Intent to avoid paying fare?

[Ossie55]

Hello. I have recently received a court summons for using an out of date rail card by mistake. I am being accused specifically of having the intent to avoid paying which I definitely didn't have. Anyone have experience with this. Thanks

 

[py_megapixel]

In the first instance, take a look at a couple of recent threads about people doing similar things. Beware though that this differs in that what they have received is not a court summons, but rather an out-of-court settlement offer, meaning the advice may not be applicable to you:

Settlement of £115.50 for 'Failing to show a valid rail ticket' (due to expired railcard) - help please!

Was recommended from Reddit to post this on here too Hi all, I made a train journey a few months back with a purchased ticket alongside my 16-25 railcard. I hadn't realised that by this point my railcard had expired as I don't often travel via train. When the train conductor saw my ticket...

railforums.co.uk

Given a fine for fare evasion even though the employee told me it was just a written warning...

Hi all, In August I was stopped at Stansted Airport travelling from Tottenham Hale with a ticket with a Railcard on it and an expired railcard. Admittedly the railcard was a number of months expired as with Covid I hadn't been travelling on the trains and assumed it was still active! I...

railforums.co.uk

Some well-informed people will, I'm sure, be along shortly to reply to this thread with specific advice - the discussion is usually assisted if you can explain what journey you were making when you were caught (presumably you had your details taken down by a member of railway staff at some point?) and what exactly the letter received says.

 

[Ossie55]

Thank you

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@Ossie55. Are you able to upload a copy of the letter received? If so, please be sure to obscure your name and address details. Also, what was the journey made?

 

[Haywain]

Hello. I have recently received a court summons for using an out of date rail card by mistake. I am being accused specifically of having the intent to avoid paying which I definitely didn't have. Anyone have experience with this. Thanks

Intent isn’t, in the eyes of the law, what you think it is. Essentially, it’s about what you actually did and not what you may or may not have thought about doing. So if you passed an opportunity to pay the correct fare (a ticket office or TVM) and failed to do so you have demonstrated intent to avoid paying.

 

[Ossie55]

Ok - I understand, but you generally don't pass a ticket office by mistake.. normally in a hurry etc.. so ultimately you made a decision not to pay.. The decision was never made not to pay in my case, but it looks like from what you say I will get a criminal record anyway which will have a huge affect on my future. I believe there are 2 ways to get prosecuted - first way is using the byelaws and the 2nd is the one with "intent" which will lead to a criminal record and is much more serious. That is the one I have been given. Is there anything I can do?

EDIT -
Just found this on a law firms website "If you were travelling on a non-TfL rail service, you are likely to be prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. To successfully prosecute, the rail company will need to prove that you intended to avoid paying the fare. So, if you have a ticket for at least part of your journey or offered to pay the fare when you were stopped, it would help your case."
And another here
"Companies such as Transport Investigation Limited (Chiltern Railways & Cross Country) prosecute under s.5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. They have to prove that you intended to evade the fare under this offence."

Does this mean there is some hope - I need hope !

 

[RPI]

Ok - I understand, but you generally don't pass a ticket office by mistake.. normally in a hurry etc.. so ultimately you made a decision not to pay.. The decision was never made not to pay in my case, but it looks like from what you say I will get a criminal record anyway which will have a huge affect on my future. I believe there are 2 ways to get prosecuted - first way is using the byelaws and the 2nd is the one with "intent" which will lead to a criminal record and is much more serious. That is the one I have been given. Is there anything I can do?

EDIT -
Just found this on a law firms website "If you were travelling on a non-TfL rail service, you are likely to be prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. To successfully prosecute, the rail company will need to prove that you intended to avoid paying the fare. So, if you have a ticket for at least part of your journey or offered to pay the fare when you were stopped, it would help your case."
And another here
"Companies such as Transport Investigation Limited (Chiltern Railways & Cross Country) prosecute under s.5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. They have to prove that you intended to evade the fare under this offence."

Does this mean there is some hope - I need hope !

The intent would be proven by your actions, ie by travelling with an invalid ticket, knowingly or otherwise, your fare would have been avoided had you not been challenged, therefore you only would have paid the correct fare when challenged.

A successful prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 can simply be that you hadn't previously paid your correct fare, there is case law Corbyn v Saunders (can't remember the year).

 

[Watershed]

The intent would be proven by your actions, ie by travelling with an invalid ticket, knowingly or otherwise, your fare would have been avoided had you not been challenged, therefore you only would have paid the correct fare when challenged.

Intent is not proven merely through the act of travelling with an invalid ticket. Otherwise the offence would not stipulate the two separate elements of "travels without previously having paid his fare" and "with intent to avoid payment thereof". Each element must be individually proven.

A successful prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 can simply be that you hadn't previously paid your correct fare, there is case law Corbyn v Saunders (can't remember the year).

Corbyn is frequently misdescribed. The circumstances were that the defendant had, on multiple occasions, passed a ticket office at his destination but failed to use it to pay for his outstanding fare, instead filling out a form which he knew would not be followed up. There was also evidence that these actions were politically motivated (a form of protest against a recent fares increase).

There is simply no comparison between that case and OP's circumstances. The only thing that can be generalised out of Corbyn is that intent can be determined from actions, something which is hardly a new precedent!

If OP's sole mistake was to use a ticket after their Railcard had recently expired, it seems unlikely that this would be sufficient evidence of intent to avoid payment.

Of course, their actions and words upon encountering the member of staff would also be relevant - e.g. if they straight away said "oh no, I didn't realise it had expired!" that's a different story to "c'mon, can you just let me off this time? It's only expired by a few days!"

If they have previously received reminders to renew it and didn't this year (it seems that RDG have given up on these), that would also seem a perfectly plausible defence to an accusation that this was intentional.

On the contrary, if this has occurred (undetected) several times or the Railcard is long expired, that would be more likely to suggest intent.

 

[Ossie55]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. The Corbyn case is interesting but a very different set of circumstances. I think most people reading that case will agree that he was intending to avoid paying! I have now spoken to a solicitor who has advised that the use of the word intent in this case is literally that and not just my actions, although obviously these are taken into account. He suggested trying to settle out of court because proving intent in this case is going to be very difficult for them. I hope he is right and I will update this post when this is resolved one way or another for others in similar circumstances.

 

[RPI]

Intent is not proven merely through the act of travelling with an invalid ticket. Otherwise the offence would not stipulate the two separate elements of "travels without previously having paid his fare" and "with intent to avoid payment thereof". Each element must be individually proven.


Corbyn is frequently misdescribed. The circumstances were that the defendant had, on multiple occasions, passed a ticket office at his destination but failed to use it to pay for his outstanding fare, instead filling out a form which he knew would not be followed up. There was also evidence that these actions were politically motivated (a form of protest against a recent fares increase).

There is simply no comparison between that case and OP's circumstances. The only thing that can be generalised out of Corbyn is that intent can be determined from actions, something which is hardly a new precedent!

If OP's sole mistake was to use a ticket after their Railcard had recently expired, it seems unlikely that this would be sufficient evidence of intent to avoid payment.

Of course, their actions and words upon encountering the member of staff would also be relevant - e.g. if they straight away said "oh no, I didn't realise it had expired!" that's a different story to "c'mon, can you just let me off this time? It's only expired by a few days!"

If they have previously received reminders to renew it and didn't this year (it seems that RDG have given up on these), that would also seem a perfectly plausible defence to an accusation that this was intentional.

On the contrary, if this has occurred (undetected) several times or the Railcard is long expired, that would be more likely to suggest intent.

We'll agree to disagree, to prove a RoRA offence doesn't necessarily require intent in that a person knowingly intended to avoid that fare, just that they did by their own doing, by not renewing a railcard is the persons responsibility, the Corbyn argument is relevant to a degree as the person buying a railcard signed that they agreed to the terms and conditions of such railcard therefore were previously aware of the requirements to keep that railcard updated.

 

[Ossie55]

We'll agree to disagree, to prove a RoRA offence doesn't necessarily require intent in that a person knowingly intended to avoid that fare, just that they did by their own doing, by not renewing a railcard is the persons responsibility, the Corbyn argument is relevant to a degree as the person buying a railcard signed that they agreed to the terms and conditions of such railcard therefore were previously aware of the requirements to keep that railcard updated.

OK - do you know of any precedents other than the Corbyn case - i.e those involving unintentional actions.

 

[Moonpie]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. The Corbyn case is interesting but a very different set of circumstances. I think most people reading that case will agree that he was intending to avoid paying! I have now spoken to a solicitor who has advised that the use of the word intent in this case is literally that and not just my actions, although obviously these are taken into account. He suggested trying to settle out of court because proving intent in this case is going to be very difficult for them. I hope he is right and I will update this post when this is resolved one way or another for others in similar circumstances.

I'm confused by this advise... if your legal advise is saying its difficult for them ( railway ) to prove your intent and be successful in prosecution. That would suggest they thought that a successful prosecution wasn't likely. That sits at odds with the guidance to pursue the out of court settlement , which is often given when a successful prosecution seems like a likely outcome.

 

[RPI]

OK - do you know of any precedents other than the Corbyn case - i.e those involving unintentional actions.

Where a successful RoRA prosecution has been brought against someone with an out of date railcard? Several every month in each local magistrates Court in England and Wales.

 

[Watershed]

Where a successful RoRA prosecution has been brought against someone with an out of date railcard? Several every month in each local magistrates Court in England and Wales.

That's not quite answering the question the OP asked. Firstly because none of those set a binding precedent, and secondly because I imagine many of those will involve additional factors/circumstances which indicate intent to avoid payment, as I posted above.

The fact that Corbyn - which involved very specific circumstances - is one of only a handful precedents surrounding fares offence is unhelpful, to say the least.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@Ossie55. Are you able to upload a copy of the letter received? If so, please be sure to obscure your name and address details. Also, what was the journey made?

Have we had clarification on this?

 

[RPI]

That's not quite answering the question the OP asked. Firstly because none of those set a binding precedent, and secondly because I imagine many of those will involve additional factors/circumstances which indicate intent to avoid payment, as I posted above.

The fact that Corbyn - which involved very specific circumstances - is one of only a handful precedents surrounding fares offence is unhelpful, to say the least.

I came back on some of those points in my previous post, ultimately, is a RoRA prosecution likely to proceed for an out of date railcard? I'd say, with 19 years of observing such cases, yes.

 

[Ossie55]

I came back on some of those points in my previous post, ultimately, is a RoRA prosecution likely to proceed for an out of date railcard? I'd say, with 19 years of observing such cases, yes.

OK. And do you know if these have resulted in a criminal record. This is a life altering thing to happen to a young person - Someone who has never shown any form of dishonesty in their life! It could affect my ability to get a job, rent a house etc.. and whatever the outcome, it was not an intentional act.

 

[221129]

And do you know if these have resulted in a criminal record.

Every conviction under the RoRA will end up with a criminal record.

 

[AlterEgo]

OK - do you know of any precedents other than the Corbyn case - i.e those involving unintentional actions.

Intent is proven by actions. Remember a court cannot see literally into your mind, and the magistrates will have to infer your intent from your testimony and actions.

Shoplifting is a good example. If I am a person of good character and standing, and I am caught walking out of a shop with a £30 bottle of whisky, but have £30 in cash I just drew out of a cashpoint and testify I simply forgot to pay, I might be given the benefit of the doubt.

If I put a cold can of beer under my jumper to cool me down, but still intend to pay for it when I leave, forget, walk out of the shop, and it turns out I also have no means to pay, then I’m pretty sure a magistrate would consider I had intent.

In the specific case of forgetting to renew a railcard, the number of times you obtained a discount you weren’t entitled to, as well as your interview under caution would be a big factor into whether this is a simple Bylaw matter or RORA.

If you upload the letter, and let us know how many times this has happened, we will be able to advise further.

 

[pedr]

“Criminal record” is an imprecise term.

If someone is convicted of a crime - RoRA or byelaw offence - then that’s a fact. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act says that for most jobs and in most UK circumstances a person punished by a fine can answer questions about whether they’ve ever been convicted disregarding a conviction more than 12 months previously. For other jobs/circumstances the person asking will have the right to ask notwithstanding the RoOA - these will be situations where an enhanced DBS check or similar is applicable.

A byelaw conviction is very unlikely to actually be recorded anywhere, though in my view that doesn’t affect whether it is, in fact, a conviction for the purpose of being asked about prior convictions. A RoRA offence will be recorded and available to anyone processing a DBS enquiry, subject to the rules on disclosures under that system.

From reading the Act and some of the reported cases (including Corbyn) I think magistrates are wrong to convict someone of the RoRA offence where the wrong/an invalid ticket has been purchased by mistake - where the passenger would have purchased the correct ticket if they had known the railcard was expired. Magistrates are entitled to infer intent from the totality of the circumstances and there doesn’t have to be proof of intent to defraud, just proof of intent not to pay the fare to the railway (there are some use of non transferrable tickets cases where the railway did not lose any money but where the convictions were upheld because the passenger did not pay their fare). But it would take an appeal to the High Court to form precedent, and that’s rare.

Of course if the guard/RPI identified that the railcard was expired and asked a passenger to pay the correct fare, failing to do so at that point would be intent to avoid payment.

 

[Ossie55]

Every conviction under the RoRA will end up with a criminal record

Intent is proven by actions. Remember a court cannot see literally into your mind, and the magistrates will have to infer your intent from your testimony and actions.

Shoplifting is a good example. If I am a person of good character and standing, and I am caught walking out of a shop with a £30 bottle of whisky, but have £30 in cash I just drew out of a cashpoint and testify I simply forgot to pay, I might be given the benefit of the doubt.

If I put a cold can of beer under my jumper to cool me down, but still intend to pay for it when I leave, forget, walk out of the shop, and it turns out I also have no means to pay, then I’m pretty sure a magistrate would consider I had intent.

In the specific case of forgetting to renew a railcard, the number of times you obtained a discount you weren’t entitled to, as well as your interview under caution would be a big factor into whether this is a simple Bylaw matter or RORA.

If you upload the letter, and let us know how many times this has happened, we will be able to advise further.

Sorry I'm away so I don't have the letter with me. My card was a few months out of date and had been used for one other journey. It was the first trips after lockdown so I lost all track of time. No excuse I know! It sounds a bit like some would convict me and some wouldn't. I think I need specialist legal advice. Thank you

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s difficult to see why RORA would be authorised for one or two instances of travelling without a valid railcard, particularly as you did have one recently but it expired.

Do you remember what you said in your interview with the inspector who stopped you?

 

[RPI]

OK. And do you know if these have resulted in a criminal record. This is a life altering thing to happen to a young person - Someone who has never shown any form of dishonesty in their life! It could affect my ability to get a job, rent a house etc.. and whatever the outcome, it was not an intentional act.

A RoRA conviction would be reported, however, from previous posts by others in the past it seems that it isn't necessarily a "Crime of dishonesty" for the purpose of declaring such convictions, the scenario i seem to remember (though I may be mistaken) was on a Visa application for the US, it turned out that such conviction didn't have to be declared (my mind is a bit foggy on this but I'm quite sure that's how I remembered). The reason why it may not be deemed as such is that "intent" doesn't have to be proved to be dishonest for such conviction, a good example is the definition of theft in the theft act, which makes a detailed definition.

Sorry I'm away so I don't have the letter with me. My card was a few months out of date and had been used for one other journey. It was the first trips after lockdown so I lost all track of time. No excuse I know! It sounds a bit like some would convict me and some wouldn't. I think I need specialist legal advice. Thank you

Sorry, I was replying when you posted this, if there is more than one instance then again, I'd say it becomes more difficult to use the ignorance defence, would the average person on the street expect you to have checked the validity on your railcard at least once? Thats not for me to say but what would be considered.

 

[Ossie55]

It’s difficult to see why RORA would be authorised for one or two instances of travelling without a valid railcard, particularly as you did have one recently but it expired.

Do you remember what you said in your interview with the inspector who stopped you?

I don't really remember - Except something like Oh Dear! - when I saw the expiry date. I'm 19 so I didn't know what to do except cooperate with the inspector

 

[30907]

OK. And do you know if these have resulted in a criminal record. This is a life altering thing to happen to a young person - Someone who has never shown any form of dishonesty in their life! It could affect my ability to get a job, rent a house etc.. and whatever the outcome, it was not an intentional act.

Being convicted of a RoRA offence is not going to have a serious effect on your future. It will be spent after 12 months, and is unlikely to be of great interest to a future employer or landlord. If it shows up in that period on an enhanced DBS check then they have a duty to consider whether your behaviour indicates that you are a potential risk to vulnerable people - again unlikely.

When you get home, as well as uploading the redacted letter, could you tell us what contact you have had from TIL or whoever since the original incident(s), and how you have responded?

 

[RPI]

I don't really remember - Except something like Oh Dear! - when I saw the expiry date. I'm 19 so I didn't know what to do except cooperate with the inspector

Worth remembering that the train company would also have obtained your trainline or other app booking history to see how many if any previous railcard discounted fares there were between your railcard expiring and the date of the incident.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Do you accept that your ticket was not valid because you didn't have a valid Railcard? If so, then you will be guilty of the byelaw offence of boarding a train without a valid ticket. The only thing to argue about will be the question of intent.

So when/if the matter gets to court, the railway will win and you will lose. What would that mean?

It won't mean going to prison - the byelaw offence is (I think) only punishable by a fine, and in practice the Regulation of the Railways Act (RORA) is dealt with by a fine as well.

But it will mean a fine. That's calculated against your income, but typically is around £220. There will also be court costs, prosecution costs and compensation for the train fare you should have paid. Overall, something around £500.

On top of that, a RORA conviction can appear on a DBS check and be declared for the year after conviction if someone with a legitimate interest asks ( longer for some matters - for example taking a job where personal integrity is particularly important - where you deal with other people's money perhaps or provide medical or personal care).

But that's the worst that can happen. Bear in mind that even if you aim to work in a field where personal trust is important, one isolated mistake isn't an absolute bar to appointment: have a look at the guidance in (for example) the Nurses and Midwifery Council website and the equivalent for doctors and solicitors. As long as you don't make a habit of getting your fare wrong, most employers recognise the possibility of isolated errors of judgement.

But if you can get the railway to settle out of court, it's likely to be cheaper - and there won't be the criminal record issues. So it's worth trying to engage with the railway and seeing if they will settle before going to court.

There's plenty of good advice on this forum of what to say: if you can find it, it's worth following it. Even if the railway already seem intent on taking you to court, try asking: be polite, be brief and be apologetic. You have nothing to lose.

(N.b. written while somewhere with no signal: apologies if the conversation has moved on before this is posted.)

 

[Ossie55]

Do you accept that your ticket was not valid because you didn't have a valid Railcard? If so, then you will be guilty of the byelaw offence of boarding a train without a valid ticket. The only thing to argue about will be the question of intent.

So when/if the matter gets to court, the railway will win and you will lose. What would that mean?

It won't mean going to prison - the byelaw offence is (I think) only punishable by a fine, and in practice the Regulation of the Railways Act (RORA) is dealt with by a fine as well.

But it will mean a fine. That's calculated against your income, but typically is around £220. There will also be court costs, prosecution costs and compensation for the train fare you should have paid. Overall, something around £500.

On top of that, a RORA conviction can appear on a DBS check and be declared for the year after conviction if someone with a legitimate interest asks ( longer for some matters - for example taking a job where personal integrity is particularly important - where you deal with other people's money perhaps or provide medical or personal care).

But that's the worst that can happen. Bear in mind that even if you aim to work in a field where personal trust is important, one isolated mistake isn't an absolute bar to appointment: have a look at the guidance in (for example) the Nurses and Midwifery Council website and the equivalent for doctors and solicitors. As long as you don't make a habit of getting your fare wrong, most employers recognise the possibility of isolated errors of judgement.

But if you can get the railway to settle out of court, it's likely to be cheaper - and there won't be the criminal record issues. So it's worth trying to engage with the railway and seeing if they will settle before going to court.

There's plenty of good advice on this forum of what to say: if you can find it, it's worth following it. Even if the railway already seem intent on taking you to court, try asking: be polite, be brief and be apologetic. You have nothing to lose.

(N.b. written while somewhere with no signal: apologies if the conversation has moved on before this is posted.)

Thank you so much for your advice. I totally accept responsibility for my actions - I know i am a little chaotic and disorganised and not checking the date on my rail card is just the sort of thing I would do. So I've decided to take responsibility and hope that the court sees it as what it is rather than dishonesty. I will however attempt to settle out of court and maybe try to move them to a bylaw prosecution, which I feel would be more relevant to my case, rather than a RORA offence. From previous threads I feel this is unlikely but worth a try.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you so much for your advice. I totally accept responsibility for my actions - I know i am a little chaotic and disorganised and not checking the date on my rail card is just the sort of thing I would do. So I've decided to take responsibility and hope that the court sees it as what it is rather than dishonesty. I will however attempt to settle out of court and maybe try to move them to a bylaw prosecution, which I feel would be more relevant to my case, rather than a RORA offence. From previous threads I feel this is unlikely but worth a try.

Surely you need to stop focusing on the possible court action and instead focus on securing a settlement prior to court? Usually plenty of advice on how to do that on these threads - but ask if you need that info.

No disrespect, but the debate about the prospects of getting out of being found guilty in court seem pointless to me - and the only hope of achieving that would be via legal help that will cost you more than a settlement payment IMHO. I'm not saying don't go for it if you want your day in court - but be prepared for that not to go as well as you hope.

 

[Ossie55]

Surely you need to stop focusing on the possible court action and instead focus on securing a settlement prior to court? Usually plenty of advice on how to do that on these threads - but ask if you need that info.

No disrespect, but he debate about the prospects of getting out of being found guilty in court seem pointless to me - and the only hope of achieving that would be via legal help that will cost you more than a settlement payment IMHO. I'm not saying don't go for it if you want your day on court - but be prepared for that not to go as well as you hope.

Thank you. Yes I will focus on trying to get an out of court settlement. I definitely don't want my day in court!