Accussed of Altering Carnet Ticket

[drwhoru]

Hi All,

i am a regular user of carnet tickets on the FCC franchise and for the most part i've never had any trouble. as i frequently use the same route i am also familiar to a lot of the inspection staff and as the tickets do not operate the machines at my station i need to write them out and show them to staff whenever i travel. i usually get through x2 books a month so it is marginally cheaper than buying a season ticket.

on a sunday i was travelling into london using a peak carnet and had the date written on the ticket as usual. a ticket inspector boarded the train and inspected my ticket and said he believed i had altered it and that i "had not done a very good job" i told him he was mistaken and he said that if i hadn't altered it i would have nothing to worry about. i answered his questions and signed a form and he said the ticket would be checked "forensically" and that they would let me know.

usually i would not be concerned as i have done nothing wrong, however I've looked at Carnet's I've used in the past and on many there are what could be argued are "evidence" of tampering (ink marks, indentations, smudges etc).

does anyone know what sort of testing they do and whether they take into account these sorts of things that can appear on a ticket through totally innocent means? i'm sick with worry as i simply can't afford to pay legal fees and am worried that i could receive a fine or criminal record.

​

 

[MarlowDonkey]

i'm sick with worry as i simply can't afford to pay legal fees and am worried that i could receive a fine or criminal record.

It's happened before. The passenger was eventually vindicated, but it appears to have been a long fight.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=79850
also more recently
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98969&highlight=FCC+Carnet

 

[drwhoru]

thanks marlowdonkey.

i read through the notes but couldn't find their resolution.

it appears as though if there is anything other than a perfectly written and clear ticket you can imply tampering.

does anyone know if you can contact FCC directly (without going through a solicitor) and if they will reply? do they need to send evidence through etc?

 

[tony6499]

What gave the inspector reason to suspect it had been altered ?

 

[Hadders]

Why did you use a carnet peak Ticket to travel on a Sunday?

Just checking a few FCC stations and a super off-peak day return is cheaper than a carnet peak ticket.

 

[jon0844]

How quickly might Govia be able to introduce 'The Key' to FCC services? These carnets need to be axed (and replaced with something better) as soon as possible.

From the passenger point of view, they're a nightmare. It's easy to make a ticket look like it's been tampered with, and however careful you are - make one mistake and you either risk being hassled, or have to bin the ticket (thus losing the savings).

From the RPI point of view, they're a nightmare too as I have no doubt that many people really DO tamper with them - at least for the easy and most obvious modifications, like adding a digit where appropriate.

GET RID OF THEM! or replace them with the scratchcards that are given out to season ticket holders in the meantime.

 

[Clip]

How quickly might Govia be able to introduce 'The Key' to FCC services? These carnets need to be axed (and replaced with something better) as soon as possible.

From the passenger point of view, they're a nightmare. It's easy to make a ticket look like it's been tampered with, and however careful you are - make one mistake and you either risk being hassled, or have to bin the ticket (thus losing the savings).

From the RPI point of view, they're a nightmare too as I have no doubt that many people really DO tamper with them - at least for the easy and most obvious modifications, like adding a digit where appropriate.

GET RID OF THEM! or replace them with the scratchcards that are given out to season ticket holders in the meantime.

Im guessing as soon as possible I would imagine. They are going to be better off with all of it integrated as those north of the river will complain they are being shoddily treated. But youre right about the carnets..

 

[SPADTrap]

Why are you sick with worry when you first had nothing to worry about?

 

[Deerfold]

Why are you sick with worry when you first had nothing to worry about?

The OP said the RPI said he would have nothing to worry about.

That doesn't automatically mean the OP won't worry. I would even if I knew I was perfectly innocent if I was told my ticket was being forensically tested.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why are you sick with worry when you first had nothing to worry about?

Have you see the 1001 other threads on here about FCC's attitude to carnet tickets? I'd be worried even if I knew I'd done nothing wrong.

As jonmorris says, why they don't do them as scratchcards is beyond me.

 

[jon0844]

In the event that an RPI asks to take the ticket for forensic testing, is it immediately bagged up and sealed (with a security sticker/tie)?

I know that in the last case, it doesn't appear FCC actually did any proper testing anyway - but if they're going to claim that they will, surely it won't go anywhere when the RPI that is insistent it was tampered with could, in theory, tamper with it him/herself.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

In the event that an RPI asks to take the ticket for forensic testing, is it immediately bagged up and sealed (with a security sticker/tie)?

I've seen officials who *really* should know better screw up badly with "continuity of evidence" before, I'd say the chance of an RPI getting it right, even if they do have the bags etc. are pretty slim.

 

[VauxhallandI]

In the event that an RPI asks to take the ticket for forensic testing, is it immediately bagged up and sealed (with a security sticker/tie)?

I know that in the last case, it doesn't appear FCC actually did any proper testing anyway - but if they're going to claim that they will, surely it won't go anywhere when the RPI that is insistent it was tampered with could, in theory, tamper with it him/herself.

Exactly. I'd be interested to know if this has ever stood up/been challenged in court?

 

[SPADTrap]

Have you see the 1001 other threads on here about FCC's attitude to carnet tickets? I'd be worried even if I knew I'd done nothing wrong.

As jonmorris says, why they don't do them as scratchcards is beyond me.

I know very well their attitude to carnets. The attitude of RPIs is drastically different to that of the prosecutions department. There isn't any way this can stand unless you've admitted it. It's impossible to know.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . .

does anyone know what sort of testing they do and whether they take into account these sorts of things that can appear on a ticket through totally innocent means?

Yes, I've assisted other passengers who have had carnet tickets retained for forensic investigation - that involves an analysis of the inks or other staining marks, the impressions from pressure on the surface and of the integrity of the surface of the material. Additional checks will be made on the ticket to confirm the validity of its issue.

That analysis is evidential, and does not include any consideration of the passenger's intentions, statements or actions; those are the duties of the investigating officer who receives the forensic report.

It is an unfortunate fact that FCC suffer a high level of fraud arising from abuse of carnet tickets, so these investigations are not uncommon, and are frequently successful in identifying both casual / opportunist abusers and systematic repeat abusers. Both of these are found alongside the "totally innocent" marks that you refer to.

I know very well their attitude to carnets. The attitude of RPIs is drastically different to that of the prosecutions department. There isn't any way this can stand unless you've admitted it. It's impossible to know.

I'm surprised by the confidence of this prediction - I'm aware of successful claims by FCC against passengers who have persisted in their denial of any wrongdoing.

 

[SPADTrap]

Yes, I've assisted other passengers who have had carnet tickets retained for forensic investigation - that involves an analysis of the inks or other staining marks, the impressions from pressure on the surface and of the integrity of the surface of the material. Additional checks will be made on the ticket to confirm the validity of its issue.

That analysis is evidential, and does not include any consideration of the passenger's intentions, statements or actions; those are the duties of the investigating officer who receives the forensic report.

It is an unfortunate fact that FCC suffer a high level of fraud arising from abuse of carnet tickets, so these investigations are not uncommon, and are frequently successful in identifying both casual / opportunist abusers and systematic repeat abusers. Both of these are found alongside the "totally innocent" marks that you refer to.

I'm surprised by the confidence of this prediction - I'm aware of successful claims by FCC against passengers who have persisted in their denial of any wrongdoing.

Not on carnets where there is suspected altering was it? How can this be proven?

But fair enough you're seen many more than me, I just hear RPI/RCO friends talking about it.

 

[drwhoru]

Not on carnets where there is suspected altering was it? How can this be proven?

But fair enough you're seen many more than me, I just hear RPI/RCO friends complaining about an all lenient line on carnets demanded by management.

thanks for your comments, i am in part reassured that the testing takes into account the "wear and tear" a ticket in a wallet may pick up and that it will not be a case of taking it to court on the observation of one inspector.

i've not received anything from FCC but imagine this could take a couple of weeks so i'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[drwhoru]

I know very well their attitude to carnets. The attitude of RPIs is drastically different to that of the prosecutions department. There isn't any way this can stand unless you've admitted it. It's impossible to know.

but is this the view a court will take? i think there are numerous arguments you could use to justify why a ticket appears to be altered, but at the end of the day a magistrate will decide either way and make their ruling.

does anyone know what the difference in penalty would be for someone who pleads guilty versus someone who pleads innocent and is found guilty (if there is any?). i would be inclined to go to court on this, but would be good to understand the "risk".

 

[DaveNewcastle]

does anyone know what the difference in penalty would be for someone who pleads guilty versus someone who pleads innocent and is found guilty (if there is any?). i would be inclined to go to court on this, but would be good to understand the "risk".

I'm pleased that you want to weigh up the risks and probabilities before making any decision.

If you plead guilty, then you could do so yourself (i.e. without a solicitor to represent you) and attempt any mitigation yourself. Magistrates Courts are inconsistent, so I can only guess that they might impose a Fine of around £100 - £200. The Prosecution will seek their lost revenue (and this will depend on the Evidence - only you know how much revenue has been lost by the alleged 'altering' of the carnet ticket(s). They will also seek their costs which might now be assumed to have reached the region of £300.
Victim Surcharge is less than the error margin of my figures.

If you contest the matter, let's suppose you instruct a local solicitor who will cost you perhaps £700 (and rising if travel time is involved).
If the Court finds for the Company, then the Fine may be unchanged, and the lost revenue may be unchanged, but the costs will have risen - perhaps 2 Witnesses will be called (the Inspector and the forensic analyst) at say £150 and £400 respectively, depending on fees, travel and time.

If the Court finds for you, then you would hope that the Court awards your costs to be paid by the Company.

Not only are these figures mere estimates, I can't assist you at all with the probability of the outcome if you contest the claim. I strongly suggest that you attempt an agreement with the Company on pragmatic grounds rather than any principle of injustice - the latter can be an expensive luxury. But you should not expect any discussion until the analyst has provide an opinion on the ticket.

 

[Nick W]

I'm interested in how the forensics evidence would work.

I assume that the forensic analyst would have to put forward a hypothesis as to the original content? If the OP could then prove that he could not possibly have travelled by train on that day, what happens?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I assume that the forensic analyst would have to put forward a hypothesis as to the original content? If the OP could then prove that he could not possibly have travelled by train on that day, what happens?

If the matter is allowed to proceed to a Trial (and that is not an assumption that we should be making!), then it is the task of the Prosecution to show that the ticket has been altered. That is the offence. It is proved if it is demonstrated that it was changed from an alpha to a beta, and was changed by the accused or with his/her knowledge and consent; rail travel on another date doesn't come into it.
However, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution to demonstrate that fact, and that may be a high threshold.

But let's not get Drwhoru confused,as we are not in that position - not at present anyway.

 

[b0b]

I'm interested in how the forensics evidence would work.

Chances are most time an RPI mentions "forensics testing", it ends up inducing a confession. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[Tibbs]

Given that there is physical evidence in play here, how do rail employees manage chain of custody and that sort of thing?

 

[Elecman]

if Chain ofcustody for evidence preservation is not followed ie item placed in a sealed bag with the persons signature dated and timed and opened infrontof a witness then the 'evidence' would surely be in addmissabe in court.?

 

[Nick W]

Chances are most time an RPI mentions "forensics testing", it ends up inducing a confession. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

This was my believe and it was also my opinion that the "forensic testing" may be no more than an unqualified person looking at it, based on the previous case which was dropped. However, I assume DaveNewcastle has witnessed at least one expert witness in forensics in the court case.

One fear would be that the expert witness is selective with the evidence in order to win further work from the company. Another fear would be that the court is fooled by a claim that the evidence "clearly shows", as oppose claims that evidence "is consistent with" a supplied theory. The defendant presumably has no chance to carry out their own forensics.

However, I have been shown by someone how to turn a carefully drawn "2" into a "3". In this case, a microscopic view of the tick, would presumably show that the pen came down a second time at the tip the two. Presumably, this would be enough to dispute the claim that the ticket had been tampered with as well, (as framing would involve the ticket being withdrawn on a day ending in "2" not "3"). So I can see how a clear case could be proven by forensics. I would hope that a claim that "there are some strange indentations" would lose as this could be a pen not working at first.

I realise DaveNewcastle does not wish the OP to be confused, but I think it's relevant to know what the likely "false positive rate" of the court system is in the following situations:

• Passengers fills in correct date first, but it smudges
• Passenger goes over twice due to pen issues, or otherwise
• Passenger doesn't write ever so clearly at first, and clarifies the numbers by extending strokes.

I note that, while Chiltern demand that the ticket is not used if the wrong date is put on at first, FCC do not have such a term. The Railway Byelaws state intent, so surely it's reasonable on FCC to cross out and write a new date if the first one is wrong?

 

[Tibbs]

if Chain ofcustody for evidence preservation is not followed ie item placed in a sealed bag with the persons signature dated and timed and opened infrontof a witness then the 'evidence' would surely be in addmissabe in court.?

Well that was what I was thinking. Surely the TOC will be held to the same standards as the Police?

Given that by the looks of this case the Carnet is the only evidence the TOC has, a defence lawyer could have the evidence thrown out on that basis?

 

[drwhoru]

Well that was what I was thinking. Surely the TOC will be held to the same standards as the Police?

Given that by the looks of this case the Carnet is the only evidence the TOC has, a defence lawyer could have the evidence thrown out on that basis?

the ticket was not placed into a bag in my presence. the inspector took the ticket and took some notes from it and then placed it into his shirt pocket.

something else that may be pertinent is that after he cautioned me he asked me a few questions and made a note of my responses on a form, i noticed that a portion of the form was not completed, the top half, and he said he would fill that in later.

i also asked to see some idea and he pointed to his name badge, should he not have some kind of official ID he needs to present?

 

[bb21]

something else that may be pertinent is that after he cautioned me he asked me a few questions and made a note of my responses on a form, i noticed that a portion of the form was not completed, the top half, and he said he would fill that in later.

Do you mean the form you were made to sign? Was it the part where your details go?

i also asked to see some idea and he pointed to his name badge, should he not have some kind of official ID he needs to present?

AIUI a name badge is sufficient as a form of ID. The ID of the staff will be on the completed form anyway if in doubt.

 

[Elecman]

I cannot see any court convicting on 'forensic' evidence in this case as all the defendant has to say is the ticket was altered by a 3rd party after being removed from him as no Chain of a Custody for the evidence exists.

 

[island]

i also asked to see some idea and he pointed to his name badge, should he not have some kind of official ID he needs to present?

An authorised person is obliged to produce a form of identification on request when exercising his duties. Nothing specifies what type of identification that might be; a name badge is probably sufficient.

Different rules apply to authorised collectors when issuing Penalty Fares.