Not being an expert on such matters can I ask whether it is fair to decline an "out of court settlement" at the beginning of the process only to offer one at the end of the process when we all know that the ToC will not benefit from a criminal conviction in the same way as they would from any settlement?
It seems to me that there are some very clear misunderstandings regarding process in all of these threads at times, but that's only to be expected as a great many respondents will of course be commenting from their personal opinion rather than daily experience of dealing with these matters. Please don't take that as criticism in any sense because it isn't.
When those who have been spoken to, or reported, for alleged ticket validity matters post messages seeking advice, or other help, on public forums it is inevitable that differing perceptions will arise from a one sided account of any interaction. We have to take any OP's account at face value, because we as public viewers cannot see the company's evidence nor question it.
To answer to
joke2711 whether it's fair or not for a company to decline a settlement, only to accept one later, I'd say this depends entirely on circumstances.
It may be that a company believes that they have identified a clear case of intentional fare evasion and they may notify the alleged offender that they intend to prosecute this offence as is their right.
We can assume that the alleged offender may write and attempt to persuade the company to change their mind, but on reviewing their evidence, if the company sees no reason to change their view that prosecution is justified they will advise the alleged offender accordingly. There may be further correspondence back & forth, but nothing if changes and the company decides there is no reason not to continue, the appropriate protocols will be applied and papers issued.
Even at this late stage the alleged offender may be trying to convince the company not to proceed with a Court action and cases are continuously reviewed by prosecutors right up to presentation as a result.
If new evidence suddenly comes to light, or perhaps something is said by the defendant that had not been previously raised, if the company have a change of senior personnel with a different policy, any of these things and a host of other factors may sway the decision one way or the other.
If, in a final reassessment on the day the prosecutor feels there is good reason to change direction s/he may do so at any time up until the case is actually called into Court and it's absolutely right that should be allowed. That's perfectly normal and not uncommon in my experience, but I often think some people jump to the immediate conclusion that a rail company has an ulterior motive in these matters when allowing a late settlement.
There was an interesting response to a request some years ago, which will perhaps help. A leading Barrister was asked to determine whether administrative settlements were fair or a punitive measure. As I recall, he described them as 'a properly costed assessment' of the time and work that goes into preparing a case for Court and that the defendant was always free to decline the opportunity and have the evidence tested if they wanted.
