-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Fare Evasion Zone 1-8 Southeastern Railways
- Thread starter Emily1212
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If this goes to court it is more than likely that they would prosecute you for a breach of the Regulation of Railways Act. A guilty verdict (and to be honest I can't see any way that could be avoided) would be visible on your record for at least 12 months.
The circumstances you mention might result in a lower fine being imposed, but do not constitute grounds for a not-guilty verdict to be returned.
The fact that you are taking responsibility and acknowledge that you have committed an offense will go a long way in trying to achieve an out of court settlement. It is, after all, in Southeastern's best interest to resolve this administratively rather than through the courts.
They won't be. The OP is saying that when the letter does come (addressed to the husband) then she is going to say it was her committing the offences last year.
TurbostarFan
On Moderation
But wouldn't that be fraud?
Stupid question perhaps, but don't you have to touch in with an Oyster card? Didn't realise you could just get on in zone 8 and touch out in zone 1 without first touching in. Do you have to get off at a zone 2 station to touch in?
You routinely see people on trains from further afield jumping out at Brixton and Nunhead to touch in on the conveniently placed (for fare evaders) platform readers before getting back on the same train. I assume this is necessary so they can touch out at their gated zone 1 destination.
Edit: I'm guessing the zone 8 station in question is Swanley as Dartford is gated and I don't think Swanley is.
You routinely see people on trains from further afield jumping out at Brixton and Nunhead to touch in on the conveniently placed (for fare evaders) platform readers before getting back on the same train. I assume this is necessary so they can touch out at their gated zone 1 destination.
Edit: I'm guessing the zone 8 station in question is Swanley as Dartford is gated and I don't think Swanley is.
Last edited:
nuts & bolts
Member
Who's name is it under?
I presume that she means that it's an unregistered card.
You don't need to have touched on with a Travelcard to be able to touch out, but if you never touch on it may raise suspicions that you have been travelling from further afield - that is why you see people jumping off the train to touch on at those stations.
Unlikely in the sense that you mean it. An Oyster card with a travelcard can only be used by the person who bought the travelcard. If it's registered then that should be the person it is registered to. You can however buy weekly travelcards for unregistered Oyster cards, and whilst a card has no travelcard loaded on it, it can be lent to other people at will. Thus it's quite in order for one person to use a travelcard one week and another to use it the following week.
And if by that question your meant her saying that she made the journeys rather than him, that is exactly what happened: she made the bulk of the journeys but he got caught.
TurbostarFan
On Moderation
Yes that is fraud by false representation and also by failing to disclose information. Additionally this could be considered an offence under the Railway Byelaws.
She intends, when questioned, to tell the truth about who made the journeys. You have an odd definition of fraud.
the chairman
Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 14
The TOC would be justified in getting BTP to charge them under section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006. There is clear evidence.
I think there's an important point of clarification to be made here. As stated in MikeWh's helpful post an unregistered Oyster card can be used by anyone to make a journey. It's only when there's a specific product (such as a Weekly Travelcard) that it becomes "restricted" to the person who bought the Travelcard. The OP was travelling last year with weekly Zones 1 - 2 Travelcards and then stopped using the card. The OPs husband then started using it and bought their own Travelcard's again Zones 1 - 2. When the husband got pulled by RPIs they obviously noticed the usage from last year so will doubtlessly write to him about the time he was caught but also about all the other journeys at which point the OP will confess that those journeys were her travelling. At no stage was the OP travelling using a Travelcard bought by her husband. And vice versa at no stage was the husband travelling using the OP's Travelcard. Sharing an Oyster card in that manner is perfectly legitimate and not an issue.
The OP stating that the journey's made last year were made by her is not fraud or misrepresentation. Indeed it would be misrepresentation for the husband to claim that he made the journeys when it was actually her!
The OP stating that the journey's made last year were made by her is not fraud or misrepresentation. Indeed it would be misrepresentation for the husband to claim that he made the journeys when it was actually her!
Indeed, where a husband or wife "takes the rap" for the other one by owning up to stuff they didn't do then it is a case of "Perverting the Course of Justice" which is a very serious criminal offence: see the case of Chris Huhne MP and Vicky Price for a high-profile case where wife tried to take points for her husband and both ended up in prison.
Each case is different, but here's a high-profile case where Southeastern settled for an amount we guess was roughly two full price singles for each day of the period concerned, which is what train companies like to ask for, plus the costs of their investigation. An addendum to the story suggests the calculation of the loss might not have been agreed, but he paid it anyway to bring the matter to a close. A criminal court might only award compensation based on the actual loss to the company i.e. season ticket prices and allowing for any fares already paid (put the company back into the same financial position it would have been in if the crime had not happened), so the company might prefer to agree an out-of-court settlement on the higher full price daily singles basis it would argue for (civil law contract) rather than prosecute and find the court might only award it a lower amount of compensation based on season tickets. Consider employing a solicitor to help you to navigate your way through the situation to try to reach a settlement.
Last edited:
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
Here's a suggestion. They might appreciate it if you write with the full story now, rather than letting them work on the case under the impression either that it was your husband all the time or that there is some doubt over who used the card for the earlier period. That might apply even if the work they do is fairly negligible - if you don't tell them, someone in the office might feel that they are unnecessarily sending paperwork out again. Also, if you don't tell them they won't know that you are willing to admit it at this early stage; they might think that you kept on wanting to keep it secret for several months.
It may not be easy for your husband to know how the staff member perceived the issue of who used the card earlier. Did they just say something like "it looks as though similar journeys were made last year" or did they take anything he said or did as indicating it was him? Even if it doesn't matter legally, it may be a factor in whether you write to them as above.
The basic rule is that it depends on the sentence. As a Regulation of Railways Act or byelaw conviction would result in a fine, it would be "spent" after a year for anyone over 18 years of age.
https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment
(The page is wrong about the period for under-18s, which is in fact halved.)
A Regulation of Railways Act conviction, being for a "recordable" offence, would be put on the Police National Computer and so automatically appear in DBS checks, but still "spent" after a year. A byelaw conviction is unlikely to be disclosed on a DBS checks because even if the police force is aware of it they may be likely to think it isn't relevant. That is a separate issue from your duty to disclose it if asked. For some jobs and perhaps for some professional organisations even spent convictions would have to be disclosed, and higher-level DBS checks would reveal spent convictions for "recordable" offences.
You're writing about yourself in the singular. Whether they would regard this more seriously because you both used the card and so might reasonably be thought to have communicated about wrongful use of it may be something a solicitor would be best qualified to comment on: that might be an additional reason to that given by @furlong above for consulting one.
If either of you have union membership, or relevant benefits which come with a bank account or insurance, you may be able to get free legal advice. Otherwise the Law Society has a register of solicitors.
https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk
Other sources of information and advice are these, both of which have helplines:
https://www.nacro.org.uk/
https://hub.unlock.org.uk/information/
It may not be easy for your husband to know how the staff member perceived the issue of who used the card earlier. Did they just say something like "it looks as though similar journeys were made last year" or did they take anything he said or did as indicating it was him? Even if it doesn't matter legally, it may be a factor in whether you write to them as above.
The basic rule is that it depends on the sentence. As a Regulation of Railways Act or byelaw conviction would result in a fine, it would be "spent" after a year for anyone over 18 years of age.
https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment
(The page is wrong about the period for under-18s, which is in fact halved.)
A Regulation of Railways Act conviction, being for a "recordable" offence, would be put on the Police National Computer and so automatically appear in DBS checks, but still "spent" after a year. A byelaw conviction is unlikely to be disclosed on a DBS checks because even if the police force is aware of it they may be likely to think it isn't relevant. That is a separate issue from your duty to disclose it if asked. For some jobs and perhaps for some professional organisations even spent convictions would have to be disclosed, and higher-level DBS checks would reveal spent convictions for "recordable" offences.
You're writing about yourself in the singular. Whether they would regard this more seriously because you both used the card and so might reasonably be thought to have communicated about wrongful use of it may be something a solicitor would be best qualified to comment on: that might be an additional reason to that given by @furlong above for consulting one.
If either of you have union membership, or relevant benefits which come with a bank account or insurance, you may be able to get free legal advice. Otherwise the Law Society has a register of solicitors.
https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk
Other sources of information and advice are these, both of which have helplines:
https://www.nacro.org.uk/
https://hub.unlock.org.uk/information/
Last edited:
gray1404
Established Member
Is there a possibility that once the OP's husband truthfully states that he was not the person making any previous journeys then the TOC will be limited to only dealing with the matter at hand? That is, the issue of the journey on the day he was stopped. The husband cannot be punished for his wife's actions. Although previous journeys made on the card the train company doesn't have any proof thus far that those journey's involved any underpayment of fare. They would need such proof before being able to take action.
BluePenguin
On Moderation
I agree with this.
There is no evidence that the journeys made during 2018 were made from Zone 8 instead of 1 or 2.
Last edited by a moderator:
While I agree that there is no need for the OP to offer incriminating evidence, I think it's a very risky strategy being proposed. TfL are likely to ask questions about how long this has been going on, and depending on how the question is phrased it would be very easy to tell a lie through omission.
To the OP, if you want to adopt this strategy I'd advise having a solicitor involved at an early stage to ensure that you don't say something that later ends up making this matter even more serious.
gray1404
Established Member
In their opening post the OP mentions ''Southeastern Railways" not TfL.
Indeed they did. Though it's not clear that it's Southeastern Railways that stopped the OP's husband. In any case, I would have posted the same thing.
gray1404
Established Member
Can the OP please confirm if their partner was stopped by South Eastern or Transport for London? Hopefully it was the former.
- Status