My friend is being interviewed under caution for 30 instances of fare evasion

[North24]

Hello

I promise this is about my friend not me but she is young and very upset at the moment.

She has received a letter from Chiltern railways inviting her for interview under caution for an instance where she bought the ticket whilst in the arrival train station. They have searched her historic records and pulled out a number of instances of refund claims or where they believe she didn't join the train at the stated station.

Since 2018 this is the only instance and it was a genuine mistake as her app wasn't working, she is very contrite and wants to fully cop to it and pay whatever fares/fines they want to throw at her. Her concern is that she's a teacher and is worried about a conviction, any advice on next steps or how to convince the company to settle out of the legal system (they have said this is an option) would be so gratefully appreciated

She is trying to find a solicitor but is struggling as it's so last minute for the deadline, in haste she's also already sent them an email taking responsibility.

Thank you in advance

 

[Fermiboson]

You are not required to attend interviews to incriminate yourself. Train companies have no legal authority to force you to do so.

As I understand, you have only violated the railway byelaws by boarding a train w/out a valid ticket once - and this should be what Chiltern are trying to settle for. Taking responsibility for things you haven’t done is unwise, to say the least.

I suggest that you urgently contact Chiltern following up with the last email and withdrawing it, stating that she has only not paid the correct fare once (and remains very apologetic for that one instance, and willing to settle), and assert that the other instances were all honest. How to sort those out, and provide evidence if Chiltern wants, is more tricky, but at this stage withdrawing a false confession is probably the priority.

A solicitor is unlikely to be of help unless Chiltern decide to try and prosecute everything which they probably won’t, or ask for a sky high settlement amount.

If she has fare evaded on other occasions the story is completely different of course.

 

[Haywain]

I suggest that you urgently contact Chiltern following up with the last email and withdrawing it,

I can't see that Chiltern would be willing to discount the content of that email.

 

[Fermiboson]

I can't see that Chiltern would be willing to discount the content of that email.

Well, the content of the email is not true. If nothing else, Chiltern cannot prosecute on the basis of that confession.

If in the end they take everything into account anyways and say “take it or leave it” then likely the best option is to take it. But Chiltern haven’t said that yet. One can hope perhaps for some reasonableness/understanding on the other side.

 

[Haywain]

Chiltern cannot prosecute on the basis of that confession.

I'm not convinced that's true. But, whatever, it is now much more difficult for the OP's friend to refute what they are being accused of and have admitted to.

 

[Titfield]

I can't see that Chiltern would be willing to discount the content of that email.

Yes I consider that to be problematic as Chiltern would consider it to be an admission of all wrong doing.

Chiltern have to decide whether the OP is telling the truth and, as we have often commented on this forum, different versions of events suggest (at least to us) that someone is trying to figure out how to minimise what they have done. Changing stories tarnishes the credibility of the OP>

Only the OP knows how many times they have committed wrong doing by whatever means (short faring, no ticket, refunded but travelled).

I think there are two choices:

1) write a very well crafted letter along the lines @Hadders usually suggests.

2) attend the interview and say pretty much what the letter would have said.

The OP could hope that a well crafted letter would obviate the need for an interview because Chiltern may view that it answers all the questions they would have raised.

Well, the content of the email is not true. If nothing else, Chiltern cannot prosecute on the basis of that confession.

If in the end they take everything into account anyways and say “take it or leave it” then likely the best option is to take it. But Chiltern haven’t said that yet. One can hope perhaps for some reasonableness/understanding on the other side.

Well we do not know what is true and what is not true.

If Chiltern are not certain they may simply decide to go for the one offence they are reasonably certain of and prosecute on that basis.

 

[Fermiboson]

I'm not convinced that's true. But, whatever, it is now much more difficult for the OP's friend to refute what they are being accused of and have admitted to.

In court, corpus delicti would prevent a conviction on the basis of the email alone. But I agree that if OP has to rely on that they are in dire straits.

Under the assumption that OP is telling the truth, and the assumption that Chiltern want an out of court offer, I think that a clarifying email cannot hurt. Of course if either assumption is not true there is nothing we can do to help.

OP does need to expect to be able to provide some form of proof or evidence of the legitimacy of those journeys though, as Chiltern will rightly be suspicious. If this is not possible, it may be best for your friend to consider this a very expensive lesson in not admitting to things she has not done.

It may be of interest for us to see what OP has sent Chiltern so far as well.

 

[cactustwirly]

Has any reply been sent to Chiltern? What was said exactly?

 

[Haywain]

attend the interview and say pretty much what the letter would have said.

At this point it's difficult to see how doing that could make things worse

 

[island]

In court, corpus delicti would prevent a conviction on the basis of the email alone.

That's irrelevant, and even if it wasn't, you can't say so without sight of the email.

There is already enough proof to convict the OP's "friend" of the offence that occurred on the day she was stopped. Chiltern aren't going to prosecute her for events back to 2018, but they can hold those over her in deciding whether, and for how much, to settle the case at hand.

 

[JBuchananGB]

They have searched her historic records and pulled out a number of instances of refund claims or where they believe she didn't join the train at the stated station.

If the friend has sent an email admitting that the previous occasions were not genuine, i.e. they refunded tickets which they had used, or they bought tickets for journeys shorter then the ones they actually made, then this was a foolish thing to do. They would be better off looking at those transactions and establishing from their memory or other records how they came about. If they have sent an apologetic email admitting the one occasion when they have been stopped, but asserting that all the other transactions were genuine, then that would be better and might lead to an administrative settlement.

 

[Haywain]

If the friend has sent an email admitting that the previous occasions were not genuine, i.e. they refunded tickets which they had used, or they bought tickets for journeys shorter then the ones they actually made, then this was a foolish thing to do. They would be better off looking at those transactions and establishing from their memory or other records how they came about. If they have sent an apologetic email admitting the one occasion when they have been stopped, but asserting that all the other transactions were genuine, then that would be better and might lead to an administrative settlement.

Both will probably lead to a settlement being offered, albeit with a variation in the amount being asked for.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

If your friend is in a teaching union she would be well advised to get in touch with them. Both the main unions (NASUWT & NEU) offer a free 30 minute legal consultation over any non employment matter.

The union will also advise on the impact of any conviction on their career. If it is ‘just’ the one incident of fare evasion then most employers should be prepared to overlook it providing it is declared appropriately. If it is a longer term series of evading then it might be a more awkward conversation as teacher’s are expected to show high standards of behaviour.

 

[North24]

Thank you for all the replies, I assure you it is my friend and not me so I can equally only go off what I've been told. She contacted a solicitor who was going to negotiate a settlement for her but they are unavailable before the deadline- in response to her email she has been given 4 days to provide commentary on the other instances they've supplied. I will ask for copies of all the email correspondence so far

My personal opinion is that she should just apologise for what they've accused her with a letter worded as supplied in other threads and then explicitly ask what they would accept to settle it. On the basis of what's written in the letter do you think this approach would have prospects?

 

[AlbertBeale]

Thank you for all the replies, I assure you it is my friend and not me so I can equally only go off what I've been told. She contacted a solicitor who was going to negotiate a settlement for her but they are unavailable before the deadline- in response to her email she has been given 4 days to provide commentary on the other instances they've supplied. I will ask for copies of all the email correspondence so far

My personal opinion is that she should just apologise for what they've accused her with a letter worded as supplied in other threads and then explicitly ask what they would accept to settle it. On the basis of what's written in the letter do you think this approach would have prospects?

Apologising for something she's accused of if she did it is one thing; I don't see a reason to apologise for other things that the railway suspect but which she didn't actually do. Presumably she can present some corroboration or explanation for journeys they suggest weren't properly paid for but which were?

 

[North24]

Apologising for something she's accused of if she did it is one thing; I don't see a reason to apologise for other things that the railway suspect but which she didn't actually do. Presumably she can present some corroboration or explanation for journeys they suggest weren't properly paid for but which were?

So essentially she explained that she can't remember some but there were instances where she travelled then claimed a refund after because she thought the option wouldn't have appeared unless entitled, meaning there were other instances of fare evasion she did remember unfortunately

 

[Brissle Girl]

So essentially she explained that she can't remember some but there were instances where she travelled then claimed a refund after because she thought the option wouldn't have appeared unless entitled, meaning there were other instances of fare evasion she did remember unfortunately

Unless her journey was very heavily delayed, in which case Delay Repay is the proper mechanism for claiming compensation, it's difficult to understand how someone would think they were entitled to a refund if they had travelled, simply because the option is available to them. And bearing in mind that the instance which drew the railway's attention to her was a classic case of claiming the app wasn't working/no signal until I saw the inspector when coincidentally I got one etc, which they will hear all the time, she is on very weak ground from the outset.

So I think your friend should admit to applying for Delay Repay when they weren't entitled to (and any short faring which she has carried out), apologise profusely, and ask very nicely for an out of court settlement offer.

 

[North24]

Unless her journey was very heavily delayed, in which case Delay Repay is the proper mechanism for claiming compensation, it's difficult to understand how someone would think they were entitled to a refund if they had travelled, simply because the option is available to them. And bearing in mind that the instance which drew the railway's attention to her was a classic case of claiming the app wasn't working/no signal until I saw the inspector when coincidentally I got one etc, which they will hear all the time, she is on very weak ground from the outset.

So I think your friend should admit to applying for Delay Repay when they weren't entitled to (and any short faring which she has carried out), apologise profusely, and ask very nicely for an out of court settlement offer.

Thank you, they have offered to deal with it administratively so do you think they'll accept an out of court settlement?

She thinks paying a solicitor £3k improves her chances of one and I'm of the opinion absolutely not since they've already offered the option so it'd be a waste of money

 

[JBuchananGB]

The passenger in this case (OP's friend) has been invited to an interview, and has apparently already sent one response, the content of which is not at all clear. There is also a great level of uncertainty here as to the extent of the passenger's fare evasion. Unless they have received a further letter from the ToC withdrawing the invitation to interview and offering a specific administrative or out of court settlement, then attending the interview is still the option. Elsewhere in the forum it is strongly recommended not to attend on your own, but to take a legal representative with you. Only the passenger involved can decide what value they place on the cost of a solicitor to attend with them. The purpose of the interview is for the ToC to find out from the passenger the truth about any journeys made with invalid tickets, or journeys made for which the tickets have been refunded. The passenger may prefer not to attend, in which case the matter will proceed in accordance with Single Justice Procedure Notice.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If they’ve already offered the option of an administrative settlement then it would appear to be a complete waste of money if she proposes to accept that she was in the wrong. A suitably worded letter apologising and agreeing for all the instances to be taken into consideration in determining the settlement would likely remove the need for an interview.

 

[Haywain]

Thank you, they have offered to deal with it administratively so do you think they'll accept an out of court settlement?

If a settlement has been offered she should just pay it unless it is excessive. A solicitor might succeed in getting the amount reduced but should not be costing £3,000 for their services - the fees we see for specialist soliciotors tend to be around the £500 to £750 region.

 

[Skymonster]

Chiltern’s letters are cleverly worded but badly written. It is vital to understand that if the above is the only letter / email your friend has so far received, they have NOT been offered an administrative disposal. What Chiltern has said is that it could deal with this by administrative disposal, subject to your friend honest about any other irregularities they have been involved in. The problem is Chiltern may hold travel / ticketing detail which it regards as unusual or typical of fare evaders, even if they are not provable. If any response from your friend causes Chiltern to suspect clumsy attempts at covering up what has actually happened on other occasions (if anything has), it may increase the challenges your friend will face in persuading them to go to that administrative disposal. As the original letter suggests, assuming your friend responds, then being honest if other mis-ticketing incidents they have taken place may well produce the best result - maybe expensive but not a conviction. The next best option maybe to say nothing, but doing so somewhat increases the likelihood of a court case. The interview with trained investigators will be designed to get your friend to incriminate themselves - Chiltern may reveal more about the data they hold with the aim of turning suspected incidents into evidence. Attending may require a greater degree of understanding of railway ticketing than your friend possesses (e.g when to refund and when to claim delay repay, what circumstances do allow for refunds, etc), hence why if your friend chooses to attend they way at that stage want to lawyer up if they don’t have that deep-rooted understanding. So if your friend responds they do not need to admit to untypical ticketing / travel that was actually legitimate, but may need to explain / justify such to Chiltern to assuage their concerns. Your friend must urgently look at their ticketing / travel history (Trainline etc) and decide which trips were totally legit and whether any were not. Your friend now needs to be quick: the deadline is tomorrow and a letter may already be too late. If responding is the chosen option I would suggest not sending anything [probably email at this stage] without first sharing it here to enable the forum experts to critique it.

The passenger in this case (OP's friend) has been invited to an interview, and has apparently already sent one response, the content of which is not at all clear.

Not necessarily - TOCs sometimes proceed direct to invitation to interview when they have evidence of one offence but suspect or travel data suggests serial travel irregularities which they are unable to prove. The TOC will be looking for the invitee to incriminate themselves in some or all of those other instances. If deciding to attend an interview, the interviewee would be well advised to have answers rather than evasions - and a good understanding of railway ticketing matters, because the Chiltern investigator will almost certainly have the latter. To be sure the forum what has already happened the forum needs to see all correspondence (with names / addresses / case numbers redacted) rather than just one letter.

 

[North24]

Thanks to those who have advised- yesterday she sent an email, without addressing their list but accepting mistakes were made, apologising profusely and explaining how keen she was to remedy the situation by paying what was owed and they responded the same evening with an administrative disposal which has now been paid

 

[Titfield]

Thanks to those who have advised- yesterday she sent an email, without addressing their list but accepting mistakes were made, apologising profusely and explaining how keen she was to remedy the situation by paying what was owed and they responded the same evening with an administrative disposal which has now been paid

Thats great news. I am sure she is very relieved at this outcome.

This outcome further demonstrates that engagement, apology and honesty can lead to an administrative disposal rather than court action.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

...they responded the same evening with an administrative disposal which has now been paid

That will draw a line under the matter. May we ask how much had to be paid in unpaid/underpaid fares, etc. and then the admin and investigation fees on top? Helps when others come on here, in due course, for advice.