Norther Rail - Genuine Mistake - Fare Evasion Feb 2013

[Macca80]

On the 29th Jan 14, I recently received a levy distress letter from Marston's regarding an unpaid fine. This came as a massive shock as I was completely unaware of any unpaid fines.
I promptly got in touch with them and they informed me that it related to an unpaid train fare in Feb 2013, which was being dealt with by HMCTS Greater Manchester.

At this point, I remembered what it related too, on the 14th Feb 13, I unwittingly attempted to leave the station with an invalid monthly rail ticket, I simply hadn't realised at the time that my ticket had ran out the previous day, I was going through a messy divorce and work was very stressful at the time, the date on my ticket and the date in general was not at the forefront of my mind.

Despite this I fully accept that it is my responsibility to ensure I have a valid ticket and I was rightly stopped by one of the guards at Manchester Oxford Road. However I had also shown the same ticket to a guard at Bolton Train Station and was allowed to proceed to the platforms. This was a genuine mistake as was the mistake made by the guard at Bolton, I made no deliberate attempt to dodge the guards and my rail fare is actually paid for by my company therefore there is no financial benefit to me for trying to evade the fair.

Anyway I co-operated fully with the revenue officer, who took my Photo ID card details, reason for attempting to exit the station with an invalid ticket and also my current address. I was then informed by the officer that the train company would look into my details and pending those investigations a letter may be sent to me asking for further details as to why I attempted to leave the station (there was no mention of a fine or prosecution at that point).

I was informed this letter, if being sent, could take up to 2-3 months to arrive. It was at this point that I immediately informed the revenue officer that I was moving address at the end of Feb and provided the address I would be moving too, which he wrote down.

I attempted to make payment for the fair I had just travelled but the revenue officers said “don’t worry, just make sure you renew your season ticket when you get to work”. I feel I should have been given the opportunity to make this payment for what was nothing more than a genuine mistake. I did renew my ticket through my work rail portal, although could only start it from the 15th Feb. For my travel home that evening I purchased a ticket.

2-3 months passed and no letter arrived, with hindsight I should have contacted the train company to check what was going on, however I simply assumed that they had checked my records, seen that I was a regular commuter for the last 6 years with no previous issues and that was the end of it.

Roll on to 29th Jan 14 and following receipt of the letter from Marston, I got in touch with the courts straight away who provided me details of the fine and what had gone on over the past 12 months. All correspondence to do with the matter had been sent to my old address, at this point I was advised to complete a Statutory Declaration.

The Stat Dec has been granted and it should be with Northern Rail in the next few days. Marston's are no longer involved either, and to be fair they have been good throughout based on some stories I have read on this forum.

I have also contacted Northern Rail's Prosecution Unit to explain what has happened and that a stat dec has been granted. It is for this matter now that I hope someone can now provide me some advise.

When speaking to a member of the prosecution unit they said that on receipt of the stat dec the original summons will be re-issued. I find this highly unfair as the fact that all correspondence had been sent to the incorrect address was out of my control, I provided an address that they could have contacted me on.

I asked him to check the notes the revenue officer had provided and there are only details of my old address, however these are electronic notes completed retrospectively by the officer only. I have informed them that I will be requesting to see the original set of notes that the officer completed and I signed against, as two addresses were present in those notes.

In my opinion the case should go right back to the beginning of issuing the Valet letter asking for my explanation to which I would be as honest as I have been above and await whatever punishment they feel right to apply. From what I have read on similar cases this seems to be an £80 fine, which I will pay as at the end of the day I was in the wrong.

Has anyone experienced anything similar or can provide information at to what may happen next. The last thing I want is a criminal record so if I can resolve this directly with Northern Rail as quickly as possible surely that's the best outcome for all parties.

Apologies for the essay.

 

[bb21]

It sounds very unfortunate so you have my deepest sympathy.

As to whether Northern are allowed to re-issue summons, unfortunately they are in my understanding. There is no obligation on their part to give you any further opportunity to explain yourself, indeed there never is anyway. If they feel they have sufficient evidence to bring about a successful prosecution, then that is what they could do.

I don't normally suggest this but if you are willing to offer Northern an out-of-court settlement, it may be prudent in your case to ring the prosecution department up and discuss the matter. Just be prepared that it may cost more than £80 seeing that the matter had dragged on this long. We have had good feedback from people who have tried this route so there is hope. Alternatively you can wait for the summons to arrive, but if you wait till then it will in all likelihood cost you more.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck. It cannot be very pleasant finding out about this after so long.

 

[Macca80]

Not pleasant at all, considering the amount being asked for doesn't leave much change out of a £1000!!

The prosecution unit employee I spoke too informed me that a valet letter had been sent to my old address on the 8th March, 13. Had I been able to respond to this and based on accounts I have read on this forum and others I would find it hard to believe that I would have been facing anything more than an £80 fine.

As mentioned I will definitely be requesting a copy of the original notes taken by the revenue officer as this should at least show that I provided my new address, which when proven correct should in theory absolve me of any costs incurred by Northern Rail in taking this issue to the courts. At which point I will definitely attempt an out of court settlement to cover the original offence. Just out of interest what would happen if they were unable to provide the original notes?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I have also contacted Northern Rail's Prosecution Unit to explain what has happened and that a stat dec has been granted. It is for this matter now that I hope someone can now provide me some advise.

When speaking to a member of the prosecution unit they said that on receipt of the stat dec the original summons will be re-issued. I find this highly unfair as the fact that all correspondence had been sent to the incorrect address was out of my control, I provided an address that they could have contacted me on.

That procedure explained to you by the Prosecutions person is technically correct. The 'Statutory Declaration' takes effect on the proceedings through the Courts, and you have instigated that. So, based on your sworn statement of facts, the proceedings in the Courts must be restarted from the point at which (according to your statement) you ceased to be informed of those proceeding as any Defendant must be.

It has no bearing on the exchange of information / evidence or negotiation between you and the Company. That means that the Company is at complete liberty to, at one extreme, procede straight to a Prosecution without any further attempt to gather evidence (*), or, at the other extreme, to abandon the matter; or, to take any intermediate action.

My suggestion is the same as bb21, to make sure you speak to the Prosecutions Mananger and have a frank discussion about where you go from here (and not the full historic detail that you've posted on here, much of which will have no bearing on the outcome). It's a negotiation in which the starting point is where we are now. Much of that discussion might depend on what you are prepared to bring to the matter - if for example you are instructing a solicitor to negotiate and if neccessary to represent you in Court, there are further costs to go into the equation - but even a decision at this stage which is not what you seek, can be reversed later.

It's worth a punt.

But my advice must be to presume that the £80 'Failure to Pay' offer is no longer be on the negotiating table, and that prosecution costs have increased considerably since then. Your Statutory Declaration is going to lead them to repeat most of that admin work, and incur further cost. You are effectively gambling with an opponent who is already a few hundred pounds down and willing to pay more to get back their investment - bear that firmly in the front of your mind when speaking with them!

(*) Let's just go back in time - the Company had already satisfied themselves that they had adequate Evidence to secure a prosecution against you, and that Evidence will remain in the record, so their confidence in the probablitities will also be unchanged. To change that confident belief, you would have to be assuring them, either, that you will be presenting robust evidence which refutes it, or, that you will be able to undermine it under cross-examination to adequately reduce the 'balance of probablilities'.

 

[LateThanNever]

Think it is worth bearing in mind that Northern Rail is partially owned by Serco, who are actually being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office.
Their staff also inspected your ticket to allow you on the railway in the first place - albeit they seem to have made a genuine mistake. (It is unfortunate that the legislation seems to permit genuine mistakes by staff but not by passengers/customers).
They have also made a ?genuine mistake in sending their documentation to the wrong address.
So that's a score of 3 'errors' by them and just one by you.
Their conduct has in all cases been "less then exemplary" (i.e. b awful) but better to use the former in negotiations.
We know the fare world doesn't work like that but there is no harm in bringing these details into the negotiations... Letting them know gently they are a complete shower without being able to be accused of actually saying so...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Think it is worth bearing in mind that Northern Rail is partially owned by Serco, who are actually being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office.

. . . . Letting them know gently they are a complete shower without being able to be accused of actually saying so...

I'm very eager to learn how this information might assist Macca80 in deciding whether to risk investing in a solicitor and raising the costs, or in attempting to negotiate a settlement which is acceptable to both parties without increasing the costs so far.

I can't say I've experienced much success in my negotiations by telling my other party about their faults and defects, but maybe I have some new strategies to learn.

 

[bb21]

Think it is worth bearing in mind that Northern Rail is partially owned by Serco, who are actually being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office.
Their staff also inspected your ticket to allow you on the railway in the first place - albeit they seem to have made a genuine mistake. (It is unfortunate that the legislation seems to permit genuine mistakes by staff but not by passengers/customers).
They have also made a ?genuine mistake in sending their documentation to the wrong address.
So that's a score of 3 'errors' by them and just one by you.
Their conduct has in all cases been "less then exemplary" (i.e. b awful) but better to use the former in negotiations.
We know the fare world doesn't work like that but there is no harm in bringing these details into the negotiations... Letting them know gently they are a complete shower without being able to be accused of actually saying so...

Do you think being aggressive in this manner is going to help? They have a case of the OP travelling on an invalid ticket, full stop, and have evidence to prove that.

The point about being allowed through the gateline is neither here nor there. The OP had a ticket that was out-of-date. The point about sending documents to the wrong address has some merit but that is the whole reason why we are back to where we started before the court proceedings. And what is your 'error' number 3 again?

I'm sorry to say this but I seriously hope that your suggestions are not taken onboard, because it can only make things worse.

 

[Macca80]

as much as I would love to take them on, the fact of the matter remains I travelled with an invalid ticket.

I imagine that I would also have to have physical proof i.e. a witness statement or an actual confession from the guard at Bolton to go down the route of an authorised person giving me permission to travel.

The fact that they have been sending correspondence to the wrong address and have been getting no response is lets be honest the real reason this has led to a prosecution.
I 100% don't believe it would have got to this stage had I been able to provide my account of the events that occurred that day, along with supporting evidence to show that my company book and pay for my rail fare, further highlighting that there is no financial gain to me for evading the fare.

I think my case hinges on the original notes the revenue officer took, those notes will show that a second address was provided. This should give me some bargaining power to come to an amicable out of court settlement with Northern Rail........I hope.

Should they point blankly refuse, I will definitely seek legal advice, as although I am guilty of travelling with an invalid ticket, I am now effectively being accused of deliberately fare evasion, which is completely wrong, this was a genuine mistake and I believe I have sufficient evidence along with no previous offences of this nature or non since to prove this.

 

[LateThanNever]

I'm very eager to learn how this information might assist Macca80 in deciding whether to risk investing in a solicitor and raising the costs, or in attempting to negotiate a settlement which is acceptable to both parties without increasing the costs so far.

I can't say I've experienced much success in my negotiations by telling my other party about their faults and defects, but maybe I have some new strategies to learn.

The object is to adopt an attitude of befuddled perplexity so as to sow seeds of doubt and to gently imply that the case is not entirely cut and dried. After all in life if you've made one error and they've made two although having the whip hand, you might agree to call it quits, particularly if there is no guilty intent.
Wasn't suggesting that you actually refer to them as a load of bankers, much as that might be an entirely accurate description.

 

[island]

Think it is worth bearing in mind that Northern Rail is partially owned by Serco, who are actually being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office.
Their staff also inspected your ticket to allow you on the railway in the first place - albeit they seem to have made a genuine mistake. (It is unfortunate that the legislation seems to permit genuine mistakes by staff but not by passengers/customers).
They have also made a ?genuine mistake in sending their documentation to the wrong address.
So that's a score of 3 'errors' by them and just one by you.
Their conduct has in all cases been "less then exemplary" (i.e. b awful) but better to use the former in negotiations.
We know the fare world doesn't work like that but there is no harm in bringing these details into the negotiations... Letting them know gently they are a complete shower without being able to be accused of actually saying so...

This has between little and nothing to do with anything, least of all the fact that the OP has committed a criminal offence. Muddying the waters with this seems unlikely to result in benefit accruing to the OP.

Mark me down as another person suggesting a frank discussion with the prosecutions department and an offer to conclude the matter with a payment of the costs incurred so far, avoided fare, and so on.

 

[Clip]

The object is to adopt an attitude of befuddled perplexity so as to sow seeds of doubt and to gently imply that the case is not entirely cut and dried. After all in life if you've made one error and they've made two although having the whip hand, you might agree to call it quits, particularly if there is no guilty intent.
Wasn't suggesting that you actually refer to them as a load of bankers, much as that might be an entirely accurate description.

But the case is cut and dried - invalid ticket for travel - even the OP admits this. This is without a doubt. The only issue here is surrounding the issue with court precedings that the OP did not recieve due to his move.

As Dave has mentioned, go in aggressive like you seem to think and they will probably not bother with wanting a ncie out of court settlement and go straight to court.


And I am unsure of the findings of the SFO into Serco if it has indeed finished but the Cabinet Office have now given Serco the green light to bid for more government contracts now after lots of audits and actions to improve their processes.

 

[LateThanNever]

But the case is cut and dried - invalid ticket for travel - even the OP admits this. This is without a doubt. The only issue here is surrounding the issue with court precedings that the OP did not recieve due to his move.

As Dave has mentioned, go in aggressive like you seem to think and they will probably not bother with wanting a ncie out of court settlement and go straight to court.


And I am unsure of the findings of the SFO into Serco if it has indeed finished but the Cabinet Office have now given Serco the green light to bid for more government contracts now after lots of audits and actions to improve their processes.

Aside that admission of guilt does not constitute conclusive evidence, I specifically suggested going in with befuddled perplexity not "aggressive".
And if Serco have required lots of audits and actions to improve processes it seems evident that their subsidiary could do with a bit of that too.

 

[bb21]

Aside that admission of guilt does not constitute conclusive evidence, I specifically suggested going in with befuddled perplexity not "aggressive".
And if Serco have required lots of audits and actions to improve processes it seems evident that their subsidiary could do with a bit of that too.

Whatever you want to call it, trying to muddy the waters is not going to be helpful.

This certainly falls into the category of "trying to be clever" in my opinion.

 

[Deerfold]

And if Serco have required lots of audits and actions to improve processes it seems evident that their subsidiary could do with a bit of that too.

That's highly likely.

However I can't see the OP mentioning it helping their case any.

 

[LateThanNever]

Whatever you want to call it, trying to muddy the waters is not going to be helpful.

This certainly falls into the category of "trying to be clever" in my opinion.

In negotiation "muddying the waters" is, if you want to progress, absolutely essential!

 

[Deerfold]

In negotiation "muddying the waters" is, if you want to progress, absolutely essential!

If the other side is sure of their case it's unlikley to help.

 

[Macca80]

I have managed to get some more information from the Prosecution unit at Northern Rail.

I was sent the initial Valet Letter, followed by a fixed penalty of £80.00 plus £7.50 for the fare travelled.

As a result of not being able to respond to either of these items of correspondence I am being charged under section 5.3(a) of the railways act.

I am not disputing that I travelled with an invalid ticket as I have said previously, however had I received the correspondence it appears that worse case scenario I would have had to pay £87.50 and that would have been the end of it.

My problem now is that because the retrospective evidence provided by the revenue officer is incomplete i.e. missing the second address I provided. I am now effectively being convicted of intentionally avoiding the rail fare as I have not responded to any previous correspondence.

Cutting to the chase, where do I stand if Northern Rail are unable to provide the original set of notes taken by the revenue officer? Do I have any rights to request the original information? would this give me any negotiating power if they cant provide?

 

[island]

My understanding, which may be incomplete or incorrect, is that if you go to court you will be served with the evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely.

Northern has no obligation to offer the £80+fare administrative penalty settlement and is within its rights to commence fresh proceedings.

 

[Macca80]

I will definitely be offering an out of court settlement to Northern Rail Prosecution unit and hope that common sense will prevail.

However should it not and they wish to pursue via the courts, I am pretty sure based on conversations with them so far that the evidence they will put forward is the information completed retrospectively, which as I have mentioned is incomplete.

Surely if they are going to take this to the courts they will have to provide the original notes taken on that day that I signed, otherwise the retrospective notes could be doctored to say anything they like?

 

[Haywain]

Surely if they are going to take this to the courts they will have to provide the original notes taken on that day that I signed, otherwise the retrospective notes could be doctored to say anything they like?

You could try arguing that in court, but when you gat asked why you signed some notes you'll admit that it was because you didn't have a valid ticket. They still have a case.

 

[Macca80]

I am not disputing that I travelled with an invalid ticket which was an honest mistake, I would plead guilty to the original offence, but I would plead not guilty to everything that has happened since.

Worst case scenario as admitted and delivered by the prosecution unit themselves would have been the £87.50 fine, but as they have sent correspondence to an incorrect address, a whole sorry state of affairs has occurred resulting in £850+ fine and a potential criminal record, for actions that are now there mistake.

 

[DelayRepay]

I am not disputing that I travelled with an invalid ticket which was an honest mistake, I would plead guilty to the original offence, but I would plead not guilty to everything that has happened since.

You will only be prosecuted for the original offence. You're not being prosecuted for failing to reply to their letters. They don't even have to offer the option of an out of court settlement - they can prosecute straight away and if you were travelling without a valid ticket the chances are they will be successful.

I know it will feel unfair to read this but I don't think having the notes will help. They may prove that you had a valid reason for not replying to the letters, but that's not the issue. The court will only be interested in whether you committed an offence by travelling without a ticket. Given that you've said you'd plead guilty to that, nothing that came after is really going to help.

 

[Macca80]

You will only be prosecuted for the original offence. You're not being prosecuted for failing to reply to their letters. They don't even have to offer the option of an out of court settlement - they can prosecute straight away.....

But this is my point, they have clearly offered me a route out before prosecution with the second letter sent being a fixed penalty, had I received this letter then that is all I would have been charged with, fact.

I actually believe that having been able to provide an account of what happened that day I would in all probability have been asked to repay the train fare only.

I am now being punished to the extreme scale due to their mistake, this despite my initial mistake is clearly not right.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

However should . . . they wish to pursue via the courts, I am pretty sure based on conversations with them so far that the evidence they will put forward is the information completed retrospectively, which as I have mentioned is incomplete.

I think I understood your point. And based on that my advice of the 4th February still stands, begining with a frank discussion with the Prosecutions Manager - I suspect that the conversation you did have was more of an official answer to a question.

But this is my point, they have clearly offered me a route out before prosecution with the second letter sent being a fixed penalty, had I received this letter then that is all I would have been charged with, fact.

I actually believe that having been able to provide an account of what happened that day I would in all probability have been asked to repay the train fare only.

You are still at liberty to provide an account of what happened that day. In fact, if you still have not provided the Company with a formal sworn Statement of facts, then I'd not be surprised if they thought you probably had been evading a fare.

Surely if they are going to take this to the courts they will have to provide the original notes taken on that day that I signed, otherwise the retrospective notes could be doctored to say anything they like?

If they do decide to prosecute and if you decide to plea Not Guilty, then under the terms of 'disclosure' you will receive copies of the evidence against you and you (or your advocate) will provide copies of your evidence to the Prosecution.

The Court would seek to determine the matter on the basis of the evidence when tested under cross-examination and when tested with the statute and case law.

Evidence is given under oath. It beggars belief that any professional of a Railway Company attending Court would 'doctor' evidence.

As I and others have remarked, please don't become too concerned about the procedure and focus on the important facts. I spent the day in Court yesterday with a young man consumed by his beleif that he had been wrongly done by a large corporation and argued his injustice to the Judge in the High Court. The Judge kindly rebulked him a few times for his 'obsession' with procedure and tried to get him to focus on the point of law. Sadly for him, he had no prospects of success in law and faced £17k costs for his passionately told but doomed web of procedural irrelevancies. Please don't follow him.

 

[Macca80]

Thanks for everyone's advice, I have written to Northern Rail Prosecution Unit, informing them that I would like if possible to settle the matter with an out of court settlement, we shall see what happens.

I will provide an update with the outcome

 

[blue sabre]

Apologies if this is too off topic and not the most constructive, but it is possible to have your post redirected by Royal Mail.
For the guys arguing about procedure and Serco's involvement, none of that is relevant. So the original prosecution was under RORA. If there is a signed statment by the OP confirming they travelled without a ticket what is there to stop Northen reprosecuting using the byelaws? As these are strict liability no further evidence is required.

 

[Macca80]

Apologies if this is too off topic and not the most constructive, but it is possible to have your post redirected by Royal Mail.

yes it is possible to have mail redirected, but when all my bank statements and dealings with utility companies are online there is no need to spend money and set up a redirection.

Additionally, I provided a forwarding address so all the original correspondence should have got to me.

 

[Deerfold]

Evidence is given under oath. It beggars belief that any professional of a Railway Company attending Court would 'doctor' evidence.

You have a lot of faith in people. I'd agree its unlikely to be a regular occurance but having seen the behaviour of "professionals" collecting data in another regulated industry (and the ensuing prosecutions for fraud and ruined careers) I'm sure it's not beyond belief that there might be the odd bad egg around.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Evidence is given under oath. It beggars belief that any professional of a Railway Company attending Court would 'doctor' evidence.

I completely agree, Serco employees have been proven time and time again to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Why are you laughing at the back?

Joking aside, the advice you gave is correct. We see a lot of the "freemen of the land" whackjobs lose a lot of money in cases just like the one you highlighted.

 

[34D]

Can you clarify the address thing? Do I understand correctly that at the time you gave two addresses (one current and one previous) both of which may or may not be in the inspectors notebook? And that Northern used the wrong address in error?

My own thought (some legal training, but certainly not to the level of other forum members) is that if so, then they are now out of time. HOWEVER whether this is accepted (especially if no evidence to support that you gave your correct address) is another matter. Do you have the money to pay a solicitor to negotiate with Northern Rail on your behalf?

Other thoughts?