Caught with a Zone 1&2 Travel Card... I was coming from Zone 4

[zebedee104]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

 

[SurfSteve]

Not with paper tickets!

Interesting, I only ever used paper tickets for this reason, I knew Oysters would be trackable.
Because my daily routine changed when I told them my evading began (start of the year when I started at the gym ((admittedly this only occurred to me this afternoon)) will this make it harder to detect me?

How do they calculate this? They take what they know (5 months), find out what they can about your employment history and perhaps make assumptions. .

This is the thing, I've worked in central London for 6 years, I've only evaded for 2 of them. If they look at my employment history could they say that I've worked there for 6 years and therefore I owe them 6 years. My previous journeys were also always on paper tickets so once again it becomes hard to prove. I guess it could end up working in my favour that I was honest, or against me in the fact I can't prove I travelled legitimately prior to being caught.

 

[SurfSteve]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

Well there goes this theory down the pan! Thanks for the advice!

 

[Haywain]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

I'm really not sure how you think a pattern of behaviour will be traced, or how barriers can show that the ticket presented has been misused. If the user has presented a ticket that was valid from the last station at which the train they alighted from called how is any misuse detected?

I agree that with Oyster the barrier may indicate an incomplete journey because of no tap in, but there is no means of doing this for a paper ticket. If it helps, I have written gating logic for Cubic barriers, and I have experience of using the data collected by such barriers to investigate usage issues.

 

[farleigh]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

This is completely incorrect.

 

[island]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

Which is to say, not very capable at all.

Paper ticket usage is not logged. Please stop confusing people.

 

[Haywain]

Paper ticket usage is not logged.

At least, not in a way that can be traced to the people using the paper tickets.

 

[nuts & bolts]

Not with paper tickets!

But with tickets purchased on plastic, there lies the paper trail!

To the OP - your main concern is not to go to trial, any settlement however large negotiated with Southeastern is a plus as in your position.

 

[Haywain]

But with tickets purchased on plastic, there lies the paper trail!

Yes, I have already stated that but the OP used paper tickets, so what happens with plastic is irrelevant.

 

[6Gman]

Interesting, I only ever used paper tickets for this reason, I knew Oysters would be trackable.
Because my daily routine changed when I told them my evading began (start of the year when I started at the gym ((admittedly this only occurred to me this afternoon)) will this make it harder to detect me?
This is the thing, I've worked in central London for 6 years, I've only evaded for 2 of them. If they look at my employment history could they say that I've worked there for 6 years and therefore I owe them 6 years. My previous journeys were also always on paper tickets so once again it becomes hard to prove. I guess it could end up working in my favour that I was honest, or against me in the fact I can't prove I travelled legitimately prior to being caught.

On the first part I have underlined, bear in mind that they may ask you about this. "Why did you use paper tickets rather than Oyster for such regular journeys?" "So it couldn't be tracked" is not a good answer ...
On the second part I've highlighted, you weren't honest were you?

The TOC has you 'bang to rights' on this. You've admitted the offence and that you've been doing it for an extended period.

They may choose to go straight to prosecution. They may want to explore the matter further perhaps by asking you to attend an interview. If you are (very) lucky they may offer an administrative settlement (not a fine as such) but this would involve the fares avoided (c.£500 ? over 5 months) plus a significant contribution toward their admin costs.

Be very careful or you may further incriminate yourself. And remember - on the issue of what evidence they may, or may not, have on your past behaviour - they know what they have, or don't have. You don't.

 

[nuts & bolts]

Yes, I have already stated that but the OP used paper tickets, so what happens with plastic is irrelevant.

In post #2 I asked the OP how he paid for his travel, that reply is very relevant.

 

[Starmill]

I initially said I came from London Bridge to Cannon St. They put the pressure on and said something like "Are you sure thats the truth? We can run your ticket and check"

Something is not right here. Why did they want to know which station you had travelled from? And why might they not have believed that you came from London Bridge?

Was the company already gathering evidence on you before they asked to inspect your ticket at London Cannon Street station that day?

 

[najaB]

Was the company already gathering evidence on you before they asked to inspect your ticket at London Cannon Street station that day?

That sounds likely.

 

[SurfSteve]

Something is not right here. Why did they want to know which station you had travelled from? And why might they not have believed that you came from London Bridge?

Was the company already gathering evidence on you before they asked to inspect your ticket at London Cannon Street station that day?

This is a possibility. There was a huge number of plain clothes ticket inspectors there, people were getting pulled over left right and centre. It looked more like it was a planned operation and they were catching people out. Obviously I’ll never know for sure.

I know I’m bang to rights, and that court is the most likely outcome. I’m going to hold my hands up to whatever they charge me with and try and offer a substantive out of court settlement.

I apologise if I’m coming across as a bit of a dick. I know I’ve done wrong and I’m going to face the consequences, I’m just trying to figure out what they will be.

 

[yorkie]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

Err, no it wouldn't. I also know @Haywain has a lot of experience with this sort of thing.

 

[Haywain]

In post #2 I asked the OP how he paid for his travel, that reply is very relevant.

He paid by card to use paper tickets. It’s potentially possible from that to trace what was bought but not how and where the tickets were used. It is the latter that I have been referring to.

 

[RunawayTrain]

If you know you've done wrong and feel remorse you could fess up for the whole 2 years and pay/face what's due. You spoke of poor sleep so maybe this might help you sleep better.

 

[najaB]

If you know you've done wrong and feel remorse you could fess up for the whole 2 years and pay/face what's due. You spoke of poor sleep so maybe this might help you sleep better.

The OP is as likely to face prosecution for five to six month's misuse as for two years so there seems, to me at least, no upside in persisting with the lie but significant potential downside if the truth comes out.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In terms of demonstrating how long the OP has been evading fares (from the railway's point of view) / how short a period (the OP's perspective) I can well imagine the railway company inviting the OP to provide bank and credit card statements to show what train tickets they bought. The OP is under no obligation to provide this information - but the railway could then ask 'why did you not want to make your statements available?' - to which 'because it would show how long I have been fare-dodging' is not an answer the OP might want to give. Alternatively, assuming that the railway know that the OP has lived at their current location and worked in town for six years, they might invite a settlement on an assumption of fare-dodging for that period. They could then reasonably decline a shorter settlement if the OP declined to provide evidence why a shorter period was appropriate.

In short, the railway may not be able to force the OP to produce evidence or answer questions: but if the OP wants to rely on particular facts, they are going to have to produce evidence to support those facts.

 

[RunawayTrain]

The OP is as likely to face prosecution for five to six month's misuse as for two years so there seems, to me at least, no upside in persisting with the lie but significant potential downside if the truth comes out.

The OP says that he feels remorse, and if this is true then the upside of coming clean and repaying what he owes is that his remorse will be eased.

 

[furlong]

Two well-reported cases to reflect upon. The first, a suspended jail sentence and compensation awarded based on season ticket prices (where the company had asked for a much higher figure probably based on anytime singles). The second, a quick out-of-court settlement (probably based on anytime singles) without prosecution.

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/barrister-sentenced-for-train-fare-evasion/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...dger-asks-to-pay-back-a-third-of-penalty.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ows-dodged-43-000-rail-fares-paid-3-days.html

So to repeat, take professional advice, and perhaps you steer the situation towards a settlement.

 

[najaB]

The OP says that he feels remorse, and if this is true then the upside of coming clean and repaying what he owes is that his remorse will be eased.

That is also true.

 

[RPOMan]

Does anybody know how they backdate the fines by the way? Besides my confession how can they prove I was fare evading for a long period of time?

They may be able to check how long you have been purchasing the 1-2 travel card and if you had previously purchased different travel cards.

 

[mmh]

bear in mind that they may ask you about this. "Why did you use paper tickets rather than Oyster for such regular journeys?"

Highly unlikely. It would be an irrelevant question.

"Because I've never had an Oyster card, I don't use buses."

 

[Surreytraveller]

If you hadn't have been caught, how long would you have carried on doing it for?

 

[cuccir]

bear in mind that they may ask you about this. "Why did you use paper tickets rather than Oyster for such regular journeys?"

Highly unlikely. It would be an irrelevant question.

"Because I've never had an Oyster card, I don't use buses."

6Gman explains quite clearly why they would ask this question. It's to see if SurfSteve incriminates himself by revealing that he purchased paper tickets so his behaviour couldn't be tracked via Oyster. Remember as far as the TOC is concerned, the purpose of the interview is in part to gather evidence to support a possible prosecution ie evidence of intent to avoid a fare. As we've said repeatedly, this is why having legal advice might be useful if an interview is requested.

Either way, it seems a bit premature in wondering what questions would come at an interview, given that SurfSteve has not yet even heard from the train company. Until he does, I'm not sure what else there is to be said about this case.

 

[urpert]

Of course it would!!! Why do you think the Underground barriers have had an error code for Dumbbell ever since the year dot? And I appreciate it’s not the Underground, but National Rail barriers are just as capable as those Underground.

The vast majority of Southeastern stations are unbarriered anyway though.

 

[SurfSteve]

Slight update with this, it has now been 4 weeks since the incident & I have not heard anything. I was told at the time my first letter would be received "within 3-4 weeks". I've read on here that it can take them up to six months to send one through? Is this correct?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Slight update with this, it has now been 4 weeks since the incident & I have not heard anything. I was told at the time my first letter would be received "within 3-4 weeks". I've read on here that it can take them up to six months to send one through? Is this correct?

Yes - the time taken to receive a letter can vary significantly depending on your 'luck'. The only absolute deadline in it all is that, if the TOC wishes to prosecute, it must lay the information before the Court no later than 6 months after the date of the alleged offence. So any letters asking for information to enable them to make a decision will have to be sent at least about a month before this deadline if they wish to allow people a reasonable time to respond and enough time to consider the response.

It is of course not unheard of for cases to go straight to a summons without previous correspondence and unlike in a civil case there is no obligation for either party to attempt to come to a reasonable settlement.

 

[Deerfold]

Highly unlikely. It would be an irrelevant question.

"Because I've never had an Oyster card, I don't use buses."

How is this relevant? Travelcards have the same validity on buses whether Oyster or paper.