Caught using my dads 60+ Oyster Card

[rp5689]

Hi there,

I am a 25M who was caught using my dads's 60+ Oyster at Bond Street Station on tfl. I was on my way home from work when I was caught. When the Revenue Inspector caught me, he took me to the side and asked me several questions which I responded honestly and truthfully. I was very responsive to his questions because at this point, I was just worried about my job and my future, as well as feeling very remorseful. I am just at the start of my career and was constantly scared that my career would be over because of an utter silly mistake I made. Below are some questions that I can remember he asked me, as well as my responses. I just wanted to be completely honest and transparent with him because I wanted him to know I was feeling very remorseful.

How did you obtain this pass - It’s my dad’s pass. I currently have it because he is not using it at the moment. He does not know I have it.
How long have you been using this pass - Since around the start of the year
Would you like to sign this transcript - Yes (I proceeded to sign as I thought denying would have negative implications in the future. If I didn't sign, I thought that would look bad and would not help my case when escalated).

Throughout the time he questioned me I asked him if the fact I am being co-operative would help my case. He said he just takes down the details and reports it. He said the person looking at my case would be able to know I am being co-operative because he logged the time he stopped to me to the time he let me go. He said they would be able to judge how co-operative I have been by looking at the duration of the stop and questioning.

Few days have gone by and now I have received the attached letter in the post. I wanted to ask for some advice before emailing up my reply to TfL. I have seen a few threads in which Hadders has provided some great advice for others and was hoping Hadders could help me in this. However, all suggestions and advice are welcome, and I thank you in advance for your help!

I have reached out to a solicitor and briefly informed them of the situation. I am due to speak with them at some point tomorrow but if you can provide me with some advice before I speak to them, I would be very grateful. I just want to get out of this situation without a criminal record and just pay a fine. I have certainly learnt my lesson and will never do this again.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is very rare for TfL to agree to dispose of such serious abuse of a pass without going to court. You were caught abusing the pass over a long period and would have continued to offend indefinitely had you not been caught.

They do not settle out of court, although where compelling mitigation has been submitted they have been known to offer an occasional warning.

Your only realistic chance of avoiding being prosecuted is to ask a solicitor to act on your behalf. Manak Solicitors has been mentioned on here before.

 

[rp5689]

Hey AlterEgo,

I appreciate your fast response to my thread. I can see you have mentioned Manak Solicitors, who I will search online now. However, I have contacted Makwana Solicitors (https://www.makwanas.co.uk/case/fare-evasion/) and having a consultation with them tomorrow.

Have Manak Solicitors been used by others and been successful in their cases?

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

Transport for London take misuse of Freedom Passes very seriously and a prosecution under the TfL Bylaws is the usual outcome.

What you've been sent is a Verification Letter which is your opportunity to tell TfL about any mitigating factors you want TfL to take into account when deciding how to proceed with your case. It's up to you whether to use a solicitor or not. They cannot change what has happened but they might be able to present your mitigation in a better way than you can do yourself. Be aware that solicitors are not cheap and you will have to pay their fee whatever the outcome of your case is.

If you do decide to deal with the letter yourself then I suggest you mention the following points:

- 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

TfL generally do not offer out of court settlements although in some very limited circumstances they have been known to issue a final warning instead of prosecution. Prosecutions are normally done through what is called a Single Justice Procedure Notice. This means that if you plead guilty it is not necessary to attend court in person (unless you choose to do), you simply return the form to the court with any mitigation you want them to tae into account and they will write to you with the details of the fine you have to pay.

If you are prosecuted and plead guilty (or are found guilty by the court) then you will have to pay:

- A fine based on your income (normally discounted by a third if you plead guilty at the earliest opportunity)
- A surcharge of 40% of the value of the fine
- A contribution towards TfL's costs
- Compensation for the fares avoided

If you are found guilty then this is a criminal conviction. If you are prosecuted under the TfL Bylaws (which is what normally happens) then the conviction isn't normally recorded on the Police National Computer and won't normally appear on Basic DBS checks. A criminal conviction for a railway ticketing matter won't normally affect future career prospects but we always advise people to be honest when asked if they have a conviction.

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

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

 

[WesternLancer]

Hey AlterEgo,

I appreciate your fast response to my thread. I can see you have mentioned Manak Solicitors, who I will search online now. However, I have contacted Makwana Solicitors (https://www.makwanas.co.uk/case/fare-evasion/) and having a consultation with them tomorrow.

Have Manak Solicitors been used by others and been successful in their cases?

If you want to involve a solicitor just speak to both firms and get quotes and pick who you feel will help you best.

Manak solicitors regularly get mentioned here by people who have used them in positive terms but this is often with train company fare evasion not TfL. This doesn’t mean the firm you have found are not as good. Looking at the link you provided they certainly have a detailed and informative web page about the topic and the service and help they offer.

 

[trainerlover]

I did not like Manak Solicitors. I also used Makwanas and got off. Thankfully. But the thought of being prosecuted and even looking for a lawyer was quite daunting. They've got a ton of info here (www.makwanas.co.uk/case/fare-evasion-solicitors/) - but don't deal with the juniors. Only the principle Shella

 

[WesternLancer]

I did not like Manak Solicitors. I also used Makwanas and got off. Thankfully. But the thought of being prosecuted and even looking for a lawyer was quite daunting. They've got a ton of info here (www.makwanas.co.uk/case/fare-evasion-solicitors/) - but don't deal with the juniors. Only the principle Shella

Helpful to have a post informed by experience.

 

[rp5689]

Hi All,

Thought I would provide an update on my situation. I got a solicitor involved who replied to TfL for me by email on 19/07 and am now waiting for their response.

The solicitor produced a letter of representation on my behalf which included my apology letter, 2 character references and a few other things. I will provide an update once I hear back from TfL. Hopefully I get a favourable outcome because I do not want to lose my job and mess up my career.

 

[notmyrealname]

Thank you updating us, that's helpful. I hope it goes well for you, please let us know when you can.

 

[rp5689]

Hi All,

By way of update, my solicitor got a response from TfL yesterday. Long story short, the man who responded to me said

"I can therefore confirm that this case has been reviewed on its merits and the representations you have thoroughly prepared and submitted, as well as the outcome of our own investigations and I have to conclude that, despite all of the evidence you have provided, and the detailed representations you have meticulously put together, I have not been swayed to issue a formal warning in this instance."

Since the response came in towards close of business on a Friday afternoon, I have been told that my solicitor will speak to me on Monday about this.

I am extremely worried because the letter also said

"Consideration is still being made on pursuing further legal action against your client as this case is not one where there was a one off occasion of fare evasion, there was a deliberate intention to use the high value pass over an extended period of time."

The letter then ended with a paragagraph saying

"If there is anything else you wish to add as further representation as to why Transport for London should not pursue further legal action against Mr XXXXX, please do provide
this within the next 28 days to [email protected] ensuring that the case number, XXXXXX, is clearly displayed."

Does anyone have any advice as to what me and my solciitor could include in my response to this letter. I am really scared for my career as I am in a profession which I worked and studied hard for in finance.

I would really appreciate any advice and suggestions you guys may have.

If you are found guilty then this is a criminal conviction. If you are prosecuted under the TfL Bylaws (which is what normally happens) then the conviction isn't normally recorded on the Police National Computer and won't normally appear on Basic DBS checks. A criminal conviction for a railway ticketing matter won't normally affect future career prospects but we always advise people to be honest when asked if they have a conviction.

@Hadders - Referring to the above, are you able to confirm that if TfL decide to prosecute me, it will most likely be under the TfL Byelaws and therefore not potentially harm my career?

Additionally, if you would like me to privately send you a redacted version of the response I received from TfL so you can see the full letter and understand the situation better, please let me know and I can email it over to you (or any other way you prefer).

Thanking you all in advance as always.

R

 

[skyhigh]

Does anyone have any advice as to what me and my solciitor could include in my response to this letter.

If you're paying for a solicitor to advise and act on your behalf, take their advice not that of a load of random people on the internet.

Realistically though, TfL almost always prosecute cases like these. You misused a high value pass over a prolonged period. Unfortunately it is likely that there is now nothing that can be said that will stop them prosecuting you.

 

[rp5689]

If you're paying for a solicitor to advise and act on your behalf, take their advice not that of a load of random people on the internet.

Realistically though, TfL almost always prosecute cases like these. You misused a high value pass over a prolonged period. Unfortunately it is likely that there is now nothing that can be said that will stop them prosecuting you.

Hi Skyhigh,

I definitely will be taking advice from my solicitor, but I know there are experienced users on this platform who may be able to provide valuable advice to me.

Regarding the potential proseuction (which I pray does not happen), do you know if this will appear under checks in which my employer or potential future employers carry out?

Thank you

R

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi Skyhigh,

I definitely will be taking advice from my solicitor, but I know there are experienced users on this platform who may be able to provide valuable advice to me.

Regarding the potential proseuction (which I pray does not happen), do you know if this will appear under checks in which my employer or potential future employers carry out?

It might, but it depends on what your role is and who your employer is. You may also have to declare it anyway, regardless of whether a check would show it or not, and you may commit either a further criminal offence or gross misconduct at work if you do not disclose it. Again, it depends on who your employer is and what you do.

 

[Titfield]

If you're paying for a solicitor to advise and act on your behalf, take their advice not that of a load of random people on the internet.

Realistically though, TfL almost always prosecute cases like these. You misused a high value pass over a prolonged period. Unfortunately it is likely that there is now nothing that can be said that will stop them prosecuting you.

Agreed. From what we see reported on this forum TfL are rarely persuaded to deviate from their standard policy to prosecute. Those occasions when they do issue a warning seem to be when there are some compelling exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately in the extant case the situation is as noted above misuse of a high value pass over a prolonged period and I can not imagine any exceptional circumstances which would outweigh the wrongdoing.

 

[30907]

Referring to the above, are you able to confirm that if TfL decide to prosecute me, it will most likely be under the TfL Byelaws and therefore not potentially harm my career?

I can't speak for others, but I don't think we can 100% confirm either.
1. A Byelaw prosecution for a single offence appears (from the evidence supplied by posters in your position) to be TfL's consistent practice.
2. A future employer might still judge that such a conviction proves that you would represent an unnecessary employment risk. Failure to declare the conviction certainly would, so the advice is "declare if asked.".

 

[Haywain]

Failure to declare the conviction certainly would, so the advice is "declare if asked.".

I would just add that this also means declare if required to do so by the terms of your contract of employment.

 

[Titfield]

I can't speak for others, but I don't think we can 100% confirm either.
1. A Byelaw prosecution for a single offence appears (from the evidence supplied by posters in your position) to be TfL's consistent practice.
2. A future employer might still judge that such a conviction proves that you would represent an unnecessary employment risk. Failure to declare the conviction certainly would, so the advice is "declare if asked.".

I have boldened "declare if asked". Double check your contract of employment and staff handbook because some have a standard clause that can state that "all convictions must be disclosed" or a slightly more ambiguously worded "you must declare any changes to your status to those declared in your application form". The onus is on you to tell, not just to respond to a direct question.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have boldened "declare if asked". Double check your contract of employment and staff handbook because some have a standard clause that can state that "all convictions must be disclosed" or a slightly more ambiguously worded "you must declare any changes to your status to those declared in your application form". The onus is on you to tell, not just to respond to a direct question.

Some contracts may also be unfair, too - most employers are not entitled to know about spent convictions, for example. It doesn't matter what the contract says in that regard.

 

[Hadders]

If you're using a solicitor then you really should take their advice - I'm sure you'll be paying quite a high fee for it! I suggest posting TfL's reply in this thread - we have many experts in this section of the forum and something one of us might miss will almost certainly be picked up by someone else. Do make sure you remove any case reference numbers or names before uploading.

There's not much I can add to what I said in my initial reply to your opening post. TfL take a robust approach to this sort of thing and I'm not surprised that they are prosecuting. TfL usually prosecute under the TfL Byelaws but we cannot be certain what legislation they will use until the court summons arrives. This is likely to be a Singel Justice Procedure Notice but we have seen cases where people are summonsed to appear in person.

A Byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction and as others have said above you should carefully check your contract of employment to see if you are required to notify your employer of crimonal convictions. It is always best to be truthful in these circumstances - trying to cover up what has happened is almost always worse than the offence itself.

 

[djw]

I would just add that this also means declare if required to do so by the terms of your contract of employment.

It is also important to bear in mind the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (SI 1975/1023), the consequence of which is that no convictions are treated as spent when considering suitability for the Schedule 1 Part 1 professions, the Schedule 2 Part 2 offices and the Schedule 1 Part 3 regulated professions. The version of the 1975 Order I have linked to does not contain all the amendments in the currently active version; legislation.gov.uk does not have a version containing these amendments.

Some finance-related roles are found in the Schedule 1 Part 3 list; the OP should ask their solicitor to check an up-to-date version of the 1975 Order to confirm whether or not their role falls within the 1975 Order's disapplication of the spent conviction regime and ask their solicitor for advice on what needs to be disclosed and when.

I endorse what has already been said about declaring rather than hoping nothing is found on a check. If the OP is in a regulated industry, they might have an obligation to notify the regulator and/or their employer if a prosecution for an offence of dishonesty is commenced against them. A failure to notify promptly when required will be viewed dimly and could potentially amount to a criminal offence. For example, solicitors are subject to Rule 6.5 of the SRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules, which says:

You have an ongoing obligation to tell the SRA promptly about anything that raises a question as to your character and suitability, or any change to information previously disclosed to the SRA in support of your application, after it has been made. This obligation continues once you have been admitted as a solicitor, registered as an REL or an RFL, or approved as a role holder.

 

[island]

Some finance-related roles are found in the Schedule 1 Part 3 list

As a holder of such a role I should point out that there are very few finance related roles on the list – unless you or your boss is a board director it's rather unlikely that this will apply to you. Certainly branch staff don't come under it.

 

[djw]

As a holder of such a role I should point out that there are very few finance related roles on the list

Having had the opportunity to check an up-to-date copy of the 1975 Order, I take your point. Over the years, the exceptions to the spent convictions regime have been refined and some of the specific finance-related exceptions have been removed. However, the judicial, legal and medical exceptions (amongst others) remain fairly broad in scope.

The guidance given on gov.uk indicates that the broad coverage of the 1975 Order today includes "Employment in the financial sector (including chartered and certified accountants, actuaries and all positions for which the Financial Conduct Authority or the competent authority for listings are entitled to ask exempted questions to fulfil their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)", but notes that this is not a comprehensive list.

As the OP has a solicitor, I still believe it is best they ask their solicitor about their disclosure obligations. Even if the OP is entitled to take advantage of any conviction ultimately becoming spent in their current role, there may be disclosure obligations from the point of charging to the time when any conviction becomes spent.

 

[rp5689]

If you're using a solicitor then you really should take their advice - I'm sure you'll be paying quite a high fee for it! I suggest posting TfL's reply in this thread - we have many experts in this section of the forum and something one of us might miss will almost certainly be picked up by someone else. Do make sure you remove any case reference numbers or names before uploading.

There's not much I can add to what I said in my initial reply to your opening post. TfL take a robust approach to this sort of thing and I'm not surprised that they are prosecuting. TfL usually prosecute under the TfL Byelaws but we cannot be certain what legislation they will use until the court summons arrives. This is likely to be a Singel Justice Procedure Notice but we have seen cases where people are summonsed to appear in person.

A Byelaw conviction is a criminal conviction and as others have said above you should carefully check your contract of employment to see if you are required to notify your employer of crimonal convictions. It is always best to be truthful in these circumstances - trying to cover up what has happened is almost always worse than the offence itself.

Hi All, Please see below the response I received from TfL (a man named Ian Crawford who has been named on other threads) as requested. I plan on speaking to my solicitor and writing a response. Any advice or feedback will be greatly appreciated and I will discuss/consider this with my solicitor.

Thank you for your correspondence, on behalf of your client Mr XXXXXX XXXXXXX, which was received by email, dated XX/XX/XXXX.

Mr XXXXXX was reported on Wednesday 17th July 2024, whilst travelling on London Underground between XXXXX XXXXX station and XXXXX XXXXX station. At approximately 5.50pm, Mr XXXXXXX used a pass which had activated the gate line monitor, which indicated that a high value pass has been used to open the gate.

Mr XXXXXX was approached by our frontline operational officer who requested to inspect the pass used to open the gate. Mr XXXXX produced for inspection a high value 60+ London Oystercard serial number XXXXXXXXXX XX, which he confirmed as belonging to his father. These passes are not transferable and are only valid for travel by the owner.

Mr XXXXXXX provided his name and address details and on further questioning confirmed that his father was not aware the pass was in his son’s possession and that he had been using the pass to avoid paying the correct fares for over 6 months.

Mr XXXXXXX was provided an opportunity to read the notes made and signed the Officers notebook as confirmation that the notes made were accurate.

Your representations submitted on behalf of your client will be taken into consideration during the review process which will be conducted in conjunction with our Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy.

This policy clarifies that TfL is committed to a fair and proactive approach in preventing and reducing the level of fare evasion on its services. We also recognised that that the decision to prosecute a person suspected of an offence is an important and serious one. As such we have due regard to the evidential test and the public interest test.

Section 6.2 of our Policy deals with the evidential test, and relies on the availability of the evidence and in this case this will include the 60+ London Oystercard, as well as the journey history of the pass, which was withdrawn from Mr XXXXXXX. The RCI’s (Revenue Control Inspector) Irregularity Report on the brief conversation and the admittance that this was the pass used for your clients journey and that the pass had not been issued to him and was therefore not valid for the journey your client had undertaken on the Transport Network.

Section 6.3 of our Policy then deals with the public interest and the interest of justice test and ensures that any prosecution is appropriate, fair and properly brought. TfL, as a public service provider, and rely on the fares paid by passengers to run and service the public transport network and although the fare avoided in this case amounted to £6.70, (not including and other fares avoided over the duration of use), the actual amount lost by TfL with passengers not paying their fare and/or using a pass which had not been issued to them, amounts to a revenue loss in excess of £130m per annum.

TfL also provide sufficient information on the Conditions of Use, the TfL Web site, as well as TfL’s Conditions of Carriage on the consequences of using a high value discounted pass, when you are not eligible to receive discounted or free travel on the Transport Network and therefore as a public service provider, it would be in the public interest to pursue such a case.

You have requested that TfL should dispose of this case by way of a formal warning, with an additional willingness to make full payment of the fares avoided, however, TfL do not have a policy of accepting any form of payment in lieu of a prosecution, and as such, have reviewed your representation in conjunction with section 6.3 of our Revenue Enforcement and Prosecution Policy and I have found no mitigation which meets the threshold of this case justifying the issuing of a formal warning.

TfL does not have a discretionary policy, where we can take into consideration any potential effect on your clients professional career path or expected future career path, as we are not in any position to assess a person’s suitability or decide if a person is fit and proper to hold any such position, and that only a professional standards authority or similar can decide this aspect. We make decisions on individual cases independent of each other and any decision is based on the merits of each case.

I can therefore confirm that this case has been reviewed on its merits and the representations you have thoroughly prepared and submitted, as well as the outcome of our own investigations and I have to conclude that, despite all of the evidence you have provided, and the detailed representations you have meticulously put together, I have not been swayed to issue a formal warning in this instance.

Consideration is still being made on pursuing further legal action against your client as this case is not one where there was a one off occasion of fare evasion, there was a deliberate intention to use the high value pass over an extended period of time.

If there is anything else you wish to add as further representation as to why Transport for London should not pursue further legal action against Mr XXXXXXX, please do provide this within the next 28 days to [email protected] ensuring that the case number, XXXXXXX, is clearly displayed.

 

[Hadders]

That's a very comprehensive response from TfL referencing their policy and I really don't think they are going to change their mind about prosecuting you.

To be blunt misuse of a Freedom Pass is a serious matter, more so when it's happened over a six month period. If cases like this don't end up in court then you have to wonder just how serious a case needs to be to end up in court.

 

[AlterEgo]

There’s not much else to say, looks like they will prosecute you (as they do with nearly every other habitual misuser of these passes). Your solicitor is your best bet of trying to avoid that, so I advise working with them to formulate a reply.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I can therefore confirm that this case has been reviewed on its merits and the representations you have thoroughly prepared and submitted, as well as the outcome of our own investigations and I have to conclude that, despite all of the evidence you have provided, and the detailed representations you have meticulously put together, I have not been swayed to issue a formal warning in this instance.

Consideration is still being made on pursuing further legal action against your client as this case is not one where there was a one off occasion of fare evasion, there was a deliberate intention to use the high value pass over an extended period of time.

If there is anything else you wish to add as further representation as to why Transport for London should not pursue further legal action against Mr XXXXXXX, please do provide this within the next 28 days to [email protected] ensuring that the case number, XXXXXXX, is clearly displayed

While I agree that it looks as if TfL have made up their mind to prosecute, I am sure that your solicitor will notice that you are being invited to make further representations. If your solicitor has worked cases like this before, they will know if the invitation is genuine or just for form (so TfL can show that they’re always willing to listen). If it’s real, then take your solicitor’s advice on what more they can say on your behalf.

 

[rp5689]

Hi All,

After having a look at the revenue enforcement and prosecutions policy online (link below), I am thinking of referencing some of the clauses within 8.2 (d), 8.3 (e) and (f), 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 (a) (b) (e) and (f). These clauses are potentially applicable to me and was thinking if I can refer back to specific clauses, it helps give reasoning to the officer as to why I should be given a warning.

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

Does anyone else have any advice that I could mention alongside the above points, or any other points I have not mentioned?

Thanking you all in advance for your advice and support.

 

[superkopite]

I think you are stretching there. Nothing you have said so far would indicate that any of those clauses would apply to your case

 

[djw]

I am thinking of referencing some of the clauses within 8.2 (d), 8.3 (e) and (f), 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 (a) (b) (e) and (f).

All of "8.3 (e) and (f), 8.4, 8.5, 8.6 (a) (b) (e) and (f)" is an exceptional circumstances argument - which TfL seem to construe very narrowly. Exceptional circumstances are defined by 8.5 as a determination by the relevant Appeals and Prosecution Manager based on the facts of the case. TfL deals with lots of abuse of high-value pass cases and is keen to prosecute them. Your fear of the consequences of conviction does not make your case exceptional.

8.2(d) is pre-existing mental health or disability, which is presumably part of the mitigation that the solicitor has already put forward.

There is a strong presumption in favour of prosecution in 3.1(a): "TfL will prosecute all ... fare evasion offences". The decision to prosecute is a balancing act, and you need to bear in mind that you have two of the factors in favour of prosecution: 8.1(e) failure to pay and 8.1(f) misuse of a high-value pass. The only factor against prosecution is 8.2(d) mental health or disability - but your mental health or disability is not preventing you from being able to work in a responsible job in finance. Unless you have independent medical evidence indicating a tendency towards poor decision-making or extreme vulnerability on health grounds, you probably cannot persuade TfL that the case should be dropped on mental health or disability grounds - and if you can make this argument, then you are also potentially arguing that you are medically unfit to do your job.

As others have said, it looks like TfL has decided to prosecute. You have no right to insist on an out-of-court disposition, and TfL does not normally offer one. That said, talk to your solicitor about what further representations are appropriate in the circumstances; you are paying them for their advice and advocacy.

 

[rp5689]

Oh no. From reading the replies it doesn’t look too promising

Can someone help clarify what implications there are if they prosecute me. Does this mean a criminal record, and will it show on searches done by employers.

Apologies if the question has been answered, but I just want to be sure and find out if the prosecution is treated in the same manner compared to a much serious/violent crime such as assault would be.