Facing prosecution for slip of the tongue

Discussion in 'Disputes & Prosecutions' started by Tentx, 12 Dec 2019.

  1. Bertie the bus

    Bertie the bus Established Member

    Messages:
    1,460
    Joined:
    15 Aug 2014
    As I have already pointed out, and the letter the OP has received backs up, just telling people what they want to hear doesn’t help them. It does the opposite of what you intend.
     
  2. Kilopylae

    Kilopylae Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    9 Apr 2019
    Location:
    South-West England
    I think it's particularly egregious that, having read this thread and yet having somehow still determined that Tentx is guilty, he decided to throw in what I can only imagine would have been a snide or patronising reference to a 'forum that gives bad advice'. T.I.L. need to have their wings clipped.
     
  3. IamTrainsYT

    IamTrainsYT Member

    Messages:
    446
    Joined:
    8 Dec 2018
    Location:
    Broadbottom
    In the end, couldn’t they watch back the CCTV and see where you came from
     
  4. Kilopylae

    Kilopylae Member

    Messages:
    57
    Joined:
    9 Apr 2019
    Location:
    South-West England
    Have you read this thread?

    It is not in contention that she and her friends boarded at Stoke Mandeville. The issue is that she said Amersham by mistake and is now being accused of having tried to intentionally fare dodge.
     
  5. some bloke

    some bloke Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    12 Feb 2017
    He appears to be saying TIL won't settle, rather than that he knows Chiltern won't.

    You may be making some progress. It's probably better to sort out misunderstandings before court, rather than at court.

    You can say in your first letter to Chiltern that you would like to clarify the position, following TIL's account of your defence.
    Possible answer: "It is more complex than the investigator might imply. I clearly knew earlier that we had travelled from Stoke Mandeville. But when I gave my answer, I was unaware that I was saying anything untrue. I then realised that I had made a mistake."

    Possible answer: "The investigator's response here is not relevant to the defence I gave. In my letters I did not use the idea of a "slip of the tongue" as an "excuse", or the idea that the station names sounded alike."

    It may or may not be relevant that he wrote,
    whereas you had written,
     
    Last edited: 13 Jan 2020
  6. Haywain

    Haywain Established Member

    Messages:
    4,092
    Joined:
    3 Feb 2013
    If TIL are recommending going ahead with a prosecution it is abundantly clear that they think that Tentx is guilty, or they are wasting both the court's and their client's time. To suggest stating this fact is bullying is ludicrous.
     
  7. Bertie the bus

    Bertie the bus Established Member

    Messages:
    1,460
    Joined:
    15 Aug 2014
    I honestly don't see how any additional advice on this thread is worthwhile. The investigator has stated he reads it and when the OP is still making comments like the one below she obviously still thinks she has done nothing wrong and is being persecuted.
     
  8. Fawkes Cat

    Fawkes Cat Member

    Messages:
    701
    Joined:
    8 May 2017
    So let's summarise the current position
    - the case is still with TIL
    - they have advised that they don't see any reason why they should not recommend that Chiltern prosecute you.

    So you are almost at the end of the line with TIL, but then there will be a whole new group of people at Chiltern looking at whether to prosecute. So the practical advice of what to do next remains the same - make sure you reply to every contact, explaining that you have learnt your lesson and asking if they would agree to settle out of court. It's possible that once the case is with Chiltern, they will agree.

    The time when you may have to change how you respond is when you are told that the case is going to court (as opposed to them thinking about taking it to court). If you reach that point, you will have to choose - plead guilty as early as possible and get the lowest possible fine, or ask for the case to be heard, which will cost more if you lose, but give one last chance to seek an out of court settlement. You will also have to take into account whether you sincerely believe by the letter of the law whether you are innocent or guilty.

    So for the moment, keep plugging along with the apologies. But keep an eye out for a summons or a 'single justice procedure' notice.
     
  9. Starmill

    Starmill Events Co-ordinator

    Messages:
    13,850
    Joined:
    18 May 2012
    Location:
    Manchester
    My interpretation of the comment is that management at TIL dislike this board a great deal, because it is a means of exposing their immoral business practices, so they will use the opportunity to throw criticism around.
     
  10. gray1404

    gray1404 Established Member

    Messages:
    4,620
    Joined:
    3 Mar 2014
    Location:
    Merseyside
    Just to echo the advise given above. You have more chances of getting offered an out of court settlement from the train company directly, rather then TIL. They are a hopeless cowboy organisation whose days are numbered. They do not engage in any meaningful dialogue with customers and clearly get a buzz out of sending letters to people threatening them with a criminal record rather then actually resolving a problem. I am seeing multiple breaches of the civil procedure regulations on their part.

    The next step is to continue to request an out of court settlement in response to any correspondences you receive. If TIL are passing the file back to the train company, I would expect your previous contact to be there any the person at the train company will see that you have learnt your lesson and want to settle.
     
  11. stuart

    stuart Member

    Messages:
    98
    Joined:
    15 May 2012
    Location:
    Highlands of Scotland
    I've read all through this thread, and while there seems to be a lot of going over the same ground, one thing I don't think has really been pursued is the comment (my italics) in the original post of "I often mince my words". We've been through how Amersham might have popped into the OP's mind on this occasion, but this would be a more credible line of defence if there were any evidence of other occasions, quite unrelated, where the OP has said one thing and meant another. This is pretty much the only thing that, as an impartial reader of the story, would now convince me of innocent intentions.
     
  12. CyrusWuff

    CyrusWuff Established Member

    Messages:
    2,218
    Joined:
    20 May 2013
    Taking a step back for a moment, let's look at the potential loss of revenue had the OP been sold tickets from Amersham. I'm going to assume none of the group holds a Railcard at this point.

    An Off-Peak Day Travelcard from Amersham is £14.50, so five would come to £71.50.

    An Off-Peak Day Travelcard from Stoke Mandeville is £23.50. However, Chiltern offer a "Small Group" discount which works like old Groupsave (i.e. 3 or 4 Adults for the price of 2 and kids go for £1).

    Applying the discount, four people would have paid £11.75 each and the fifth would have paid £23.50, making a total of £70.50.

    Obviously the figures will be different if anyone has a Railcard, but even though a short fare was offered it would have potentially ended up costing the OP £1.00 more than the correct fare had it been sold!
     
    Last edited: 15 Jan 2020
  13. some bloke

    some bloke Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    12 Feb 2017
    Bearing in mind that the letter of the law is not necessarily what we expect:

    "A man who has been physically conveyed on a railway does not cease to travel on that railway merely by alighting on the platform."
    https://swarb.co.uk/bremme-v-dubery-1964/

    A person who intended to pay, until they decided at the destination's barrier to take an opportunity to short-fare, would still be guilty of travelling on the "railway" "with intent to avoid...".

    @Tentx, I'm not saying this applies to you - it's just a clarification.
     

Share This Page