Bearing in mind that this started as a Penalty Fare, are all these points relevant?
I am not familiar with the detailed procedure, but in particular I wouldn't have expected an interview to have happened.
-
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!
Greater Anglia Penalty Fare No Knowledge
- Thread starter neutron
- Start date
- Status
I am not familiar with the detailed procedure, but in particular I wouldn't have expected an interview to have happened.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If you are questioned you are being interviewed, how ever that interview is being conducted and whatever its purpose. If it was a penalty fare to begin with, I dont doubt there wouldn't be any other notes than those written on the pf. I am however also unfamiliar with the procedure/s myself for any TOC.
Maybe my points could be better worded but they are relevant. PF or not what steps did they take to establish the details supplied were genuine and not fake or someone else's (which is not uncommon on the railways) .These are certainly questions I would be asking if I was being prosecuted in this manner.
These points are only irrelevant if this really began with a PF, because GA are now statute barred
However I am not actually clear if there ever was a pf to begin with The OP talks of a ticket/pf/fine of around £29.4, but the letter refers to the fare avoided being £29.4 plus costs.
Wouldn't the pf be, more than the fare avoided (double or somethings else?).
Wouldn't the letter from GA mention they were cancelling the pf.
Finally if it really is a pf, the OP had appealed the pf through correspondence with IRCAS, GA are statute barred anyway and can only proceed via the County courts .
Last edited:
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,193
You are apparently quoting me with comments I have not made. Please edit your post to quote the right poster.
No idea what happened there, all I did was click ‘reply’ and chopped what I didn’t need. Bizarre, but rectified now.
Looking at the correspondence (which I hadn't, my bad) I agree there was no PF.
The RPI involved must have decided to report the traveller for fare evasion.
I've amended my post above.
What makes you say there was no PF? The original post says that there was a correspondence relating to a PF? Unless further down the thread that changes?
The incident happened on the 4th, Feb and the settlement was made on the 25th Feb. Its unlikely a pf was appealed, rejected,. cancelled and then considered for prosecution and a settlement offered in such a short period.
It would be great if there was a pf as both the pf would be invalid (wrong amount) and the prosecution statute barred (pf appealed and responded to) .
The OP appears to be unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology (and even asks if they will be prosecuted if they go to court over this matter)
It would be great if there was a pf as both the pf would be invalid (wrong amount) and the prosecution statute barred (pf appealed and responded to) .
The OP appears to be unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology (and even asks if they will be prosecuted if they go to court over this matter)
Last edited:
I didn't look to much at the dates, just the fact that a PF was mentioned. Could this be an Unpaid Fare Notice? I'm not familiar with the route so couldn't say whether the amount was incorrect, but the OP does mention a fare from Colchester to London? There's no appeals process for an Unpaid Fare Notice as it's in effect just a single ticket. I think there's more to this than meets the eye to be honest. The prosecution wouldn't be statute barred as the PF would be cancelled and the matter progressed as Byelaw matter through the Mags court, therefore having 6-months.
Probably more importantly, if it was a Penalty Fare, the amount of the Penalty would be about 60GBP, but that's irrelevant now and the letter from GA would, rightly, only mention the single journey amount as that's what matters at court as they're not prosecuting for the non-payment of a penalty (which would be a civil matter), but the original offence of travelling without a valid ticket (a criminal offence) - Also, the letter sent was probably a template used for all prosecutions. Unless (again) i'm missing something, I don't see how this wasn't enough time to have a few emails back and forth and for GA to them progress the matter? It doesn't have to be bound by appeals procedure if the correspondence was received and dealt with within this timescale.
Last edited:
221129
Established Member
Yes it would, as the OP says they appealed and lost. Once an appeal has been heard even if the traveler loses the appeal the TOC is statute barred from prosecuting.
Surely if they appeal and lose, the PF is still live and thus must be paid? That being the case, the PF could still be cancelled in the same way as if no appeal was made?
221129
Established Member
No. Once the appeal has been made and a decision made either way, legally the TOC cannot initiate criminal proceedings, it becomes a purely civil matter.
I’ve never known that to be the case in all the years I’ve been in a prosecutions/enforcement role. Having said that, I never dealt with Penalty Fares directly. I’m sure that a large percentage of PFs (cases which were originally PF cases at least) we used to prosecute would have been appealed initially, but were still cancelled and progressed as the original Byelaw offence.
221129
Established Member
The rules changed in 2018.
I think it is clear that the issuance of a PF makes the situation a civil matter not a criminal one - that's the whole point of the system. Unless there was new information discovered that was not available to the company at the time the PF was issued which, if known, would have led to that specific PF not having been issued (e.g. perhaps the subsequent discovery that the person had lied to the authorised collector about something material), attempting to replace it by a prosecution risks being challenged as an abuse of process (loosely double jeopardy; the law doesn't like an out-of-court disposal to be followed by a more serious charge without new evidence). The updated regulations a couple of years ago further restricted the circumstances when this can be done by placing a short time limit on any such decision (before a first appeal is decided). But in practice, people who don't engage with the PF system are also unlikely to engage with the courts at a level where they can attempt to pursue this sort of legal argument so the train companies appear to do it successfully regularly.
The OP quotes their father as mentioning a "ticket about a penalty fare" but the letter offering a settlement only refers to "being spoken to."
I suppose another possibility is that a PF was issued, the impersonator ignored it, and a letter was automatically generated 21 days later.
In which case, of course, questions over legalities arise.
I know, but the letter would more than likely have been a default letter template so if a PF was cancelled, it would have been the standard letter they send in relation to someone being reported rather than issued a Penalty Fare.
I stand corrected though regarding legislation change in 2018, as they say, you learn something new every day.
Having read through this thread a couple of times I think it is perfectly possible that people may be confusing what kind of notice might have been issued in the first place.
I can fully understand non-railway people automatically thinking Penalty Fare Notice (PFN), or Report for Prosecution because that is what they see and hear on a regular basis on here via either a Travel Irregularity Report (TIR) written by railway staff or, following a Witness Statement which will have been compiled after an interview under caution conducted by a PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984) trained inspector. As 30907 says, if you are being questioned, that amounts to an interview and whilst limited in its scope, a single question can be considered to be 'an interview'..
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 apply only to PFNs.
Given the confusion around the sum of £24.90 referred to, if and it is only an if, but if that is the correct fare for the journey being made it is perfectly possible that a UFN was issued. That is an Unpaid Fare Notice and is issued on a pad form that looks a bit like a PFN, but is not issued subject to the Penalty Fares Regulations. It is simply an invoice for the fare for the journey to be paid within 21 days of travel.
I had 40 years in railway revenue protection and the last 20 years running prosecutions. I can say for certainty that if this UFN remained unpaid, prosecution would not be statute barred as suggested by 221129. The TOC would have up to 6 months from date of commission of the alleged offence to lay an information before a Court and they have clearly done that.
Just to touch on the matter of seeking proof of identity at the time of a report, rail staff will ask for confirmation of the details they are being given and in most cases something will be shown that satisfies the request, but it must be remembered that we do have generally good civil liberties in this country. If someone is asked to show their identity and says 'I haven't got anything', but a call by the questioner to the helpline confirms the name given at the address given, rail staff will have to accept it as correct. On the subject of BWV or CCTV, if any existed, footage is usually only generally available for 30 days from the date of any incident and as Stigy says, unless there was a very compelling reason to mark it proactively to be retained, footage is very unlikely to exist now.
On the understanding that this does not involve the OP, this has to be challenged and I suggest that the OP may wish to put together any supporting information to confirm where he was at the time. To save much repetition, the OP might wish to go back to post #5 by Neutron for ideas here.
Along with the letter the OP should include a recent head and shoulders photograph of himself, with his name in capitals and signed with his normal signature on the back and write to the prosecutor enclosing copies, stating that he has been the victim of identity theft and invite the prosecution to withdraw their summons.
If it were me, I would send a copy of that letter and the supporting photo etc. to the Legal Advisor at the Court where the case is to be heard as soon as possible and a letter explaining your dispute.
You should also keep a copy of everything sent for your own record and await a response.
I can fully understand non-railway people automatically thinking Penalty Fare Notice (PFN), or Report for Prosecution because that is what they see and hear on a regular basis on here via either a Travel Irregularity Report (TIR) written by railway staff or, following a Witness Statement which will have been compiled after an interview under caution conducted by a PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984) trained inspector. As 30907 says, if you are being questioned, that amounts to an interview and whilst limited in its scope, a single question can be considered to be 'an interview'..
The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 apply only to PFNs.
Given the confusion around the sum of £24.90 referred to, if and it is only an if, but if that is the correct fare for the journey being made it is perfectly possible that a UFN was issued. That is an Unpaid Fare Notice and is issued on a pad form that looks a bit like a PFN, but is not issued subject to the Penalty Fares Regulations. It is simply an invoice for the fare for the journey to be paid within 21 days of travel.
I had 40 years in railway revenue protection and the last 20 years running prosecutions. I can say for certainty that if this UFN remained unpaid, prosecution would not be statute barred as suggested by 221129. The TOC would have up to 6 months from date of commission of the alleged offence to lay an information before a Court and they have clearly done that.
Just to touch on the matter of seeking proof of identity at the time of a report, rail staff will ask for confirmation of the details they are being given and in most cases something will be shown that satisfies the request, but it must be remembered that we do have generally good civil liberties in this country. If someone is asked to show their identity and says 'I haven't got anything', but a call by the questioner to the helpline confirms the name given at the address given, rail staff will have to accept it as correct. On the subject of BWV or CCTV, if any existed, footage is usually only generally available for 30 days from the date of any incident and as Stigy says, unless there was a very compelling reason to mark it proactively to be retained, footage is very unlikely to exist now.
On the understanding that this does not involve the OP, this has to be challenged and I suggest that the OP may wish to put together any supporting information to confirm where he was at the time. To save much repetition, the OP might wish to go back to post #5 by Neutron for ideas here.
Along with the letter the OP should include a recent head and shoulders photograph of himself, with his name in capitals and signed with his normal signature on the back and write to the prosecutor enclosing copies, stating that he has been the victim of identity theft and invite the prosecution to withdraw their summons.
If it were me, I would send a copy of that letter and the supporting photo etc. to the Legal Advisor at the Court where the case is to be heard as soon as possible and a letter explaining your dispute.
You should also keep a copy of everything sent for your own record and await a response.
Last edited:
Yes sorry Gonzoiku, my bad, I didn't register that I had referred to the OP and mentioned the name, what I should have said was 'the OP might wish to go along the lines of post #5 for ideas here.
i.e; notes of where he was,
any statement from friend or other person who can confirm that,
did not travel on that day,
has no knowledge of fare quoted,
TOC / IRCAS failed to respond to his request for clarification etc.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Just to clarify these words; the letter should be addressed to "The Clerk to the Justices"at the particular Court
I think even a fresh faced prosecutor could put forward an argument that a phone could be handed off to someone else (ie a friend) to use while the owner did his or her crime...I am of course not suggesting this is the case here at all.
Yes Llanigraham, I guess it depends where any of us worked and how long ago, I retired early last year and had got into the habit of referring to Legal Advisors as that is the title used by most Magistrates Courts staff themselves in my experience now. Many seem not to like being called a 'Clerk' for some reason.
This is what the Judiciary guidance website says:
Justices’ Clerks
As magistrates do not need to have legal qualifications, they are advised in court on matters of law, practice and procedure. This advice is provided by Justices’ Clerks and Assistant Justices’ Clerks.
They may also be referred to as a legal advisor
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/magistrates-court/
In my experience the letter will arrive with the relevant party either way, but thanks for your accurate observation.
In relation to any claim by a prosecutor that a mobile phone had been in the possession of a third party at any time
I agree 100%, having prosecuted many hundreds of cases I am certain that without evidence to support such a claim it would be dismissed out of hand - and rightly so.
Last edited:
No, I was saying that someone has avoided paying their fare, and since the train company has received a fare for that journey through the payment of the penalty fare by an innocent bystander, the company will not be looking for anyone else to pay that fare.
I would go one step further and say that you would only leave your phone at home if you were actively planning to commit fare evasion AND expect to be caught by an RPI. If you were committing fare evasion every day, that would mean you would leave your phone at home every day (which does not sound likely), just in case you were caught.
What absolute rubbish. I rarely take my phone when I leave home.
My experience is that you are in a minority. I don't know anyone that leaves their phone at home; most people seem to be firmly attached to their phones.
Just because you don't know anyone who leaves their phone at home doesn't mean anyone who does is "actively planning to commit fare evasion AND expect to be caught by an RPI."
I know a number of people who usually leave their phone at home. Just off the top of my head I can think of two people I know who do not even own a mobile phone.
I know a number of people who usually leave their phone at home. Just off the top of my head I can think of two people I know who do not even own a mobile phone.
Without trying to sidetrack the main discussion, I think that we will just have to agree to differ.
- Status