Accused of avoiding 15 fares on trains

[Bertie the bus]

At least it's the end of the matter (although might still be worth requesting details of the 15 journeys, so you are aware of why they were considered in the first place).

I think we can guess why they were considered suspicious. The OP got caught using a child ticket and then almost immediately started using tickets with a railcard discount. It isn’t an unreasonable suspicion that the one time they got caught isn’t the only time they have been dishonest, nor that changing to using a railcard discount instead of buying a child ticket was just another way of illegitimately saving money.

In this instance it turns out the OP was caught the only time they did something wrong and the railcard discounts were perfectly legitimate, and the sum demanded was reduced accordingly which is also fair enough.

 

[rs101]

Is it worth putting in a Subject Access Request to them to get a copy of the information they've been using? Some may be withheld/redacted, but I doubt they could refuse to release all of it.

 

[John R]

Is it worth putting in a Subject Access Request to them to get a copy of the information they've been using? Some may be withheld/redacted, but I doubt they could refuse to release all of it.

There is an exemption for information being used for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, so I doubt they would release anything. And it’s hardly being cooperative, which is key to getting a settlement, so in general I wouldn’t advise it as a strategy for dealing with such cases.

 

[skyhigh]

Is it worth putting in a Subject Access Request to them to get a copy of the information they've been using? Some may be withheld/redacted, but I doubt they could refuse to release all of it.

They've agreed a settlement and paid it so I don't see what good this would do now.

 

[rs101]

They've agreed a settlement and paid it so I don't see what good this would do now.

I don't see the harm in requesting it after the settlement has been paid and the case closed. Would be interesting to see what they based their claim on.

 

[John R]

They've agreed a settlement and paid it so I don't see what good this would do now.

Absolutely, and that’s why I responded in terms of a general strategy, in case others find it in future and act on the suggestion.

 

[BRX]

I think we can guess why they were considered suspicious. The OP got caught using a child ticket and then almost immediately started using tickets with a railcard discount. It isn’t an unreasonable suspicion that the one time they got caught isn’t the only time they have been dishonest, nor that changing to using a railcard discount instead of buying a child ticket was just another way of illegitimately saving money.

In this instance it turns out the OP was caught the only time they did something wrong and the railcard discounts were perfectly legitimate, and the sum demanded was reduced accordingly which is also fair enough.

If that was the suspicion then why could they not just say so to the OP? It would be very straightforward to show that he had a valid Railcard covering the relevant period.

Then it would be clear that the TOC weren't trying to intimidate someone into paying up for more than was fairly due.

 

[GreatRunner]

Does the £429 cover just one offence (which you accept) and their costs, or are they saying its more than one but obviously less than 15?

they had not clarified just stated that they reviewed the case and revised amount was 400ish

I think we can guess why they were considered suspicious. The OP got caught using a child ticket and then almost immediately started using tickets with a railcard discount. It isn’t an unreasonable suspicion that the one time they got caught isn’t the only time they have been dishonest, nor that changing to using a railcard discount instead of buying a child ticket was just another way of illegitimately saving money.

In this instance it turns out the OP was caught the only time they did something wrong and the railcard discounts were perfectly legitimate, and the sum demanded was reduced accordingly which is also fair enough.

nope I've never been dishonest about any other ticket. the only reason I bought the railcard was because I never thought to buy one earlier + the frequency of travel was going to be 5/6 times September onwards

And if they're only testing a single allegation in court, then based on what I've seen on other threads as to the calculations of fines issued, it may actually be cheaper to plead guilty to the single offence tried for instead of accepting the OOC settlement. The TOC also gets less as well. Though there is the rather large issue of having a criminal record as well.

If the OP can prove that their other train journeys were valid and with correct tickets held, I would be contacting the TOC (Chiltern, since Birmingham - Marylebone was mentioned) and giving them the proof that only one offense was committed on one date (and not 15 dates), then paying whatever reduced settlement was offered.

Edit - I'm glad to hear that this was sorted out. £429 does still seem a bit high for one offense so I'm not sure how they worked that out l. But at least the matter is dealt with.
Though I personally wouldn't be booking online train tickets under that card/email again...

"

Though I personally wouldn't be booking online train tickets under that card/email again "

what could happen ? anything I should be worried about ?

 

[Haywain]

what could happen ? anything I should be worried about ?

If you don't do anything 'dodgy' there is nothing to worry about. And being on their radar, so to speak, it would be stupid to do anything dodgy.

 

[BRX]

This bit of the letter - does it imply that they were saying there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for these "15 other occasions"?

Was there really ever "sufficient evidence to support a prosecution" if they have subsequently agreed that evidence provided by the OP shows there was no fare avoidance?

Or was that bit of the letter only referring to the 8th August event - in which case, isn't the letter rather badly set out?

 

[GreatRunner]

If you don't do anything 'dodgy' there is nothing to worry about. And being on their radar, so to speak, it would be stupid to do anything dodgy.

I was just worried that if I continued to use my trainline account they'd be on my case for whatever reason bugging me

View attachment 151764

This bit of the letter - does it imply that they were saying there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for these "15 other occasions"?

Was there really ever "sufficient evidence to support a prosecution" if they have subsequently agreed that evidence provided by the OP shows there was no fare avoidance?

Or was that bit of the letter only referring to the 8th August event - in which case, isn't the letter rather badly set out?

I don't think there was ever 'sufficient' evidence , just seems like they'd expect me & bully into making me make this go, along with the wording that they said the sum was in my favour.

 

[BRX]

I was just worried that if I continued to use my trainline account they'd be on my case for whatever reason bugging me

Unrelated to the subject of this thread - consider using a different website anyway, because Trainline charge you a booking fee that others don't.

One option is to use the one associated with these forums -

RailUK Tickets, powered by Trainsplit

The Split Ticketing Champions - Compare fares and get the best value for money through split tickets and booking cheap train tickets online and on our mobile app, E-Tickets to your phone, no booking fee, save up to 90%

tickets.railforums.co.uk

For normal (non-split) tickets they won't charge the booking fee that Trainline does. Additionally, they will look for split-ticket options which are often cheaper. For split-tickets, they will charge you a fee which is a proportion of the saving compared to the regular price.

 

[Haywain]

Was there really ever "sufficient evidence to support a prosecution"

Ultimately, that would have been for a court to decide.

 

[BRX]

Ultimately, that would have been for a court to decide.

But it seems to amount to a claim that in their reasonable judgement, there was enough evidence to take it to court, and the question is whether that was an honest thing for them to say.

 

[Llanigraham]

I really don't think some members here understand how a prosecution works.
They will not issue prosecutions for each and every 15 presumed offences, what they will do is issue a prosecution for ONE offence and ask for others to be taken into account.
That is the perfectly normal and legal way to do it.

 

[GreatRunner]

another update , the sum of 429 comes from
fees avoided for full fare (2) = child tickets ( the other I refunded when I realised my mistake, the other for the journey I took & was caught )

administration costs £175

hope that gives some clarity

 

[BRX]

I really don't think some members here understand how a prosecution works.
They will not issue prosecutions for each and every 15 presumed offences, what they will do is issue a prosecution for ONE offence and ask for others to be taken into account.
That is the perfectly normal and legal way to do it.

Ok, but they'd still need to provide "sufficient evidence" for the others that they would ask to be taken into account, wouldn't they?

 

[Haywain]

Ok, but they'd still need to provide "sufficient evidence" for the others that they would ask to be taken into account, wouldn't they?

No. They need to bring evidence and the court will decide if it is sufficient. I don't know about offences 'taken into account' but I believe that this is more a case of a defendant pleading guilty and getting credit for not wasting court time in setting out each individual case.

 

[BRX]

No. They need to bring evidence and the court will decide if it is sufficient. I don't know about offences 'taken into account' but I believe that this is more a case of a defendant pleading guilty and getting credit for not wasting court time in setting out each individual case.

Ok, well, if it's for the court to decide what's "sufficient to support a prosecution" then the TOC shouldn't be stating in their letter that they have evidence that's sufficient to support a prosecution.

Whatever particular way we decide to split the hairs, my point is that their letter gives the impression that they have evidence that would be enough to prosecute. But as far as I can see, that wasn't true, because a very simple check (did the passenger have a valid railcard) made it clear that there's absolutely not a case against them (as far as we know).

So, does the letter give that impression because it's just clumsily and badly set out, or is it deliberately giving the impression that they have evidence of 15 further prosecutable offences, when they know that not to be true? Either way, and especially if it's the latter, that doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Fermiboson]

There may be a good point about whether it is morally right, but language that is “economical with the truth” is so often used in the commercial world that I doubt you’d have much success actually getting them to stop, via legal means, MPs or otherwise.

 

[island]

Is it worth putting in a Subject Access Request to them to get a copy of the information they've been using? Some may be withheld/redacted, but I doubt they could refuse to release all of it.

It would not be possible before the case is resolved as there’s an exemption from disclosing information that would prejudice negotiations.

No. They need to bring evidence and the court will decide if it is sufficient. I don't know about offences 'taken into account' but I believe that this is more a case of a defendant pleading guilty and getting credit for not wasting court time in setting out each individual case.

Yes, to have offences “taken into consideration” in this way the defendant must admit them. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove anything.

 

[furlong]

This bit of the letter - does it imply that they were saying there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution for these "15 other occasions"?
Was there really ever "sufficient evidence to support a prosecution" if they have subsequently agreed that evidence provided by the OP shows there was no fare avoidance?
Or was that bit of the letter only referring to the 8th August event - in which case, isn't the letter rather badly set out?

This is one thing the Post Office was allegedly caught out doing and which apparently forms part of the criminal investigation into it - the suggestion is that it implied it had evidence sufficient to support a prosecution when it knew it did not and so wrongfully bolstered its position in settlement negotiations.

I would certainly suggest pursuing this line of inquiry with the rail company concerned as best you can and see where it leads - whether you can identify any mere procedural errors or if it's something where you might need the police to try to get to the bottom of it.

It's also not in the train company's interest to fail to provide an itemised schedule. If it provides a schedule, then later discovers further offending not included in the schedule, it can come back later for more money! But without a schedule, the offender would simply claim they believed the settlement already covered everything and the train company would have no further comeback.

 

[BRX]

This is one thing the Post Office was allegedly caught out doing and which apparently forms part of the criminal investigation into it - the suggestion is that it implied it had evidence sufficient to support a prosecution when it knew it did not and so wrongfully bolstered its position in settlement negotiations.

I would certainly suggest pursuing this line of inquiry with the rail company concerned as best you can and see where it leads - whether you can identify any mere procedural errors or if it's something where you might need the police to try to get to the bottom of it.

It's also not in the train company's interest to fail to provide an itemised schedule. If it provides a schedule, then later discovers further offending not included in the schedule, it can come back later for more money! But without a schedule, the offender would simply claim they believed the settlement already covered everything and the train company would have no further comeback.

I'm not going to pursue anything with this, but if the letter had been sent to me, I think I'd consider at least making a complaint (once the settlement was safely agreed and done with).

I've seen a few threads on here now, where these kinds of letters have been sent out.

 

[Fermiboson]

This is one thing the Post Office was allegedly caught out doing and which apparently forms part of the criminal investigation into it - the suggestion is that it implied it had evidence sufficient to support a prosecution when it knew it did not and so wrongfully bolstered its position in settlement negotiations.

I would certainly suggest pursuing this line of inquiry with the rail company concerned as best you can and see where it leads - whether you can identify any mere procedural errors or if it's something where you might need the police to try to get to the bottom of it.

It's also not in the train company's interest to fail to provide an itemised schedule. If it provides a schedule, then later discovers further offending not included in the schedule, it can come back later for more money! But without a schedule, the offender would simply claim they believed the settlement already covered everything and the train company would have no further comeback.

Well, no, this is simply wrong. The important part of the Post Office investigations was the part where the alleged offenders did not actually commit the offense. OP did.

An out of court settlement is not like a penalty fare that binds the TOC from further prosecution. If they do come back for more money, within the six month limit, and you refuse, they are well within their rights to take you to court anyways for whichever instances they happen to be able to prove.

Adopting an aggressive stance on this matter is a very bad idea. You will lose, and lose badly.

 

[Haywain]

they are well within their rights to take you to court anyways for whichever instances they happen to be able to prove.

And the defendant would equallly have the opportunity to defend themselves and produce any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Llanigraham]

Ok, but they'd still need to provide "sufficient evidence" for the others that they would ask to be taken into account, wouldn't they?

No, they just ask for x to be taken into account. No evidence or even proof required.

 

[AlbertBeale]

No, they just ask for x to be taken into account. No evidence or even proof required.

"They" being the defendant, in whose interest it is to get the other cases out of the way and ruled out for later additional prosecution.

 

[Llanigraham]

"They" being the defendant, in whose interest it is to get the other cases out of the way and ruled out for later additional prosecution.

No, it is the prosecuting organisation that asks for x number of additional offenses to be taken into account.
I did it on every case I presented at the Magistrates Court and as far as I remember they were never queried.

 

[AlbertBeale]

another update , the sum of 429 comes from
fees avoided for full fare (2) = child tickets ( the other I refunded when I realised my mistake, the other for the journey I took & was caught )

administration costs £175

hope that gives some clarity

That explains it then. If the two journeys (ie one return journey I presume) you hadn't paid for really were priced at c£125 each way for full whack tickets, then there was no element of them trying to charge you for journeys you'd originally been accused of also not having paid for, but about which you've now satisfied them. So maybe a fair outcome.

However, I am a bit puzzled by the two fares you've been charged for. Since you were picked up for one wrong ticket, and - you say now - you refunded the other wrong one and didn't use it [presumably you didn't risk the same problem on the return, and refunded the child ticket and bought a proper one?], then there's only one leg of the journey for which you hadn't properly paid. If that's the case, then their approach does seem punitive (unless they saw you'd bought the wrong ticket for both legs of the journey and wanted to punish you for that, even though you never actually committed the crime on the return?).

But then again, since you've avoided a court case, this might be a bearable outcome, and you're not in a position to argue.

No, it is the prosecuting organisation that asks for x number of additional offenses to be taken into account.
I did it on every case I presented at the Magistrates Court and as far as I remember they were never queried.

But surely that only happens if the defendant doesn't challenge the extra cases and has already - in effect - fessed up to them to the prosecution? Otherwise they'd need to be proved.

 

[BRX]

No, they just ask for x to be taken into account. No evidence or even proof required.

So they can say "we also alledge that they did X and Y" and the judge just says okey dokey we'll assume they did all that as well? And the defendant doesn't get to counter this?

Well, no, this is simply wrong. The important part of the Post Office investigations was the part where the alleged offenders did not actually commit the offense. OP did.

An out of court settlement is not like a penalty fare that binds the TOC from further prosecution. If they do come back for more money, within the six month limit, and you refuse, they are well within their rights to take you to court anyways for whichever instances they happen to be able to prove.

Adopting an aggressive stance on this matter is a very bad idea. You will lose, and lose badly.

The OP committed the original offense. But not the 15 others the TOC claimed to have evidence of. So, other than a miscarriage of justice, what would they have to worry about?