Caught Fare-Evading

[trevz]

Hi guys,

Towards the end of December, I was caught fare-evading (stupid I know, fully take responsibility), and was using a freedom pass (again stupid I know lol). I sent back an email accepting responsibility and pleading guilty a couple of days later. I still haven't heard anything back, and I've read a few threads in this sub saying TFL has 6 months to prosecute. If it comes to 6 months from the incident, (end of June/early July), am I in the clear, or can they even prosecute after the 6 months? And should I contact them nearer the deadline to make sure I haven't missed some correspondence from them?

Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi guys,

Towards the end of December, I was caught fare-evading (stupid I know, fully take responsibility), and was using a freedom pass (again stupid I know lol). I sent back an email accepting responsibility and pleading guilty a couple of days later. I still haven't heard anything back, and I've read a few threads in this sub saying TFL has 6 months to prosecute. If it comes to 6 months from the incident, (end of June/early July), am I in the clear, or can they even prosecute after the 6 months? And should I contact them nearer the deadline to make sure I haven't missed some correspondence from them?

Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks

When you say you "sent back an email", was this in reply to an email? Usually the first correspondence is a Verification Letter. Did you receive this?

 

[trevz]

Yeah, I received the first correspondence in the post asking whether I plead guilty or not guilty, and to reply to their email address with my plea, which I did around the end of December (pleaded guilty).

 

[AlterEgo]

Yeah, I received the first correspondence in the post asking whether I plead guilty or not guilty, and to reply to their email address with my plea, which I did around the end of December (pleaded guilty).

A verification letter does not ask for a *plea* - it asks whether you accept or deny committing an offence, which is not a plea (this can only be done to a court, in response to a summons/Single Justice Procedure Notice).

Do you have the original letter to hand?

 

[trevz]

Apologies,

 

[trevz]

Hi guys, I've just been issued a SJP notice, for fare-evading by using a family member's freedom pass. I'm planning on pleading guilty. I had a few questions, that I would appreciate help with:


1) I'm in legal finance profession, and from what I have read online, most jobs only request a standard/basic DBS check for my job role. Am I correct in understanding that future employers wouldn't see my fare-evading prosecution because it is not an enhanced DBS check, and even if they do would it be how likely would it be to prevent me from taking a job, after being offered the role?

2)I've read information from Reeds (lawyers) who said " It would also appear on Standard and enhanced DBS checks until 'filtered' after 11 years. This can have a profound impact on someone's career prospects, particularly in certain fields " which was contracting what I thought - just wondering if this is lawyers fear-mongering in an attempt to get people to pay for their services in the chance that TFL settles for out of court payments (which I heard is unlikely anyway)

3) Just to clarify as well, am I correct that if I plead guilty I would receive a criminal record? Would the only impact of the criminal record would be the aforementioned inclusion in an enhanced DBS check?

Thanks in advance for the replies.

 

[Snow1964]

There are two things to consider, the DBS and what your contract of employment says. Some make it clear you need to tell your employer so regardless of what is on (or not on) a DBS. You might need to declare it anyway.

If you are in some financial or legal industry that is regulated, then that might have additional requirements to comply with being authorised to work in the regulated industry.

Almost certainly keeping quiet if not supposed to, and your employer subsequently finds out will cause more problems.

 

[Pushpit]

The answer to point (3) is that a guilty plea at SJP will lead to a criminal record, which as a member of the legal profession I would hope you would know. But as someone who processes DBS and the Enhanced version, it is fairly rare for bye law offences to be mentioned. In the case of Enhanced, it is technically possible based on the role, and there's a risk matrix that is involved on the disclosure side.

But as correctly indicated by Snow1964, the whole DBS process is post-event, whereas presumably your contract of employment requires you to disclose convictions and cautions, in some cases including spent ones. Questions about DBS are usually missing the point. So given that your employer may well have easy access to court records, and bearing in mind the appalling state of HMCTS IT set-up leading to all sorts of rubbish being fed to Disclosure and Barring, you are obviously not going to take a risk on this. It would be illogical to not disclose a relatively minor crime, albeit one that involves misrepresentation, given you could be at risk of being debarred for lying about it, something unlikely if you 'fess up to your criminal record.

 

[Titfield]

The answer to point (3) is that a guilty plea at SJP will lead to a criminal record, which as a member of the legal profession I would hope you would know. But as someone who processes DBS and the Enhanced version, it is fairly rare for bye law offences to be mentioned. In the case of Enhanced, it is technically possible based on the role, and there's a risk matrix that is involved on the disclosure side.

But as correctly indicated by Snow1964, the whole DBS process is post-event, whereas presumably your contract of employment requires you to disclose convictions and cautions, in some cases including spent ones. Questions about DBS are usually missing the point. So given that your employer may well have easy access to court records, and bearing in mind the appalling state of HMCTS IT set-up leading to all sorts of rubbish being fed to Disclosure and Barring, you are obviously not going to take a risk on this. It would be illogical to not disclose a relatively minor crime, albeit one that involves misrepresentation, given you could be at risk of being debarred for lying about it, something unlikely if you 'fess up to your criminal record.

In the jurisdiction I have involvement of, the Registrar who carries out a Fit and Proper Person Test argues that certain minor offences tarnish the reputation but do not lead to being banned from the profession but a failure to disclose - which the member signs a declaration that they will declare any offences within 7 days when they are admitted to the profession - is an aggravating factor and will lead to being barred.