Rather large out of court settlement

[island]

A hedge fund manager has recently made a settlement of £43,000 with Southeastern after being found to have evaded the fare from Stonegate to Cannon Street for five years. He had been using an Oyster card to get out of the barriers at Cannon Street and paying the maximum cash fare each time, and was eventually clocked by an eagle-eyed gateline attendant.

The story is from the Sunday Times but it is paywalled. The report says that the man paid the settlement within 3 days of being advised of the amount.

I do wonder (a) why he didn't buy a Z1-2 Travelcard and (b) what he did if he encountered the guard.

 

[gazthomas]

5 years of fraud is quite an achievement.

 

[Bishopstone]

Doesn't reflect well on Southeastern's revenue protection.

No wonder they wanted to keep it out of court, despite the amount.

 

[IanXC]

No wonder they wanted to keep it out of court, despite the amount.

Indeed. Southeastern must feel the level of settlement will be enough of a deterent, as a prosecution probably would have cost them their job!

 

[tony6499]

If you can afford to pay £43000 on the spot why didn't he pay his fare ? Wouldn't it have been better to have prosecuted in this case ?

 

[Bishopstone]

In the full newspaper report, a Southeastern spokesman allegedly stated 'all passengers had the option of settling out of court'.

I'm not sure that's a very helpful clarification of their policy, with a view to discouraging future fare evasion.

 

[yorkie]

Wouldn't it have been better to have prosecuted in this case ?

Would the Courts have awarded £43,000 of damages to SouthEastern?

(Bear in mind any fine imposed by the Courts would not have gone to SouthEastern).

In the full newspaper report, a Southeastern spokesman allegedly stated 'all passengers had the option of settling out of court'.

I'm not sure that's a very helpful clarification of their policy, with a view to discouraging future fare evasion.

if a large enough settlement is agreed, why wouldn't SouthEastern settle? You would if it was you!

 

[yorksrob]

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

 

[47513 Severn]

As an annual season ticket from Stonegate to London Terminals is £4,548 Southeastern seem to have done rather well out of it. I'm guessing they based the figure on individual anytime day returns every working day for the five years or something like that.

As others have said "throwing the book at him" would only have resulted in a fine which it seems he could afford and which wouldn't have gone to Southeastern. Presumably they would have to pursue their losses as a civil debt in such a situation.

As Southeastern is a business I can easily see how they have accepted the out of court settlement as the best outcome for them.

That said it would have been nice if they had prosecuted if only to see if the guy came on here looking for advice and bleating about how his granny died five years ago and his relationship had just broken up five years ago and the nasty ticket man was rude to him etc, etc, etc as we are so used to reading.

47513

 

[Bishopstone]

If you can afford to pay £43000 on the spot why didn't he pay his fare ? Wouldn't it have been better to have prosecuted in this case ?

'Why do it?' is an interesting question. For some, being wealthy doesn't stop them wanting even more money. I imagine many of us know relatives/friends etc with lots of cash in the bank and large houses, who still 'shop around' the supermarkets to save 10 pence on a pint of milk. Maybe this guy thought about what he could do with the £4k a year he was saving on train fares, in terms of holidays, cars etc.

Others get a thrill from cheating the system. Having spent some time commuting in first class, I've listened to a few conversations from Standard ticket holders, proud of their 'free upgrade'.

In terms of prosecution, this guy agreed to pay Southeastern's financial loss, and costs. They could not do any better in court, so the only point in pursuing it would be for the deterrent effect. Set against that are the risks:

1. The guy engages a hotshot lawyer, finds a loophole and gets off entirely or partially.

2. Southeastern win, but are not awarded their costs because the judge thinks they are numpties for (a) allowing this to go on for so long and (b) not exploring/accepting a reasonable offer of settlement.

3. Southeastern are exposed as incompetent at protecting their revenue, and thousands of others are alerted to a potential method of fare dodging.

The emotional reaction is to say 'sue the pants off him', but I suspect the right decision was reached.

 

[SS4]

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

That was my thought too

 

[Bishopstone]

if a large enough settlement is agreed, why wouldn't SouthEastern settle? You would if it was you!

Of course, but whatever the commercial realities, in my business I wouldn't brief national newspapers that in the event of a fraud against it, I would always settle out of court if the price was right. That might be Southeastern's policy, but they're stupid to advertise it.

 

[telstarbox]

The story is also in the Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/13/man-avoids-prosecution-pay-back-43000-train-fares

Although it isn't stated, I think he would have to have used a fake paper ticket to avoid detection on the train itself, which wouldn't have worked the barriers hence the use of Oyster at the Lodon end.

A commuter who was alleged to have dodged train fares to London worth close to £43,000 has avoided prosecution after making an out-of-court-settlement with Southeastern railways.

The man, who had managed to maintain his anonymity as a result of offering to make the extraordinary payment, travelled for five years from a rural station in East Sussex into the London Bridge only paying £7.20 for his journey by exploiting a loophole in the Oyster card system, Southeastern discovered.

He is described as hedge fund manager in the City by the Sunday Times which broke the story, although Southeastern could not confirm or deny that. The scale of the alleged dodge has sparked a hunt for his identity. The commuter is said to be a senior executive and boarded the train at Stonegate station in the High Weald close to the villages of Ticehurst, Wallcrouch and Burwash. There is no barrier at the station so he could board without being detected. Southeastern said it did not know how he managed to avoid detection by ticket inspectors on the train itself.

 

[tbtc]

For those suggesting that SouthEastern take this guy to court, they'd presumably need to "prove" that Mr X was fraudulently making this journey every day for five years?

All they really have is access to an Oyster card that "capped" him at £7.20 a day, but any Lawyer could argue that this is no evidence that he was at Stonegate on those days.

Much easier/ better to settle out of court and take a large sum of money. Unless they are South Yorkshire pensioners, of course...

In the full newspaper report, a Southeastern spokesman allegedly stated 'all passengers had the option of settling out of court'.

I'm not sure that's a very helpful clarification of their policy, with a view to discouraging future fare evasion.

if a large enough settlement is agreed, why wouldn't SouthEastern settle? You would if it was you!

Of course, but whatever the commercial realities, in my business I wouldn't brief national newspapers that in the event of a fraud against it, I would always settle out of court if the price was right. That might be Southeastern's policy, but they're stupid to advertise it.

I'm with Yorkie here - if you offer the TOC more money than they could realistically expect from the courts then they are going to settle out of court.

There's always a "price" - TOCs have to be realistic.

As an annual season ticket from Stonegate to London Terminals is £4,548 Southeastern seem to have done rather well out of it. I'm guessing they based the figure on individual anytime day returns every working day for the five years or something like that.

As others have said "throwing the book at him" would only have resulted in a fine which it seems he could afford and which wouldn't have gone to Southeastern. Presumably they would have to pursue their losses as a civil debt in such a situation.

As Southeastern is a business I can easily see how they have accepted the out of court settlement as the best outcome for them

Agreed

it would have been nice if they had prosecuted if only to see if the guy came on here looking for advice and bleating about how his granny died five years ago and his relationship had just broken up five years ago and the nasty ticket man was rude to him etc, etc, etc as we are so used to reading

"There was a queue every day for five years, so I decided that I didn't need to wait to purchase a ticket..."

Although it isn't stated, I think he would have to have used a fake paper ticket to avoid detection on the train itself, which wouldn't have worked the barriers hence the use of Oyster at the Lodon end.

I'm guessing that there may have been a touch of Photoshop involved? Sufficient to flash at a busy Guard, but not going to get through the gates at London Bridge, hence the need for the Oyster ticket. Not that I'm condoning it, of course, but it must be possible to forge something that looks good enough for the couple of seconds that a Guard may have to glance at it.

I wonder whether those at "Oyster HQ" will be looking at records to find someone who always seems to "touch out" in the morning without ever touching in? Presumably commuters like this dodgy chap tend to use the same train most days, so would be relatively easy to catch them?

 

[drbdrb]

I wonder whether those at "Oyster HQ" will be looking at records to find someone who always seems to "touch out" in the morning without ever touching in? Presumably commuters like this dodgy chap tend to use the same train most days, so would be relatively easy to catch them?

Smart fraudsters would use a season ticket on Oyster, as there must be millions starting at non-barriered stations.

 

[LateThanNever]

Indeed. Southeastern must feel the level of settlement will be enough of a deterent, as a prosecution probably would have cost them their job!

Surely, with the initiative he has shown, if he was a hedge fund manager he would get immediate promotion...

 

[swt_passenger]

If he was relying on a PAYG maximum cash fare for an un-resolved journey, wouldn't he be paying 2 of them a day? That starts to add up anyway, but even TfL might wonder about 2 unresolved fares a day over a five year period. Would the system not detect it and blacklist the card, even if not registered?

So I reckon it is far more likely he used a zonal season? The Tines article refers to him using an "Oyster travelcard' but then clouds the issue by going on to mention maximum cash fares as well...

 

[DJL]

If he was relying on a PAYG maximum cash fare for an un-resolved journey, wouldn't he be paying 2 of them a day? That starts to add up anyway, but even TfL might wonder about 2 unresolved fares a day over a five year period. Would the system not detect it and blacklist the card, even if not registered?

So I reckon it is far more likely he used a zonal season? The Tines article refers to him using an "Oyster travelcard' but then clouds the issue by going on to mention maximum cash fares as well...

Presumably if the season is not valid at that gate then a payg extension would be charged. Without a paired touch in/out this would probably be the maximum fare?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what is generally reported as salaries earned by Hedge Fund managers, £43,000 would be his equivalent of "spare change"...

 

[island]

If he was relying on a PAYG maximum cash fare for an un-resolved journey, wouldn't he be paying 2 of them a day? That starts to add up anyway, but even TfL might wonder about 2 unresolved fares a day over a five year period. Would the system not detect it and blacklist the card, even if not registered?

So I reckon it is far more likely he used a zonal season? The Tines article refers to him using an "Oyster travelcard' but then clouds the issue by going on to mention maximum cash fares as well...

If he worked typical hedge fund manager hours he probably tended to get a train back around 2000 when Cannon Street typically has a skeleton staff and the gates are left open.

 

[maniacmartin]

The BBC are also confused, as they also mention an Oyster *Travelcard*, but then refer to maximum cash fares.

A travelcard will be much cheaper and probably less likely to be detected than maximum fares, however if he travelled at the times island suggests, he might have decided against this if on some occasions the gates weren't manned anyway and the journey would be totally free.

 

[Polarbear]

It's made it to the BBC News website;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27011497

A city executive is believed to have dodged paying £42,550 in train fares by exploiting a loophole which meant he only paid a third of the journey cost.

The hedge fund manager from Stonegate, in East Sussex, who has not been named, had an Oyster Travelcard and regularly travelled to and from London.

Southeastern said he commuted from Stonegate to London Bridge, where he caught another train to Cannon Street.

His Oyster was only used at Cannon Street so he paid a maximum £7.20 fare.

'Tapped out'
The rural station at Stonegate has no ticket barriers, so the man was able to avoid "tapping in" with his Oyster card, and only "tapped out" through the barriers once he reached Cannon Street.

He also managed to avoid ticket inspectors on the train, Southeastern said.

The then maximum fare of £7.20 was incurred when a passenger "tapped out" through a barrier without having "tapped in", a Southeastern spokesman said.

The executive was eventually caught in November last year by a ticket inspector standing next to the barriers.

He paid back the £42,550 in dodged fares, plus £450 in legal costs, within three days as part of an out-of-court settlement.

Southeastern said it believed he had been dodging the fare for five years as his last annual season ticket from Stonegate expired in 2008 and within five days of being challenged he renewed his lapsed ticket.

The spokesman for the company said: "We recognise that this issue is important to customers who pay their way and expect the system to treat them with fairness by acting against people who don't buy tickets."

 

[cf111]

I hope the Inspector who caught this chap gets a plaque or something!

 

[user15681]

I'm sure there was a special thanks to the member of staff that challenged him. I'd imagine that for the member of staff to challenge him, they must have been watching him for some time (is it possible they noticed a maximum fare code displaying every time he went through?)

Unless of course, an RPI just randomly challenged him one day.

 

[Mojo]

The reports from the various media outlets make no sense to anyone that even has a slight understanding of railway ticketing/Oyster.

1. BBC says that he had a Travelcard, but also that he got charged the £7.20 [maximum] fare
2. BBC calls it a "loophole" but that word implies that it is lawful/ambiguous - there is no doubt that what he was doing was illegal
3. Why would anyone pay the maximum fare when for doing this daily a Travelcard would be cheaper?
4. Ignores the risk that the majority of stations are unbarriered, but you could in theory be hit by a block or an on-train inspection
5. If he truly was paying the maximum fare, then he would pay two per day
6. Most stories imply that he [attempted to] save around £43k, but the actual cost of the journeys would have been much less as he would have purchased season tickets. I assume this figure comes because any compensation payable should he have been found guilty in court would be based upon the daily cash fare and it has been mis-reported by the media
7. Some reporters made a reference to changing platforms (Daily Mail says he changed at London Bridge onto a train to Cannon Street) but this appears to have no relevance whatsoever
8. He was apparently stopped by an Inspector on the gateline at Cannon Street, but there is nothing apparent in any of the stories that explained why he would be stopped.

 

[Kite159]

£43K for a hedge fund manager, that's probably a tenth of his yearly bonus

Some people who are cash-rich can still be 'tight', they like keeping ahold of their money

 

[Bishopstone]

£43K for a hedge fund manager, that's probably a tenth of his yearly bonus

Some people who are cash-rich can still be 'tight', they like keeping ahold of their money

That's why they're cash-rich

 

[badzena]

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

Fully agree! Anyone else think that to have been prosecuted, named and shamed and handed a criminal record would have been a more fitting punishment than a fine which was probably loose change for this bloke!

People get hauled in front of court for far less - this guy had the means to pay, he had no excuse.

 

[MikeWh]

The reports from the various media outlets make no sense to anyone that even has a slight understanding of railway ticketing/Oyster.

5. If he truly was paying the maximum fare, then he would pay two per day
8. He was apparently stopped by an Inspector on the gateline at Cannon Street, but there is nothing apparent in any of the stories that explained why he would be stopped.

5. If his hours were long enough then he may well not have paid every day and/or only paid once a day. As island said, the barriers may well be open later in the evening. Possibly also early morning.
8. Wild guess time. If he arrived on a train that had not called anywhere within the zones (or maybe just London Bridge) then using an Oyster card could have looked suspicious.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It is a shame though.

Anyone else would have the book thrown at them, yet if you're rich, you can buy your way out of trouble.

One rule for them, one rule for us.

Would they? The prosecutions thread on this forum is full of people who have been caught dodging a fare and been offered to pay their way out of it without going to court.

Although this has been a persistent case, it is the first time he has been caught, which reflects a real lapse on behalf of the railway system.

He is not, therefore, considered a repeat offender and so ignoring the volume of the fine, would be unlikely to be a target for legal action unless he did not make a settlement.