Intention to prosecute

[ForTheLoveOf]

The point of the matter is that for a TWO TOGETHER ticket to apply then BOTH passengers must complete the same journey TOGETHER, but in this instance this did not happen, as they did not get off TOGETHER since one continued their journey. Therefore they were not TWO TOGETHER.
As has been pointed out the Terms and Conditions for this ticket are quite specific on this matter and these customers did not keep to those T & C's.

I don't think it's relevant to keep on going on about the name of the Railcard. Breaching the terms of the Railcard may not necessarily constitute an offence. And in any case, as has been discussed at length, the OP has not committed a Byelaws offence.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In essence, the OP's situation is the same as that of someone who has a railcard discounted ticket, but can't produce the railcard when requested. The only difference is, the OP couldn't produce the other railcard holder or their ticket, either.

Not doubting the OP's version of events, but if the defence to the 8(1) offence is that they had a valid ticket when they boarded the train, along with the railcard or proof of purchase, they will almost certainly need to produce the other railcard holder, willing to state and/or provide evidence they had their valid ticket and that they boarded the train together.

Whilst this would be useful evidence for any unmeritorious prosecution by GTR, I would point out that it is incumbent upon GTR, as potential prosecutors, to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. If they are going for 18(1), they will have to prove that the OP did not have valid ticket when they boarded. Trying to infer that when the OP has explained what happened, and produced a ticket upon exit, is going to be rather challenging. So the evidence of the OP is merely going to be to further disruptive GTR's case, rather than to be the only defence.

 

[30907]

The OP is being investigated for a byelaw 18 (1) offence of entering a train without having with him a valid ticket. He had a valid ticket when he entered the train. That is not in any doubt. He has not committed that, or as far as I can see any, offence.

The ticket was not valid for the journey he/she intended to make. Under the T&Cs of the Railcard, which the OP agreed to when signing, the ticket is not valid without the accompanying railcard, and the full fare is payable by all travellers.

IMO the OPs response must include evidence of the Railcard and the journey made by the other holder, otherwise GTR will not unreasonably assume that they have simply tried to claim Railcard discount without being eligible.

Meanwhile, I wonder if we could have a separate thread about condition 18.1 where ForTheLoveOf et al could produce the case law to back up their assertions that the ticket only needs to be valid at the moment of entering the train..

 

[cholsey-choose]

Are we struggling with trying to define how a byelaw should be interpreted because of a situation arising which was never envisaged when the byelaw was written, i.e. that a ticket can become invalid during the course of a journey because a 'Two Together' became Two Separated? I would argue
that the byelaw intended that you always need to be in possession of a valid ticket, and that ceased to be the case when the friends went their separate ways.

Perhaps. But my understanding is that in the law, there's (at best) a limited role for what was intended when the law was written. You also have to pay attention to what the law actually explicitly says. And here there's at least a reasonable argument that this particular law doesn't forbid the following situation: board a train with a valid ticket for the journey you complete, ticket becomes invalid along route, but you still willingly present it for verification. (Note 18(2) doesn't say, "present it for verification, which must succeed".)

 

[cholsey-choose]

The ticket was not valid for the journey he/she intended to make. Under the T&Cs of the Railcard, which the OP agreed to when signing, the ticket is not valid without the accompanying railcard, and the full fare is payable by all travellers.

IMO the OPs response must include evidence of the Railcard and the journey made by the other holder, otherwise GTR will not unreasonably assume that they have simply tried to claim Railcard discount without being eligible.

Meanwhile, I wonder if we could have a separate thread about condition 18.1 where ForTheLoveOf et al could produce the case law to back up their assertions that the ticket only needs to be valid at the moment of entering the train..

It may not be unreasonable for GTR to assume that the've tried to claim a discount, but thankfully the criminal burden of proof in English courts is not "not unreasonable to assume".

I agree that some case law would be useful and interesting.

 

[Llanigraham]

I don't think it's relevant to keep on going on about the name of the Railcard. Breaching the terms of the Railcard may not necessarily constitute an offence. And in any case, as has been discussed at length, the OP has not committed a Byelaws offence.

Incorrect. It is your opinion that an offence has not been committed, and unless you are the Prosecutor then that is all it is, opinion. To make a categorical statement could be construed as dangerous advice.
As far as I can see the T and C's for the ticket have not been abided by, therefore the ticket was invalid.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

OP - if you are still reading, I think these are relevant and uncontroversial points to add:
- the fact that the railway company have sent you a letter talking about prosecution does not mean that prosecution will inevitably follow. Instead, they are warning of the worst that can possibly happen. An out of court settlement is not unimaginable at this point.
- the way that the letter is worded suggests that the worst that the railway company are contemplating is a byelaw prosecution.

To give some opinion of my own, a byelaw prosecution is not without risk to the company: it seems to me that for a layperson the readings of byelaws 18(1) and (2) proposed by ForTheLoveOf are plausible. So if the company wants to convince the court that one must be able to produce a valid ticket throughout one's journey, they are going to have to show up prepared to make that case.

The company may be prepared to do just that: they may be looking for a case to clarify this point. Or they may just want a quick, cheap conclusion.

So what does this mean for the OP? I would suggest that you should take the opportunity given to respond to the company. That response should of course be full and honest. But you should also emphasise (in line with ForTheLoveOf's analysis) that
- you and your Two Together partner had valid tickets when you boarded the train
- you presented your ticket when required by an authorised person at St Pancras.
(Edited to add) - so you don't see that you have committed a byelaw 18 offence.

 

[najaB]

I would suggest that you should take the opportunity given to respond to the company. That response should of course be full and honest.

So, at post #66 we're pretty much where we were at post #2. Work with the TOC rather than against them to try and resolve the matter out of court while they are still only considering a Byelaws prosecution.

 

[Chriseg1234]

Hello, I am still reading these responses and thank you very much for your advice, it has helped. I'm still not entirely clear whether I was in wrong or not, perhaps it is a grey area and something that does need to be settled by the courts.

I would like to argue my case but I can't risk getting a criminal record which would ruin my career so I think I will just provide my side of the story, evidence of tickets and railcard, apologise and ask to settle out of court.

It has annoyed me the way they have handled this. It's not clear, and if I am in the wrong it wasn't intentional. Could they not just speak to me like a human and ask me to pay the correct fare? I think it's pretty irresponsible of them to send these letters out willy nilly without considering the individual circumstances. It has caused me a lot of anxiety and god knows how it affects people who do have existing mental health issues.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Hello, I am still reading these responses and thank you very much for your advice, it has helped. I'm still not entirely clear whether I was in wrong or not, perhaps it is a grey area and something that does need to be settled by the courts.

I would like to argue my case but I can't risk getting a criminal record which would ruin my career so I think I will just provide my side of the story, evidence of tickets and railcard, apologise and ask to settle out of court.

It has annoyed me the way they have handled this. It's not clear, and if I am in the wrong it wasn't intentional. Could they not just speak to me like a human and ask me to pay the correct fare? I think it's pretty irresponsible of them to send these letters out willy nilly without considering the individual circumstances. It has caused me a lot of anxiety and god knows how it affects people who do have existing mental health issues.

A Byelaws prosecution would not lead to any criminal record. You would not need to declare it for all but high level security clearance and the like.

It's obviously up to you what you do, but personally I would be fighting this one all the way. In my view, the risk of cooperating with them now is that they attempt a RoRA prosecution, which would result in a criminal record if convicted (although I very much doubt such an offence was committed).

 

[najaB]

In my view, the risk of cooperating with them now is that they attempt a RoRA prosecution...

Perhaps you could expand on how being non-conforntational increases the risk of a negative outcome rather than decreasing it?

 

[Llanigraham]

A Byelaws prosecution would not lead to any criminal record. You would not need to declare it for all but high level security clearance and the like.

It's obviously up to you what you do, but personally I would be fighting this one all the way. In my view, the risk of cooperating with them now is that they attempt a RoRA prosecution, which would result in a criminal record if convicted (although I very much doubt such an offence was committed).

I would suggest that this is bad advice.
Whether it has to be reported to an employer depends on what is written in that employees Contract of Employment. There are many instances where it is stated that ANY prosecution, even speeding offences, have to be reported.
You cannot generalise in this way. Each situation has to be looked at individually.

 

[cholsey-choose]

I would suggest that this is bad advice.
Whether it has to be reported to an employer depends on what is written in that employees Contract of Employment. There are many instances where it is stated that ANY prosecution, even speeding offences, have to be reported.
You cannot generalise in this way. Each situation has to be looked at individually.

Agreed. Similarly if you found yourself ever trying to enter the USA or apply for a work visa there. They want to know about any arrests, let alone convictions.

 

[robbeech]

Is that part of the station a compulsory ticket area?

 

[cuccir]

I agree with the assessment Fawkes Cat presented above. A factual reply which is written to not implicate yourself for anything more serious is probably the best approach at this stage.

Therefore, I'd be tempted not to explicitly offer to make an out of court settlement to the company in my initial response; you can always make this offer later in the process. However, if you have a very low tolerance for risk then throwing that in at this stage could be sensible. A decision should take into account how much impact a prosecution would have on you - it would be useful to check your contract as to whether you have to declare a conviction to a current employer. Where ForTheLoveOf is right above is that a Byelaws prosecution would never be declarable when applying for a job, and even a RoRA prosecution would only be declarable for 12 months after conviction (although it would also appear on DBS checks).

The niggle on a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution would be whether the event of travelling alone at the end of the journey - ie when you separated at St Pancras - invalidates the ticket throughout. If this is the case, the passenger boarded without a valid ticket. I am not saying that this is definitively correct, but I can see a plausible argument made that way. I should add that as posters on an online forum, we should be cautious about being overly confident either way as to stating which way a court case would go.

 

[najaB]

The niggle on a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution would be whether the event of travelling alone at the end of the journey - ie when you separated at St Pancras - invalidates the ticket throughout. If this is the case, the passenger boarded without a valid ticket. I am not saying that this is definitively correct, but I can see a plausible argument made that way. I should add that as posters on an online forum, we should be cautious about being overly confident either way as to stating which way a court case would go.

I agree totally with this.

 

[jumble]

Agreed. Similarly if you found yourself ever trying to enter the USA or apply for a work visa there. They want to know about any arrests, let alone convictions.

I do not believe this to be correct

( the US Embassy in London pretend it is BTW)

If you have a criminal record, you may not be eligible to travel under the VWP. The ESTA form asks applicants for the following information:

1. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

 

[cholsey-choose]

I do not believe this to be correct

( the US Embassy in London pretend it is BTW)

If you have a criminal record, you may not be eligible to travel under the VWP. The ESTA form asks applicants for the following information:

1. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

Sorry you are right about ESTA, I was thinking about getting a visa. For a visa you need to answer questions about arrests (and for a green card, you need a police report from everywhere you've ever lived).

 

[kristiang85]

Let's try and stay in reality rather than hypotheticals. If you are using Two Together discounted tickets, you must obviously travel with someone else with whom you hold a Two Together Railcard. But there is no logic in suggesting that one passenger ought to be punished because their travelling companion won't get off the train.

As previously said, there is no fare evaded, there is no intent, and GTR are on a sticky wicket here.

Indeed. If the ticket said 'London terminals' rather than St Pancras, then surely they fulfilled the terms of the ticket in that they travelled to 'London terminals' together?

The fact is, a heavy handed prosecution in this case means the two are more likely to just get a car next time in order to avoid any more hassle on the railway, thus the railway loses far more than the £2 or so they feel they have been 'defrauded'.

Edit: Whoops, didn't realise there was another two pages- apologies if this point has already been made

 

[furlong]

Indeed. If the ticket said 'London terminals' rather than St Pancras, then surely they fulfilled the terms of the ticket in that they travelled to 'London terminals' together?

Both sides would be testing out technicalities - nowhere does it say the two people must remain together once at the destination.

 

[island]

Indeed. If the ticket said 'London terminals' rather than St Pancras, then surely they fulfilled the terms of the ticket in that they travelled to 'London terminals' together?

The fact is, a heavy handed prosecution in this case means the two are more likely to just get a car next time in order to avoid any more hassle on the railway, thus the railway loses far more than the £2 or so they feel they have been 'defrauded'.

Edit: Whoops, didn't realise there was another two pages- apologies if this point has already been made

The passenger who travelled onto London Bridge exceeded the validity of his ticket once the train left St. Pancras.

 

[cholsey-choose]

What would you say if a friend and I take a two together journey to Reading Stations, and I get out at Reading, and she continues to Reading West?

It seems clear to me that the intention (of the two together travelcard rules) would be to forbid this, but the question is whether the Byelaw as written actually reflects that.

 

[cuccir]

I think the general principle is to avoid extending these hypothetical discussions in advice threads; let's stick to the case at hand here.

 

[ainsworth74]

The passenger who travelled onto London Bridge exceeded the validity of his ticket once the train left St. Pancras.

That is perhaps the only thing that we can hopefully all agree on! Assuming that no other ticket was held by the friend they were certainly invalid in continuing beyond St Pancras.

As for this case I feel that there are a lot of untested possibilities that mean that it's almost impossible to say for certain what will or will not happen if the case ends up proceeding to court.

A lot hinges on @Chriseg1234's risk appetite. If you're willing to pour a lot of time, worry and most likely money into an uncertain outcome (with the possibility of a conviction at the end of it) then, if necessarily as they aren't certainly prosecuting you yet(!), fighting this all the way could produce some interesting outcomes in terms of clarifying certain legalities (though it would have to go a very long way indeed to become binding case law). If however you are considerably more risk averse then an approach as outlined by @Fawkes Cat and @cuccir would seems sensible.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the general principle is to avoid extending these hypothetical discussions in advice threads; let's stick to the case at hand here.

Yes this is correct. I may attempt to tidy this thread up later but it may prove hard! Certainly going forward could I ask that people focus on helping the OP and do not discuss hypotheticals. There are a number on this thread that might actually be very interesting to proceed with but a new thread needs to be started in Fares Advice & Policy.

Many thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[robbeech]

Hopefully not considered too hypothetical. One point to Remember is you haven’t put your side of the story across yet. If you reply with photos of both tickets and the railcard and explain that the other person continued on the train to another destination (I don’t think it’s important to suggest where or what ticket they used though you would benefit from telling the truth if they later ask, though for all you know your friend might have had another valid ticket for that part of the journey) then it’s possible they might turn around and accept this in its entirety. It’s rare for a company such as GTR to not back up their employees even if they are wrong, especially in the first instance as it will make them look bad aswell. It’s thereforecan unlikely outcome sadly but it will provide them with the evidence you have as a starting point.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

To the OP: draft up your letter and post here for the experts to read/edit as appropriate (and don't include any identifying information)

Remember, the clock is ticking ...

 

[AmicableMan]

The issue you have here is that when you were asked to produce a valid ticket, you could not as you were not in possession of the railcard validating your ticket and it's discount.

My advice would be to response to the letter explaining what happened, and also explaining that you had no idea that what you were doing was wrong. Offer to resolve the matter whether that be to offer the outstanding fare or to pay a contribution towards costs. (You will understand that because the company have had to spend time dealing with your case they may ask for some costs to cover this, then of course they may not.)

At this stage the case is not set for prosecution as far as I can tell, the company just want your version of events and any mitigation you can provide before deciding to take the case further.

A word of advice on the letter you send back, make it straight forward, make it pleasant, from experience I can tell you that reading 15 pages of mitigation that bears no relevance to the reason you couldn't produce the railcard won't help the reader consider your case any better than a single page that is clear.

 

[farleigh]

Shame that DaveNecastle has left. He knew his stuff and would have helped the OP