Intention to prosecute letter

[Greenback]

Yes, but people who call them tube tickets aren't normally using them from stations with no tubes for the past 10 years If someone knows that they need that ticket for use on their train, it does seem a bit odd to not attempt to buy that ticket until you have already done part of the journey on that train, on a route that makes it very clear you must have a valid ticket before boarding. I reckon the RPI thought this story simply does not make sense.

I agree it's odd. But there's nowt as odd as folk. Or something like that!

I

ndeed, PFs are intended for people who make mistakes and should not be issued to fare evaders, which is a "completely different matter" as documented here.

Well, it appears that Southern think this is a case of fare evasion, which is why they have sent a letter about prosectuion. Which brings me back to the OP having spent more on tickets than they needed to.

The OP is definitely guilty of travelling without a valid ticket though.

 

[AlterEgo]

How, if you're going to London for the day from Brighton, do you not have twenty quid on you?

This story does not make sense at all. (scratches head)

 

[richw]

has the £20 got to be paid cash on the spot? I'd probably not have £20 cash on me in all honesty

 

[jon0844]

You could have paid the fare owed (they usually ask for it to be twice this) and the rest to be paid within xx days (by then you could have put in your appeal).

I am confused how you couldn't pay anything at all. If the RPI said it was £20 or nothing, they were totally wrong but given the questions asked, it wasn't a PF procedure anyway.

 

[island]

has the £20 got to be paid cash on the spot? I'd probably not have £20 cash on me in all honesty

Cards are also accepted.

 

[hannah123]

I wasn't offered to pay the fare owed, just £20. There were 2 of us but he just said £20.
I wasn't going to London for the whole day, we were there for a show, which had been paid for in advance & a meal which we had gift vouchers for. We had no other money except for our travel cards.

You could have paid the fare owed (they usually ask for it to be twice this) and the rest to be paid within xx days (by then you could have put in your appeal).

I am confused how you couldn't pay anything at all. If the RPI said it was £20 or nothing, they were totally wrong but given the questions asked, it wasn't a PF procedure anyway.

 

[jon0844]

You should have been offered to pay as much as possible, and pay the rest later. But if you were MG11'd (put forward for a prosecution) then I am confused about how he could start with the PF procedure, then skip on to a prosecution.. or is it possible that the intention to prosecute came after the PF was filed (i.e. Southern THEN decided to change)?

Once you were questioned under caution and had statements taken, I am sure they had moved on from offering you a penalty fare (not fine) but must have made this clear to you. You would have been asked if you understand, and if not they would have repeated everything to you.

Also, who would travel to London (or any other big city) with only the exact amount of money? Didn't you have any spare cash to buy a drink during the interval, even if you'd paid for a meal? The problem is that if you had no money at all, bar the exact change for your 'tube ticket' then it does sound rather suspicious.

Wouldn't you at least carry a credit or debit card with you for any emergencies? If so, you had the means to pay the £20 and then enter an appeal the next day.

 

[hannah123]

A statement was never taken, we were questioned with pre-written questions.

We didn't have the exact money, maybe a pound or two spare. We showed him our purse/wallet/bag to see we had nothing else.
It was either go and be broke that night or don't go and waste the show & meal which we'd already paid for. I decided to go & not have money to buy drinks etc.

I just called the number on the letter and they said if you don't have the funds to pay there and then, a report gets sent to the prosecutions office.

 

[nedchester]

A
I just called the number on the letter and they said if you don't have the funds to pay there and then, a report gets sent to the prosecutions office.

That's rubbish. As long as your name and address match up then you can pay later (I think within 21 days???)

 

[AlterEgo]

She wasn't issued with a PF though. A combination of factors (including refusal/inability to pay the PF when requested) has obviously led to a threat of prosecution.

I would find it very surprising that someone coming to London for the day literally has NO means of paying £20 whatsoever.

 

[MikeWh]

That's rubbish. As long as your name and address match up then you can pay later (I think within 21 days???)

You are supposed to pay at least the fare for the journey that you had no ticket for, otherwise it is treated as travelling without the means to pay. My guess is that this is why it's gone to the prosecutions office, and they are seeking the OP's explanation before deciding what to do next.

 

[jon0844]

I might go to some local shops with only enough money for what I need to buy, but I'd never go anywhere on a day trip without any money - or the means to get any.

That could be going with someone else that I could borrow from (surely the OP didn't go to the theatre alone, so did nobody have any money?) if I was truly skint, but if I had absolutely no money then I'd be fearful of going in the first place.

I don't buy things on credit unless I have to (or I need to get insurance/protection on a purchase, in which case, I'd aim to pay it off straight away).. but I will always carry the card.

 

[Stigy]

Also, who would travel to London (or any other big city) with only the exact amount of money? Didn't you have any spare cash to buy a drink during the interval, even if you'd paid for a meal? The problem is that if you had no money at all, bar the exact change for your 'tube ticket' then it does sound rather suspicious.

Wouldn't you at least carry a credit or debit card with you for any emergencies? If so, you had the means to pay the £20 and then enter an appeal the next day.

How much money the OP had is irrlevant so long as they had enough for the journey they had made, as far as issuing a PF is concerned.

 

[tony_mac]

You are supposed to pay at least the fare for the journey that you had no ticket for, otherwise it is treated as travelling without the means to pay. My guess is that this is why it's gone to the prosecutions office, and they are seeking the OP's explanation before deciding what to do next.

That would be my guess too.

If the RPI said 'you need to pay £20' and the reply was 'we have only got a couple of pounds, look...', then I can see why it has been referred for prosecution.

I think it should be made clear in any letter that there was enough money to pay the fare, but not the penalty fare - and that maybe the RPI misunderstood the refusal to pay the penalty fare as a complete refusal to pay.

 

[jon0844]

How much money the OP had is irrlevant so long as they had enough for the journey they had made, as far as issuing a PF is concerned.

It was a simple question, not linked specifically to how the RPIs chose to act.

I'm already confused why the RPI would have been shown how much money the OP had and insisted it had to be the whole £20.

Now, it could be that the OP said 'that's all I've got and I need that for the ticket I need to buy to get into central London' and refused to hand any of it over, which perhaps changed the outcome.

Otherwise, how was the OP going to buy the travelcard afterwards?