Reported for prosecution...

[SallyCanWait]

Hello blackmariah

I was once (maybe more times) caught without a ticket on trains when I was younger. On the 3rd time of getting caught I got forwarded for prosecution. I pleaded guilty in my absence and I was sent a fine through the door which included costs.
It never ended up affecting my future which included getting a working visa for Canada.
Just keep calm until the letter comes through and be honest with them.

 

[SallyCanWait]

OP, can't add to all the excellent advice but just wanted to send some hugs in your direction. What a horrid way to start the year. Really hope this gets sorted out easily and quickly. Honestly, it does make me cross. I know fare-dodging is a Bad Thing but I really struggle with the Spanish Inquisition manner that some staff appear to enjoy employing. Sorry but it gets my goat....

I’m with you on this. They seem to put the frighteners on people who are normally ‘law abiding’ and treat them like habitual shop lifters

I think a bit more information on the process of the prosecution would help a lot and not been seen as guilty until proven innocent wouldn’t go a miss

I think the TOC should see that not everyone is out there to get away without paying for below par train services and poor customer relations

 

[6Gman]

I’m with you on this. They seem to put the frighteners on people who are normally ‘law abiding’ and treat them like habitual shop lifters

I think a bit more information on the process of the prosecution would help a lot and not been seen as guilty until proven innocent wouldn’t go a miss

I think the TOC should see that not everyone is out there to get away without paying for below par train services and poor customer relations

Not sure that this line of discussion is of any help to the OP but look at it from the point of view of the Revenue Protection staff member who comes across a passenger travelling from Didcot to Oxford (10 miles) with a ticket from Didcot to Appleford (2 miles). And, under Byelaw 18, the passenger is guilty. Whether there is intent is yet to be established.

 

[Skiddaw]

Yes, but it's the attitude I have a problem with. I totally get that the staff member in question was right to interview the OP (and I realise we're hearing only one side of the story) but from what she says, OP would have been clearly extremely anxious/distressed during the interview (and presumably wouldn't have come across as a habitual fare-evader). Not sure it was necessary to infer she was probably a serial offender. Could the staff member concerned have not simply gone through due process in a more subjective, less threatening way?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Hang on a minute. OP has said they were petrified and anxious during the conversation, but there is nothing to suggest that it was carried out in an inappropriate or threatening manner, just that the OP was (not surprisingly) very upset as to the position they found herself in, and the line of questioning. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to suggest during a conversation as to "have you done this before" or words of a similar nature.

If those managing fare evasion on a day to day basis have to deal with everyone with kid gloves and then back off at the first sign of distress (genuine or otherwise) then their job will be made a lot harder, and I suspect genuine fare evaders will soon know how to play the system.

 

[blackmariah]

Welcome to the Forum.
The Spanish Inquisition in this case appears to amount to the suggestion that the OP has been short-faring by not paying for the middle of their journey. That is a fair suspicion IMO and sufficient reason for interviewing the OP and submitting a report.
The prosecutions department will then, we trust, discover that the OP isn't known to them
(@ blackmariah: the report should only contain what you signs, and the RPI's suspicions are not evidence that can be used in a prosecution).

Thank you so much for the confirmation that it should only contain what I signed, that is a great relief.

 

[6Gman]

Yes, but it's the attitude I have a problem with. I totally get that the staff member in question was right to interview the OP (and I realise we're hearing only one side of the story) but from what she says, OP would have been clearly extremely anxious/distressed during the interview (and presumably wouldn't have come across as a habitual fare-evader). Not sure it was necessary to infer she was probably a serial offender. Could the staff member concerned have not simply gone through due process in a more subjective, less threatening way?

People can often misunderstand a conversation. The OP herself said "I can barely remember the conversation". Perhaps the staff member simply said something along the lines of "and if we find you've been doing this regularly" ? Who knows ? We don't.

 

[island]

Not sure that this line of discussion is of any help to the OP but look at it from the point of view of the Revenue Protection staff member who comes across a passenger travelling from Didcot to Oxford (10 miles) with a ticket from Didcot to Appleford (2 miles). And, under Byelaw 18, the passenger is guilty. Whether there is intent is yet to be established.

If the train called at Appleford, the passenger is guilty of no such thing.

Yes, but it's the attitude I have a problem with. I totally get that the staff member in question was right to interview the OP (and I realise we're hearing only one side of the story) but from what she says, OP would have been clearly extremely anxious/distressed during the interview (and presumably wouldn't have come across as a habitual fare-evader). Not sure it was necessary to infer she was probably a serial offender. Could the staff member concerned have not simply gone through due process in a more subjective, less threatening way?

It is not at all clear that the staff member went through the process in a threatening way. Whilst I do not wish to minimise the experience of the OP, there does not seem to be anything to suggest the staff member did anything other than tell the OP something they did not wish to hear.

 

[scrapy]

I agree an interview was warranted. However, from what the OP said, whoever conducted the interview came on pretty strongly (and strongly implied OP must be a serial offender). I know we only have OP's side of things but as OP suffers from anxiety (and from the sound of it would have been visibly highly anxious and upset during the interview) it does rather smack of unnecessary bullying tactic to my mind.

Thanks for the welcome by the way!

People can often misunderstand a conversation. The OP herself said "I can barely remember the conversation". Perhaps the staff member simply said something along the lines of "and if we find you've been doing this regularly" ? Who knows ? We don't.

Yes it does appear from the OPs account that the revenue inspectors theory was put to her when they parted company. It may be that the inspector was letting her know the reason why she was being reported rather than given a penalty fare was that he had suspicion and it would be investigated further (I.e sent to prosecution s department to see if any other RPI had made a similar report). This is quite proper procedure and no different to a police officer saying they suspect you of an offence (which doesn't imply guilt just that they have reason to investigate further).

An RPI will report to his prosecutions department the facts but they also have the right to report any suspicions whether or not these are simply theories, however theories will only be put to court if there is firm evidence found later. The prosecutions department has every right to investigate suspicions further should they choose such as looking at journey history, CCTV, other RPI reports to look at whether or not their is other evidence that backs their case. They will also take into account the suspects side of the story and see if that is both correct and plausable. They will then make a decision on whether a prosecution is likely to succeed and only then would a case go to court.

 

[Haywain]

If the train called at Appleford, the passenger is guilty of no such thing.

I'm inclined to agree with that regarding the Byelaw offence. However, a RoRA offence may well be a different story...

 

[some bloke]

If the train called at Appleford, the passenger is guilty of no such thing.

I'm guessing that you're referring to this: The byelaw may mean that when boarding you only need a ticket that is valid from that station to a station where the train will call, rather than to your intended destination. While that does seem to me a plausible reading, I'm not sure we can guarantee that magistrates would agree with the argument. They might say, "rightly", "wrongly" or despite there ultimately being no clear answer, that the byelaw implies (and/or that the drafters/Secretary of State intended it to mean) that you need the ticket to be valid for the whole journey.

It might be harder to argue that the same defence applies in the opposite direction - that when @blackmariah entered the train at Oxford, her ticket from Appleford to Didcot was a "valid ticket entitling [her] to travel" for the purpose of the byelaw. If the officer wrote down her account of the outward journey, he may have what amounts to an admission of guilt under the byelaw.

 

[Kilopylae]

I think some bloke is right to be concerned that that interpretation of the byelaws may seem to be too literal and would not be upheld by magistrates. Magistrates are often unpredictable and in most cases will make judgements based on common sense interpretations more than on the letter of the law. Arguing technicalities like that is a surefire way to piss away any goodwill and make harsh treatment more likely

 

[furlong]

I'm guessing that you're referring to this: The byelaw may mean that when boarding you only need a ticket that is valid from that station to a station where the train will call, rather than to your intended destination.

So is it your belief that this byelaw is is not a matter of strict liability because whether or not it is an offence also depends on where the person was intending to travel to at the point in time of boarding?

 

[Skiddaw]

I shall continue to hope that things can be resolved for the OP easily and swiftly. I know that if it had been me (and I do think it's easy to fall foul of these things especially since the advent of e-tickets/m-tickets) it would have thrown me good and proper.

 

[Anonymous123]

Hey any update on this case? How long did it take you to receive a letter?

 

[Fare-Cop]

Please DO NOT take this to suggest that I believe the OP is guilty of persistent fare evasion, but I do think that sometimes there are very clear examples of grasping at straws in some respondents posts. Interpretation of some posts may possibly suggest that the traveller was perhaps overcarried, or that some other non-breach of Byelaw may be evident, but there is a clearly defined mechanism for dealing with that in the instructions given to all revenue staff.

If the traveller held only the return half of a return ticket between Oxford to Appleford and had travelled in the right direction, but was beyond Appleford and intended to travel beyond Appleford to Didcot, as in this case, the line of questioning to be employed by a well trained RPI is very clear.

None of us were actually there, but the answer to the first two questions that should be asked will determine whether, or not, an offence can be alleged with any certainty.

I agree with 30907's assessment at post 29, there is a 'fair suspicion' evident in the mind of the RPI and he or she is perfectly in order to question on that basis and submit a written report. That report might contain a phrase such as ' From the evidence before me I formed the opinion that M XXXXX may have done this previously and decided to caution.....etc.'

That is not evidence, but it may be considered grounds to suspect an offence and once that point is reached, is sufficient to conduct an interview in accordance with PACE (84).

To the OP, once you get a letter from the company put a truthful, but concise account of what happened from your point of view in a letter and send to the office from which you receive the TOC letter. Send your reply by Royal Mail 'signed for' and keep a copy. If you need to do so, do come back when the TOCs letter is received and if you need further help.​