Statement recorded under caution by revnue officer

[akshay kapoor]

Hello all,

I just had a rather unsettling experience and was hoping to get some advice. Some background - I have lived in londo for 10 years using an oyester card and have very recently moved to Ingatestone and also strated a new job yesterday. Having lived in London for several years I have a habit of using the oyster and am very new to the Ingatestone to Liverpool street route.

Yesterday when I started my new job I wanted to buy a monthly pass at ingatestone but was told I needed a photo. I did not have one with me so bought a day peak return ticket.

This morning I was rushing to catch the train and competely forgot that I did not have a national rail ticket and used my oyster to tap out at liverpool street. They oyster has a zones 1-2 pass on it which i renewed yesterday. A 'revenue inspector' caught me and spent 30 mins interogating me. I told him exactly what I have stated above adding some examples to validate the fact that this was a genuine mistake. For example I showed him the 2 tickets I had bought yesterday. I told him that 2 or 3 days ago I had bought two off peak return + zones 1-6 travel cards as I had brought my mother to town. And despite having these tickets I still tapped my oyester (pay as you go then) on the tube at charing cross and got charged for it. The point is that its a habit and I do make mistakes like everybody. It was not my intention to defraud greater anglia.

He did not want to listen to any of this and recored my statement under caution. I then insisted he record the above facts and also my statement that this was a mistake. He reluctantly did so. I asked about a fine and they said (there was another guy who seemed senior to the revenue chap) what fine ? This is a prosecution.

This has shaken me a bit as its only my second day at the job and I have enough going on in my life ! Why couldnt I just pay the fare and a fine ?

Why are they theatening to prosecute. What is my best course of action now and what is the most likely and worst case scenarios ?

Would appreciate any help.

 

[Clip]

It is not a fine - only a court can impose one /pedant.

They do have a really good case against you here as you have not done what you should have done - bought a ticket - but you have also tried to use your Oyster to exit the station.

The best thing for you to do is wait for them to write to you then come back here with what they say and then the advice will be much easier for posters to give you.

Please remember - the abuse of the Oyster being used for journys from stations not within the zones is rife and no matter the circumstances of which they have heard many times this would be, in my view, an easy win for them

 

[maniacmartin]

Where do you work?

A Point to point season between Ingatestone and London Terminals plus a separate Zone 1-2 season is more expensive than a season from Ingatestone to London Zones 1-6. Thus there is no reason why anyone would opt for the combination of tickets you proposed.

Abellio Greater Anglia may allege that you didn't plan on buying the right ticket all along, and were only planning to buy the Zone 1-2 Travelcard to get through the gates at Liverpool Street

Why did you buy a new Zones 1-2 season on Oyster?

 

[Tetchytyke]

This morning I was rushing to catch the train and competely forgot that I did not have a national rail ticket and used my oyster to tap out at liverpool street. They oyster has a zones 1-2 pass on it which i renewed yesterday. A 'revenue inspector' caught me and spent 30 mins interogating me.

So why did you renew a Z1-2 Travelcard if you live in Ingatestone?

Lots of people think they're terribly clever by abusing Oyster in this manner. They think a "fine" (a Penalty Fare to you and me) is all that will happen if they get caught, and decide to take the risk. It comes as a terrible shock when they get prosecuted instead.

 

[TheEdge]

Unfortunately they have you bang for rights on the basic count of not having a ticket. On that matter as has been said you'll just have to wait for a reply.

The trying to tap out on Oyster though will really cause further issues. Its a known problem all over the place (not just for GA, really any TOC which accepts Oyster) of people trying to abuse the system in various manners, all of which hinge on trying to tap in or out only of the London terminal or station.

 

[cuccir]

As the last two questions have hinted at, it is a common fare evader's trick to board at a station without a ticket barrier, and then use a valid ticket or an Oyster card with a cheaper ticket on it when they leave the train.

Whether you have done this deliberately or by mistake, what you have done will appear to Greater Anglia as an attempt at this trick.

They will write to you soon. If your story is genuine, then reply to them by telling it as it is - try to avoid too many excuses though. And apologize! Offer to pay an administrative fee + the fare owed, and they may still go for this.

If your story is fake, ie, if you were doing this deliberately - well you can try continuing the lie and they may believe it, but it will still cost you either way!

--Edit--

So in reply to your question - the most likely best case scenario is an out of court settlement in the low hundreds. The most likely worst case scenario is a similar level court-imposed fine for breaching the Regulation of the Railways Act, with a criminal record. A possible middle outcome is a court-imposed fine for breaching the Railway By-Laws, which has no criminal record attached. There are other possible outcomes of course, but they are all much less likely.

 

[hassaanhc]

Depending on the tone of voice and attitude displayed when asking about paying a "fine" of some sort, it may be seen as you knowing exactly what you were up to :?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Also they can check your Oyster Card history, so if this is not the first time you have done this then be careful about saying it was a genuine mistake!

 

[yorkie]

Depending on the tone of voice and attitude displayed when asking about paying a "fine" of some sort, it may be seen as you knowing exactly what you were up to :?

Indeed. A fine would only be imposed after a successful prosecution. However it's a common misconception that the worst that'll happen is a Penalty Fare, which some people incorrectly think is a fine for intentional wrongdoing. In fact that's not actually the case at all - quite the opposite! Asking to recieve such a Penalty Fare ("fine") is unwise.

But the really strange thing is that a Zone 1-2 Travelcard was purchased instead of the correct Ingatestone to Zone 1-6 Travelcard. That's bound to ring alarm bells.

Greater Anglia have agreed an out of court settlement for a similar case that was posted here, although there was evidence of potential wrongdoing over a long period of time, and I believe the matter was settled for a 4-figure sum to keep it out of court. Whether the out of court settlement was less than the fine, I'm not sure, but the person concerned was desperate to avoid a criminal record.

 

[akshay kapoor]

Also they can check your Oyster Card history, so if this is not the first time you have done this then be careful about saying it was a genuine mistake!

Why did I renew the travel card ? Because its what I usually do - it was a default reaction. I did not think too mcuh about it. I have done it for 10 years travelling from Canary Wharf to the city on tube years and just did it !! I also tarvel in the wrong direction sometimes and leave my keys in the door lock. Maybe I am absent minded.

I shifted to Ingatestone just 2/3 weeks ago and started a new job yesterday so my travel is from Ingatestone to Liverpool street from yesterday. I was between jobs for most of September and not travelling much.

If it was my intention to defraud them then why did I try to buy a monthly ticket yesterday and when I could not as I did not have a picture why did I buy tickets yesterday ? I was out of the ticket barriers and walking away when he called out to me. I could have carried on walking but I did not becuase I had completly forgotten I did not have a pass and I had done anything wrong.

I did make a genuine mistake but I can see why they would not believe it as most of you are saying. I was compltely honest with the inspector from the start and gave him my full details. f any of you can help me and suggest the best course of action then I would be grateful.

 

[RJ]

If you have been caught bang to rights contravening the law, why would you give a statement? That action is unlikely to do anything that counts in your favour, but can be used as evidence against you.

 

[b0b]

If you have been caught bang to rights contravening the law, why would you give a statement? That action is unlikely to do anything that counts in your favour, but can be used as evidence against you.

Because people don't realize they shouldn't talk to police, or RPIs etc. Staff are trained to get people to talk and admit guilt exactly for the above reason.

One of my fav youtube videos of all time - obviously based on US law but I still think a must watch in terms of why talking isn't smart.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[DelayRepay]

Because people don't realize they shouldn't talk to police, or RPIs etc. Staff are trained to get people to talk and admit guilt exactly for the above reason.

Going off-topic a bit here but the full caution includes "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". This seems a good reason to talk to the police (or RPIs in this case) - especially if one was convinced one had done nothing wrong, as the OP appears to have been at the time.

 

[CNash]

Yes - that video about not talking to the police may seem like great advice to follow, but it's predicated on the American 5th Amendment right to refuse to incriminate oneself and to not have any inferences drawn from choosing to remain silent when questioned. In the UK, inferences can be drawn - "it may harm your defence" - and so remaining silent is not always the best policy when talking to the police here.

 

[bnm]

However, a conviction is extremely unlikely on inference drawn from silence alone. In fact I don't think there has been a single incidence in the UK of a conviction based solely on the defendant's right to silence with no other evidence.

So if you've done nothing wrong but are still being interviewed/questioned under caution by Police, RPIs etc, then silence is still the best option. You may end up unwittingly incriminating yourself and that alone could convict you without any additional evidence.

 

[RJ]

Going off-topic a bit here but the full caution includes "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". This seems a good reason to talk to the police (or RPIs in this case) - especially if one was convinced one had done nothing wrong, as the OP appears to have been at the time.

Yes, but at the same time, ignorance isn't a defence. If somebody shows a keen willingness to pay a fine, that in itself could be seen as an admission of guilt and an attempt to avoid becoming a litigant.

I wouldn't have thought the interviews such as that described in this thread are structured to allow a sympathetic view to be taken of the interviewee - they always seem to consist of closed questions which either paint you as a fare evader or a liar.

 

[Hadders]

Going off-topic a bit here but the full caution includes "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". This seems a good reason to talk to the police (or RPIs in this case) - especially if one was convinced one had done nothing wrong, as the OP appears to have been at the time.

My response to this would be 'I wish to help you with your enquiries but I'm not prepared to answer your questions until I have sought legal advice'.

You are not refusing to assist them but equally not allowing yourself to be press ganged into a confession either. The last thing you want to do is answer questions that could land you in court when your not expecting them, in the heat of the moment without chance to think about what you're saying etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the full caution includes "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". This seems a good reason to talk to the police

As a general rule you should only answer a question if you know why they are asking it and you are certain of your position and the law. Even fairly innocuous questions like "where do you work" can, and will, be used against you.

The negative inference is simply the prosecution telling the jury/Magistrate that you're making your defence up because you didn't mention it before.

Going back to the OP, these sorts of questions will be taken into account when Abellio decide whether to prosecute you or accept an out-of-court settlement. Buying a zones 1-2 ticket on "autopilot" when you live well outside London is very strange behaviour, and is normally only done with an intention to defraud.

 

[Haywain]

Even fairly innocuous questions like "where do you live" and "where do you work" can, and will, be used against you.

Failing to answer the first of these will also be used against you, given that it is an offence to not provide this information on request. Therefore this should be answered.

 

[Tetchytyke]

True. But you know what my point is.

I don't think there's anything wrong in saying as little as you have to.

 

[RJ]

Failing to answer the first of these will also be used against you, given that it is an offence to not provide this information on request. Therefore this should be answered.

Is there any legal obligation at all to provide any information other than name and address? I've put this question to a number of ticket inspectors and BTP officers who demand to know my date of birth and place of work - but they either make sonething up (like RORA or PACE requires me to) or are unable to specify a law at all.

 

[221129]

Is there any legal obligation at all to provide any information other than name and address? I've put this question to a number of ticket inspectors and BTP officers who demand to know my date of birth and place of work - but they either make sonething up (like RORA or PACE requires me to) or are unable to specify a law at all.

Nope there isn't... And even name and address is only mandatory in certain circumstances.

 

[Paule23]

I'd like to ask why the op did not buy a ticket at his origin station? THis surely is key to the matter. Having brought a day return previoulsy, and having attempted to buy a monthly ticket, the op was clearly aware of the requirement to buy a ticket, yet did not do so.

I appreciate the explanatino of absent mindedness and being used to another journey, however as others have pointed out, to Greater Anglia this will look like a customer boarding at an unbarriered station and attempting to use Oyster later on for a reduced fare. I suggest it will be extremely difficult for the op to convince them otherwise and an attempt for an out of court settlement may be the prudent option.

 

[LexyBoy]

I'd like to ask why the op did not buy a ticket at his origin station? THis surely is key to the matter. Having brought a day return previoulsy, and having attempted to buy a monthly ticket, the op was clearly aware of the requirement to buy a ticket, yet did not do so.

He stated in the OP that he had forgotten that he needed a ticket, out of habit of always using Oyster when in London. Personally, I can't imagine doing this - whilst it is easy to forget things by habit, if it were the second day of commuting from a new place I would not feel habituated to it. But individuals are different.

I agree that from AGA's point of view, renewing a Z1-2 Oyster and then being caught in this manner the next day would look suspcious, and I expect an out of court settlement would be the best option.

 

[akshay kapoor]

Thank you very much everyone for taking the time to answer my question. Thank you cuccir and others for a detailed answer on my options. Much appreciated all.

I will let you know when the letter comes and would very much appreciate some more help as to the best response to get an out of court settlement at that stage. Do most people think they will go for a reasonable out of court settlement ? How much should I offer ?