Help Chiltern court summuns

[Caught123]

I have got this in the post with an SJP pack. I'm really worried what shall I do?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Please read this, and provide all the information requested, in order that we can try and assist you.

Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions

Guidance for those asking for advice: Many members will try to assist you, but please bear in mind the following: We need to know all relevant facts in order to assist you, including, for example: The stations where you started & finished your journey; The stations where you changed trains...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Wethebest838]

So they are going to prosecute you but will offer an out of court settlement but only if you go to a voluntary interview which could further incriminate you?

Is this normal as this is wild to me? Am I reading this right?

 

[Caught123]

So they are going to prosecute you but will offer an out of court settlement but only if you go to a voluntary interview which could further incriminate you?

Is this normal as this is wild to me? Am I reading this right?

It is true though I have done it before quite a few times

 

[Bertie the bus]

Nobody can possibly answer your question without more information but the three main questions regarding what should you do are:

How much do you want to avoid a criminal conviction?
What have you been up to?
Do you do you have the money to pay Chiltern the amount they will request?

 

[Caught123]

Nobody can possibly answer your question without more information but the three main questions regarding what should you do are:

How much do you want to avoid a criminal conviction?
What have you been up to?
Do you do you have the money to pay Chiltern the amount they will request?

I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS

Erm... how much can they see? I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
That depends on how much it would be

 

[Bertie the bus]

The amount they will request will be roughly the regular full fare for each time you have done it + costs. Depending on what you have done and how often that could be a significant sum.

If you want to avoid a conviction at all costs then you don't have many options. You are almost certainly going to have to attend the interview and admit it.

Personally, I very much doubt this is some kind of trap by Chiltern whereby they will get you to admit multiple offences and then prosecute but they will genuinely offer you an out of court settlement if you attend and are honest. However, as the stakes are quite high you should probably follow the advice on the letter and seek professional legal advice before making any decision.

 

[Snow1964]

I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS

Erm... how much can they see? I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
That depends on how much it would be

If you don't want it to go to court, then you need to cooperate. It is their choice if they offer you cash alternative, it's not automatic. If they do then it will be pay sum to close it, or risk court (and if court finds you guilty, it will be visible on enhanced DBS).

How much they can see depends on how you bought tickets, cash at ticket offices or machines leaves no trail, use same app, logged in as yourself, and will have detailed history of all purchases going back months

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

You have two choices here:

1. Co-operate with Chiltern, admit to what you’ve done and settle out of court. This is likely to cost the value of the fares avoided at the Anytime rate with no credit given for the child tickets purchased, plus an admin fee to cover Chiltern’s costs in dealing with the issue. Paying a settlement does not give you a criminal record.

2. Let the case proceed to court. Chiltern will only be able to prosecute for the single offence where you were caught. You would be found guilty by the court, have a criminal record and have to pay a fine, surcharge, court costs and compensation for the fare avoided.

I suspect the cost will likely be similar, whichever option you choose.

 

[Caught123]

Can anyone recommend who yo ask about legal advice it says in the letter it should be someone who knows about fares but how can you know that?

 

[Puffing Devil]

I suspect the cost will likely be similar, whichever option you choose.

Agree - though a criminal record is thrown in for free with option 2.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Can anyone recommend who yo ask about legal advice it says in the letter it should be someone who knows about fares but how can you know that?

Are you asking for suggestions as to names of firms of solicitors who could possibly provide you with specialist legal representation?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Manak Solicitors | Sevenoaks, Orpington, Gravesend and London

Manak Solicitors: Your trusted legal experts for Family Law, Immigration, Conveyancing, Wills & Probate, and Employment Law. Experience professional, bespoke services.

manaksolicitors.co.uk

This firm crops up regularly on this forum, but expect to pay them several hundred pounds to help you.

Agree - though a criminal record is thrown in for free with option 2.

Which may be relevant given the comment about an enhanced DBS being required for employment.

 

[furlong]

Interview is when they think you've done lots of stuff wrong but they can't prove it all.

There are alternatives to the interview.

If you can calculate how much you've cheated them out of in total, you can just make them an offer for that amount of money to settle the whole thing - if it sounds about the right amount, they should agree. (People doing this would generally round the amount upwards a bit to make sure they accept it.)

You could write back asking them to send you details of the journeys they've found and suggest a settlement amount for you. That's equivalent to going to the interview and admitting to everything they put in front of you, but saves everyone time if that's what you were going to do anyway. If some of the items are wrong, you can still respond with evidence for them to exclude those and reduce the figure.

You could refuse to cooperate, let them prosecute you, and see how much mud they can make stick. If there's a lot they can't prove, this could be the cheapest option - though not if a conviction means you lose your job.

 

[Brissle Girl]

A further question. Do I presume that Small Heath is the obvious local station in relation to your home address or place of work? If not then they may have suspicions of short-faring that they could bring up in an interview.

 

[KirkstallOne]

So they are going to prosecute you but will offer an out of court settlement but only if you go to a voluntary interview which could further incriminate you?

Is this normal as this is wild to me? Am I reading this right?

The motivation is they suspect the OP has evaded their fare on multiple occasions and they want any settlement amount to reflect that. Depending on exactly what has happened this may well be significantly more expensive than pleading guilty but obviously it avoids a criminal record.

This is probably a fairer approach than what we see sometimes where they simply add up all the fares they think have been evaded and present a take it or leave it settlement based on that. We have seen cases where this has been thousands of pounds.

 

[furlong]

This is probably a fairer approach than what we see sometimes where they simply add up all the fares they think have been evaded and present a take it or leave it settlement based on that.

Yet the letter still manages to be a confusing mess of sequential steps taken in parallel. Investigations, charge, interview, settlement offer all rolled into one "have my cake and eat it" letter! Is this one investigation or two? Just because this isn't as bad as the worst we've seen doesn't make this right! (There may even be procedural arguments where the letter itself can be used to undermine some of the things it envisages!)

 

[CyrusWuff]

A further question. Do I presume that Small Heath is the obvious local station in relation to your home address or place of work? If not then they may have suspicions of short-faring that they could bring up in an interview.

I suspect it may be advisable for the OP not to answer that on a public forum, given Small Heath is the Birmingham equivalent of Wembley Stadium when it comes to wanting to get through the barriers.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I suspect it may be advisable for the OP not to answer that on a public forum, given Small Heath is the Birmingham equivalent of Wembley Stadium when it comes to wanting to get through the barriers.

Indeed, but it’s a material point in terms of deciding whether to rock up to an interview.

Do we know whether the OP uses Trainline or similar to purchase said tickets?

 

[SteveM70]

I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult

The letter also refers to using a railcard but being unable to present it, and a suspicious pattern of ticket refunds

It might be a generic letter from Chiltern and they aren't specifically relevant to this case, or it may be that @Caught123 isn't telling us the whole story

 

[Bertie the bus]

Yet the letter still manages to be a confusing mess of sequential steps taken in parallel. Investigations, charge, interview, settlement offer all rolled into one "have my cake and eat it" letter! Is this one investigation or two? Just because this isn't as bad as the worst we've seen doesn't make this right! (There may even be procedural arguments where the letter itself can be used to undermine some of the things it envisages!)

The only way that letter could be described as confusing is if you are deliberately trying to be confused. It is straightforward - choice 1, get prosecuted for the offence you've been stopped for or choice 2, avoid prosecution but pay everything you've avoided.

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS

Erm... how much can they see? I don't always buy tickets but when I do I buy child if its just to get through a barrier if its for someone to check I buy adult
That depends on how much it would be

So when you do buy a ticket, how do you decide in advance if it’s “just to get through a barrier“ or if it’s for “someone to check” it?

Do you check for staff on the train you’re getting on, or check who’s standing near the ticket barriers? Does this mean you’re buying your ticket only when you see staff about?

 

[Pushpit]

I can't my job requires an enhanced DBS

Depending on the precise charge and your precise job role, it may not show up on an Enhanced DBS. But that's missing the point really: if you are in a role that requires EDBS then you have to declare your criminal history anyway - it's not what comes back on from DBS that causes problems, it is the failure to disclose something that you are required to disclose that can have life changing consequences.

 

[Caught123]

Thank everyone for your advice. I decided to bite the bullet and contact them direct on the e mail, they explained everything to me and sent me something with all the tickets I had bought. It was quite embarrassing as there were quite a lot but they were actually really nice. I offered them £750 to make it go away but they got back to me and said my offences actually only came to 302 and the admin on top made it £477. I thought that was really good of them actually.

 

[30907]

Thank everyone for your advice. I decided to bite the bullet and contact them direct on the e mail, they explained everything to me and sent me something with all the tickets I had bought. It was quite embarrassing as there were quite a lot but they were actually really nice. I offered them £750 to make it go away but they got back to me and said my offences actually only came to 302 and the admin on top made it £477. I thought that was really good of them actually.

Thanks for the update. I assume their analysis of your tickets was near enough correct.
£150-odd admin is about par for the course where >1 instance of dishonesty is involved.

For our future reference, sending the SJPN and a settlement offer in the same envelope seems to be a new development.

 

[AlterEgo]

Another instance of Chiltern settling, for the hive mind.

 

[Hadders]

Thank you for updating us with the outcome.

Chiltern do seem to have become a bit more reasonable to deal with lately.

For our future reference, sending the SJPN and a settlement offer in the same envelope seems to be a new development.

Agreed. This seems to be a new tactic employed by some train companies. It's as though they want to show they're serious about prosecuting if you don't co-operate.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Given we saw figures quoted recently that suggested a remarkably high proportion of cases ended up with convictions, presumably from a lack of engagement to the initial notification, perhaps they are trying to reduce it by shocking people with the first letter into responding.

 

[vinnym70]

There's some basic carrot and stick logic at play here, surely? There's three bases you can claim ... not guilty / might be guilty / guilty of (potentially) repeated evasion
Asking someone to attend an interview under caution is likely to scare most into being honest.

Now that it's clear that TOCs and their representatives can chase down your history across many on-line retailers, i'm a little surprised offers to settle are still made.
Maybe there's a thin line between being naughty and willfully committing fraud that isn't obvious? i'll assume the TOCs prefer to take a settlement rather than pay for legal representation?

 

[AlterEgo]

There's some basic carrot and stick logic at play here, surely? There's three bases you can claim ... not guilty / might be guilty / guilty of (potentially) repeated evasion
Asking someone to attend an interview under caution is likely to scare most into being honest.

Now that it's clear that TOCs and their representatives can chase down your history across many on-line retailers, i'm a little surprised offers to settle are still made.
Maybe there's a thin line between being naughty and willfully committing fraud that isn't obvious? i'll assume the TOCs prefer to take a settlement rather than pay for legal representation?

TOCs cannot easily prove historic offences (after trawling retailer histories) in court, and hence on balance most of them will prefer to settle with the threat of prosecution for the single red-handed offence (the one where the person was caught while travelling) as an incentive. This recoups the most money and is the most pragmatic course of action for them.