seek help with notice of intention to prosecute

[shensivictor]

Hi everyone,

I recently received a letter from Southern Railway regarding “notice of intention to prosecute”.

On the letter it says:
“On XXXX 2012, at XX:XX your details were taken by a Revenue Protection Officer for the offence of not having a valid ticket at Kenley Station.
This letter is to inform you of our intention to take this case to the Magistrates Court and the enclosed form provides you with the opportunity to tell us what happened from your point of view. Information should be both factual and honest and may influence the final decision as to disposal.”

My understanding of this letter is that the Southern Railway is going to decide whether to prosecute me or not based on my description of what happened. Is my understanding correct?

The below is what happened:
I am currently a monthly rail ticket holder that travels between London Bridge station and East Croydon station on every working day. On a Thursday night I had an appointment at Kenley and I took the same train as usual from London Bridge, but to Kenley, a destination several stops further than my usual stop of East Croydon. I forgot to touch in my Oystercard at East Croydon station, which I should have done. I realized it before reaching Kenley station and decided to touch out at Kenley station and accept a penalty fare on my Oyster card (for not touching in at start of journey). Upon reaching Kenley station I noticed that there were ticket inspectors right on the platform and I approached them and explained what happened hoping to pay for the right ticket before I get out of the station. However the inspector said that I have already commited offence and insisted that I should pay a penalty fare and asked for my contact details. I was very angry and argued with the inspector. My husband stepped in and dealt with the inspector and in the end he provided the name and address However, he wrote down his own name rather than mine without thinking twice. Then the inspector checked the name against my ID and said I have made a criminal offence by providing the incorrect details.

So basically from my point of view I just forgot to buy a ticket before getting on the train and I honestly swear it wasn’t my intention to evade the ticket. I honestly think it is a mistake that any one could have made and there is no point of going to court for this stupid mistake. So I really wish to settle this outside the court and I am willing to accept a penalty fare. Regarding the alleged “incorrect details provided”, it really wasn't my intention to provide the wrong details. I live in the same address as my husband and they certainly can find me at this address, and they took my correct name off my ID in the end anyway.

My apologies for the long essay but I hope to provide you as much information as I could.
I have heard there are a lot of railway experts on this forum so here I am to seek help.
Please could you help me how I should reply to this “notice of intention to prosecute”? This is quite urgent as the letter says it must be replied within 7 days.
Thank you very much in advance!

 

[bb21]

You made a mistake, therefore a Penalty Fare is entirely fair. It is a charge made for honest mistakes. See Question 15 on this leaflet.

You boarded a service without a valid ticket or a validated Oyster card. You committed a criminal offence. End of. You broke the Railway Byelaws.

Supplying false details, whatever your reason is, is an even more serious criminal offence which can land you with a criminal record. Why did your husband supply his details? You were the one caught travelling without a valid ticket, not him. Did he travel with you? Did he have a valid ticket? Did you refuse to pay the Penalty Fare (which I assume is £20)? If you refused to pay the Penalty Fare then I am not the least bit surprised that you were reported for possible prosecution. Unfortunately now you no longer have the option to pay the Penalty Fare.

I am sorry to sound harsh nevertheless approaching the RPIs after you saw them asking to pay for your ticket is not good enough. Who is to say that you did not approach them because you saw them there and knew you were caught red-handed. (I am not saying that was your intention, however you need to look at the situation from the RPI's point of view.)

It is possible to ask Southern to accept a settlement out-of-court. The general advice for the proforma of the letter you need to send them can be found by looking at previous threads in the "Fares, Tickets & Routeing" forum. The principles are the same: apologise for what you did (and be honest as you have already made one major mistake by supplying false details so you don't really want to give them more ammunition) and express your regret and willingness to settle the matter out-of-court. We cannot write the letter for you as you are the only one who knows exactly what happened on the day however if you come back once you have written your letter, some people will probably be happy to proofread it for you before sending it off.

Bear in mind that there is no guarantee that Southern would accept your offer and even if they are willing to accept such an offer the amount may vary. We are not able to tell you how much they are likely to want although a three-figure sum would not surprise me. (Consider yourself very lucky if you can get it sorted for less than £100.) They are free to press ahead with a prosecution if they feel it more in their interests to do so and that they have sufficient evidence. It is an almost dead cert for a Byelaw conviction imo as the fact that you boarded the service without a valid travel ticket is enough in itself to secure such a conviction. (A Byelaw conviction however should not carry a criminal record.) There are though costs involved with going for a prosecution which is one of the reasons why Southern might be happy to settle out-of-court for a first offence (which I assume is the case for you (?)).

It is an expensive mistake, however if you from it then it should be money well-spent in the long run.

 

[island]

As you chose not to pay the Penalty Fare properly due for travelling without a ticket, Southern appears to be absolutely in the right here. As bb21 suggests, it is going to cost you quite a bit more than the £20 to keep this out of court.

 

[yorkie]

So basically from my point of view I just forgot to buy a ticket before getting on the train and I honestly swear it wasn’t my intention to evade the ticket. I honestly think it is a mistake that any one could have made and there is no point of going to court for this stupid mistake. So I really wish to settle this outside the court and I am willing to accept a penalty fare. Regarding the alleged “incorrect details provided”, it really wasn't m

Initially Southern treated this as a mistake by charging a Penalty Fare, which is a charge made to customers who make a mistake in certain circumstances, such as the situation you describe. Anyone being charged a PF is not being accused of an offence and, if paid, that is the end of the matter.

Unfortunately if the PF is refused it can be treated rather more seriously, as has happened in this case.

There are plenty of threads here of a similar nature, that may be of use to you. But basically you need to write to them in a concise manner explaining that, on reflection, you are happy to settle out of court by paying any fares due and costs incurred by the Company and you apologise for not accepting the Penalty Fare in the first instance and for the incorrect details. Ask them for details of what, and how, how to pay.

They will then decide what to do, based on the statement you provide and the evidence collected by the inspectors at the time. I'm not sure about Southern but some TOCs will appreciate your willingness to pay and decide to save their prosecutions team work in the case by agreeing to an out of court settlement. No promises though!

 

[transmanche]

Bear in mind that if you were travelling on a TfL service (e.g. London Overground) the Penalty Fare would have been £80*, not £20. So any offer to Southern is likely to be well in excess of this, to keep it out of court.

* Although reduced to £40 if paid promptly.

 

[island]

Actually, it would have been likely no penalty fare at all if LOROL, as I believe most Southern staff members aren't accredited to issue TfL penalty fares.

 

[transmanche]

Bear in mind that if you were travelling on a TfL service (e.g. London Overground) the Penalty Fare would have been £80*, not £20. So any offer to Southern is likely to be well in excess of this, to keep it out of court.

* Although reduced to £40 if paid promptly.

Actually, it would have been likely no penalty fare at all if LOROL, as I believe most Southern staff members aren't accredited to issue TfL penalty fares.

It was a comparison between penalty fare levels between NR and TfL. So if travelling on a TfL service, it would have been a TfL RPI - I thought that much was obvious. (You wouldn't get a Southern RPI on the tube, DLR, tram, bus, etc.)

 

[yorkie]

It was a comparison between penalty fare levels between NR and TfL. So if travelling on a TfL service, it would have been a TfL RPI - I thought that much was obvious. (You wouldn't get a Southern RPI on the tube, DLR, tram, bus, etc.)

The inspectors were on the platform, but what you say would be true if the inspection was on board the train.

Some inspectors can issue PFs on behalf of other TOCs, when they have a reciprocal agreement (e.g. FCC & EMT between Bedford & London).

 

[transmanche]

OK, for the avoidance of doubt, I'll rephrase my earlier post:

If this had happened on the tube and you met a London Underground Revenue Protection Inspector, the Penalty Fare would have been £80*, not £20. TfL charge an £80 Penalty fare on all their services (bus, cable car, DLR, tube, train, tram).

As the Penalty Fare charged by Southern is fairly low in comparison; I'd expect that any offer which Southern might accept is likely to be well in excess of £80, in order to keep it out of court.

* Although reduced to £40 if paid promptly.

 

[talltim]

If you husband gave them his details (by mistake or not) how can you be accused of giving false details? You didn't give them the details at all.

 

[swt_passenger]

I realized it before reaching Kenley station and decided to touch out at Kenley station and accept a penalty fare on my Oyster card (for not touching in at start of journey).

That is NOT a penalty fare, despite many people explaining it as such. It is the maximum cash fare for an unresolved journey, which is a completely separate thing to a discretionary penalty fare.

 

[transmanche]

That is NOT a penalty fare, despite many people explaining it as such. It is the maximum cash fare for an unresolved journey, which is a completely separate thing to a discretionary penalty fare.

It may not be a Penalty Fare, but it is a fare which is a penalty...

 

[yorkie]

It may not be a Penalty Fare, but it is a fare which is a penalty...

I'm not so sure. I think it's best to avoid confusing the issue by stating that a maximum fare is completely different to a Penalty Fare.

A maximum fare may be the same as the correct fare for the journey, and a maximum fare is simply the system not knowing what you are doing and charging you accordingly.

In most cases, a maximum fare can be resolved, for example by contacting the Oyster Help Desk if you explain what happened.

 

[transmanche]

I'm not so sure. I think it's best to avoid confusing the issue by stating that a maximum fare is completely different to a Penalty Fare.

Yeah, but it is obviously meant as a penalty as it does not count towards the daily cap.

My point really is that colloquially people will call these a penalty fare - and will call Penalty Fares a fine - there's no need for people (not you) to jump down their throats. Correct (and educate) them where appropriate - but there's no need to lambast them for it.

See this Londonist article for an example...

 

[cuccir]

On other threads where people have given details of their parent's address, or one that they have recently moved from, it's been suggested that giving an address which is not your primary address but at which you would be known is adequate and is unlikely to result in a conviction for giving incorrect details? Would that be the case here?

 

[Andyjs247]

As you've touched out with your Oyster card, you have been charged for the journey. You haven't attempted to avoid payment. You will have paid more because you didn't touch in at the start of the journey. You don't have a paper ticket to show the RPI (because you used your Oyster card).

Am I missing something, as I don't really see what the issue is.

 

[transmanche]

Am I missing something, as I don't really see what the issue is.

The OP didn't touch out, as they were intercepted by the RPI before they could do so. And I don't know if Southern have similar warning notices; but on TfL you'll see warnings on every door that if you don't have a 'validated Oyster card for your entire journey', then you're liable for a Penalty Fare.

 

[snail]

it's been suggested that giving an address which is not your primary address but at which you would be known is adequate and is unlikely to result in a conviction for giving incorrect details? Would that be the case here?

It sounds like in this instance the OP's husband gave his name (and presumably their address), so the problem is a false name not a false address. Getting someone else to take the blame is a very serious offence, though there do appear to be some mitigating circumstances here as both persons were present. One would hope it was just a simple mistake and not attempting to shift the offence from a previous offender.

 

[island]

On other threads where people have given details of their parent's address, or one that they have recently moved from, it's been suggested that giving an address which is not your primary address but at which you would be known is adequate and is unlikely to result in a conviction for giving incorrect details? Would that be the case here?

I don't think it's the case here, but to the specific question, it would probably be OK. However, it might fail the verification phone call.

 

[bb21]

I don't think it's the case here, but to the specific question, it would probably be OK. However, it might fail the verification phone call.

This is the crux of the matter. How can the RPI tell that they didn't only supply the correct details after the verification (checking against ID) did not go through? Ironically had she not supplied the RPI with her ID it would probably have gone through phone verification.