partners mother who followed through rather than stopping and thinking "oh what do i now do".

When she is back, I will get her to write the repose, as posed to it coming through me.

But in response to "I am not sure that the phrases "bit of a mistake" and "totally out of character" are compatible" - You're right, and this is why I didn't want to reply straight away to the letter without seeking some advice.

Understood. My post is lacking detail, appreciate the response. I will post later today a more detailed recollection of events.

Brissle Girl · 6 Mar 2024

I suspect TfL will regard it as a stretch to believe that your mother did not realise that what she was doing was not allowed. Suggesting that she didn’t may mean that they don’t regard the account as being totally honest.

It’s probably academic though, as we rarely see TfL offer an out of court settlement, and prosecution and conviction is the most likely outcome.

AlterEgo · 6 Mar 2024

This could be an interesting case, as we don’t know exactly what it is the OP’s partner is accused of.

Titfield · 6 Mar 2024

A further thought is your partners mother a frequent traveller on the underground or demonstrably a stranger to the capital?

If a stranger then pointing out their lack of familiarity with the system may assist an "honest mistake" response.

joshcamera · 6 Mar 2024

Titfield said:
A further thought is your partners mother a frequent traveller on the underground or demonstrably a stranger to the capital?

If a stranger then pointing out their lack of familiarity with the system may assist an "honest mistake" response.

Hi, she wrote this to me now:

"I was at the station with my mam and nanna (they were visiting me from up North and we had just been at the theatre) when I realised my phone had died, that I was using to pay using Apple Pay and I’d left my card behind at the hotel. In the midst of the chaotic situation at the crowded station, my mam suggested I use my nannas card to pass through the barriers, but it flashed red and denied entry. Recognising the confusion and aware of something happening, my mam suggested I use her card and she tapped me through, there were lots of people behind her in a busy tube station, panicked and went through also.

We were promptly approached a British Transport Police officer. They were all in a line after the barriers. I explained the card issue, and he advised me to go on with my journey, assuring me that I wouldn't be charged. I provided my ID, which he verified, noting down my address. He explicitly mentioned that, given the circumstances and my correct ID and address given, there would be no charges."

AlterEgo said:
This could be an interesting case, as we don’t know exactly what it is the OP’s partner is accused of.

This is what I'm also confused about, as it doesn't give an exact offence on the letter, is this normal for TFL?

Brissle Girl said:
I suspect TfL will regard it as a stretch to believe that your mother did not realise that what she was doing was not allowed. Suggesting that she didn’t may mean that they don’t regard the account as being totally honest.

It’s probably academic though, as we rarely see TfL offer an out of court settlement, and prosecution and conviction is the most likely outcome.

If anything her mother should be the one being prosecuted. I would just be happy pay the fine, avoid and hassle and not end up with a criminal record and for this all to be over with, as we can't stop stressing about it, not knowing what the right thing to do going forward...

Haywain · 6 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
it doesn't give an exact offence on the letter, is this normal for TFL?

That's quite normal at this stage. But you should be aware that failing to use a ticket barrier in the correct manner is an offence.

AlterEgo · 6 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
We were promptly approached a British Transport Police officer. They were all in a line after the barriers. I explained the card issue, and he advised me to go on with my journey, assuring me that I wouldn't be charged. I provided my ID, which he verified, noting down my address. He explicitly mentioned that, given the circumstances and my correct ID and address given, there would be no charges."

This doesn't sound like the British Transport Police, but rather one of TfL's revenue protection officers.

joshcamera said:
This is what I'm also confused about, as it doesn't give an exact offence on the letter, is this normal for TFL?

Yes, they are vague in their initial correspondence.

joshcamera · 6 Mar 2024

AlterEgo said:
This doesn't sound like the British Transport Police, but rather one of TfL's revenue protection officers.

Yes, they are vague in their initial correspondence.

She's unaware if it was BTP or TFL revenue protection. Any advice on how to deal with responding to this letter that they have sent out based on all of the information I've provided above?

More concerned about this response from another user - "We rarely see TfL offer an out of court settlement, and prosecution and conviction is the most likely outcome." - As I assume a likely outcome of this is landing a criminal record? That's very last thing my partner needs, would be very problematic for her work. Just wondered if there was a way to mitigate that risk and end up paying a fine or something instead.

Hadders · 6 Mar 2024

TfL take a more robust approach to this sort of thing than their national rail counterparts.

An offence has been comitted, so in my view the best thing you can do is to reply to TfL's initial letter explaining what happened in a clear and concise way. Also mention that:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and TfL's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Feel free to post a draft reply in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.

Here's a link to TfL's Revenue Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy which might be worth reading:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

Hadders said:
TfL take a more robust approach to this sort of thing than their national rail counterparts.

An offence has been comitted, so in my view the best thing you can do is to reply to TfL's initial letter explaining what happened in a clear and concise way. Also mention that:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and TfL's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Feel free to post a draft reply in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.

Here's a link to TfL's Revenue Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy which might be worth reading:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

Appreciate the reply. My partner spoke to her mum and nan and spoke through the events, clarified all the facts and recalled the event. This is the draft our her response to the letter, any advise welcome and appreciated!

———-

Pleading: NOT GUILTY

I trust this finds you well. I'm writing to clarify an incident at Tottenham Court Road station on (INFORMATION REMOVED).

During my family's visit from Newcastle upon Tyne, after a theatre visit, we faced a complication over a card issue at the busy ticket gates. My phone had died and my cards were left at the hotel, this meant I had to borrow my nannas second payment card to tap me through the tube, when I tried this it did not work and flashed up red.

My mam then tried to solve the situation, and although unfamiliar with London's transport, used her card to tap me through. After tapping me through and getting successfully through to the other side, she tapped her card again straight after, assuming it had been accepted for her journey. The gates then shut and caught her on the arms as she was passing through.

As we came out of the gates, before we had a chance to rectify the issue and find any underground staff member, a British Transport police officer approached us, we explained the card situation and he asked for my ID and got his notebook out. I fully cooperated, providing my ID and when he asked for my address, I provided this too.

The officer, trusting the information provided, stated that no charges or further action, other than a letter being delivered would need to be made. Despite our willingness to pay and to try to sort out the situation with the TFL staff, he said we did not need to do this and allowed us to continue our journey.

Hopefully this should provide you with the right information to show that no intentional fare avaision was made. Should you require further information, feel free to reach out. I am truly sorry for any inconvenience caused by this situation.

Kind regards,

(INFORMATION REMOVED)

————-

Also looking for advise on how to respond to the guilty/not guilty. As her mum unintentionally “fare evaded” but it was an honest mistake which they were going to try and rectify but didn’t get the chance to. But given all the circumstances, we’re still not sure how to respond. To add to that collectively we’re all unsure why my partner ended up having her details taken when it technically was her mum at fault, but we are putting it down to the BTP officer approaching all three of them at once and my partner was at the front of the group.

Thanks all.

njr001 · 8 Mar 2024

Drop the first sentence.
I’m no expert but I would say that the owner of the contactless card is irrelevant the first person to use the card has not done anything wrong and it’s the OP’s partner’s mother who uses her card to enter that has committed the offence, if I have understood the facts correctly.

SteveM70 · 8 Mar 2024

Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but it feels like there's a bit of a contradiction / change of story here.

And please understand I'm not doubting you, I'm just looking at it from the perspective of TfL as and when they receive your letter and compare it to the notes their officer will have made after stopping her

in your draft letter you say "she tapped her card again straight after" which you didn't mention in either of posts #1 or #7, and in post #1 you say "she panicked". Why would she be panicking if she had tapped twice and believed that was fine?

Is this actually what happened? (ie tried to use the same payment card to get two people separately through the gate in such close succession that the gate didn't close in between the two taps)

I think this is really important, but it will be something TfL will be able to check, so you need to be 100% sure its the truth before you mention it

AlterEgo · 8 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
Appreciate the reply. My partner spoke to her mum and nan and spoke through the events, clarified all the facts and recalled the event. This is the draft our her response to the letter, any advise welcome and appreciated!

———-

Pleading: NOT GUILTY

I trust this finds you well. I'm writing to clarify an incident at Tottenham Court Road station on (INFORMATION REMOVED).

During my family's visit from Newcastle upon Tyne, after a theatre visit, we faced a complication over a card issue at the busy ticket gates. My phone had died and my cards were left at the hotel, this meant I had to borrow my nannas second payment card to tap me through the tube, when I tried this it did not work and flashed up red.

My mam then tried to solve the situation, and although unfamiliar with London's transport, used her card to tap me through. After tapping me through and getting successfully through to the other side, she tapped her card again straight after, assuming it had been accepted for her journey. The gates then shut and caught her on the arms as she was passing through.

As we came out of the gates, before we had a chance to rectify the issue and find any underground staff member, a British Transport police officer approached us, we explained the card situation and he asked for my ID and got his notebook out. I fully cooperated, providing my ID and when he asked for my address, I provided this too.

The officer, trusting the information provided, stated that no charges or further action, other than a letter being delivered would need to be made. Despite our willingness to pay and to try to sort out the situation with the TFL staff, he said we did not need to do this and allowed us to continue our journey.

Hopefully this should provide you with the right information to show that no intentional fare avaision was made. Should you require further information, feel free to reach out. I am truly sorry for any inconvenience caused by this situation.

Kind regards,

(INFORMATION REMOVED)

————-

Also looking for advise on how to respond to the guilty/not guilty. As her mum unintentionally “fare evaded” but it was an honest mistake which they were going to try and rectify but didn’t get the chance to. But given all the circumstances, we’re still not sure how to respond. To add to that collectively we’re all unsure why my partner ended up having her details taken when it technically was her mum at fault, but we are putting it down to the BTP officer approaching all three of them at once and my partner was at the front of the group.

Thanks all.

This letter is addressed to your partner only. You should limit your response strictly to your partner’s actions. Do not incriminate her nanna. It’s also very unlikely a police officer was involved here; this is a revenue protection matter, and the report has been submitted to TfL for consideration.

Had your partner’s phone been tapped in at the start of the journey? If so, you should mention this, and check the fare paid (it will likely be a maximum fare).

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

AlterEgo said:
This letter is addressed to your partner only. You should limit your response strictly to your partner’s actions. Do not incriminate her nanna. It’s also very unlikely a police officer was involved here; this is a revenue protection matter, and the report has been submitted to TfL for consideration.

Had your partner’s phone been tapped in at the start of the journey? If so, you should mention this, and check the fare paid (it will likely be a maximum fare).

How would this incriminate her nanna? She thought it may be relevant to provide full context. Is paying for someone else on a separate card not allowed?

Yes that’s a good point, she would have tapped in numerous times on her iPhone throughout the day in zones 1-6 so there would be a journey history linked to the Apple Pay, just need to see if it’s connected to her oyster account which I believe it is. During this incident they weren’t transiting through station it was the start of a new journey I believe - so I doubt it will be a max fare as an incomplete journey. So in that case I’m not sure how relevant it would be?

Where she’s written BTP I believe you’re right in saying it would be revenue protection officers - we’re not overly clued up on BTP/revenue protection - just someone who stopped them in their eyes.

SteveM70 said:
Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but it feels like there's a bit of a contradiction / change of story here.

And please understand I'm not doubting you, I'm just looking at it from the perspective of TfL as and when they receive your letter and compare it to the notes their officer will have made after stopping her

in your draft letter you say "she tapped her card again straight after" which you didn't mention in either of posts #1 or #7, and in post #1 you say "she panicked". Why would she be panicking if she had tapped twice and believed that was fine?

Is this actually what happened? (ie tried to use the same payment card to get two people separately through the gate in such close succession that the gate didn't close in between the two taps)

I think this is really important, but it will be something TfL will be able to check, so you need to be 100% sure its the truth before you mention it

yes, the first few posts were just conversations I had with my partner, but after speaking to her nan and mum all the details were clarified, so the latest post is the one to go by in terms of events. So yes same payment card was tapped twice to get someone through the gate. Again, fault on her mums behalf who isn’t from London, but the intention was there to pay and not evade.

AlterEgo · 8 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
How would this incriminate her nanna? She thought it may be relevant to provide full context. Is paying for someone else on a separate card not allowed?

You can't tap twice using the same card and pay two fares. If the argument is that her nanna paid for your partner, this leaves her open to being accused of not paying her own fare.

joshcamera said:
Yes that’s a good point, she would have tapped in numerous times on her iPhone throughout the day in zones 1-6 so there would be a journey history linked to the Apple Pay, just need to see if it’s connected to her oyster account which I believe it is. During this incident they weren’t transiting through station it was the start of a new journey I believe - so I doubt it will be a max fare as an incomplete journey.

So this happened on entering a station, not exiting? Are you sure?

joshcamera said:
yes, the first few posts were just conversations I had with my partner, but after speaking to her nan and mum all the details were clarified, so the latest post is the one to go by in terms of events. So yes same payment card was tapped twice to get someone through the gate. Again, fault on her mums behalf who isn’t from London, but the intention was there to pay and not evade.

The problem is intention is irrelevant; these are Bylaw offences and no intention need be proven, which is why you need to limit the amount of unnecessary explaining you do and keep things focused. It's likely that the accusation will end up be under the TfL Bylaws sec 9:

(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station on the railway is via a manned or automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the barrier in the correct manner

There is a reasonably good argument here that your partner did nothing wrong. There is nothing improper about getting your nanna to pay your fare by her tapping her card on entry to the station, and then your partner passing through. (Ignore what her nanna did, they aren't actually bothered about this and only your partner is allegedly in trouble)

Do you remember if they were interviewed/asked any questions? The wisest thing to do in many situations like this is to just say "no comment" which avoids incriminating yourself, but at this stage it will be important to know if your partner made any admissions, whether they were asked how they intended to pay their fare (at the end of the trip). Be aware it is possible to unwittingly admit to things, or make statements which are close to an admission, so finding out what was said is important.

Wallsendmag · 8 Mar 2024

Worth knowing that even when your phone dies some can be used in transit mode to pay for travel

gravitystorm · 8 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
I realised my phone had died, that I was using to pay using Apple Pay

I know this isn't helpful now, but might be for the future or for someone else: If the card has been set up for Express Travel (i.e. you can use your phone just by tapping it against the reader, without unlocking and confirming the payment each time) then it will work even with a flat battery.

Express Cards with power reserve

If iOS isn’t in use because iPhone needs to be charged, there may still be enough power in the battery to support Express Card transactions.

support.apple.com

AlterEgo said:
Do not incriminate her nanna.

I think it's the mother, not the nanna, that could be incriminated here. As I understand it, nanna's secondary card was declined for payment, then the mother tapped, gate opened and partner went through followed by mother.

AlterEgo · 8 Mar 2024

gravitystorm said:
I think it's the mother, not the nanna, that could be incriminated here. As I understand it, nanna's secondary card was declined for payment, then the mother tapped, gate opened and partner went through followed by mother.

Thanks. Either way it’s best not to mention their actions beyond what is necessary!

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

Sorry, might be a bit of confusion there in regards to her nan and mum.

Her nan tapped through and paid for her journey and then tried to give my partner her second payment card to use to get through - but that didn’t work.

It was then her mum who tapped my partner through, then tried to tap again shortly after and follow through the barriers. Her mum isn’t from London and rarely comes here and didn’t realise you couldn’t pay twice on the same card, found out the hard way as the barriers closed on her whilst passing through. They didn’t get a chance to try and rectify the issue with a member of tube staff as they were almost instantly approached by the revenue protection man.

Can confirm this was entering the station and not leaving. It was at the start of the journey.

In terms of what was said, she stated it in the last paragraph “we explained the card situation and he asked for my ID and got his notebook out. I fully cooperated, providing my ID and when he asked for my address, I provided this too.

The officer, trusting the information provided, stated that no charges or further action, other than a letter being delivered would need to be made. Despite our willingness to pay and to try to sort out the situation with the TFL staff, he said we did not need to do this and allowed us to continue our journey.”

njr001 · 8 Mar 2024

Another point, no clear or it might be me not understanding, did this occur as the group was exiting or entering the station? ( If the group were exiting ignore my previous post)

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

AlterEgo said:
Thanks. Either way it’s best not to mention their actions beyond what is necessary!

apologies for double post, forgot to quote, so replying to this so you can see my response above.

Without writing the part about her mum double tapping there is no justification or explanation to respond to the letter.

njr001 said:
Another point, no clear or it might be me not understanding, did this occur as the group was exiting or entering the station? ( If the group were exiting ignore my previous post)

Entering the station

njr001 · 8 Mar 2024

After having been interviewed what did each group member do when they reached their destination to exit?

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

njr001 said:
After having been interviewed what did each group member do when they reached their destination to exit?

Very good question, I’m unsure - I will find out.

Edit: they spoke to a TFL member of staff at the other end explained the situation of what had happened and opened the gate to let her mum out. My partner and nan tapped out.

Haywain · 8 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
My partner and nan tapped out.

How did your partner tap out - her phone was dead?

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

Haywain said:
How did your partner tap out - her phone was dead?

Same way as on entry, with her mums card.

AlterEgo · 8 Mar 2024

joshcamera said:
apologies for double post, forgot to quote, so replying to this so you can see my response above.

Without writing the part about her mum double tapping there is no justification or explanation to respond to the letter.

But you should limit the explanation to just that - her mum tapped her card to allow her through, and in the process paid your partner’s fare, and then your partner was stopped. Don’t go into more detail than that. It’s not necessary.

joshcamera · 8 Mar 2024

AlterEgo said:
But you should limit the explanation to just that - her mum tapped her card to allow her through, and in the process paid your partner’s fare, and then your partner was stopped. Don’t go into more detail than that. It’s not necessary.

Okay, I get what you’re saying. But then this is where it gets confusing, because the letter is for and addressed to my partner, if her journey was paid for then there was no offence committed? We felt like that explanation was needed otherwise there is no context further down the line for when they’re explaining to the enforcement officer.

Titfield · 8 Mar 2024

Yes this is quite a quandary because strictly speaking your partner could deny that an offence took place and provide the bank account statement to provide proof of payment.

However this ignores the reality that only one fare was paid and two persons travelled and imho TfL would not let that rest.

I think with minor modifications you should send your draft letter but taking into account the advice @AlterEgo makes in post 28.

I would avoid using the terminology mam, nana but use the more conventional mother and grandmother.

Letter from TFL - Investigation Appeals and Prosecutions Team

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member