Notice of intention to prosecute

[Joliv]

I have just received the above notice from First Capital Connect. I was travelling from Hatfield to kings cross using a standard ticket. There were no seats available in standard class and as I was feeling so ill felt I was unable to stand for the journey, which I usually do, sat in an unused first class seat in an empty carriage. About halfway back an inspector asked for my ticket which I gave, explaining that there was no where else to sit.he asked if I had the means to pay the excess fare and after checking my wallet but didn't have the cash available but was willing to pay. He took my details which I provided openly and honestly. I asked how much I would be charged and he said I would be charged the excess fare. He agreed the train was crowded and thanked me for being cooperative.
I travel on this route once a month and usually have to stand on the return form Hatfield. I never take a seat which I have not paid for and on this one occasion it was only due to feeling so ill that I sat in an unused seat in an empty carriage.
As explained at the time I was willing to pay all reasonable costs associated with the use of this seat
I have just started work and the threat of a criminal record will not help me in my search for future work. Can you guys offer any advise. the offence stated is " remain in a reserved seat, berth or train without an appropriate ticket"

Help please.

 

[yorkie]

...he asked if I had the means to pay the excess fare and after checking my wallet but didn't have the cash available but was willing to pay.....

Welcome to the forum.

There are several issues here, but I'll cut straight to the one which sounds most problematical: if you do not have the means to pay the fare due, then it is actually relatively straightforward for FCC to prosecute you for intent to avoid payment of the fare.

Unfortunately, stating willingness to pay the fare when you are unable to, is not an adequate defence.

Does this letter ask you for your version of events or has it gone beyond that stage?

See the Prosecutions* section of our RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide for more information on the legislation they could use.

You may wish to seek legal advice. One option would be to offer FCC an out of court settlement.

(* This link does not work for unregistered users, or new members, but I have given you access)

 

[Ferret]

Welcome to the forum.

There are several issues here, but I'll cut straight to the one which sounds most problematical: if you do not have the means to pay the fare due, then it is actually relatively straightforward for FCC to prosecute you for intent to avoid payment of the fare.

Unfortunately, stating willingness to pay the fare when you are unable to, is not an adequate defence.

Does this letter ask you for your version of events or has it gone beyond that stage?

See the Prosecutions* section of our RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide for more information on the legislation they could use.

You may wish to seek legal advice. One option would be to offer FCC an out of court settlement.

It sounds like they are looking at the byelaw offence from the wording of the OP, which of course doesn't carry a criminal record.

 

[Monty]

It sounds like they are looking at the byelaw offence from the wording of the OP, which of course doesn't carry a criminal record.

I concur with Ferret, looks like a byelaw prosecution from where I'm standing rather than the more serious (criminal record carrying) Regulation Of the Railways Act.

 

[island]

Unfortunately, as you chose to sit in an area of the train which your ticket did not entitle you to use, you appear to have committed an offence under the Railway Bye-Laws.

As mentioned above, FCC is known to be open to out of court settlements taking into account the fare avoided and the administrative costs in dealing with fare evaders.

The criminal record and disclosure system is changing due to a recent court case so it is difficult to advise exactly what the consequences might be, but obviously if it doesn't get to court you don't need to be worried.

 

[johnb]

Island: I think you're overplaying the implications here, unless you're referring to a different case from the recent appeal court verdict.

The current state of the law is that criminal records must be disclosed to everyone relevant, especially employers, when you first acquire them. After a certain length of time elapses, they become 'spent' under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and at that point for almost all purposes you are treated as if you never had the conviction.

The exception is for jobs or volunteer activities that require an extended CRB check (generally, ones that involve with children or vulnerable adults). At the moment in these case all convictions - even spent ones, no matter how minor and no matter what the offence is - must be disclosed. The Court of Appeal found that this was disproportionate.

So in the context of railway prosecutions: 1) it will remain the case in the wake of this judgement that bylaw 18.1 convictions will carry no criminal record; 2) it will remain the case in the wake of this judgement that RoRA convictions for dishonesty will carry a criminal record that must be disclosed, including to your employer.

The only situation where there could be a difference if the Appeal Court judgement is upheld will be if, several years after you're convicted under RoRA, after your conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, you *then* seek to apply for a job working with children or vulnerable adults. Which isn't likely to be a particularly major concern for anyone facing prosecution at this point...!

 

[Joliv]

The notice of intent is the first letter asking for me to provide my version of events.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The notice of intent is the first letter asking for me to provide my version of events.

. . .and that is what you should provide in your reply.
It will help if what you write is consistent with what you said to the Inspector during the journey.

People travelling in First Class on a Standard Class ticket have complained of feeling unwell quite often. If you have any medical evidence you can provide consistet with that, then it will obviously help, but if it was a brief and minor inconvenience then it would be worth mentioning for completeness, but is probably not going to assist you.
I wonder if you had mentioned your complaint of illness to the Inspector at the time.
I also wonder if you expressed your willingness to pay firmly enough for the Inspector to include that in his/her report, too.

Do mention the other facts from your opening post; they will be assessed in deciding whether or not you incident would be taken forward for prosecution.
I would strongly advise you to add a comment on how you now feel about the incident with hindsight and anything you have learnt from it. Judging from what you have said here, (and we don't know what is in the Inspector's report) then I will guess that if you concluded with an offer to settle the company's administrative costs in reporting and investigating your incident, then it might be accepted.
But if your recollection is that the Inspector might have been less sympathetic in writing up the incident, you may find that the Company is not persuaded by your letter and as Ferret and Monty suggest, a mere Byelaw Offence would follow.

I'm unable to see the relevance of island's references to the recent judgement of R (on the application of T) v Chief Constable of Manchester & others (a judgement which is likely to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court) and which did no more than to uphold the Apellant's standing rights under the ECHR and to encourage the provisions already anticipated by the Government's Criminal Records Review.

 

[Joliv]

Just thought I'd update you on this one. I sent off my version of events stating exactly what had happened. Within 4 days I received notice that they still intended to go ahead with the prosecution. I was gutted especially as going to work I had a chat with a ticket inspector and he thought all I'd get would be to pay the excess and a fine.
That's when mum stepped in, she called the prosecutions office and explained what I had done and was told would happen, she also gave a character reference of me that I think swayed the day. The man then offered a settlement over the phone and she agreed this. £63.00 lighter and even more indebted to her. He said it was surprising the number of people that do not reply to the letters or fail to get in contact with them
Thanks for your advice.

 

[island]

Thank you very much for coming back to update us on the matter. I'm glad to hear it has worked out.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks for coming back and telling us, not many do its always nice to find out. £63 to your mother isnt too bad :P