first capital connect intention to prosecute

[f9121]

I have recieved a letter from fcc saying they are intending to prosecture as I was travelling with an invalid ticket. The ticket was invalid for 2 reasons, it was a 3 person grouosave and there was 2/3 of us there and it was a return ticket I had purchased at 5pm on the tuesday and was travelling back at 6am on the wednesday.
I thought my ticket was valid as I had never heard all 3 persons of the groupsave had to travel together (I presumed the ticket officer who we purchased it from would have told us this??) and secondly I had heard return tickets were valid until before rush hour of the next morning, ie catch the early trains back before 6:30 (I was on the 6.06).

I offered to pay the fine but they are prosecuting instread. The ticket I should have bought cost 7.50. I am a veterinary student and am terrified that if I get a criminal convicion I will not be able to become a vet. Can someone help me and let me know what my options are to avoid this????

 

[tony6499]

What happened to the other person ? You mention 2 of the 3 travelling together, did they receive the same letter ?

 

[f9121]

yes she has recieved a letter also, however her charge is different, it says she refused to provide/hand over a ticket. shes also a vet student so in the same situation. The other person got a different train and wasnt stopped.

 

[Wath Yard]

For clarification, what did you ask for when you purchased the ticket?

Did you ask for a Groupsave ticket and did you ask for a day return? If you didn't directly ask for them what did you ask for, and did you say you would be returning together or when you would be returning? Did the person selling the ticket say something like 'as there are 3 of you this will work out cheaper'?

 

[f9121]

we asked for a 3 person groupsave return to kings cross, there was no mention of will we all of be travelling together, he just told us the price and gave us the tickets

 

[Wath Yard]

If you ask for a specific ticket there is no reason to expect the ticket clerk to explain the validity as he/she would assume you would know seeing as you asked for it.

Unfortunately, as far as rail tickets are concerned thinking something about the validity of the ticket or some random person telling you something about its validity doesn't make it valid.

 

[f9121]

If you ask for a specific ticket there is no reason to expect the ticket clerk to explain the validity as he/she would assume you would know seeing as you asked for it.

Unfortunately, as far as rail tickets are concerned thinking something about the validity of the ticket or some random person telling you something about its validity doesn't make it valid.

do you have any idea what my chances of being prosecuted are?

 

[Ferret]

I have recieved a letter from fcc saying they are intending to prosecture as I was travelling with an invalid ticket. The ticket was invalid for 2 reasons, it was a 3 person grouosave and there was 2/3 of us there and it was a return ticket I had purchased at 5pm on the tuesday and was travelling back at 6am on the wednesday.
I thought my ticket was valid as I had never heard all 3 persons of the groupsave had to travel together (I presumed the ticket officer who we purchased it from would have told us this??) and secondly I had heard return tickets were valid until before rush hour of the next morning, ie catch the early trains back before 6:30 (I was on the 6.06).

I offered to pay the fine but they are prosecuting instread. The ticket I should have bought cost 7.50. I am a veterinary student and am terrified that if I get a criminal convicion I will not be able to become a vet. Can someone help me and let me know what my options are to avoid this????

I'm well aware that some members of the forum will criticise me for this, but I don't care. So, you got a *group* ticket, and you didn't realise you had to travel as part of a *group*?! Really?! Do you realise how ridiculous that assertion is?!

Luckily for you, I expect that at worst, it'll be a Byelaw 18 prosecution of failing to show a valid ticket rather than the criminal record-inducing RoR Act offence of intent to avoid your fare, so your career prospects will probably be unharmed. Nevertheless, you clearly need to become a lot more streetwise if you wish to make it in your chosen profession!

Meanwhile, you will probably have read several threads on this forum about settling this kind of matter before it reaches Court. There are no guarantees of course, but if the railway company do prosecute the Byelaw 18 offence, I can't see how you have any kind of defence. I'm sorry to be blunt, but rather that than try and dress things up.

 

[yorkie]

I had heard return tickets were valid until before rush hour of the next morning, ie catch the early trains back before 6:30 (I was on the 6.06).

If you are referring to a Day return, it's only valid until 0429 the next day. It used to be earlier than this (with some exceptions). It's certainly not been the case that they were vaild until 0630 the next day. Where did you hear that?

Unfortunately if the ticket type GroupSave is requested by name, it would seem reasonable to assume that it's a group ticket and only valid for a group travelling together.

As for offering to pay the fine, I'm not quite sure you meant to say that? I guess you meant to offer to pay the correct fare? This may have been a Penalty Fare. Perhaps that is where the confusion has arisen as a Penalty Fare is a fare charged for people who make innocent mistakes, such as forgetting a Railcard, losing their ticket, and various other reasons. It is not a fine and anyone being charged one is not being accused of avoiding payment for a fare, but some people see it as a fine, and that can cause confusion.

A fine can only be imposed by a Court, if you are found guilty. But it would have to go to Court first, it could still be possible to avoid that by negotiating an out of court settlement. Also FCC do not win all cases, I am aware of someone who won a case and FCC had to pay the costs of around £750. FCC are not always prepared for a case to be robustly defended. Most cases are easy for them to win as most defendants do not appear to have proper legal representation.

Have FCC stated which legislation they intend to use to prosecute you?

10.9 Prosecutions

Train Operating Companies have specific legislation they can use to prosecute passengers. Some common examples of offences include:

• Travelling (or travelling over-distance) with the intention of avoiding paying the fare due (or part of the fare due)
• Failure to produce a valid ticket
• Failure to give name and address
• Altering tickets

The first of these is an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA). Merely failing to produce a ticket (no evidence of intent) is an offence under the Railway Byelaws. Failure to give name and address could come under either the RoRA or Byelaws, as appropriate. Altering tickets is also a Byelaw offence, though in serious cases it could be considered Fraud.

Offences under the Regulation of Railways Act result are recordable offences and a conviction will be disclosed if a CRB check (Standard or Enhanced) is performed.

Offences under the Railway Byelaws are not recordable offences and a conviction should not be disclosed if a CRB check (Standard or Enhanced) is performed.

For more information please see Section 8 - Legal

As you can see, it will be more serious for you if they use the Regulation of Railways Act. That requires intent, and is therefore more difficult for FCC to secure a conviction.

The less serious charge of a breach of the Railway Byelaws is not recordable, but is a 'strict liability' matter (no intent needed), which is more difficult for you to defend against, but still possible with good legal representation.

 

[f9121]

If you are referring to a Day return, it's only valid until 0429 the next day. It used to be earlier than this (with some exceptions). It's certainly not been the case that they were vaild until 0630 the next day. Where did you hear that?

Unfortunately if the ticket type GroupSave is requested by name, it would seem reasonable to assume that it's a group ticket and only valid for a group travelling together.

As for offering to pay the fine, I'm not quite sure you meant to say that? I guess you meant to offer to pay the correct fare? This may have been a Penalty Fare. Perhaps that is where the confusion has arisen as a Penalty Fare is a fare charged for people who make innocent mistakes, such as forgetting a Railcard, losing their ticket, and various other reasons. It is not a fine and anyone being charged one is not being accused of avoiding payment for a fare, but some people see it as a fine, and that can cause confusion.

A fine can only be imposed by a Court, if you are found guilty. But it would have to go to Court first, it could still be possible to avoid that by negotiating an out of court settlement. Also FCC do not win all cases, I am aware of someone who won a case and FCC had to pay the costs of around £750. FCC are not always prepared for a case to be robustly defended. Most cases are easy for them to win as most defendants do not appear to have proper legal representation.

Have FCC stated which legislation they intend to use to prosecute you?



As you can see, it will be more serious for you if they use the Regulation of Railways Act. That requires intent, and is therefore more difficult for FCC to secure a conviction.

The less serious charge of a breach of the Railway Byelaws is not recordable, but is a 'strict liability' matter (no intent needed), which is more difficult for you to defend against, but still possible with good legal representation.

Thanks for your reply. My letter says my offence was 'entering a train for the purpose of travelling a ticket without a ticket entitling travel'. Which one would this fall under?

 

[Ferret]

Thanks for your reply. My letter says my offence was 'entering a train for the purpose of travelling a ticket without a ticket entitling travel'. Which one would this fall under?

Byelaw 18 I think, the less serious one.

 

[f9121]

what are the chances of ending up with a criminal record if its taken as byelaw 18? Thanks for your replies by the way they are really helpfull

 

[island]

Byelaw 18 offences do not carry a criminal record unless someone in the court keys it in wrong. They may come up on an enhanced CRB though.

 

[SussexMan]

They may come up on an enhanced CRB though.

No it will not. Additional information is only released onto CRB (or to be more correct, DBS*) certificates if it is of a serious nature and information is relevant to the position being applied for. I see hundreds of CRB/DBS Certificates each year and I have only ever seen two with additional information on them which specifically related to "concerns" (not convictions) about possible offences against vulnerable people/children.

* The functions of the CRB and the Independent Safeguarding Authority have now been have now been transferred to the Disclosure and Barring Service.

 

[Nick W]

I'm well aware that some members of the forum will criticise me for this, but I don't care. So, you got a *group* ticket, and you didn't realise you had to travel as part of a *group*?! Really?! Do you realise how ridiculous that assertion is?!

Actually I'd totally agree with you if it was a single ticket (with adults 3 marked on it) or if it was clearer on the ticket than GPS-3.

If the railway had an interest in making things simpler they would redesign the ticket, either making each individual coupon clearer or having one ticket and three gate passes.

Not only that, but when I was at school, a very competent and otherwise knowledgeable school suggested I could depart from the group on group ticketing and get a non-stop train to my home. He had assumed that they only needed to be bought together.

 

[island]

EMT and FSR issue group tickets on a single coupon I think.

 

[reb0118]

EMT and FSR issue group tickets on a single coupon I think.

Yes, for ScotRail anyway, and you can have less than (but not more than) the specified group number travelling.

 

[f9121]

I have been summoned to magistrates court for breaching bye law 18, I have sent off signing that I wish the court to do proceedings in court as I do not wish to attend and I will have no legal representation.

Firstly, Do I have to attend court? The form was a bit ambiguous.

Secondly, The only indication about what I will be scentenced with is to pay the costs incurred of £120. Are there likely to be any other charges if they were not stated on the form?

Many Thanks your comments are greatly appreciated

 

[Ferret]

I have been summoned to magistrates court for breaching bye law 18, I have sent off signing that I wish the court to do proceedings in court as I do not wish to attend and I will have no legal representation.

Firstly, Do I have to attend court? The form was a bit ambiguous.

Secondly, The only indication about what I will be scentenced with is to pay the costs incurred of £120. Are there likely to be any other charges if they were not stated on the form?

Many Thanks your comments are greatly appreciated

You will find that if you fail to enter a plea in advance, fail to attend Court and fail to get somebody to represent you that you'll get a larger fine than you would if you turned up yourself! (So my colleagues tell me anyway!)

The 120 quid sounds like prosecution costs. In addition, there's the fine, any Court costs and the obligatory victim surcharge.

 

[Monty]

You will find that if you fail to enter a plea in advance, fail to attend Court and fail to get somebody to represent you that you'll get a larger fine than you would if you turned up yourself! (So my colleagues tell me anyway!).

Indeed the magistrates take a bit of a dim view to defendants who fail to attend court without entering a plea in advance, the fine that maybe levied upon you could reflect this. Personally I would enter a guilty plea and give serious consideration to attending court. In all likelihood you will be found guilty, but pleading guilty and appearing remorseful for the alleged offence could go someway in limiting the financial damage.

The 120 quid sounds like prosecution costs. In addition, there's the fine, any Court costs and the obligatory victim surcharge.

Normally what happens is the prosecuting TOC will request to the court for it's costs to be reimbursed by the defendant, though the magistrates will not always award them anything for costs. SWT tend to ask for around £150 for costs in normal circumstances and I would say it's awarded to them roughly 75% of the time. Then you have the actual fare owed which is payable to the company, victim surcharge and finally the fine itself. If I was to hazard a guess I would say the OP could be facing costs from £350-500 if he was not to enter a plea and fail to attend court (this is my professional opinion based on my own experiences attending court for similar offences).

 

[f9121]

Indeed the magistrates take a bit of a dim view to defendants who fail to attend court without entering a plea in advance, the fine that maybe levied upon you could reflect this. Personally I would enter a guilty plea and give serious consideration to attending court. In all likelihood you will be found guilty, but pleading guilty and appearing remorseful for the alleged offence could go someway in limiting the financial damage.




Normally what happens is the prosecuting TOC will request to the court for it's costs to be reimbursed by the defendant, though the magistrates will not always award them anything for costs. SWT tend to ask for around £150 for costs in normal circumstances and I would say it's awarded to them roughly 75% of the time. Then you have the actual fare owed which is payable to the company, victim surcharge and finally the fine itself. If I was to hazard a guess I would say the OP could be facing costs from £350-500 if he was not to enter a plea and fail to attend court (this is my professional opinion based on my own experiences attending court for similar offences).

Ive sent off the form and entered a guilty plea, there was 2 options, one of which was to attend court and plead guilty and the other (which i chose) was to plead guilty and have the court deal with it in my abscence. Would you still reccomend I got to court?

Many thanks

 

[michael769]

Ive sent off the form and entered a guilty plea, there was 2 options, one of which was to attend court and plead guilty and the other (which i chose) was to plead guilty and have the court deal with it in my abscence. Would you still reccomend I got to court?

It really depends. If you choose to attend you can ask to speak on your own behalf, the question as to if that is beneficial is really down to if you feel you can give the magistrate a reason to apply a lower sentence than they would normally default to. Obviously it is equally possible to hurt your case and talk yourself into a heavier fine.

A local solicitor would be well placed to advise on how the bench would receive your statements (and could even present it to the court for you) but as you have plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and should thus get a 1/3 discount on the fine, it may not be worth the solicitor's fee to get an answer.

 

[Nick W]

I would definitely represent yourself in person. Who knows? The magistrate may give you a token small fine and award no costs to FCC. After all, the following factors apply, which you might like to argue:

• You complied at every moment and offered to pay the due charges when it was pointed out that you had violated the Terms and Conditions.
• The terms and conditions were never presented to you, in written form or verbally. While you acknowledge that by travelling you agreed to them, you never formally declared that agreement.
• The specific term violated is not stated on the ticket itself.
• Despite clear provision for a single coupon, as evident in the ticket design (Adult one, child nil), FCC issued multiple coupons. Therefore they have not taken steps within their control to prevent confusion.
• FCC have departed from their own Terms and Conditions, which state that "Failure to do so could result in a penalty fare". At the time, you stated that you were most happy to pay a penalty fare but were not given that option.
• A penalty fare is recognised in the industry [cite DfT documents] as being the correct policy for honest mistakes.
• FCC have given no option to settle out of court.

 

[Wath Yard]

[*] The terms and conditions were never presented to you, in written form or verbally. While you acknowledge that by travelling you agreed to them, you never formally declared that agreement.

[*] The specific term violated is not stated on the ticket itself.

[*] Despite clear provision for a single coupon, as evident in the ticket design (Adult one, child nil), FCC issued multiple coupons. Therefore they have not taken steps within their control to prevent confusion.

You seem to have overlooked that apart from breaking the Ts&Cs of a Groupsave ticket, they also used the return portion of a day return ticket the next day.

 

[Ferret]

Nick W has overlooked a hell of a lot of things!!! I certainly can't endorse any of his advice, that's for sure! I was most amused by his last point regarding offering out of Court settlements - can Nick W offer me a precedent from case law or a statute that tells us where FCC were obliged to offer an out of Court settlement before issuing a summons?!

 

[Monty]

I would definitely represent yourself in person. Who knows? The magistrate may give you a token small fine and award no costs to

• FCC have departed from their own Terms and Conditions, which state that "Failure to do so could result in a penalty fare". At the time, you stated that you were most happy to pay a penalty fare but were not given that option.
• A penalty fare is recognised in the industry [cite DfT documents] as being the correct policy for honest mistakes.
• FCC have given no option to settle out of court.

The problem is that the penalty fares scheme is completely discretionary and there is no obligation to issue one to a passenger. There is is also no obligation for FCC to offer an out of court settlement either.

 

[Nick W]

There is some confusion. The OP has already decided to please guilty. The question is not how to win the case but to convince the magistrate that FCC are being unreasonable fools and take appropriate action.

You seem to have overlooked that apart from breaking the Ts&Cs of a Groupsave ticket, they also used the return portion of a day return ticket the next day.

Oh yes - made that mistake when I was 14. Asked for a return, got a day return, fortunately I was able to buy a new single on the train. Never made the mistake again. Terms and conditions unclear again.

Nick W has overlooked a hell of a lot of things!!! I certainly can't endorse any of his advice, that's for sure! I was most amused by his last point regarding offering out of Court settlements - can Nick W offer me a precedent from case law or a statute that tells us where FCC were obliged to offer an out of Court settlement before issuing a summons?!

(Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, 1300)
"That the rule rests, at least in part, upon public policy is clear from many authorities, and the convenient starting point of the inquiry is the nature of the underlying policy. It is that parties should be encouraged as far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations … may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings."

The problem is that the penalty fares scheme is completely discretionary and there is no obligation to issue one to a passenger. There is is also no obligation for FCC to offer an out of court settlement either.

True - hopefully FCC will be penalised for wasting court time.

 

[bb21]

True - hopefully FCC will be penalised for wasting court time.

I agree with some of what you said, but this one is ridiculous.

 

[Ferret]

(Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280, 1300)
"That the rule rests, at least in part, upon public policy is clear from many authorities, and the convenient starting point of the inquiry is the nature of the underlying policy. It is that parties should be encouraged as far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations … may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings."

Nice try. Have a think as to why a seasoned prosecutor would stamp all over that. I'm a mere amateur and I figured it out...!

True - hopefully FCC will be penalised for wasting court time.

Is this the cat coming out of the bag? Why would you hope FCC are penalised?

 

[Nick W]

I confess that I have no idea why no penalty fare nor settlement was offered in this occasion. I have no idea what the prosecutors would say if asked why none was offered.

It would make my day if the OP is fined £20 with no costs awarded to FCC, which I suspect is the best possible outcome.