Son given large fine!

[pamelamay]

My son was sent a letter saying he had not paid a fare on his journey. The date given was for a day when he wasn't travelling. On a different day, he had travelled with a railcard that was 3 days out of date and had to give his name and address on the train. As they had the date wrong I told him he should just say, truthfully, he wasn't on the train that day. Instead, he told them when he was on the train and that the incident had happened. He now has the option to pay £259.90!!He has mental health issues and dyslexia. Should he just try and pay up or face a magistrate? He didn't realise his railcard had expired, and now knows honesty isn't always the best policy!!!

 

[AlterEgo]

Welcome Pamela. Firstly, relax. These things can often be dealt with properly out of court.

Could you let us know:

Where he was travelling to and from?
Which train company is involved?
When the journey happened? (no need for an exact date, x weeks/months ago is fine)
Who the letter is from?
Whether they are alleging he broke any laws or bylaws, and if so, which one/s?
How they calculated the £259.90?
What ticket he had at the time and how much it cost?

 

[pamelamay]

Welcome Pamela. Firstly, relax. These things can often be dealt with properly out of court.

Could you let us know:

Where he was travelling to and from?
Which train company is involved?
When the journey happened? (no need for an exact date, x weeks/months ago is fine)
Who the letter is from?
Whether they are alleging he broke any laws or bylaws, and if so, which one/s?
How they calculated the £259.90?
What ticket he had at the time and how much it cost?

Welcome Pamela. Firstly, relax. These things can often be dealt with properly out of court.

Could you let us know:

Where he was travelling to and from?
Which train company is involved?
When the journey happened? (no need for an exact date, x weeks/months ago is fine)
Who the letter is from?
Whether they are alleging he broke any laws or bylaws, and if so, which one/s?
How they calculated the £259.90?
What ticket he had at the time and how much it cost?

Thank you for prompt reply-nice to know you are there! He is just going to pay it. Too stressful for him to argue against it. Also he is a student with loads of work to do-just wants them off his back. I think the whole thing is outrageous-more of a fishing exercise at first as they had his address , sketchy details and WRONG DATE to start with. Lucky them that he furnished them with the right date!!!

 

[AlterEgo]

It would still benefit us and him to know these things. We often find that there is no case to answer whatsoever.

 

[pamelamay]

Thank you for prompt reply. He is just going to pay it. Too stressful otherwise. The letter(s)were from til-transport investigations limited. They are so woolly, I initially thought it was some sort of scam, and while digging I found this forum. The letter is worded in such a way as to put the frighteners on the recipient, and it worked. xx

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thank you for prompt reply. He is just going to pay it. Too stressful otherwise. The letter(s)were from til-transport investigations limited. They are so woolly, I initially thought it was some sort of scam, and while digging I found this forum. The letter is worded in such a way as to put the frighteners on the recipient, and it worked. xx

It's situations precisely like this that are the reason that I think private prosecutions need to be reined in in England and Wales. They serve very limited legitimate purposes (e.g. where the police/CPS have failed to investigate/prosecute properly), other than to serve profit-hungry TOCs' own interests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's situations precisely like this that are the reason that I think private prosecutions need to be reined in in England and Wales. They serve very limited legitimate purposes (e.g. where the police/CPS have failed to investigate/prosecute properly), other than to serve profit-hungry TOCs' own interests.

I totally agree. ScotRail seem to manage just fine without. (Under Scottish law private prosecutions are near-impossible to pursue - one of the many areas where Scottish law is better than English law!)

 

[pamelamay]

He was travelling from Totnes to York. They said it happened in November, but he corrected them(!) (I think it was in October) The amount has no breakdown- they say it is payment of unpaid fare plus contribution towards administration costs. They allege that he failed to pay the correct fare due and boarded the train with the intention of travelling without having previously paid the correct amount. It says a charge alleging the strict liability breach of national railway byelaw 18 (2005) may be summonsed in this case and the company considers that a more serious charge of intent to avoid a fare could also be considered, and that these are matters which may be summonsed for hearing before a magistrates court. I don't know the answers to the other questions.

 

[pamelamay]

He is very honest but totally disorganised and scatterbrained. He would be too nervous to be on the train having knowingly and deliberately underpaid. He tried to tell them in his letter back that he had made a mistake but I don't think its about genuine circumstances, just a money-making exercise.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I suspect the amount has come from taking the last year's price of an Anytime Single from Totnes to York, route "not via London", which would have been £179.90, and then adding on administration costs of £80.00. The latter figure is a commonly used figure for such settlements.

Unfortunately, whilst the cost of £259.90 is very steep, I would suggest paying it in this case, provided his Railcard was indeed out of date, as your son would be liable for the cost of the undiscounted Anytime Single one way or another: he did actually travel, and he didn't have a valid Railcard, so they are entitled to recover that fare. The administration costs of £80.00 are not cheap but I would suggest it is likely that any other resolution of the matter is going to cost more.

The only possible saving grace I can suggest is this - on which date in October did this occur, and by which date are they asking for the settlement to be paid?

You don't have to tell us the exact dates, but if the latter date is more than 6 months after the former, they will be out of time to bring a prosecution. That is because, for Magistrates' Court offences such as these, there is a strict time limit of 6 months from the date of the alleged offence for the prosecutor to lay an information before the Court (i.e. start the prosecution process). I suspect they will be in time, but only just.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I suspect the amount has come from taking the last year's price of an Anytime Single from Totnes to York, route "not via London", which would have been £179.90, and then adding on administration costs of £80.00. The latter figure is a commonly used figure for such settlements.

Unfortunately, whilst the cost of £259.90 is very steep, I would suggest paying it in this case, provided his Railcard was indeed out of date, as your son would be liable for the cost of the undiscounted Anytime Single one way or another: he did actually travel, and he didn't have a valid Railcard, so they are entitled to recover that fare. The administration costs of £80.00 are not cheap but I would suggest it is likely that any other resolution of the matter is going to cost more.

The only possible saving grace I can suggest is this - on which date in October did this occur, and by which date are they asking for the settlement to be paid?

You don't have to tell us the exact dates, but if the latter date is more than 6 months after the former, they will be out of time to bring a prosecution. That is because, for Magistrates' Court offences such as these, there is a strict time limit of 6 months from the date of the alleged offence for the prosecutor to lay an information before the Court (i.e. start the prosecution process). I suspect they will be in time, but only just.

Even 28days from today, 6months won't have elapsed, even if travel had been 1st October, (6months would = 1st April)

 

[tiptoptaff]

He is very honest but totally disorganised and scatterbrained. He would be too nervous to be on the train having knowingly and deliberately underpaid. He tried to tell them in his letter back that he had made a mistake but I don't think its about genuine circumstances, just a money-making exercise.

The problem is they hear excuses like "I made a mistake" and "I didn't realise" all the time and it can be very hard for them to tell the genuine from the trying it on.

The mens rea is irrelevant - it matters not if he intended to travel with an out of date railcard or not. It's strict liability. He did it, and that is enough to be guilty. It's like speeding. If you do it, you're guilty.

 

[6Gman]

My son was sent a letter saying he had not paid a fare on his journey. The date given was for a day when he wasn't travelling. On a different day, he had travelled with a railcard that was 3 days out of date and had to give his name and address on the train. As they had the date wrong I told him he should just say, truthfully, he wasn't on the train that day. Instead, he told them when he was on the train and that the incident had happened. He now has the option to pay £259.90!!He has mental health issues and dyslexia. Should he just try and pay up or face a magistrate? He didn't realise his railcard had expired, and now knows honesty isn't always the best policy!!!

That may have been a risky idea. If they had some evidence of identity at the time and received such a response they could well have gone straight to prosecution - perhaps honesty was the best policy.

Fact is that as his railcard was out of date his ticket was invalid. The single fare + admin charge would seem the usual course of action.

 

[pamelamay]

Thank you all so much for the brilliant advice... love this forum-really helpful. Now, pass me my cheque book!!

 

[js1000]

As they had the date wrong I told him he should just say, truthfully, he wasn't on the train that day.

I know people say there are risks. But what we are talking about here is a Notice to Prosecute letter - a legal document. The correct date of the alleged offence is a absolutely vital piece of information given there is a 6 month limit to prosecute.

However, you would be expected to write to the TOC and explain you weren't on that train on the day in question as stated in the NIP letter. The only risk is when people don't comply and simply ignore fine letters, notice of intent to prosecute etc which is extremely common and a daft course of action.

 

[gray1404]

I think, from your cheque book comment, that you may be paying up. That said, if you are unhappy and feel that Cross Country or their agent, Transport Investigations, have not acted fairly, been unreasonable or not taken his disability into account (i.e. that it can cause problems when dealing with paperwork or that perhaps, due to his disability, he should have just been told another ticket on the train, whatever is reasonable) then you can still make a formal complaint to them - including taking it to the Railway Ombudsman - and also to your MP.

Did you apply for a refund of the original ticket, given your son had to by a new one. I am getting sick to death of TOCs not taking account of mitigating circumstances and when people have a genuine disability. I know people say it can be used as an excuse and the TOCs hear it all the time but that is not always the case. The law requires reasonable adjustments to be made (both on the day of travel, i.e. might result in details not being taken) and afterwards i.e. at this stage.

 

[najaB]

I am getting sick to death of TOCs not taking account of mitigating circumstances and when people have a genuine disability.

I rather expect that there are elements to this story that haven't been posted as yet...

 

[gray1404]

fair comment

 

[30907]

I am getting sick to death of TOCs not taking account of mitigating circumstances and when people have a genuine disability. I know people say it can be used as an excuse and the TOCs hear it all the time but that is not always the case. The law requires reasonable adjustments to be made (both on the day of travel, i.e. might result in details not being taken) and afterwards i.e. at this stage.

If dyslexia was a contributory factor to the OP's son failing to recognise that his railcard was out of date, then that would be worth pursuing. Likewise the mental health issues.
BTW, I don't think we know that he has a DIsabled Person's railcard.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I know people say there are risks. But what we are talking about here is a Notice to Prosecute letter - a legal document. The correct date of the alleged offence is a absolutely vital piece of information given there is a 6 month limit to prosecute.

However, you would be expected to write to the TOC and explain you weren't on that train on the day in question as stated in the NIP letter. The only risk is when people don't comply and simply ignore fine letters, notice of intent to prosecute etc which is extremely common and a daft course of action.

Indeed, little things can make a big difference. Neither of these things are railway related but about 15 years ago I got caught speeding by a camera on the M25. I received a request for the details of who was driving at the time. As they got the time wrong and I could prove I was elsewhere at that time I wrote back and said I am the only person who ever drives that car but nobody was driving it at that time. The response was there was an admin error and they had enough evidence to prosecute for speeding but they wouldn't pursue the matter.

In another example many, many years ago a member of my family was prosecuted for football violence and was found not guilty because the arresting officer got the name of the opponents wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, little things can make a big difference. Neither of these things are railway related but about 15 years ago I got caught speeding by a camera on the M25. I received a request for the details of who was driving at the time. As they got the time wrong and I could prove I was elsewhere at that time I wrote back and said I am the only person who ever drives that car but nobody was driving it at that time. The response was there was an admin error and they had enough evidence to prosecute for speeding but they wouldn't pursue the matter.

Equally, there is the risk that you write back denying it on that date, and they then check their records and write back again along the lines of "Thank you for your letter, as you have clearly attempted to pull the wool over our eyes with regard to our minor administrative error, for which we apologise, we therefore write to advise you of the correct date of the offence, and will no longer be offering a settlement as a result of this wilful action on your part, as to do so requires good faith on both sides. We will therefore be proceeding with a prosecution."

 

[Bertie the bus]

How is responding in good faith stating that they did not travel on that date wilfully misleading? It isn't. Denying it had anything to do with you because they got the date wrong would be but that is entirely different. I do not condone fare dodging in any way, though it is fairly clear this particular case isn't fare dodging but almost certainly a mistake pretty much anybody could make, but there is no obligation to make the other party's job easier if they can't be bothered to get the basics right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is responding in good faith stating that they did not travel on that date wilfully misleading? It isn't. Denying it had anything to do with you because they got the date wrong would be but that is entirely different. I do not condone fare dodging in any way, though it is fairly clear this particular case isn't fare dodging but almost certainly a mistake pretty much anybody could make, but there is no obligation to make the other party's job easier if they can't be bothered to get the basics right.

I think for a "good faith" settlement to apply there very much is a need to do that. I wouldn't say there was a case for the OP's son to incriminate themselves (e.g. by sending a list of journeys made on the invalid Railcard), but if you're saying "you got it wrong, I was not interviewed by your RPI on 1st February", not adding "but I was on 2nd February" *is* wilful obfuscation and is definitely not acting in good faith.

If it was me at the TOC the above reply is exactly what would follow if there was a good chance of the prosecution succeeding. If there is one thing I hate it's people either lying to me or deliberately obfuscating the truth in this kind of manner, or making my life hard when they are in the wrong. Whereas if they apologise I treat them as nicely as I can within the rules - which would I guess be the £80+fare to make it go away, or if I was allowed maybe just the Anytime Single fare because that is well in excess of what would actually have been paid without the Railcard anyway.

To me an out of court settlement requires good faith. Proposing obfuscation isn't, and I would caution the OP against doing that - it might work, but it might backfire badly.

 

[30907]

The OP's son has AIUI already replied admitting guilt, so suggesting he change his story now is unwise.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Nobody has suggested he changes his story and it isn’t a story anyway. How people can believe telling the truth is a story, lying or being deliberately misleading is beyond me.

If people are so concerned about ethics and morality they should be concentrating on the TOC. If this is the first correspondence the OP’s son has received; a demand for the fare + £80 “admin fee” or a threat of court action, for using a railcard 3 days out of date it is pretty outrageous. He should have had to pay the correct fare and nothing more.

 

[najaB]

If this is the first correspondence the OP’s son has received; a demand for the fare + £80 “admin fee” or a threat of court action, for using a railcard 3 days out of date it is pretty outrageous. He should have had to pay the correct fare and nothing more.

Hence why I suspect that there may be more to the story than has been posted...

 

[70014IronDuke]

I think for a "good faith" settlement to apply there very much is a need to do that. ...
...
To me an out of court settlement requires good faith. Proposing obfuscation isn't, and I would caution the OP against doing that - it might work, but it might backfire badly.

"Like" button firmly pressed.

 

[30907]

Nobody has suggested he changes his story and it isn’t a story anyway. How people can believe telling the truth is a story, lying or being deliberately misleading is beyond me.

I didn't mean to imply that the story was untruthful, but I understood you to be suggesting that he gave a different account to the one he originally gave. Obviously you meant something else, apologies

 

[221129]

Nobody has suggested he changes his story and it isn’t a story anyway. How people can believe telling the truth is a story, lying or being deliberately misleading is beyond me.

If people are so concerned about ethics and morality they should be concentrating on the TOC. If this is the first correspondence the OP’s son has received; a demand for the fare + £80 “admin fee” or a threat of court action, for using a railcard 3 days out of date it is pretty outrageous. He should have had to pay the correct fare and nothing more.

You can blame GDPR regulations for that.

 

[najaB]

You can blame GDPR regulations for that.

I'm not sure that I follow...