Please help - Govia Thameslink Railway Notification of Intention to Prosecute

[jf318]

I have just received a letter relating to an incident from 4 months ago stating that they intend to take my case to magistrates court and I have two weeks to respond to their letter stating what happened from my point of view.

I was on a train from Clapham Junction to Victoria (8 minute service, 1 stop) I had a ticket to travel (oyster), however having missed the first train, as there was no space, and upon boarding the next one (very packed, but I was concerned about being late for work) I was being shouted at to "move down" by other passengers, as well as being pushed, I entered the first class carriage (I was at the end of the train so there was nowhere else for me to move to).

The Revenue Protection Inspector took my details (as well as two other passengers who were in the exact same situation as me) - he had to wait to disembark at Victoria in order to record our statements as there was no space in the second class carriage for him to discuss the situation with us.

Unfortunately I didn't think at the time to get the other passengers' contact information, so I am not able to coordinate a response with them.

I wanted to ask

- is there any time limit for them to send these letters (4 months after the incident seems a very long time)

- How should I respond, should I admit travelling without a first class ticket and ask to pay a penalty (there was no amount given in the letter, just that the maximum could be upto £1000), or should I emphasise that although I didn't have a first class ticket I felt forced into the carriage and did not deliberately commit an offence (once again this was an 8 minute train and I was being pushed by other passengers)

- What normally happens in these incidents - should I get legal representation/do you know of any way of getting probono legal advice for incidents like this

-I thought it might be a good idea to contact my MP, as this was a very threatening letter for such a minor incident and I'm very worried about how much they will charge me/they have also threatened I could have a criminal record for this incident

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Welcome to the forums, it's unfortunate that your welcome is over such a negative occurrence!

is there any time limit for them to send these letters (4 months after the incident seems a very long time)

Yes - offences that are generally speaking seen as "minor", such as non-fraudulent irregularities with tickets when travelling by train, can only be prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court (at least initially). Such offences are known as "summary only", and if an organisation/person wants to prosecute for one of these kinds of offences, they must submit their paperwork to the Court no later than 6 months after the alleged offence is claimed to have been committed. So, in practice, they have sent the letter towards the latter end of when they could practicably write to you and get your response, before the 6 month deadline. They probably have a backlog and not enough people to process everything immediately.

How should I respond, should I admit travelling without a first class ticket and ask to pay a penalty (there was no amount given in the letter, just that the maximum could be upto £1000), or should I emphasise that although I didn't have a first class ticket I felt forced into the carriage and did not deliberately commit an offence (once again this was an 8 minute train and I was being pushed by other passengers)

I would give an honest account of what happened. It may be useful to know the legal background of any prosecution. There are two laws which are usually used for prosecuting irregularities with respect to tickets and first class travel; the less serious is Byelaw 19 of the Railway Byelaws 2005. You are guilty of this if you remain in a part of the train which your ticket does not entitle you to be in. This offence is known as a "strict liability" offence, which - just like speeding - means that whether or not you intended to commit the offence this is irrelevant; you are guilty if you commit the offence and the train company does not need to prove any kind of intent.

The more serious law under which they might use would be Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA). You are guilty of this offence if, without having previously paid your fare, you travel (or try to travel) by train, and intend to avoid paying the correct fare. Clearly this is not a "strict liability" offence, so it must be proven that you intended not to pay the correct fare; if you offered to pay the correct fare as soon as you were approached by the Inspector (even if he rejected it) then it is unlikely that this can be shown. It may be relevant to consider the fact that, when using Oyster in the Pay As You Go mode (as opposed to with a Travelcard), it is only valid for travel in standard class, as there is no way for the barrier lines at either end to determine whether you travelled in first class or not. There may be a suggestion that, since it is generally known and understood that you will pay the same standard class fare on Oyster regardless of whether you actually travel in standard or first, using Oyster in first constitutes intent to avoid payment; I think if they are relying on that as an argument then they clearly don't have much else to go on, as it is quite a weak argument!

Coming back to what you might wish to reply: given that, as per your account, you did not intend to travel in first class but were forced into to the compartment, there can be no credible suggestion that you had intent to avoid payment of the correct fare. So really, they will struggle to prosecute under RoRA; it is thus merely a question of whether they will offer to settle the matter out of Court. That might be possible if this is the first time you've been involved in a situation like this (i.e. you have no history of Penalty Fares or ticketing irregularities), and you apologise for what happened and offer to pay for their costs in investigating the matter, plus the First Class fare that presumably as yet remains unpaid, plus an administrative penalty.

What normally happens in these incidents - should I get legal representation/do you know of any way of getting probono legal advice for incidents like this

Legal representation is usually not of great assistance in a situation like this, where there is not a complex point of law to be debated. Some solicitors may be able to negotiate an out of Court settlement more effectively than an individual can - e.g. because they highlight deficiencies in the train company's legal argument(s) and/or evidence - but it is questionable whether the high cost of this is worth it, in a case where only the Byelaws are really applicable (see below).

I thought it might be a good idea to contact my MP, as this was a very threatening letter for such a minor incident and I'm very worried about how much they will charge me/they have also threatened I could have a criminal record for this incident

That is an option; however many MPs will be too busy to get back to you in time, and then of course some may simply ignore you totally. It depends on how effective your particular MP is - without revealing who they are, only you will be able to judge that!

As for the criminal record, a Byelaws conviction would not result in a criminal record, as such a conviction is deemed immediately spend under the Rehabilitation of Offender Act 1974. A conviction under RoRA would be recordable, and would require to be disclosed for one year, after which time it would be spent. You may still need to disclose a conviction under either offence, if you are applying for high level security clearance, financial vetting and so on. A Byelaws conviction would not be a hindrance to such a clearance in virtually all cases; a RoRA conviction may, seeing as it is deemed an offence of dishonesty, but if it is the only "blemish" on your record then it need not necessarily disqualify you from your career aspirations.

I would not unduly worry about a RoRA conviction, seeing as it would appear quite difficult for the requisite parts of the offence to be shown as fulfilled by the train company. A Byelaws prosecution is probably more likely, if anything.

It may be worth considering the arguments put forward in this thread, regarding whether or not Byelaw 18 (and 19, which is very similar in its effect here) is even valid at all. It is certainly an unprecedented strategy, and it would certainly take a longer time to be resolved and cause more stress than coming to an out of Court settlement. However there is the possibility that the train company's quite clearly morally unjustifiable approach to this situation could face a significant setback if you won. If you are considering that option, then that may be the time to consider obtaining legal advice, as it is a much more specialised and unusual position than merely being prosecuted under the Byelaws and the question being whether or not the offence is committed as the Byelaw is written.

In any case, it is certainly a very unpleasant situation, and it does nothing to encourage people to use the railway, if they are threatened with prosecution for having done nothing wrong in the "man on the Clapham (ha!) omnibus'" view.

 

[cuccir]

ForTheLoveOf's post is very comprehensive - read it!

But for a shorter summary - respond apogetically and offer to pay the fare owed + costs. They may accept or may chose to prosecute. If they do prosecute, you would likely be found guilty, but of a fairly minor Byelaw offence, which carries a fine but no criminal record.

 

[Parham Wood]

If there was no way to leave the first class due to over crowding - then I cannot see how a prosecution should succeed. Personally if events were as the OP described I would fight this vigorously. Unfortunately the law will just see you were in first class and you should not have been.

 

[Hadders]

The train was so packed yet the inspector made it into the 1st class carriage.....

I would write a concise letter in reply, apologise for what happened and say that you're keen to settle the matter by paying the outstanding fare plus the train company's costs in dealing with the matter. Hopefully they will offer you an administrative settlement to keep the matter out of court.

 

[Panda]

I used to travel that route often during peak times and I truly sympathise with the OP. I have had many incidents because people would get physically and verbally upset with me for refusing to move into 1st class due to overcrowding. Being pushed and shoved and sworn at. I have always managed to stay out, but not without loads of unpleasantness.

 

[furlong]

Always check the basics first. Do you know exactly what service you were on, so you can check that it did in fact convey first class accommodation (look in the timetable) and had not been declassified. Secondly, you wouldn't have known, but if you had a phone with a camera you should have taken photos both to show the level of overcrowding and to show the signage (to be sure it was clearly visible and used a correct form of words). But perhaps the inspector already took pictures of the signs in case you challenged them. (You could also ask the company for any policy or guidance to its staff concerning overcrowding and under what circumstances first class should be declassified or relevant ticket rules not enforced.) This sounds like one of those cases where they ought really be compensating you for having to stand, not prosecuting, but whether you or your solicitor can persuade the company or the magistrates (if it gets that far) of that is anyone's guess.

 

[furlong]

For reference, the wording of byelaw 19 is:

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

The company would need to satisfy the court that there was such a notice. If neither you nor the inspector took photos (which we don't know), and you don't remember seeing a compliant notice on the occasion in question, then see if you can make some similar journeys and check that every similar train complies - if you find any one that doesn't, take photos. (If you found one and the company relied on a statement that all its trains comply, you'd have a counter-example.)

 

[furlong]

There's also another line of argument to consider here.

Imagine you had, as the train company wished, purchased a first class ticket before boarding the train.

The NRCoT says:

3.3 Unless you have made a reservation please note that your Ticket does not automatically entitle you to a seat, and at busy times you may have to stand. You will not be entitled to any refund in these cases unless you hold a first class Ticket and no first class seats were available on a train service where the timetable indicated that first class seats would be provided.

31.1. If you have a first class Ticket and the train service you use is shown as offering first class accommodation at www.nationalrail.co.uk, but when you travel first class accommodation is not provided or is otherwise fully occupied, you may claim a refund. The minimum refund to which you will be entitled will be the difference between the price of the first class Ticket purchased and the cheapest valid standard class walk-up fare available on the service you used.

So - assuming first class was full and you were standing and using a walk-up ticket - you would have been able to claim back the extra money you had paid because you didn't get a first class seat. In other words, the train company has not lost any money here, so why would it think it's worth prosecuting for what, it might be argued, amounts to a mere technicality? "If the train is full and you want to stand in first class, we want you to upgrade to a first class ticket, and then we'll refund what you paid for the upgrade after your journey."

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There's also another line of argument to consider here.

Imagine you had, as the train company wished, purchased a first class ticket before boarding the train.

The NRCoT says:




So - assuming first class was full and you were standing and using a walk-up ticket - you would have been able to claim back the extra money you had paid because you didn't get a first class seat. In other words, the train company has not lost any money here, so why would it think it's worth prosecuting for what, it might be argued, amounts to a mere technicality? "If the train is full and you want to stand in first class, we want you to upgrade to a first class ticket, and then we'll refund what you paid for the upgrade after your journey."

Well I suppose that argument is that a fully "honest" passenger would pay the first-class fare upfront. But that implies a level of dishonesty into the OP's behaviour which quite clearly cannot be made out, and which Byelaw 19, as written, does not require to be proven.

I think "the law is an ass" applies here; unfortunately the fact that it is not very reasonable is not a defence. A defence would have to be on the basis of something else, such as, as you said, there being no signage to indicate that it is first class, it being declassified in the timetable, OP having permission to remain in first class from an authorised person or sign, or a procedural attack on the validity of Byelaw 19.

 

[furlong]

The best lawyers might persuade a court a case should not proceed (offends its sense of justice) or that the right response is an absolute discharge.

 

[cuccir]

The best lawyers might persuade a court a case should not proceed (offends its sense of justice) or that the right response is an absolute discharge.

The best lawyers will also cost a lot more than any likely fine from a Byelaw prosecution.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The best lawyers will also cost a lot more than any likely fine from a Byelaw prosecution.

For some people that would be worth it, whether it's because even a Byelaws a conviction would lose them their job (e.g. if they had high level security clearance), or if they feel particularly aggrieved at this example of GTR's utterly immoral attitude to fare-paying passengers!

 

[some bloke]

Imagine you had, as the train company wished, purchased a first class ticket before boarding the train.

I'm not sure I'd use that argument. Isn't one of the benefits of a first-class ticket, in effect, that if there are no seats you can stand in first class, probably with no or far less crush, and still get the refund? And another benefit that first-class ticket holders, including those in seats, are buying the right to a probably less crowded carriage?

Also if the argument you mention is reasonable, then wouldn't it be reasonable for all the standard-class ticket holders to stand in first class?

 

[furlong]

I'm not sure I'd use that argument. Isn't one of the benefits of a first-class ticket, in effect, that if there are no seats you can stand in first class, probably with no or far less crush, and still get the refund? And another benefit that first-class ticket holders, including those in seats, are buying the right to a probably less crowded carriage?

Strangely I can't find Thameslink advertising it on that basis! The benefit of a first class ticket is advertised as a seat in a particular area of a train, and even "declassification" is documented as a method of providing additional seats for standard class ticket holders when a train is "exceptionally busy". (If all the first class seats are already taken, declassification serves no purpose.)

Also if the argument you mention is reasonable, then wouldn't it be reasonable for all the standard-class ticket holders to stand in first class?

Exactly - therein lies the unstated contradiction in the TOC's position. To turn it around, why should people who are required to stand and end up having paid the same amount of money be segregated according to whether or not they were willing to lend the TOC some extra money up-front?

 

[some bloke]

Strangely I can't find Thameslink advertising it on that basis!

Isn't the benefit implied by the passage you quoted from Byelaw 19?

why should people who are required to stand and end up having paid the same amount of money be segregated according to whether or not they were willing to lend the TOC some extra money up-front?

Legally, because Byelaw 19 allows people to stand in first class as a side benefit of paying for a ticket which very often won't result in a refund? When they lent the money they usually won't have known that they wouldn't have a seat.

I think what you are saying is arguable morally, but I'm not clear how it's strong enough given current rules for the OP to emphasise it over other arguments. If a train is so busy people are forcing others into First Class it would seem sensible for First Class to be declassified (which we might argue should apply even if it isn't "exceptionally busy" because there aren't generally enough trains).

In this case, as the OP was travelling on Oyster, they couldn't just pay a supplement to the guard but would have to buy a whole first class ticket, only part of which would be refunded. In any case, the OP didn't say first class was full.

Maybe getting photos/video/audio without causing inconvenience/annoyance to others, of crowding on similar services would help, along similar lines to what @furlong suggested above.

 

[tom73]

I have just received a letter relating to an incident from 4 months ago stating that they intend to take my case to magistrates court and I have two weeks to respond to their letter stating what happened from my point of view.

I was on a train from Clapham Junction to Victoria (8 minute service, 1 stop) I had a ticket to travel (oyster), however having missed the first train, as there was no space, and upon boarding the next one (very packed, but I was concerned about being late for work) I was being shouted at to "move down" by other passengers, as well as being pushed, I entered the first class carriage (I was at the end of the train so there was nowhere else for me to move to).

The Revenue Protection Inspector took my details (as well as two other passengers who were in the exact same situation as me) - he had to wait to disembark at Victoria in order to record our statements as there was no space in the second class carriage for him to discuss the situation with us.

Unfortunately I didn't think at the time to get the other passengers' contact information, so I am not able to coordinate a response with them.

I wanted to ask

- is there any time limit for them to send these letters (4 months after the incident seems a very long time)

- How should I respond, should I admit travelling without a first class ticket and ask to pay a penalty (there was no amount given in the letter, just that the maximum could be upto £1000), or should I emphasise that although I didn't have a first class ticket I felt forced into the carriage and did not deliberately commit an offence (once again this was an 8 minute train and I was being pushed by other passengers)

- What normally happens in these incidents - should I get legal representation/do you know of any way of getting probono legal advice for incidents like this

-I thought it might be a good idea to contact my MP, as this was a very threatening letter for such a minor incident and I'm very worried about how much they will charge me/they have also threatened I could have a criminal record for this incident

Are you in some way a vulnerable person or having the appearance of a vulnerable person? If this is so then this may help your case if you include the information in any communication with the TOC.
I cannot really imagine a grown healthy male being "shouted at and pushed" by total strangers in the way you describe. I am only 5'6" and this has never happened to me even on the most packed train.

 

[bionic]

If the train was so busy someone was pushed and shoved and forced into first class you have to wonder how the RPI got through the train to check tickets. Unless they were just loitering in first class, picking off those unfortunate enough to have been shoved in against their will, slapping them with a penalty fare as they tumbled in through the door.

 

[jf318]

Apologies for delayed response - thank you very much for all the replies especially @ForTheLoveOf for your detailed response! Your guidance has really helped and reassured me. I will try contacting the company to find out about their overcrowding policy and also check the first class signage as suggested. Will bear in mind all of your advice when I reply, and will let you know what response I receive. Fingers crossed.