Railcard Fraud?

[Flamingo]

Don't we have a poster on a different thread in this forum and it is the second or third time they have been caught making the same "mistake"?

 

[najaB]

Don't we have a poster on a different thread in this forum and it is the second or third time they have been caught making the same "mistake"?

Yes we do. And I believe the advice they have received has become quite a bit less charitable as the stories have unfolded.

 

[Flamingo]

Yes we do. And I believe the advice they have received has become quite a bit less charitable as the stories have unfolded.

I had noticed

 

[CallySleeper]

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.

I can do one better than this - buy your railcard online, and
a) the date won't ever fade off the plastic card
b) I think they email you when your card needs renewed

 

[Clip]

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was bought, the date was so faint it was clear that the ticket examination was going to expose the fact that it was out of date.

that is of course if the course of action as the OP lays out before us is the whole truth. Looking at it from a TOCs eyes when the OP says that they bought the ticket from the office and then the clerk didn't notice anything wrong with it, this could be that the date had been pencilled in before they got to the office and thus had been using it for the full 10 days.

 

[anme]

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.

I wonder if we should make a sticky thread for this kind of valuable "life coaching". Then it would be easily accessible to those who are interested, and the posters here would not need to tire themselves by posting it in every single thread.

 

[DaleCooper]

I wonder if we should make a sticky thread for this kind of valuable "life coaching". Then it would be easily accessible to those who are interested, and the posters here would not need to tire themselves by posting it in every single thread.

The problem is the ones who really need the advice probably won't think they need to read it.

 

[Lex]

Hi OP,

Having been in a similar position myself earlier in the year, I hope I can offer advice (see my thread "misuse of annual gold card").

When I was interviewed by the TOC, they quickly established that there are two sorts of ticket misuse in their eyes - opportunistic, and premeditated. In my case, the ticket "came into my possession" - (see the thread), and my now settled case was seen as opportunistic misuse, so was not as serious. If however, I had been using my photoshop skills to create a false ticket, then that would be a serious fraud. This is of course simplistic, but you should perhaps say in your interview that it was a poorly thought out, off the cuff, opportunistic moment. Being interviewed face to face is a good thing - these are normal people, not ogres, and in my (admittedly limited experience), they wanted the money back (with costs) asap - no attempt was made to somehow make an example of me. Hopefully they will settle, but start saving now. Every case is different, but I hope you have learned a valuable lesson - I certainly have.

 

[Greenback]

The Op can say that, of course, but it may not appear to be so clear cut to the TOC. As Clip said, they may take the view that this was a premeditated decision to extend the period of validity of the railcard by a year, and not an opportunistic reaction at all.

So, although what you say is important, it's best to remember that there are no guarantees!

 

[najaB]

The Op can say that, of course, but it may not appear to be so clear cut to the TOC. As Clip said, they may take the view that this was a premeditated decision to extend the period of validity of the railcard by a year, and not an opportunistic reaction at all.

So, although what you say is important, it's best to remember that there are no guarantees!

The only mitigating factor - to a degree - was that the alteration was done so badly, with a pencil. That is hardly the work of a career criminal.

 

[lukemk]

Thank you all for your constructive input. I feel more at ease, but also an idiot for being so naive!!! I spoke to someone from EMT who works with prosecution today in person (just for some advice). I explained my story to him and he assured me court is a last resort for them; if it's in the interest of most.

I just need to await a reply and go from there...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Please tell the forum what the letter says (when it arrives) so that the experts on here can give you further guidance

 

[Holly]

Thank you all for your constructive input. I feel more at ease, but also an idiot for being so naive!!! I spoke to someone from EMT who works with prosecution today in person (just for some advice). I explained my story to him and he assured me court is a last resort for them; if it's in the interest of most.
I just need to await a reply and go from there...

Have you got yourself a new railcard (of the same type and issued in the same manner) by the way?
It might help put the beak in a better mood if/when you get to court.

It has been said that 50% of the criminals in San Quinten (a Federal prison in California) are there because they stand convicted out of their own mouths. If they had simply kept their mouths shut they would not be in prison today. "I can't say" (repeated countless times as necessary) is nice and ambiguous and non-committal (literally).

 

[TheEdge]

It has been said that 50% of the criminals in San Quinten (a Federal prison in California) are there because they stand convicted out of their own mouths. If they had simply kept their mouths shut they would not be in prison today. "I can't say" (repeated countless times as necessary) is nice and ambiguous and non-committal (literally).

I'm sure someone (probably DaveNewcastle) will correct me if I'm wrong but I think while that might be useful advice in the US in the UK it isn't.

I think under UK law due to a different wording of the Miranda warning and inclusion of the line, "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." mixed with a common law system means that a negative inference can be drawn from silence or no comment type responses. In the US system, they can't.

Basically in the UK silence can be self incriminating.

 

[island]

I will also stand to be corrected if necessary but I understand that the above caution, which does not apply throughout the UK (only in certain parts), specifically refers to the right of magistrates or a jury to draw adverse inferences from a defendant bringing up some fact or matter in court which he/she had not done during police questioning. The adverse inference in question is that he/she had made the said fact or matter up in between times. I do not believe silence can be "self-incriminating".

 

[lukemk]

Yes I have got a new railcard.

Not quite sure what the past 3 posts are trying to insinuate here...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Not quite sure what the past 3 posts are trying to insinuate here...

There's a habit on this forum of regular posters talking to each other, across the strand of the OP's subject. I'm not sure that there was any insuation about you.

The point by Holly was that offenders are often convicted on their own evidence, even if it is not an outright confession, perhaps this applies to you and perhaps not. I don't see anything worrying about a person who admits to an offence at the time when they are questioned about it. The Courts have a tariff of 'discounts' to reduce fines when an offender makes an early and a cooperative admission, and it makes no sense to jeapordise that discount if the evidence was certain to assure a conviction.

In response to the request for my opinion on 'silence' during an interview in general, then I'll say that there would be good reason not to assist an enquiry until legal representation is present if the investigators seek to turn the enquiry into a 'fishing expedition' (i.e. asking a wide range of questions whose answers might expose evidence of other offences or other offenders).

I would not normally expect there is any point in a 'silent' response to questionning on the simple matter of rail travel without a ticket, and where (at the very least) evidence of a Byelaw Offence is already apparent from the lack of a ticket.

 

[lukemk]

Hi all, seeking some further advice.

I haven't received any form of communication yet - and this is the problem, the amount of stress this is causing...

Is ringing EM Prosecutions asking for an update, or asking if I could arrange a visit to them viable? Or is awaiting correspondence still most advisable?

Thanks in advance

 

[Clip]

Hi all, seeking some further advice.

I haven't received any form of communication yet - and this is the problem, the amount of stress this is causing...

Is ringing EM Prosecutions asking for an update, or asking if I could arrange a visit to them viable? Or is awaiting correspondence still most advisable?

Thanks in advance

These things can take a long time to come through - all depends on how much work they have with people doing the wrongs things.

Don't let it stress you though - you cant turn back the clock, what is done is done. If you want to put your mind at ease then give them a call.

 

[najaB]

I haven't received any form of communication yet - and this is the problem, the amount of stress this is causing...

They have up to six months to decide if they want to lay charges before the court. So try your best to stop stressing about it, and take this time as a blessing as it gives you an opportunity to save your pennies as you will be needing them - either for a settlement or to pay a fine.

 

[lukemk]

THE LETTER HAS ARRIVED....

So I've been invited to go for an interview. They have highlighted the fact I have travelled under the offence of the following Byelaw.

In that you did, in an area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, enter a train for the purpose of travelling without a valid ticket entitling you to do so: BL 18(1)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised this is only a Byelaw prosecution - even if they do prosecute you will be getting off lightly (e.g. no criminal record), given that deliberately defacing a Railcard would seem to me to make a RoRA prosecution, or even a standard fraud charge, likely to stick.

I guess the line they are taking is that defacing the Railcard, even if it was in date, made it invalid.

I guess your option now is to attend the meeting, be 100% truthful and very apologetic, and be open to an out of court settlement to keep your costs down.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One of the lines of questionning at the interview will be to assess the potential losses incurred from the change of date on your railcard. You may want to consider taking evidence with you which demonstrates your pattern of travel and the amounts paid. Where there is uncertainty about your use of an altered railcard on other dates then there may be a presumption of regular abuse, with an invitation to you to rebut that presumption with any evidence to the contrary.

 

[furlong]

They are not restricted to the charge suggested by the letter - evidence to support other charges might emerge later e.g. at the interview, for example.

 

[lukemk]

One of the lines of questionning at the interview will be to assess the potential losses incurred from the change of date on your railcard. You may want to consider taking evidence with you which demonstrates your pattern of travel and the amounts paid. Where there is uncertainty about your use of an altered railcard on other dates then there may be a presumption of regular abuse, with an invitation to you to rebut that presumption with any evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for this advice... The incident happened on 28/04

I have previous tickets for 08/04, 26/03 & 16/03.. I travel by train 2-4 times p/month - between £10-25 return journeys. My railcard expired 18/04. Does this information help?

EDIT: I have also since bought a new railcard and have travelled once - however the barriers retained my ticket for this journey

They are not restricted to the charge suggested by the letter - evidence to support other charges might emerge later e.g. at the interview, for example.

I see... On the train I had admitted to the offence of alteration and had signed this supporting statement; I would of thought this would be enough :/

Ultimately I acted in a complete moment of madness. Absolutely stupid thinking without thinking of the consequences. It (despite what may be perceived) wasn't an attempt to seek long-term financial gain, I was foolishly trying my luck. I am in no way trying to evade punishment, I have suffered mentally a huge amount with this - resulting in a lack of sleep and general sanity. Hopefully I can relay this across in the interview and repay the company for their resultant loses.

Lesson has well and truly been learnt - fare evasion is stupid and criminal
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BUMP - Any more insights please?

 

[HilversumNS]

Ultimately I acted in a complete moment of madness. Absolutely stupid thinking without thinking of the consequences.

Lesson has well and truly been learnt - fare evasion is stupid and criminal

Hopefully the above attitude will go in your favour.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Lesson has well and truly been learnt - fare evasion is stupid and criminal
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BUMP - Any more insights please?

I can only emphasise that the issue being investigated is the quantum of fraud where the evidence is of an attempt to take advantage of a whole year's underpaid travel. Any comparison with the examples of the Police forming an opinion of the frequency of a motorists speeding, would be to form an opinion of how many times you have previously altered the year on a Railcard. That question may be asked, but won't be the focus of interest in your alteration of the Railcard.

You have told us on here that your alteration of the card was discovered on the very first journey you took with that altered ticket. Any investigator would consider that to be a surprising coincidence. There is plenty data available to predict, for the various forms of fare evasion, the probabilities of detecting them, and the successful detection of the alteration of a Railcard's year on its first use will not come with a high probability. I expect that you are going to struggle to make the report you have made on here persuasive.

By saying "lesson has well and truly been learnt" you are putting the incident in the past. But I have to advise you that for EMT, the investigation has barely begun. You should be looking at what evidence you can provide which puts your 'ticket altering' in the most believable context.

 

[lukemk]

Thanks for your input Dave..

In regard to the prospective years worth: the intent was merely for the return part of my journey - I was honestly chancing my journey home thinking it'd be no big deal. It was genuinely stupid irrational behaviour. I seriously question my thinking.

As I said I have 3 out of 4 previous tickets, showing my average travelling to be every 2 weeks at most; I could get bank statements to show this also perhaps? The railcard was only 10 days out date, perhaps enough justification to it genuinely being the first time this railcard had been incorrectly used?

It was done with a pencil, in about 3 seconds, so poorly it came off when the inspector dealt with it; I wouldn't credit myself as being a proficient premeditated fraudster.. I'd like to beleive anyway?

 

[najaB]

It was done with a pencil, in about 3 seconds, so poorly it came off when the inspector dealt with it; I wouldn't credit myself as being a proficient premeditated fraudster.. I'd like to beleive anyway?

This kinda works in your favour - if it was such a poor job it doesn't portray you as a hardened criminal mastermind. That said, DaveNewcastle is correct that by changing the year you could be seen to have been attempting to get 365 days worth of additional usage rather than one, so be prepared for that line of questioning.

 

[lukemk]

Hi all,

I have my meeting with EMT tomorrow - I am rather anxious (as per my character) and due to the nature of the situation.

Last minute 'SOS' - is there anything I should bear in mind in terms of preparation?

Thank you so much all for your constant support and advice - fantastic people, and fantastic forum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
UPDATE.

Very quick and concise interview - ended up with an out of court settlement.

Thanks all for your help