GTR Great Northern Line carnet ticket

[Blip]

Hi

I am a regular commuter from Stevenage to London Kings Cross and I use the Carnet tickets as they are cheaper as I do night and day shifts.
When I wrote the date on the ticket this morning the number 6 wasn't clear so I wrote it again (see picture).When I went through the barriers, it alarmed so I showed my ticket to a chap manning the barriers. He looked at it and let me in. But along the way, an inspector came and said I have altered my ticket as there appears to be another digit 0 before. I denied I have altered it and he didn't believe and asked me to pay the penalty fare. I said I wouldn't pay as I would like to challenge the penalty. He took all the details from me, took the ticket (I took a photo of it before) and he said to wait a letter from the company on what to do next.
Now I am worried what's going to happen next. In myself I know I have done nothing wrong. From previous experience some ballpoint pens don't write well on this type of paper.
Any advise is greatly appreciated. Sorry about the quality of the photo, I was in total shock and embarrassment from all the people in the carriage

 

[najaB]

It's not the clearest of pictures, but it's easy to see why an inspector might believe that you had altered it.

Any advise is greatly appreciated.

The thing is, if they go for a Byelaw prosecution then you have no defence - the ticket is invalidated by the fact that the date isn't written clearly (and possibly by the fact that you've written outside the boxes).

When the dreaded letter arrives your best bet is to respond honestly and politely and ask if the matter can be resolved by you paying for the journey you made and a portion of the costs involved in investigating your case.

 

[najaB]

Sharpened it up a little bit:

 

[Blip]

Thanks. Yes for some reason the boxes on this set of tickets I bought are smaller. I did show the inspector a previous ticket (not the same batch as the one in the photo) that has bigger boxes. Would it have been better then if I paid the penalty fare of £30? I just thought I did pay for my fare.lol

 

[najaB]

Would it have been better then if I paid the penalty fare of £30?

It's nearly always better to pay and then appeal than face a potential prosecution.

 

[yorkie]

...Now I am worried what's going to happen next. ...

They will write to you asking for your version of events, then they will prosecute you (probably).

You need to get good solicitors to represent you.

Penman Sedgwick have had success defending cases on this route before (including carnets). I'd contact them as soon as you receive a letter from GTR (or perhaps sooner).

It will not be cheap (the cheap option was to pay the Penalty Fare at the time but that's not an option now).

OR the company might invite you to settle the matter out of court; this will be more costly than the Penalty Fare would have been, but cheaper than defending a case.

 

[jon0844]

It could have been altered from the 10th Feb to the 16th Feb, but there should be ways to test this forensically (for one, was the 6 in the same pen as the '0' because the claim is that it was done at the same time). Secondly, they will be able to check if the ticket was used in a machine and marked as used.

But for future reference, a penalty fare will save a world of pain.

Going forward, while it won't have the same level of discount, KeyGo does at least allow you to just turn up last minute to travel and not have to faff around buying a ticket. There are other potential issues (readers not working) but that's likely a lot easier to defend against.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with the advice given above, (though I'm sure that most law firms with a specialisation in Criminal Defence work will be able to assist you equally effectively), but I was struck by something that was missing from your account of the incident.
If you repeat that account to, either the Company directly, or via a solicitor, it should raise the same doubt with them, as it did with me.

The suggestion put to you by the Company is that you had deliberately altered the carnet ticket so that the Company would be deprived of revenue, It seems to me that you haven't exactly denied that suggestion.

Anyone suspecting that a regular traveller had done that on a rare occasion when there was also a rare or random inspection, would be compelled to wonder if that traveller had also done that previously, when there was not such an inspection. Perhaps even having done it previously many times.
There is no advantage to you in replying to these doubts on here, but please do be prepared to answer them, with evidence if possible, when you speak with a Criminal Defence Solicitor. It is a suspicion which will be high in the minds of the Company's Investigations team. To the extent that they may even want to invite you to an interview to assess the situation better.

I hope I am not alarming you, but hope that this helps you to prepare for the worst possible outcomes. But let's hope that the outcome isn't as bad as that.

 

[Failed Unit]

I would once the outcome happens put a compliant into GTR about their continued refusal to put these tickets onto the key. It would eliminate the problem instantly. It is as if GTR are wanting conflict with honest travelers.

 

[cuccir]

The suggestion put to you by the Company is that you had deliberately altered the carnet ticket so that the Company would be deprived of revenue, It seems to me that you haven't exactly denied that suggestion

But along the way, an inspector came and said I have altered my ticket as there appears to be another digit 0 before. I denied I have altered it and he didn't believe and asked me to pay the penalty

Dave, perhaps you could elaborate as this seems a fairly clear denial to me - am I missing something?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Dave, perhaps you could elaborate as this seems a fairly clear denial to me - am I missing something?

Hi cuccir. I guess my remark was aimed at Blip (the OP) who would probably have recognised the distinction I was making, but to answer your question and to give clarity to others, it is a very small point in terms of the words used, but it is a potentially very significant point in terms of the meaning that can be inferred from them.

Blip said that he had told the Inspector that he hadn't altered the carnet ticket.
Blip did not say that he had not altered the carnet ticket.

This subtle distinction is what we often refer to as 'a non-denial denial', a claim often made about political statements. Also often used by people with something they wish to conceal.
Two behaviours which will usually raise doubts are when a person doesn't simply deny a claim against them when its untrue (e.g. 'but I hadn't done it!') and when they deny something that they haven't been accused of (e.g. 'I never lied to anyone'.)
So far, only Blip knows whether or not (s)he had altered it, and it might not be wise for them to say so on here if they had, but my point was, that if they hadn't, then it would be prudent to deny it explicitly when writing to the Company, instead of simply reporting that they had denied it to the inspector.
Hope this helps.

 

[cuccir]

Thanks Dave - I see the point you're making

 

[sirjojo]

Hi cuccir. I guess my remark was aimed at Blip (the OP) who would probably have recognised the distinction I was making, but to answer your question and to give clarity to others, it is a very small point in terms of the words used, but it is a potentially very significant point in terms of the meaning that can be inferred from them.

Blip said that he had told the Inspector that he hadn't altered the carnet ticket.
Blip did not say that he had not altered the carnet ticket.

This subtle distinction is what we often refer to as 'a non-denial denial', a claim often made about political statements. Also often used by people with something they wish to conceal.
Two behaviours which will usually raise doubts are when a person doesn't simply deny a claim against them when its untrue (e.g. 'but I hadn't done it!') and when they deny something that they haven't been accused of (e.g. 'I never lied to anyone'.)
So far, only Blip knows whether or not (s)he had altered it, and it might not be wise for them to say so on here if they had, but my point was, that if they hadn't, then it would be prudent to deny it explicitly when writing to the Company, instead of simply reporting that they had denied it to the inspector.
Hope this helps.

dave, your clearly far more qualified on these matters than i am, but with the greatest of respect, i think its fair to assume from blips post that he denies having altered the ticket. he is not likely to admit whether he had or not on here, so i think its fair to assume the further lack of a denial is more in the interest of brevity of the post. this is further backed up by him stating his pen wasn't working properly on the morning, and his assertion that "he know's he has done nothing wrong". he has denied altering the ticket to the inspector, i fail to see what more he could have done (other than accept the penalty and appeal)

 

[najaB]

...with the greatest of respect, i think its fair to assume...

Many a person has been convicted on account of assumptions.