Railcard Fraud?

[TheEdge]

I am really sorry to hear that you have ended up in this situation. It sounds like you didn't realise the RC hard expired and in a panic did something silly in altering the date. Just wait for the letter to arrive in the post. They are highly likely to accept an out of court settlement if you request this given it is your first time offence.

It does strike me of people will openly admit to doing somthing wrong. Personally, I'd say nothing if I got caught (you do not have to say anything). I would only ever provide my name and address ONLY and this would be when I'd done something wrong. Remember too you do not have to wait around for railway staff to confirm any of the details you've provided is correct (although hard to do on a train) and NEVER EVER sign anything. Why help someone try to bring trouble on you.

That is absolutely great advice. Well, only great if you want to end your journey in the company of the BTP with far far bigger problems than a relatively minor ticketing offence.

As to our OP friend you really have left your soft underbelly exposed here. I would not be surprised to see an out of court offer rejected. Thinking about this from the point of view of EMT you didn't decide to give yourself a day extra or a week, you tried to alter it to a year extra. But I'm sure we can all agree this will most likely be a RoRA issue.

 

[gray1404]

Guys you need to re-read what I have said and stop jumping to conclusions. I did not once say not to provide your name and address. I said all I would provide is my name and address if I had committed an offence. I certainly would not then go signing any statements that could then incriminate myself. Provided you give your name and address if you have committed an offence then the BTP would not take issue. You are not under any duty to give the TOC and additional information such as your DOB, occupation. Remember that the person taking the details could then be used as a witness in court so I certainly would not give them the change to say that I openly admitted to something. Makes it so much easier for them to take you to court too. Leave it to the TOC to come up with the evidence as the burden of proof is on them.

On a lighter note, please guys, lets keep our conversation tones polite and not resport to insulting or attacking one another. Lets keep this a prositive and productive forum

 

[MikeWh]

Guys you need to re-read what I have said and stop jumping to conclusions. I did not once say not to provide your name and address. I said all I would provide is my name and address if I had committed an offence. I certainly would not then go signing any statements that could then incriminate myself. Provided you give your name and address if you have committed an offence then the BTP would not take issue. You are not under any duty to give the TOC and additional information such as your DOB, occupation. Remember that the person taking the details could then be used as a witness in court so I certainly would not give them the change to say that I openly admitted to something. Makes it so much easier for them to take you to court too. Leave it to the TOC to come up with the evidence as the burden of proof is on them.

On a lighter note, please guys, lets keep our conversation tones polite and not resport to insulting or attacking one another. Lets keep this a prositive and productive forum

Why do you repeat this clause? What if you don't think you've committed an offence, or indeed you haven't. It's still an offence not to give your name and address if the officer asking believes that you might have committed an offence.

 

[221129]

Guys you need to re-read what I have said and stop jumping to conclusions. I did not once say not to provide your name and address. I said all I would provide is my name and address if I had committed an offence. I certainly would not then go signing any statements that could then incriminate myself. Provided you give your name and address if you have committed an offence then the BTP would not take issue. You are not under any duty to give the TOC and additional information such as your DOB, occupation. Remember that the person taking the details could then be used as a witness in court so I certainly would not give them the change to say that I openly admitted to something. Makes it so much easier for them to take you to court too. Leave it to the TOC to come up with the evidence as the burden of proof is on them.

On a lighter note, please guys, lets keep our conversation tones polite and not resport to insulting or attacking one another. Lets keep this a prositive and productive forum

Even if you haven't committed an offence you still need to give name and address if asked by a member of staff.

 

[island]

Even if you haven't committed an offence you still need to give name and address if asked by a member of staff.

That is not always true.

 

[221129]

That is not always true.

Correct, I over simplified.

 

[lukemk]

Regardless, I gave my name and details and admitted - so what's done is done.

As to our OP friend you really have left your soft underbelly exposed here. I would not be surprised to see an out of court offer rejected. Thinking about this from the point of view of EMT you didn't decide to give yourself a day extra or a week, you tried to alter it to a year extra. But I'm sure we can all agree this will most likely be a RoRA issue.

Interesting point - I understand that perspective also.

If this was a RoRA issue, and went to court, would the fine be capped at £500?

If I was to offer a figure straight forward to them, £600-700, would they be inclined to accept this???? Or would they prefer to take it to court...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I am really sorry to hear that you have ended up in this situation. It sounds like you didn't realise the RC hard expired and in a panic did something silly in altering the date.

The better cause of action at the time was to just own up to forgetting the railcard had expired. The worst cause of action was to deface/change it in the hope of getting away with it.

But the OP realises this and it's too late now.

 

[lukemk]

The better cause of action at the time was to just own up to forgetting the railcard had expired. The worst cause of action was to deface/change it in the hope of getting away with it.

But the OP realises this and it's too late now.

Yes, I completely agree.

This could escalate the charge to fraud. However as others assume, it's more likely to be RoRA...(?)

 

[furlong]

If I was to offer a figure straight forward to them, £600-700, would they be inclined to accept this???? Or would they prefer to take it to court...

Offering a high figure like that might make the recipient suspicious about your motives - are you trying to bribe me not to investigate further because you are worried about what else I might discover? It's worth remembering this is a criminal matter not a civil one and any figure should only reimburse the company for its loss, which includes any costs it incurred directly as a result of your behaviour (typically staff time). There may be negotiation to agree an estimated amount of unpaid fares e.g. if there is some reason to believe you had made other journeys without valid tickets, but the figure for direct costs would normally be provided by the company itself as, at least in theory, the company might find it has to justify it to a court.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If I was to offer a figure straight forward to them, £600-700, would they be inclined to accept this???? Or would they prefer to take it to court...

No, If they're going to offer a settlement, let them come up with a figure (it may be lower). Your offer to settle should be for them to recover the fare plus any reasonable costs incurred with investigating and pursuing their claim.

 

[najaB]

If I was to offer a figure straight forward to them, £600-700, would they be inclined to accept this???? Or would they prefer to take it to court...

As others have said, don't name a specific amount in any correspondence with the TOC. You can start by offering the full cost of the journey taken and then the costs they have incurred in investigating the matter so far.

So something like (and I am not a lawyer): "I understand that my actions were ill-conceived and have caused you to incur unnecessary costs. As such I would like to pay the full fare for the journey from <station> to <station> which I understand to be <amount>, and also reimburse you for any and all of your administrative costs to date."

 

[Islineclear3_1]

This could escalate the charge to fraud. However as others assume, it's more likely to be RoRA...(?)

Just wait for the letter. But remember, in your opening statement, you have admitted to fraud (rather than a bylaw offence). And this is technically what you have done (by defacing a railcard) as you obviously realise

 

[lukemk]

furlong, cj and naja, thank you for your replies; I think when the time comes to write a letter I will be visiting here for advice on content.

Just wait for the letter. But remember, in your opening statement, you have admitted to fraud (rather than a bylaw offence). And this is technically what you have done (by defacing a railcard) as you obviously realise

So do people think that this could be more probable for a fraud case now...?

 

[snail]

Remember that the person taking the details could then be used as a witness in court so I certainly would not give them the change to say that I openly admitted to something. Makes it so much easier for them to take you to court too. Leave it to the TOC to come up with the evidence as the burden of proof is on them.

Would that proof be a railcard with the date altered in pencil? Yes, you do have a right to say nothing but you are going to get more lenient treatment - either a reduced fine in court or an offer of settlement from the TOC - by admitting the offence and pleading guilty. Your approach gives one option given the facts here, which is a court summons. Bad advice.

 

[lukemk]

Would that proof be a railcard with the date altered in pencil? Yes, you do have a right to say nothing but you are going to get more lenient treatment - either a reduced fine in court or an offer of settlement from the TOC - by admitting the offence and pleading guilty. Your approach gives one option given the facts here, which is a court summons. Bad advice.

To be honest all evidence is gone, you can't even see it as it was rubbed off - by him or me when touching it I presume; although perhaps there is slight indentation

 

[bb21]

So do people think that this could be more probable for a fraud case now...?

No, as stated before. It may be a minor case of fraud but whether a fraud charge would be pursued is an entirely different question.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

To be honest all evidence is gone, you can't even see it as it was rubbed off - by him or me when touching it I presume; although perhaps there is slight indentation

Are you now saying you have "destroyed" the evidence?

The evidence was clear at the time you were caught so in effect, your statement above makes no difference. The dirty deed has been done.

 

[lukemk]

Are you now saying you have "destroyed" the evidence?

The evidence was clear at the time you were caught so in effect, your statement above makes no difference. The dirty deed has been done.

No, a 2015 was changed to 2016 - very 'frantically' when I realised it was out of date. This was one single stroke of a pencil. It was so faint and so 'unmediated' that the stroke has faded by just being touched by hands.... Just trying to show how mere this can be perceived on the 'fraud-scale' (scale of all things fraudulent!?)

EDIT:

No, as stated before. It may be a minor case of fraud but whether a fraud charge would be pursued is an entirely different question.

What would be ToC's motive/incentive to pursue such charge?

Can multiple charges be pursued?

 

[Darandio]

What would be ToC's motive/incentive to pursue such charge?

Can multiple charges be pursued?

Unless I'm just a complete cynic, your questions are starting to become very interesting.

 

[najaB]

What would be ToC's motive/incentive to pursue such charge?

If they believed that your actions were part of a pre-meditated scheme to deprive them of the income they were due.

Can multiple charges be pursued?

No, I do not believe it is possible to press two different charges for the same offence at the same time.

 

[lukemk]

Thanks again all

No, as stated before. It may be a minor case of fraud but whether a fraud charge would be pursued is an entirely different question.

Unless I'm just a complete cynic, your questions are starting to become very interesting.

It's just my paranoid mind working over time - I'm trying to establish the very worst possible scenario for myself, a student soon to be entering the 'corporate ladder'.

 

[TheEdge]

It's just my paranoid mind working over time - I'm trying to establish the very worst possible scenario for myself, a student soon to be entering the 'corporate ladder'.

The very worst outcome is a fraud conviction with a jail sentence. I would be very surprised if that happened but in theory in could.

The most likely outcome (if no out of court settlement is forthcoming) is you will enter the corporate world with a Regualtion of Railway Act conviction, fine and criminal record to boot.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

No, I do not believe it is possible to press two different charges for the same offence at the same time.

We quite often see a Summons issued for an appearance to answer two or more alledged offences arising from the one action. It doesn't follow that the Prosecution would adduce evidence for all the offences mentioned.
This could be, for example, an Offence under the Regulation of Railways Act, the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, a Theft, a Fraud, a Public Order Offence, an Assault and a breach of the Railway Byelaws (though I've made no effort to hypothesise what action could lead to all of these in the one Summons).

There would be difficulty if a Prosecutor attempted to persue a Civil Debt and a Criminal Offence in the one action.

 

[najaB]

We quite often see a Summons issued for an appearance to answer two or more alledged offences arising from the one action. It doesn't follow that the Prosecution would adduce evidence for all the offences mentioned.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew that a summons could be issued listing multiple offences, but was of the incorrect belief that the prosecutor would only be allowed to ask the court to consider their evidence to support one of them.

 

[Andrew1395]

At the end of the day the OP only started to look at the railcard after the ticket was bought, the date was so faint it was clear that the ticket examination was going to expose the fact that it was out of date. Apparently the booking office was at fault for not checking the date thoroughly, but the OP thought that a future visual inspection would discover the invalid discount. Even though the OP was unaware of the expiry date when buying the ticket. Of course if the OP really thought the railcard was still valid then there would be no Need to look at the railcard date let alone change the date. Really people must wonder what the impact on the fares they pay would be if all fare evasion was eliminated. You give advice to the people who are contributing to fare increases on the journeys you pay for. Let's hope the OP is more diligent if a car driver about MOT dates and insurance renewal dates.

 

[najaB]

You give advice to the people who are contributing to fare increases on the journeys you pay for.

Any advice given to the OP is intended to minimise the impact of what he has acknowledged was a stupid thing to do. He will end up paying significantly more than the cost of his railway ticket, I see no harm in trying to help him understand his options and how to get the least worst outcome possible.

 

[Andrew1395]

Well OP here is some basic advice. If you own either a smart phone or a pocket diary write down the expiry dates in your calendar. Each week review the week ahead and see if any key actions need to be actioned. Of course having been caught out, not of failing to renew your railcard but to avoid paying the fare you should have paid, you will indeed be penalised. Presumably the fear of sanction prompted the desire to get some help from the community who pay their dues. The best advice is don't get yourself into such situations. Minimising the impact of the OPs actions maybe a bad thing if it leads the OP to rationalise the risk versus the opportunity to avoid paying the fare due. Everyone who gets caught always claims they acted rashly or stupidly. The fact is they need to realise that they acted deliberately and selfishly, to put themselves above the whole community, expecting the majority to pay more so that they can contribute less.

 

[35B]

I'm glad that Andrew1395 is such a paragon of virtue, and never makes errors of any kind while always acting in a perfectly altruistic manner.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, people do act rashly and stupidly in the hope of minimising the impact of their errors. The OP is in a difficult place and now needs to understand the dimensions of that place so he can make informed decisions about how to act. Precisely the point of this forum. Now, if that approach is wrong, maybe we should just leave people to the mercies of the system and unable to respond meaningfully within the spirit of the law.

 

[LexyBoy]

Everyone who gets caught always claims they acted rashly or stupidly. The fact is they need to realise that they acted deliberately and selfishly, to put themselves above the whole community, expecting the majority to pay more so that they can contribute less.

Some, certainly. Others do make rash decisions - especially when the penalty for making a mistake is so disproportionate.

I don't know about EMT, but SWT for a long time had very aggressive "buy the right ticket, it's cheaper than the fines" posters. If you're going to be fined anyway, why not take a chance at avoiding it? I'm not condoning lukemk's actions, but he may not be in this situation if he'd expected to just pay the difference in fare (but let's not reopen that discussion for the umpteenth time).