How often is an Out of Court settlement offered- Discussion

[finnM]

With the majority of people preferring an out of court settlement rather than a conviction, how likely is that they will get one.
Obviously this differs from company to company and offence to offence with many mitigating and aggravating factors, but is there any clear and obvious patterns to these offences. Such as doughnuting on SWR or having an Invalid railcard on GWR. With the forum experiencing many of the same issues being invalid railcards, short fareing and not having a ticket all with different factors. How likely is it that people will avoid court and get offered an out of court settlement from different railways for different offences.
Take this as the standard most average and common offence, for example, Having a railcard expired for 5 months and using it for 15 journeys or so, or getting stopped with a shorter fare and being seen to have done this multiple times.
It would be helpful if there was something like a table that said something like:
GWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys- normally offered
SWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys normally offered.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

With the majority of people preferring an out of court settlement rather than a conviction, how likely is that they will get one.

From our experience, it's almost invariably the case that people who engage with the process are offered a settlement. There's some debate as to whether the nature of that engagement makes much (or any) difference.

It would be helpful if there was something like a table that said something like:
GWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys- normally offered
SWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys normally offered.

I suspect this would be something of a Schrödinger's table - the very existence of this table might impact on how the companies behaved, because they wouldn't want to be too predictable (We say that whatever Railway Co always offers a settlement: whatever Railway stops doing so because they don't want to be a soft touch)

 

[John R]

From our experience, it's almost invariably the case that people who engage with the process are offered a settlement. There's some debate as to whether the nature of that engagement makes much (or any) difference.

We have seen one case very recently where the response to the TOC complained about how rubbish the rail service was, and mysteriously they did not get offered a settlement!

But in general I agree, that even the most egregious cases get offered a settlement, unless there is an aggravating factor, such as abuse of staff when stopped, or maybe they have already been through the process, been offered a settlement, and then gone on to reoffend.

It's worth just for anyone unfamiliar with this board to make clear that a clear exception is TfL, which does not offer settlements and almost always prosecutes. And given the number of rail services which are operated by TfL in the London area, you could potentially find yourself the wrong end of a correspondence with TfL as far out as a journey between Twyford and Reading.

 

[finnM]

So with an expert opinion what would people say is the most forgiving railway. As established tfl are the least lenient so what is the most?

 

[30907]

So with an expert opinion what would people say is the most forgiving railway. As established tfl are the least lenient so what is the most?

Things have changed over the years, and the only factors I can think of are:
GTR mostly charge relatively little for admin.
Some companies will offer less than the Anytime Single rate, but I am not sure how consistent that is, and/or whether it particularly applies to large sums (are they showing a bit of realism as to what people might bite on?)

 

[island]

TfL never settle out of court for a payment and occasionally do a "formal written warning".

Pretty much every TOC will settle with people who engage constructively.

end of table

 

[6Gman]

TfL never settle out of court for a payment and occasionally do a "formal written warning".

Pretty much every TOC will settle with people who engage constructively.

end of table

Quite correct.

And - I suspect - even the most experienced and knowledgeable person on here would not be inclined to provide such a listing as there are so many variables that it would be impossible, misleading and only create a negative response!

"You said they offered settlements for up to 15 instances but they prosecuted me and I'd only done it 14 times"

 

[BlueLeanie]

So with an expert opinion what would people say is the most forgiving railway. As established tfl are the least lenient so what is the most?

That's probably ScotRail. Simply due to the differing legal system.

Not sure what happens on XC, Lumo, Trans, or LNER services if you are caught in Scotland but the first stop is in England.

 

[WesternLancer]

The other factor is contracted out services. Namely TIL. Not sure who they operate on behalf of now but I think certainly Transport for Wales and maybe Avanti west coast.

Always seem to be less likely to settle.

Also I often note there are some train companies we very rarely see on here. Do they just not do much enforcement?

 

[Hadders]

Train Operating Companies are almost always prepared to offer an out of court settlement to people who co-operate with their investigation and who haven't come to their attention before. Some things to note:

• Acts of violence, abuse etc is unlikely to result in a settlement
• Some TOCs contract investigations to Transport Investigations Limited - they are harder to deal with but normally settle but it takes more effort
• Merseyrail can be harder to deal with (eg feet on seats) but many of their ticketing issues relate to their refusal to move out of the 1970s

Transport for London do not offer settlements.

 

[styles]

It also depends on the scale of what's gone on, and the suspected motivation.

Someone being pulled up for a single fare evasion, will get a settlement.

Someone being pulled up for using an expired Railcard for a few months because they didn't clock it was expired, also will get a settlement.

Someone who borrows their disabled relative's disabled persons Railcard and uses it for persistent deliberate fare evasion, possibly not.

In practice I think even the operators themselves know that taking somebody to court for a few hundred pounds of unpaid fares, when they could collect it and settle out of court, is over the top. But there will be times when they want to make an example out of somebody, or people get aggressive or abusive with staff dealing with the issue, or indeed people who just doing constructively engage in settling the matter like a reasonable person.

 

[Sonic1234]

Court is for making an example of people. Otherwise, it's the threat which gets passengers to pay up. Neither passengers or TOCs want to go to court. The whole prosecution thing is an unregulated income stream for the TOCs, like car parking or selling stale muffins from a trolley at WHSmith prices.

Digital ticketing has caused a bonanza, as you can easily trace people's travel history and who they are.

 

[Hadders]

It also depends on the scale of what's gone on, and the suspected motivation.

Someone being pulled up for a single fare evasion, will get a settlement.

Someone being pulled up for using an expired Railcard for a few months because they didn't clock it was expired, also will get a settlement.

Someone who borrows their disabled relative's disabled persons Railcard and uses it for persistent deliberate fare evasion, possibly not.

In practice I think even the operators themselves know that taking somebody to court for a few hundred pounds of unpaid fares, when they could collect it and settle out of court, is over the top. But there will be times when they want to make an example out of somebody, or people get aggressive or abusive with staff dealing with the issue, or indeed people who just doing constructively engage in settling the matter like a reasonable person.

A few years ago Southeastern settled with a person (a solicitor I think) for £30k (although they were subsequently struck off by their regulator following adverse publicity).

 

[skyhigh]

Someone being pulled up for a single fare evasion, will get a settlement.

Even that isn't guaranteed.

We have seen plenty of cases where the initial letter has been ignored, or the response has been poor, so the matter has proceeded to prosecution - even for a single occurrence.

 

[styles]

A few years ago Southeastern settled with a person (a solicitor I think) for £30k (although they were subsequently struck off by their regulator following adverse publicity).

There was this chap who was convicted of fraud by false representation (and struck off as a solicitor): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37494501

That was only for £6k as well, though Chiltern originally believe it was worth £20k.

Even that isn't guaranteed.

We have seen plenty of cases where the initial letter has been ignored, or the response has been poor, so the matter has proceeded to prosecution - even for a single occurrence.

It's not guaranteed, but like I say, if you engage in the process, there's no real interest in pursuing a prosecution.

I'm yet to read a post in this forum of a single event fare evasion, where the respondent has replied to the NIP like a sensible person, and gone on to be prosecuted.

If you don't engage within the time scales, or you actually like a twonk in response, you're playing with fire.

 

[BlueLeanie]

You just need to take a look at the employment tribunals to realise that the court system does not like to be used for revenge.

If in due course it's found that rail companies are, as is being suggested here, basing their prosecutions on personal or corporate feelings rather than a formal protocol, then there is going to be trouble in early course.

 

[styles]

You just need to take a look at the employment tribunals to realise that the court system does not like to be used for revenge.

If in due course it's found that rail companies are, as is being suggested here, basing their prosecutions on personal or corporate feelings rather than a formal protocol, then there is going to be trouble in early course.

Fare evasion is a strict liability offence - a judge is legally required to merely make a determination on whether the passenger committed the offence, regardless of the intention of the passenger, or the motivation of the operator in bringing the case.

Behind closed doors judges may be tutting about the matter, but there won't be any trouble.

I'm not aware of any suggestion operators are breaking 'protocol' by bringing prosecutions in any case.

 

[Haywain]

You just need to take a look at the employment tribunals to realise that the court system does not like to be used for revenge.

If in due course it's found that rail companies are, as is being suggested here, basing their prosecutions on personal or corporate feelings rather than a formal protocol, then there is going to be trouble in early course.

You seem to be confusing employment tribunals with criminal courts. They are not the same.

 

[island]

n due course it's found that rail companies are, as is being suggested here, basing their prosecutions on personal or corporate feelings rather than a formal protocol, then there is going to be trouble in early course.

No, there isn't.

 

[Hadders]

I'm not aware of any suggestion operators are breaking 'protocol' by bringing prosecutions in any case.

Protocol doesn’t come into it. I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here? Do you want out of court settlements removed with everything going through an already clogged up court system?

 

[BlueLeanie]

You seem to be confusing employment tribunals with criminal courts. They are not the same.

There's no confusion, the legal system does not like to be manipulated.

We saw last year thousands of "fines" for fare evasion overturned. The legal system has been severely embarrassed by the Post Office Counters debacle.

These threads are openly discussing how the same operator are treating people who present as disrespecting them differently.

This is not good for justice.

 

[AlterEgo]

There's no confusion, the legal system does not like to be manipulated.

The system has no feelings and cannot experience like or dislike.

We saw last year thousands of "fines" for fare evasion overturned.

Yes but that was because the wrong protocol was used to bring most of those cases. Also, there is no need for the quote marks around "fines", yes, those were actual fines and actual convictions, given over years by magistrates' courts who found or accepted guilt.

It's got nothing to do with your assertion that:

the court system does not like to be used for revenge.

or that the companies are:

basing their prosecutions on personal or corporate feelings

It's quite simple. RoRA cases could not have been brought via SJPN because that offence carries a theoretical sentence of imprisonment. The court system was as much to blame as the train companies were.

 

[spotify95]

The other factor is contracted out services. Namely TIL. Not sure who they operate on behalf of now but I think certainly Transport for Wales and maybe Avanti west coast.

Always seem to be less likely to settle.

Also I often note there are some train companies we very rarely see on here. Do they just not do much enforcement?

I've seen one fairly recently where TIL operated on behalf of Transport for Wales. With TIL taking things on, it seems like you have to write at least 2 letters asking for a settlement, sometimes even 3. A lot of people at that point would probably give up and end up getting some sort of court matters instead.

TIL used to deal with Cross Country and also Chiltern, but since Chiltern do things in house now they are easier to deal with. Not sure about Cross Country as not many threads seem to appear here about them!

I assume that TOCs we never hear about are because (a) they don't enforce as robustly (maybe more likely to offer a penalty fare instead of a NIP?) Or (b) not many people use their services so proportionate the number of cases are way less.

As others have already stated, TFL do not work the same way as other TOCs. They don't accept payments for out of court settlements, they occasionally offer a final warning but that is more likely if a solicitor is used. If you go it alone (especially with cases involving the mis use of passes) you are very likely to go to court (SJPN or summons).

 

[friendshipdo]

No, there isn't.

Theoretically the magistrates (or more likely a District Judge) could stop a prosecution if to not stop it would be an abuse of process.

This would depend on whether the courts considered the use of retaliatory prosecutions to settle differences of 'personal or corporate opinion' exceptional enough to infringe on the integrity of the legal system.

I'm not saying that this is likely (or that the railway do in fact bring such retaliatory prosecutions) however it is not impossible for a court to take exception to the bringing of a charge and stop the prosecution regardless of whether the offense is one of strict liability or not.

Railway fare evasion doesn't make it to the higher courts all that often but a case to consider would be Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (1982).

The CPS guidance on the topic is here.

 

[island]

A case of police brutality has no relevance to railway fare evasion.

All of this is highly theoretical and is all but unknown in the real world.

 

[traveller3699]

With the majority of people preferring an out of court settlement rather than a conviction, how likely is that they will get one.
Obviously this differs from company to company and offence to offence with many mitigating and aggravating factors, but is there any clear and obvious patterns to these offences. Such as doughnuting on SWR or having an Invalid railcard on GWR. With the forum experiencing many of the same issues being invalid railcards, short fareing and not having a ticket all with different factors. How likely is it that people will avoid court and get offered an out of court settlement from different railways for different offences.
Take this as the standard most average and common offence, for example, Having a railcard expired for 5 months and using it for 15 journeys or so, or getting stopped with a shorter fare and being seen to have done this multiple times.
It would be helpful if there was something like a table that said something like:
GWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys- normally offered
SWR- no railcard from 1-20 journeys normally offered.

So I've been, by my complete idiocy been travelling with an expired railcard for 8 months and completely slipped about updating it but in that time I travelled about 14 or 15 times, same amount of trips but across a longer stretch of time than the one you gave in your example.
Got caught by the inspector and co-operated fully with him and didn't kick off, provided my name and address. This is only once that I've ever been caught and I've never come to their attention before (which he pointed out).
GTR is pretty reasonable from what I've seen so I'm waiting for their letter (which hopefully won't take long!!) And if anything want to settle out of court if you mitigate well and correspond swiftly. I'll be getting a new railcard and I'll let them know in the letter I did purchase one and I'll never repeat this again.
So long as I'm co-operative etc it should hopefully be settled.

 

[styles]

Protocol doesn’t come into it. I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here? Do you want out of court settlements removed with everything going through an already clogged up court system?

I was responding to somebody who suggested some sort of 'protocol' was being broken by bringing prosecutions.

I'm not arguing for anything. I have no major qualms with the current enforcement action, personally. The only process I'm aware of being broken was the use of the single justice procedure, and those have been overturned.

 

[jumble]

We have seen one case very recently where the response to the TOC complained about how rubbish the rail service was, and mysteriously they did not get offered a settlement!

But in general I agree, that even the most egregious cases get offered a settlement, unless there is an aggravating factor, such as abuse of staff when stopped, or maybe they have already been through the process, been offered a settlement, and then gone on to reoffend.

It's worth just for anyone unfamiliar with this board to make clear that a clear exception is TfL, which does not offer settlements and almost always prosecutes. And given the number of rail services which are operated by TfL in the London area, you could potentially find yourself the wrong end of a correspondence with TfL as far out as a journey between Twyford and Reading.

Have a look at which surprisingly disagrees with you
I can understand not prosecuting minors but why the over 60s are immune is really odd

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-2602-2425/Magistrates Court Briefing.pdf page 2 of 7


TfL do not prosecute anyone under the age of 18 or over the age of 60 for fare evasion. Penalty
Fares are issued for all forms of fare evasion to these age groups.

 

[John R]

Have a look at which surprisingly disagrees with you
I can understand not prosecuting minors but why the over 60s are immune is really odd

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-2602-2425/Magistrates Court Briefing.pdf page 2 of 7


TfL do not prosecute anyone under the age of 18 or over the age of 60 for fare evasion. Penalty
Fares are issued for all forms of fare evasion to these age groups.

Thank you. That's very interesting.

And also ridiculous, especially as the State Retirement Age is 66. It's not as if everyone over 60 is a frail confused individual, unable to understand that they need to buy a ticket for their journey.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

And also ridiculous, especially as the State Retirement Age is 66. It's not as if everyone over 60 is a frail confused individual, unable to understand that they need to buy a ticket for their journey.

Most likely it's a historic hangover from when state retirement ages did start at 60.