First Capital Connect Prosecution

[jw1985]

In mid January I was travelling from Drayton Park to Moorgate in order to get to work for 9am. The trains usually run every 4 minutes in rush hour but on this particular day the train was delayed by 15-20 minutes and meant I was going to be late for work. The departure screen at the entrance of Drayton Park was broken, no information on delays was offered over the announce system and on the platform information was only given for train (the train delayed by 15-20 minutes), usually info is provided for the next 2 or 3 trains.

Once the train arrived it was full and I and a number of others were unable to get on (not many people get off at Drayton Park and a number of people try to get on). Another passenger on the platform was able to open a drivers compartment on one of the middle carriages which was empty and enabled about 10 of us to get on the train. Due to the lack of info at the station and the delay I got on this private compartment in order to ensure I was not too late for work.

Once the train arrived at Essex Road 2 transport policemen and 3 employees from First Capital Connect (I think they were revenue officers) were waiting on the platform and opened the doors telling us to get off the train as we were in an illegal carriage. Our names and addresses were taken and we were told to explain why we had been on this private compartment of the train, we were then told by the revenue officers that FCC would be writing to us and that we may be prosecuted. I have since had two letters from FCC one asking me to explain the situation (and listing the potential penalties ranging from a £1k fine to criminal record) and a second letter stating that upon review of the events they will be taking the matter to the magistrates court.

I accept that I should not have been in this area of the train as there may have been equipment which if tampered with may have affected the journey however my only intention was to ensure I was not late for work and I did not want to run the risk of waiting for another 20 minutes on the platform.

Could someone let me know what is likely to be the punishment for this indiscretion and what the maximum penalty may be. What are my rights in this situation? I have no previous convictions or any previous run ins with the rail companies.

 

[Ferret]

This is surely a Byelaw 10 (2) offence, or maybe a byelaw 13 offence. This won't lead to a criminal record being a mere byelaw matter, but will cost you a small fine and Court costs I imagine.

As an aside, it does appear FCC have an issue with passengers being in that area as I suggested when somebody posted here previously, and they appear to be having a purge on it.

 

[A-driver]

This is surely a Byelaw 10 (2) offence, or maybe a byelaw 13 offence. This won't lead to a criminal record being a mere byelaw matter, but will cost you a small fine and Court costs I imagine.

As an aside, it does appear FCC have an issue with passengers being in that area as I suggested when somebody posted here previously, and they appear to be having a purge on it.

They have an issue with people being in there as its an out of bounds area with 'private' clearly written on the doors and to access it you have to force the doors open which can cause damage to the trains.

Every so often they get the BTP out with driver managers and rpi's following a number of reports from drivers of passengers breaking in there.

There is a thread about it on he somewhere from a couple of weeks back which may be of help if you search for it.

 

[yorkie]

You may want to read this... Please help - FCC: Notice of Intention to prosecute

 

[A-driver]

You may want to read this... Please help - FCC: Notice of Intention to prosecute

That's the one, couldn't work out how to link to it on this iPhone app.

 

[Flamingo]

One common thing between both OP's is that they both say in their original posts that they knew they should not have been travelling in the restricted area but did anyway...

 

[Ferret]

One common thing between both OP's is that they both say in their original posts that they knew they should not have been travelling in the restricted area but did anyway...

of course! People imagine they won't be caught, and then when they do it's 'oh ####'! It's clear FCC are having a purge on this behaviour - I suspect this won't be the last thread we see on this.

 

[jw1985]

Thanks for your responses. Would you have an idea of how much a small fine and court costs would come to?

 

[johnb]

of course! People imagine they won't be caught, and then when they do it's 'oh ####'! It's clear FCC are having a purge on this behaviour - I suspect this won't be the last thread we see on this.

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

 

[Dave1987]

Thanks for your responses. Would you have an idea of how much a small fine and court costs would come to?

I suspect if you apologise profusely for being in an area you know you should not of been and ask to settle out of court then they would probably be amenable to that. I have no idea how much you would need to offer though.

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

Sorry but that areas in question are secured and need some considerable force put on them to force entry unless you have a carriage key.

 

[A-driver]

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

I see where you are coming from but to be fair it clearly says 'private' on the door, the door dosnt open with the others, the are no 'open buttons' and to force them open it takes a lot of effort (I have tried to pull the doors open to see how people manage it and its not easy!)

If you have to use a key to get in the door or use such force that its obvious the door isn't intended to be opend with out the key then I'm pretty sure you would know that y shouldn't be there.

Rather than waste money on different locks people could also obey the rules which in this case are pretty clear and obvious!

 

[Monty]

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

As Dave1987 has already mentioned, these doors are perfectly secure and require a carriage key to open. Otherwise a considerable amount of effort is required to break into these areas. To the OP, it's hard to say what the courts would impose as a fine for offences such as this, before this thread and the one mentioned previously I've never heard anything like this being persued. You may try to arrange an out of court settlement, you'll have to write a pretty grovelling letter of apology backed up with a generous sum to tempt them to take you up on your offer.

 

[RJ]

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

More fool them for trusting the passengers not to abuse the current locks then! I find it hard to support the case for more trust and discretion to be shown when things like this happen.

 

[jon0844]

This does appear to confirm how people get on now, as against using the internal doors.

I didn't want to try the door to see how easy it was, but the 'Another passenger on the platform was able to open a drivers compartment' line suggests it isn't that easy - and therefore quite a bit of force is needed. Couple that with the 'Private' warning and I can't see there being any defence.

Here's the door in question:



Unlike the internal door, where it was argued that if it was open (unlikely) you couldn't see the warning signs - the outer door makes it impossible to not notice!

Out of interest, if people are forcing the door open without using the key (below right) then could it cause damage to the door? If so, that's possible another charge against the offender opening the door?

 

[RJ]

As Dave1987 has already mentioned, these doors are perfectly secure and require a carriage key to open. Otherwise a considerable amount of effort is required to break into these areas. To the OP it's hard to say what the courts would impose as a fine for offences such as this, before this thread and the one mentioned previously I've never heard anything like this being persued. You may try to arrange an out of court settlement, you'll have to write a pretty grovelling letter of apology backed up with a generous sum to temp them to take up your offer.

Certainly the VT rolling stock requires the appropriate "000" key to get into the cab, but I went on a 507 the other day and it only had the standard T-Key slot without the pillar in the middle. Anyone with a standard house key could open one of those locks. I presume the 313s are the same.

 

[michael769]

Thanks for your responses. Would you have an idea of how much a small fine and court costs would come to?

Assuming a byelew offence:

This offence does not appear in the magistrates guidlines so it is hard to be certain, but there is a 1/3 discount for an early guilty plea, Added to the bill will be a 10% victim surcharge (min £20).

Likewise costs will depend on the ToC but an early guilty plea will be substantilly cheaper than a not guilty plea and trial.

If I had to hazard a guess I would be looking at 50-100% of a weeks salary for the fine, and £100-150 for costs assuming a guilty plea. But that is a real guess, it will be down to how seriously the magistrates and the legal adviser rank the offence against guideline offences on the day.

The byelaw offence is not recordable so no criminal record.

If there are aggravating factors such as damage to the the train, it is possible a more serious offence may be engaged - does the notice of intended prosecution list the offences?

 

[Dave1987]

This does appear to confirm how people get on now, as against using the internal doors.

I didn't want to try the door to see how easy it was, but the 'Another passenger on the platform was able to open a drivers compartment' line suggests it isn't that easy - and therefore quite a bit of force is needed. Couple that with the 'Private' warning and I can't see there being any defence.

Here's the door in question:

View attachment 13461

Unlike the internal door, where it was argued that if it was open (unlikely) you couldn't see the warning signs - the outer door makes it impossible to not notice!

Out of interest, if people are forcing the door open without using the key (below right) then could it cause damage to the door? If so, that's possible another charge against the offender opening the door?

The door is held by air pressure and a fair bit of air pressure at that. To force it open might cause damage to the interlock mechanism.

 

[Clip]

Or perhaps, if they genuinely cared about security and safety, they could spend a couple of grand on proper locks for the areas in question. Then again, that'd be revenue-diluting rather than revenue-raising.

Sorry to be blunt here, but do you only come on here to try and cause bother? The door is locked. It is NOT for passenger use. End of.

If someone has obtained a key that fits such a lock and is using it to access restricted areas then that is solely down to that person who is committing an offence. No more no less.


A bit like if I had a key to your house really and sat down, ate your food watched your telly and so on and so forth - would you get the police involved and get me arrested or would you just let it go?

Again as on the other thread there is safety equipment in this area and it is not for passengers. Why is that so hard for you to understand and take heed of in these sorts of threads? Always looking to blame someone else you are when in actual fact its the person/s that are committing the offence that are in the wrong. But oh no, not for you that, must be, nay, HAS to be someone elses fault and that must be the TOC and it must be for revenue raising mustnt it.

Rather than the safety aspect which is why the area is locked out of bounds funnily enough.

 

[Monty]

Certainly the VT rolling stock requires the appropriate "000" key to get into the cab, but I went on a 507 the other day and it only had the standard T-Key slot without the pillar in the middle. Anyone with a standard house key could open one of those locks. I presume the 313s are the same.

I had assumed the OP had gained access via the internal from the passenger saloon, though it appears they may have gotton through a cab door. Most units I know of only require a T/L key to release a cab door, and as you said earlier on some types of train you don't even need that. All PEP (507 & 313s etc) based stock and some of the earlier Mk3 derived stock (455, 317 & 318s etc) have the cab door release mechanism you previously mention. Still the passenger would need to figure all this out before hand though.

 

[jon0844]

I expect one person saw another one do it and it continued from there.

I've only seen someone pull open the driver door on a 317, but now we know it's possible on a 313 too - without a key.

 

[RJ]

Fair enough. Whichever way these passengers are getting in, it is a rather bizarre thing to be fined for. I can't say I have ever felt the temptation to go wandering into a cab uninvited, but that's just me.

 

[jon0844]

Is one reason because you know you're not allowed?

Staff can travel in these areas, usually after notifying the driver (someone in the biz will confirm that for me) and I think it's reasonable for them to expect privacy.. just like any other 'staff only' area.

 

[12CSVT]

Staff can travel in these areas, usually after notifying the driver (someone in the biz will confirm that for me) and I think it's reasonable for them to expect privacy.. just like any other 'staff only' area.

Only if they have legitimate reason to be there. If they aren't in possession of a valid cab pass it is as much out of bounds to them as it is to the general public.

 

[jon0844]

Okay, but as I've seen people in the cabs - I presume they probably do have the relevant passes. And, I still say that they're entitled to be safe in an area marked as out of bounds.

Now if FCC decides to open these areas up (in the middle of a now permanent 6-car configuration) and remove the warnings, remove or protect safety equipment, lock the cab (or disable it) and add buttons for the doors then that's fine. Staff would obviously now know it's a public area.

That's something FCC is thinking of doing, but some people are jumping the gun a little here!

 

[Dave1987]

Okay, but as I've seen people in the cabs - I presume they probably do have the relevant passes. And, I still say that they're entitled to be safe in an area marked as out of bounds.

Now if FCC decides to open these areas up (in the middle of a now permanent 6-car configuration) and remove the warnings, remove or protect safety equipment, lock the cab (or disable it) and add buttons for the doors then that's fine. Staff would obviously now know it's a public area.

That's something FCC is thinking of doing, but some people are jumping the gun a little here!

The official rules regarding staff in non leading end driving cabs can vary from TOC to TOC

 

[A-driver]

The official rules regarding staff in non leading end driving cabs can vary from TOC to TOC

At FCC only drives are allowed in middle/rear cabs and since potters bar they like us to let the driver know we are there (it's common courtesy to buzz the driver up anyway). Drivers travelling 'pass' in the lead cab with the driver is a grey area and it depends which driver manager you speak to as to what they think of it!

To be honest, on some of the morning jobs which involve passing from Hornsey to kings cross you don't have a choice but to get in there as the trains a so busy but we obviously have the keys and don't damage the doors.

As for permanent 6 cars with the middle cabs opened up-that will only happen after the new Thameslink stock has arrived.

 

[34D]

The door is held by air pressure and a fair bit of air pressure at that. To force it open might cause damage to the interlock mechanism.

Its not that hard. Someone I know very very well used to do this regularly on their class 313 commute. No harm done.

(I assume this is an alleged offence where the Prosecutor has 6 months to lay an information?)

 

[Dave1987]

Its not that hard. Someone I know very very well used to do this regularly on their class 313 commute. No harm done.

(I assume this is an alleged offence where the Prosecutor has 6 months to lay an information?)

I am just stating how the door is secured that is all. Sounds like it is a regular thing with people using the vestibule.

 

[jw1985]

It states that the offence is being within an illegal part of the train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If there are aggravating factors such as damage to the the train, it is possible a more serious offence may be engaged - does the notice of intended prosecution list the offences?[/QUOTE]

It states that the offence is being within an illegal part of the train

 

[Fare-Cop]

Assuming a byelew offence:

This offence does not appear in the magistrates guidlines so it is hard to be certain, but there is a 1/3 discount for an early guilty plea, Added to the bill will be a 10% victim surcharge (min £20).

Likewise costs will depend on the ToC but an early guilty plea will be substantilly cheaper than a not guilty plea and trial.

If I had to hazard a guess I would be looking at 50-100% of a weeks salary for the fine, and £100-150 for costs assuming a guilty plea. But that is a real guess, it will be down to how seriously the magistrates and the legal adviser rank the offence against guideline offences on the day.

The byelaw offence is not recordable so no criminal record.

If there are aggravating factors such as damage to the the train, it is possible a more serious offence may be engaged - does the notice of intended prosecution list the offences?

I am sure that you are right and that it will be treated exactly the same as any other breach of Byelaw, if prosecuted Michael. The actual Byelaw and level of penalty are reproduced here.

National Railway Byelaw 10.

Trains

(1) No person shall enter through any train door until any person leaving by that door has passed through.
(2) No person shall be in or on any train except the parts of it intended for use by that person.
(3) No person shall open a train door, or enter or leave any train, while it is in motion or between stations.
(4) No person shall enter or leave a train except by proper use of a train door.
(5) In the case of automatic closing doors, no person shall enter or leave by the door when it is closing.



From the OPs post this looks like Byelaw 10.2 to me.



NR Byelaw 24.

Enforcement

Offence and level of fines

Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.



Of course you are right that if there is evidence of damage to the train door or equipment, the TOC / BTP might also consider a criminal damage charge, but they don't seem to mention that