False accusation with notification to prosecute

[Fiona Quayle]

Dear Forum,
on 31st July, my son escorted his girlfriend to the platform to wave her off on her return home after staying with us. Once the train had left and he was returning home , leaving the platform in the normal manner, he was stopped by officials who didn't believe his genuine account.
Yesterday we received a Pre-Court Settlement Offer. It stated that he "travelled/attempted to travel ....without a valid ticket." He had not.
I loath the idea of him going to court, but nor do I want young people to accept injustice .
Surely, if it goes to court CCTV can be used : he simply did as he said .
We have commonly escorted people to the platform over 20 years with no previous challenge .
There is no barrier at West Drayton Station.
Any advice please ?

 

[Fiona Quayle]

Also, his brother can vouch for my son's presence in the house until the few minutes it takes to walk to the station.

 

[Haywain]

So, there are two witnesses who can attest to his not having boarded a train - his brother and his girlfriend? In the first instance you (he) should respond to the letter stating exactly what happened and that there are witnesses to back up the facts, and ask for any available CCTV to be urgently reviewed. As CCTV is not usually kept for more than pone month, this is particularly time sensitive. However, if this goes to court it is for the rail company (is it Transport for London?) to prove that he did travel or attempt to travel and he seems to have strong evidence to the contrary.

 

[some bloke]

One of the best pieces of advice may be not to worry. It sounds like court - in itself - wouldn't be a problem, by which I mean it should be thrown out easily. Of course this kind of thing can be stressful.

I'm guessing you, perhaps other family members and friends may have been aware that his girlfriend was staying, and there may be more witnesses from elsewhere who can also support his version in various ways. There are other things which may be relevant as well, such as browsing history on a desktop computer, or location information on his phone.
I'm not saying he needs to do much to gather that kind of information, or reveal it - just that these are things which he could mention as the sorts of evidence he would be able to supply.

"Attempt to travel" sounds like it may be a quotation from the offence involving deliberate intent to avoid a fare. If you upload the letter with identifying details removed, people on here can confirm and perhaps comment on other aspects.

Where someone is so clearly innocent, it may be suitable to call the prosecutions department and/or offer an interview, as there should be little risk of self-incrimination!

However, a firm but polite letter stating the facts and that there are witnesses and perhaps evidence, would hopefully get rid of this. If it doesn't he may have to be a bit persistent. If by some strange means it did end up with a court case, he could turn up early (maybe with one or more of the witnesses) and try and talk to the prosecutor. There would also be the option of a solicitor - he may be eligible for free legal advice through a union, bank account or insurance, and some solicitors offer free initial consultations. But it's hard to see how the company is going to get very far with this.

 

[some bloke]

If it went to court, their witness, their lawyer and the company would risk looking quite silly.

I wonder if in these kinds of perhaps farcical cases it's worth writing to, or copying correspondence to, senior management of the company, if an initial letter doesn't work.

It may be best to decide only to devote a small amount of time to thinking about this. A letter should be short, and if you upload a draft people on here can advise.

 

[matt_world2004]

Do you know if the inspectors work for TfL Rail or GwR. tfL rail sometimes train their inspectors by having them work at stations where none of their services call but that they operate.

 

[Fiona Quayle]

Thank you so much

So, there are two witnesses who can attest to his not having boarded a train - his brother and his girlfriend? In the first instance you (he) should respond to the letter stating exactly what happened and that there are witnesses to back up the facts, and ask for any available CCTV to be urgently reviewed. As CCTV is not usually kept for more than pone month, this is particularly time sensitive. However, if this goes to court it is for the rail company (is it Transport for London?) to prove that he did travel or attempt to travel and he seems to have strong evidence to the contrary.

We will act on your advice.Thank you for responding

If it went to court, their witness, their lawyer and the company would risk looking quite silly.

I wonder if in these kinds of perhaps farcical cases it's worth writing to, or copying correspondence to, senior management of the company, if an initial letter doesn't work.

It may be best to decide only to devote a small amount of time to thinking about this. A letter should be short, and if you upload a draft people on here can advise.

Thank you for so much for taking the trouble to advise and respond . Will do all of that. You have all reassured me.

Do you know if the inspectors work for TfL Rail or GwR. tfL rail sometimes train their inspectors by having them work at stations where none of their services call but that they operate.

No, I don't know.

 

[js1000]

Firstly, don't worry. Based on what's you've told us this shouldn't go to court as they risk looking like complete fools and the settlement should be dropped as no offence has been committed.

Write a polite letter. Keep it concise. The three salient points I would make:

- State clearly they "did not travel or attempt to travel" - they were simply helping their partner onto the train. I wouldn't even mention the "without a valid ticket" as given they have not travelled any accusation of doing so is null and void.

- You complied with revenue officers in a polite manner. Your honest account was not believed and there is no evidence that demonstrates you either travelled or attempted to travel - you were simply helping your partner onto the platform/train. Conversely, you have two witnesses to support your account.

- If there is any further doubt from this misunderstanding, state that they ought to look at CCTV of the station as a matter of urgency (given this is not usually kept for any longer than 30 days). By doing this you're putting the ball in their court. It will be difficult for any case to stand up when the accused has specifically asked them to corroborate their account with CCTV that only they have access to. There is a reason fare evaders never ask for CCTV!

 

[CyrusWuff]

Just a thought, but with West Drayton having transferred from being managed by GWR to being managed by TfL Rail, is it possible that they've made the platforms a Compulsory Ticket Area?

Having said that, however, I'd generally expect a CTA breach to be dealt with by means of a Penalty Fare rather than a report for possible prosecution.

 

[hkstudent]

If West Drayton is a Compulsory Ticket Area, OP would have to buy a platform ticket (lowest child fare ticket) to access to the platform.
However, I am not sure whether TfL Railway Byelaws applies to TfL Rail.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

If not, then NR Railway Byelaws applies:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Both indicated the need to have a ticket entering CTA, not just on the train.

 

[kw12]

If West Drayton is a Compulsory Ticket Area, OP would have to buy a platform ticket (lowest child fare ticket) to access to the platform.
However, I am not sure whether TfL Railway Byelaws applies to TfL Rail.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf

If not, then NR Railway Byelaws applies:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Both indicated the need to have a ticket entering CTA, not just on the train.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/828220/English_Hearing_Cases_30.08.2019.pdf lists "Single Justice Procedure cases" that were "ready for hearing" when the report was run at 04.00 this morning.

This list includes 110 cases of "Enter a compulsory ticket area on the Transport for London regional railway network without a valid ticket", including at least one with a "UB" postcode (so potentially related to West Drayton station (UB7 9DY)). There are no references to "compulsory ticket area" cases for any other network.

 

[kristiang85]

If he has his timeline activated on his smartphone (in Google Maps), then that can be used too to corroborate with the times mentioned in the charge.

 

[Haywain]

If he has his timeline activated on his smartphone (in Google Maps), then that can be used too to corroborate with the times mentioned in the charge.

Because that's so reliable. My timeline for a few days ago had me in Kensington while I was actually in Peterborough.

 

[robbeech]

The ticket of your partner to show that they were travelling FROM this station to elsewhere ought to be sufficient on its own with an explanation as to why YOU were there.
It’s unlikely they were leaving with a ticket and you were arriving without a ticket.

 

[najaB]

Because that's so reliable. My timeline for a few days ago had me in Kensington while I was actually in Peterborough.

No, it's not reliable in itself. It would, however, help to build a body of evidence enough to cast doubt on the TOC's accusation.