Further investigation after settlement

[matt_world2004]

I would probably change the details on this thread so it cannot be used to incriminate you

 

[KirkstallOne]

Since it is now more than 6 months since the original incident, any alleged incidents of fare evasion before that time cannot be prosecuted.

I would advise not responding.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Since it is now more than 6 months since the original incident, any alleged incidents of fare evasion before that time cannot be prosecuted.

I don't think this point has been directly addressed yet in this thread: I 'll try, but please note that I am not a lawyer so I may have misunderstood the process or get the words wrong.

Typically, if a fare-dodger is taken to court then they are charged under either the railway byelaws or the Regulation of the Railways Act ('RoRA'). Both of these are charges which can be heard in the magistrates' court, and the rule for the magistrates' court is that the court must be told about the charge within six months of the incident.

But the byelaws and RoRA aren't the only possible charges: fraud is another charge - and I think it is accepted that buying a ticket for one journey when you are planning to use it for another, more expensive journey meets the definition of fraud.

Fraud cases are heard in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates' court. And the six month limit doesn't apply in the Crown Court.

So just because more than six months have passed, that doesn't guarantee that no action will be taken. Going back to a 'typical' case where only one occurrence is being pursued, in practice the six months bar does apply. But I can see that it might be different if the railway think that they are pursuing multiple breaches of the law.

The railway's approach seems to have changed in the last few months and I think we need to get our heads around it without cluttering up a specific advice thread. Stand by while I get a new thread going...

 

[AlterEgo]

Fraud cases are heard in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates' court. And the six month limit doesn't apply in the Crown Court.

No, fraud can be tried either way. It is this fact which means it is not subject to the summary-only six month limit.

A fraud case which is over six months old can still be heard in the Magistrates.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

No, fraud can be tried either way. It is this fact which means it is not subject to the summary-only six month limit.

A fraud case which is over six months old can still be heard in the Magistrates.

Thanks. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Have there been prosecutions under the fraud act for simple far evasion offences?

It seems unlikely for Northern to consider this unless there is something exceptional about this case. I appreciate they specifically mention it as an option but I would tend to regard that as bluster.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have there been prosecutions under the fraud act for simple far evasion offences?

It seems unlikely for Northern to consider this unless there is something exceptional about this case. I appreciate they specifically mention it as an option but I would tend to regard that as bluster.

They’re very rare. This one was prosecuted as fraud probably because of the very high value of fares avoided, and the further deception the offender attempted by giving false details etc: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bucks-free-press-fare-evasion-6k.255380/#post-6433355

 

[Titfield]

What strikes me as being unusual is that they have uncovered additional matters worthy of investigation after the initial matter was settled. Did someone make an error and not check the history fully prior to agreeing the settlement or have they found more matters worthy of investigation?

 

[fandroid]

It seems unlikely that the train company actually has evidence that would support a fraud conviction. They'd need proof that the OP actually travelled beyond the limits of the tickets purchased.

As has been mentioned here already, they see a ticket buying record that's similar to the one that ended with an out of court settlement, so they are probably justified in their suspicions. Interviewing the OP is worth a try for them as it might throw up a confession. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[John R]

It seems unlikely that the train company actually has evidence that would support a fraud conviction. They'd need proof that the OP actually travelled beyond the limits of the tickets purchased.

As has been mentioned here already, they see a ticket buying record that's similar to the one that ended with an out of court settlement, so they are probably justified in their suspicions. Interviewing the OP is worth a try for them as it might throw up a confession. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Can a fraud case be a civil (rather than criminal) case, so the balance of probabilities concept applies? I would have thought the type of pattern of fare purchases we are talking about, combined with the defendant’s address being many miles away could be oersuasive?

 

[AlterEgo]

Can a fraud case be a civil (rather than criminal) case, so the balance of probabilities concept applies? I would have thought the type of pattern of fare purchases we are talking about, combined with the defendant’s address being many miles away could be oersuasive?

Fraud is a criminal offence and cannot be a civil matter.

An unpaid fare could be though, and the company is free to invoice the OP for the outstanding fares and their time, outside the criminal system.

 

[Watershed]

Fraud is a criminal offence and cannot be a civil matter.

An unpaid fare could be though, and the company is free to invoice the OP for the outstanding fares and their time, outside the criminal system.

Fraud can be pursued through the civil courts, just as any other (alleged) crime resulting in damages can be.

 

[dakta]

It seems unlikely that the train company actually has evidence that would support a fraud conviction. They'd need proof that the OP actually travelled beyond the limits of the tickets purchased.

As has been mentioned here already, they see a ticket buying record that's similar to the one that ended with an out of court settlement, so they are probably justified in their suspicions. Interviewing the OP is worth a try for them as it might throw up a confession. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I think this is pretty much the bulk of it. I think, and it's only a thought, they have a lot of cases where the individual is 'very likely' to have done these acts previously, the circumstances are there but the evidence isn't.

Normally you'd expect a company would consider the likelihood of a succesful conviction in these cases as nill and just not push them further, but what might be happening now, rather than a fundamental change in how the process is handled, but rather just a change in policy that these letters go out, not because the company think there is a great chance of success, but just to scrape the barrell, if the odd fare evader does make the mistake to engage then these few extra wins they wouldn't have otherwise have had might be worth the pursuit.

It's just a last chance saloon opportunity to throw some scary words out there and hope the odd fish bites.

I definitely would use the phrase fishing, because whilst they might have a reasonable suspicion it's going nowhere without evidence and look what they're doing to get it. Stirring the soup hoping for a catch...

 

[AlterEgo]

Fraud can be pursued through the civil courts, just as any other (alleged) crime resulting in damages can be.

Yes, but not as a crime, surely - only the losses.

 

[pedr]

The crimes of fraud are defined in the Fraud Act 2006 (and perhaps some other enactments). The CPS or private prosecutors can bring charges in the criminal courts in relation to this.

The tort of deceit and similar torts can be pursued by those who have suffered losses due to them, in the civil courts, in order to seek to recover those losses.

These two concepts are not identical/overlapping, so it’s at least theoretically possible to be liable on one basis but not the other.

 

[MotCO]

If I may add two points.

1. If you engage with them or respond to their letter in any way, would that not immediately suggest to them that you have something you are concerned about, i.e. that they may have some evidence that you have not paid the correct fare at some point in time (other than the time you were caught). By ignoring it, you are demonstrating that you feel you have nothing to be worried about.
2. They may find evidence that you have previously bought child tickets, but how do they know that they have been used by you - you could have bought them for someone else. Others may correct me, but unless they catch you using the wrong ticket, how can they prove it?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

2. They may find evidence that you have previously bought child tickets, but how do they know that they have been used by you - you could have bought them for someone else. Others may correct me, but unless they catch you using the wrong ticket, how can they prove it?

What do you mean by 'prove'? I'm trying to address this on the separate discussion thread as it may not be directly relevant to the OP, but the test in the criminal court is to prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond all possible doubt'.

Given that buying tickets for someone else is an unusual (albeit not unheard of) thing to do, doing it repeatedly becomes more and more unusual - possibly to the point where it's beyond reasonable doubt that the tickets were bought for fare dodging. The point where it's beyond reasonable doubt might come sooner if (for example)
- the passenger had admitted doing this on one occasion, or
- the passenger did not or could not produce an explanation of why they had done it ('can you tell us who the child was who you bought these tickets for?')

 

[dakta]

Its likely where the toc is concerned, they will only risk cases with a high probability of success. Its probably why these interviews or requests are inviting such explanations as that provide the metric they're looking for (such as whether they can easily justify buying for someone else).

So whilst something may be proven ultimately in court, does not mean a company will be able to assess the likelihood of this without the info and thus risk their side is increased

 

[WesternLancer]

Surely with re-opening investigations like this (or looking for more cases of evasion that the train company can then put to the person on their radar as a result of catching them on pne occasion and issuing a Penalty Fare etc) - the incentive for the railway company (TOC) is still to settle in order to get revenue rather than take the option of court action - which potentially nets them less and takes more work (possibly) - with that in mind is it not still a reasonable option for the recipient of the letter to engage and seek a settlment (albeit I think better to try to do that with written exchanges then to agree to go to an interview where you are in far less control of the dialogue unless you are accompanied by a skilled representative / solicitor).

 

[zowen]

So back in March I believe memory is a bit foggy I settled a short faring dispute out of court and that was that. As mentioned in my previous post I recieved a letter asking for an interview due to suspicious activity from northern trains limited Debt Recovery and Prosecution Unit. The deadline for the reply was about a week ago I think and today I recieved this letter.

What confuses me is why have I been given a second deadline like would they not just say we're going to continue our investigation and inform you of the outcome or not inform me at all Im confused what the purpose of a second deadline is?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[dakta]

It's not so much a second deadline, they are saying the investigation is continuing, they're just giving you the opportunity to rethink and a date where they expect it to be concluded by. Obviously they can't keep the door open forever.

Only difference it makes is they will hear from you if you change your mind, in the meantime they're assuming that is not the case and proceding. (with what info is the question).

Might be worth updating your thread.

 

[AlterEgo]

Obviously they're quite keen to interview you, which is all the more reason to decline to attend.

The offences they are looking at are too old to be prosecuted under the Bylaws or Regulation of Railways Act which both have a six month limit on them from the date of the offence. They are out of time to prosecute you for these offences as you say in another thread they happened in March or earlier. One last desperate throw of the dice from Northern, I suspect.

 

[Tallguy]

The sole reason for a voluntary interview is to get you to incriminate yourself - no other reason. You do not have to attend this voluntary interview with northern Trains, or indeed respond in any form. By responding it would show to Northern that you are concerned about something, Northern haven’t stated what they want to interview you about and this is in my non legal opinion a fishing exercise. 6 months has passed since your last short faring, so the only way to prosecute you would be for fraud which will take Northern a lot more effort and I suggest require you to obtain legal representation. I am not a Lawyer and my comments should not be construed as legal advice, but if I was in your position at would simply file the letter and see what happens after 10th November. probably not much!

 

[zowen]

Not heard anything from the deadline of 10th of November they gave me to reply and today recieved this asking for £180 for difference in fares (without any listing of which fares theyve used and the differences they decided) There reasoning on why theyve decided on this unless they suspect similar tickets to the short faring incident thats solved, and £250 investigation costs.

 

[KirkstallOne]

They certainly seem to be implying they are going to try to prosecute you under the fraud act if you don’t pay up.

Presumably they are aware the statute of limitations prevents them from pursuing a more straightforward prosecution under Regulation of the Railways 1889 or the Railway byelaws.

Seems odd to me that they haven’t even specified what journeys they are asking for payment for. We see very few, if any, fraud cases on here. This press release indicates this is a new tactic from Northern, possibly one untested in the courts:

Fare dodgers with ‘proven pattern of behaviour’ should expect to be prosecuted for historic cases of fare evasion, says Northern

Northern | Buy Cheap Train Tickets and Check Train Times

www.northernrailway.co.uk

 

[zowen]

Seems odd to me that they haven’t even specified what journeys they are asking for payment for. We see very few, if any, fraud cases on here. This press release indicates this is a new tactic from Northern, possibly one untested in the courts:

Do you think it would be worth asking which journeys and the prices of them as this seems massively over the top. Or do you think it would be fighting a loosing battle and Id better be paying or phoning to set up some sort of monthly repayment to avoid court?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Or do you think it would be fighting a loosing battle and Id better be paying or phoning to set up some sort of monthly repayment to avoid court?

Right at the start of this thread, you said

Hi so ive recieved a letter (attached) from Northern rail saying that theyve been alerted to my purchasing history and it warrants further investigation after i was caught short faring in early march this year. That was concluded with an out of court settlement after i apologised and bought a rail card.

Now i did short fare a few times before this and havent done so since and bought full tickets.

You will know how many times 'a few times' was (and I'm not asking you to share that information with us) but given that the railway's offer is

asking for £180 for difference in fares (without any listing of which fares theyve used and the differences they decided) (...) and £250 investigation costs.

my personal suggestion would be to accept the offer, and pay the £430 to make the issue go away.

You (and others here) may have more of an appetite for a fight than I have, but to me that seems a worthwhile amount to avoid the stress and risk of conviction.

 

[zowen]

You will know how many times 'a few times' was (and I'm not asking you to share that information with us) but given that the railway's offer is

my personal suggestion would be to accept the offer, and pay the £430 to make the issue go away

I did a quick adding up on the lenient side (full ticket price and ones im unsure if i did or not) and its 100% below £100 Im just unsure how they got the figure £180 I would like to ask what differences Im paying but at the same time want this over and the stress gone to just pay the £430

They did mention if I cant pay full amount to call you reckon there would be an option to pay in installments?

 

[Haywain]

They did mention if I cant pay full amount to call you reckon there would be an option to pay in installments?

The way the letter is written would suggest that is an option that may be available.

 

[zowen]

The way the letter is written would suggest that is an option that may be available.

Thats what I thought as if theyd have given me till end of December I couldve paid it all at once unfortunately I can't this month. I also thought if I push for what the tickets im paying the difference for and fighting them I may end up just paying more in investigation fee than is worth