Freedom Pass Mis-Usage - Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws

[useronthewall]

Hi all,

I have a court summoning for mis-using freedom pass coming up very soon.

After many consultations and viewing forums, I would see that settling out of court is very un-usual.

My question would be:
1) On top of the fine, will I be criminally convicted? (meaning will it go on my DBS, Advanced DBS, Criminal Record, etc....)
2) Will I be asked to report to my employer? Or will the court report to my employer?
3) During the sentencing, 'Statement of accused wishes to volunteer'----- what should I write in it or say during the period?

Would appreciate any advice and help I can get, thanks.

 

[AlterEgo]

My question would be:
1) On top of the fine, will I be criminally convicted?

Yes.

(meaning will it go on my DBS, Advanced DBS, Criminal Record, etc....)

It will be a criminal record as in, your name will be on the court record for evermore as having been convicted. However it will not appear on a Standard DBS and will only appear on an Enhanced DBS in exceptional circumstances.

2) Will I be asked to report to my employer?

No.

Or will the court report to my employer?

Your employer may maintain a way of receiving alerts if one of its staff is convicted. The civil service do, for example. You should check if your employment contract requires you to report any convictions you receive.

3) During the sentencing, 'Statement of accused wishes to volunteer'----- what should I write in it or say during the period?

It’s hard to say because we don’t know the circumstances of your case.

 

[useronthewall]

@AlterEgo Thanks for the response, really appreciate the information.

1) Regarding Enhanced DBS, is this something future employers can see? Also, does it have a period where it gets written off after a set time?
2) Will check under my employment contract, thanks for letting me know.
3) Circumstances: Suspected 68 usages within an 2 month period, over-18, just recently got employed?

I have exteneunauating cirucmstances such as spinal lumbar nerve root problem which comes up in episodes where I experience immese pain along the sciatic nerve - prevents walking , sleeping, getting on with anything during my day-today which I can get a medical letter for and have referrals to see spine specialist and get such medical letters from my PhysioTherpaist?
First time offense, really apolgoetic of situation, not is public interest (potentional lose job, hard economy for graduates to get employed, house, rent, etc....)

Would this help during my statement? Or what else would help during my statement?

Also, what is the probability at this stage for them to convict me given all the stated above? (is it still possible to get let of with a fine without the conviction)

Sorry for all these questions, I am just really scared as I just started my professional career and really adhone to this mistake and misjudgement.

 

[SteveM70]

Circumstances: Suspected 68 usages within an 2 month period

First time offense

Sorry to be blunt, but unless you think the first statement is wrong, the second can’t be true. Perhaps you mean “first time getting caught”, which is quite different?

 

[Brissle Girl]

I have exteneunauating cirucmstances such as spinal lumbar nerve root problem which comes up in episodes where I experience immese pain along the sciatic nerve - prevents walking , sleeping, getting on with anything during my day-today which I can get a medical letter for and have referrals to see spine specialist and get such medical letters from my PhysioTherpaist?

I'm not sure why your health issues would be in any way an extenuating circumstance. ie, why would they drive you to take someone else's Freedom Pass on 68 separate occasions?

I'm not convinced by the "hard economy for graduates to get employed" argument too. I thought that the employment market was relatively benign at the moment, with skills shortages in many areas. Making things up is unlikely to be beneficial to your case.

You should be aware that TfL take misuse of high value passes, such as Freedom Passes, very severely, and prosecution is the usual outcome. Although we have, possibly to our surprise, seen a couple of instances recently where a final warning has been given. I don't think those involved such repeated use though.

 

[Titfield]

You may wish to apologise sincerely for using a freedom pass that had not been issued to you though the fact you have done this repeatedly undermines this.

I dont think that any of the reasons you have advanced would have any effect on the sanction handed down.

You have knowingly and repeatedly avoided paying your fare.

The replies Forum members have posted may seem harsh to you but collectively we use our knowledge and experience to advise those seeking our guidance and help what we genuinely believe to be what the outcome of any fare / ticketing issue is likely to be and what, if anything, they can do to reduce the sanction that they are likely to receive. In cases such as yours where we can see no way of achieving that we say it as we see it.

 

[30907]

@AlterEgo Thanks for the response, really appreciate the information.

1) Regarding Enhanced DBS, is this something future employers can see?

Yes, if it shows up. Whether it will concern them is another matter.

You will presumably be convicted for a single offence of travelling without a valid ticket, with other offences "taken into consideration" if you admit them (that's why you have to go to court). That's a low level of offence, and it's standard TfL practice.

Also, what is the probability at this stage for them to convict me given all the stated above? (is it still possible to get let of with a fine without the conviction)

TfL do not do settlements out of court, they occasionally decide to issue a warning but I would be very surprised if they did in this case.

 

[useronthewall]

@Brissle Girl @Titfield @SteveM7@30907

Thanks for all the information and guidance.

Final question: I believe I will be pleading guilty and show how apogletic I am and how I have learnt from this situation and want to be a better person.

The next question would be employment wise. From what I have read you typically don't need to disclose this conviction unles 'asked' in the future.

What should be the approach in this manner? and would it effect future / existing employment?

 

[notmyrealname]

For your current employer, as AlterEgo said, you should check what your employment contract says about convictions.

 

[Titfield]

@Brissle Girl @Titfield @SteveM7@30907

Thanks for all the information and guidance.

Final question: I believe I will be pleading guilty and show how apogletic I am and how I have learnt from this situation and want to be a better person.

The next question would be employment wise. From what I have read you typically don't need to disclose this conviction unles 'asked' in the future.

What should be the approach in this manner? and would it effect future / existing employment?

For your current employment do check your contract of employment very carefully as some convictions must be declared within 7 days of being sustained. Do not wait to be asked. If you have to inform your employer (because your contract says so) then do so. Very often a failure to disclose is taken more seriously by an employer than the original offence.

The requirement to disclose a conviction to a future employer (for example when completing a job application form) depends on a number of factors: the offence you were convicted of, whether or not the conviction us "spent" and the job you are applying for.

The time it takes for a conviction to become spent depends on the offence. Once the conviction is spent you do not have to declare it unless you are seeking employment in a job role where those convictions must still be declared typically these are in healthcare, childcare, education, financial industry and the judiciary. Job application usually make any requirement to disclose very clear.

It is probably best to get guidance straight from the govt website

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974

Most railway ticketing convictions are very low level convictions and are unlikely to cause any major obstacles in the future though it could still affect a visa application for foreign travel.

 

[Pushpit]

The next question would be employment wise. From what I have read you typically don't need to disclose this conviction unles 'asked' in the future.

What should be the approach in this manner? and would it effect future / existing employment?

Broadly speaking, a conviction from a transport byelaw is right at the lower end of criminality. Mostly it won't affect your job, and the consequences are unlikely to be serious, far reaching or have a long term impact. Whether to tell your employer depends massively on the details of your personal circumstances.

To take one example of very many, if you are in employment where DBS or Enhanced DBS is in play, then typically you are working with vulnerable people - care homes, children, hospitals, those with addiction issues. It's not just about the DBS, those employers are entitled to know about your cautions, never mind convictions, and for Enhanced DBS the police can convey their suspicions about you regardless of conviction status. So in those occupations you absolutely have to disclose your criminal record since failure to do so is vastly more problematic than a relatively minor byelaw issue. Enhanced DBS has both a framework behind it - reasonable, relevant, accurate, proportionate plus representational issues - but employers also need to stick to a code of practice. In theory a conviction can show up on Enhanced DBS for up to 11 years and 1 day, or 5.5 years plus 1 day if you were under 18 at the time of - well - the offence, but the computers often show it at conviction time. But as I say, getting worried about DBS is the wrong approach, the issue is that these occupations require transparency. By coincidence we often struggle to fill some vacancies in this area so an honest dialogue with a future employer is unlikely to get in the way of a successful and rewarding career.

At the other extreme if your employment has zero safeguarding issues - you are a barrista in a town centre café, surrounded by colleagues and CCTV - then employers are simply not allowed to ask about spent convictions, and your conviction will be deemed spent as soon as you leave the court room.

 

[island]

your conviction will be deemed spent as soon as you leave the court room.

This isn't correct.

A conviction penalised by a fine is spent one year later.

Whilst the conviction will not normally appear on DBS checks, this is because byelaw convictions are non-recordable. But they still exist.

 

[dumbgirl]

This isn't correct.

A conviction penalised by a fine is spent one year later.

Whilst the conviction will not normally appear on DBS checks, this is because byelaw convictions are non-recordable. But they still exisT

When can a byelaw conviction affect employement

 

[Pushpit]

When can a byelaw conviction affect employement

When it's an occupation that requires you to disclose convictions and cautions. You could then be fired if you did not disclose this information. In addition, some of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, will remove people from their register if you fail to disclose convictions or cautions. On the other hand the RCN are unlikely to be too worried about fare dodging convictions, but will be worried if someone failed to mention it - what else are they lying about?

 

[Wolfie]

When it's an occupation that requires you to disclose convictions and cautions. You could then be fired if you did not disclose this information. In addition, some of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, will remove people from their register if you fail to disclose convictions or cautions. On the other hand the RCN are unlikely to be too worried about fare dodging convictions, but will be worried if someone failed to mention it - what else are they lying about?

Absolutely. It absolutely be reportable and potentially a major issue if you work in national security roles which require developed vetting for example. Oh, and if you don't report it expect to be asked why in very short order.

 

[Enthusiast]

The time it takes for a conviction to become spent depends on the offence.

It actually depends on the sentence.

Offences deal with by way of a fine (which is the usual disposal for railway fare evasion etc.) are spent after 12 months for an adult offender or six months for an offender aged under 18.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When it's an occupation that requires you to disclose convictions and cautions. You could then be fired if you did not disclose this information. In addition, some of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, will remove people from their register if you fail to disclose convictions or cautions. On the other hand the RCN are unlikely to be too worried about fare dodging convictions, but will be worried if someone failed to mention it - what else are they lying about?

I appreciate that this won’t help the OP, but it’s perhaps worth clarifying that it’s not the medical Royal Colleges that are the regulators: In particular the Royal College of Nursing is a trade union in the same way that Unison is. So their job is to support their members (although as a former union rep in another union, I must point out that sometimes that means telling the member that they haven't got a leg to stand on and the employer is right).

For a nurse, the regulator - whose rules are the ones to worry about - would be the Nursing and Midwifery Council

 

[Pushpit]

I appreciate that this won’t help the OP, but it’s perhaps worth clarifying that it’s not the medical Royal Colleges that are the regulators: In particular the Royal College of Nursing is a trade union in the same way that Unison is. So their job is to support their members (although as a former union rep in another union, I must point out that sometimes that means telling the member that they haven't got a leg to stand on and the employer is right).

For a nurse, the regulator - whose rules are the ones to worry about - would be the Nursing and Midwifery Council

The RCN is both a trade union and a professional body (whereas Unison is purely trade union), so it provides education, personal development, standard setting and recency services. In some areas of healthcare employment you would find life quite difficult if you are not an RCN member.

 

[greyman42]

I don't know if i have missed this, but where did you get the freedom pass from?

 

[Titfield]

If you are in a regulated profession make sure you notify the regulator you have sustained a conviction.

I understand that sometimes those convicted have been led to below the court will notify the regulator. Whilst this may indeed be true, one of the conditions of being in a regulated profession is that you notify the regulator of any convictions sustained.

 

[6Gman]

The RCN is both a trade union and a professional body (whereas Unison is purely trade union), so it provides education, personal development, standard setting and recency services. In some areas of healthcare employment you would find life quite difficult if you are not an RCN member.

But they are not the regulatory authority so are not relevant to the matter of DBS

 

[Pushpit]

But they are not the regulatory authority so are not relevant to the matter of DBS

Correct, but that wasn't the question posed in post 13.