Summoned to a court for 'evading fare'. Help?

[shino]

So she went from some unspecified station to London Bridge, and at that station entered the barrier using a paper travelcard. She arrived at London Bridge and realised that her travelcard did not cover her for that station, either before or after attempting to use the travelcard. (Perhaps it was a zone 2-6 travelcard, whereas London Bridge is zone 1) She then exited using the PAYG Oyster card. Is this correct?

What would have happened is that the PAYG Oyster says that there is no entry somewhere else, so there is no way of telling where she has come from, so she is charged a maximum fare, which I think is £7.80.

So she would have had £3.80 balance on the card, minus a £7.80 maximum fare, leaves -£4.



Ok I don't think that would work. The 18+ Oyster Card is a form of identification giving her a discount off a paper travel card. If she buys a paper travelcard using the Oyster Card to prove she is in full time education and therefore entitled to a discount, there would be no record of the purchase on the Oyster Card - the Oyster Card is just ID in this case, the same as my driving licence is ID when I buy a bottle of vodka, and no record is stored. The paper travelcard is essentially 'cash', and if you lose it it's gone, and it's very hard to prove you ever had one.

The question is why didn't she simply get the travelcard loaded onto the Oyster Card? That would be simpler, there would be a record online and she'd be able to get it revoked/replaced if lost. I don't see why you would want a paper travelcard when you've already got Oyster. It would be more expensive, e.g., when travelling outside her paid for zones.

As it is the only way she can prove that she had a valid ticket would be something like credit card records.

Did she pay by debit/credit card?

The London Bridge journey happened somewhere between Jan and Feb 2012. This particular offence happened early April. She cant recall if she paid by debit card for the original travel card or not, she is headed for the bank to check if they can find any record of that. But then again even if we did have absolute proof she purchased the travelcard, it doesn't prove she had it with her on the day in the station itself. All it proves is that she purchased a paper ticket once upon a time.

In regards to your other questions (criticisms), I have no idea. I'm too tired to further question her. She's evidently guilty of making such silly mistakes. She uses her Oyster to purchase paper tickets when there are ticket machines at the station that do the 18+ discounts automatically if you have the right card. When I made this point to her, she said she didn't know.

 

[yorkie]

The question is why didn't she simply get the travelcard loaded onto the Oyster Card? That would be simpler, there would be a record online and she'd be able to get it revoked/replaced if lost. I don't see why you would want a paper travelcard when you've already got Oyster. It would be more expensive, e.g., when travelling outside her paid for zones.

Many National Rail stations cannot issue them on Oyster. Someone may be able to provide a full list, or be able to supply the OP with a list of stations near his sister's usual route that can issue them.

I agree that it would be best to have such a Travelcard loaded onto Oyster, for numerous reasons.

 

[soil]

The London Bridge journey happened somewhere between Jan and Feb 2012. This particular offence happened early April. She cant recall if she paid by debit card for the original travel card or not, she is headed for the bank to check if they can find any record of that. But then again even if we did have absolute proof she purchased the travelcard, it doesn't prove she had it with her on the day in the station itself. All it proves is that she purchased a paper ticket once upon a time.

Well if there's a transaction less than a week before the date of the offence to the value of one weekly travelcard, then that would certainly help.

Obviously purchases for travelcards in February aren't going to help.....

In regards to your other questions (criticisms), I have no idea. I'm too tired to further question her. She's evidently guilty of making such silly mistakes. She uses her Oyster to purchase paper tickets when there are ticket machines at the station that do the 18+ discounts automatically if you have the right card. When I made this point to her, she said she didn't know.

Ok well I imagine the TOC would be wondering the same thing.

Obviously it's not a crime to use paper tickets, but when you've got no ticket, you fit a fare evader profile (student/young person), and then you present a card that is worth -£4, then they are going to assume that any further answers given are dishonest. E.g., no travelcard on the Oyster card, but claiming that a paper ticket was purchased, but has been lost, and is therefore untraceable.

It isn't really reasonable to expect them to believe that, even if it is completely true.

 

[shino]

Well if there's a transaction less than a week before the date of the offence to the value of one weekly travelcard, then that would certainly help.

Obviously purchases for travelcards in February aren't going to help.....



Ok well I imagine the TOC would be wondering the same thing.

Obviously it's not a crime to use paper tickets, but when you've got no ticket, you fit a fare evader profile (student/young person), and then you present a card that is worth -£4, then they are going to assume that any further answers given are dishonest. E.g., no travelcard on the Oyster card, but claiming that a paper ticket was purchased, but has been lost, and is therefore untraceable.

It isn't really reasonable to expect them to believe that, even if it is completely true.

True, but I don't think that profile is compatible with someone spending close to £200 in tickets in three months (which we have documented evidence of) like her. Her travel expenses are more than covered with her maintenance fees as a University student; she has absolutely no reason to evade a small fare like this in comparison. It is more logical that she lost such a ticket. But as such, I'm not filled with confidence.

Will obviously report back when I have a response from them.

Thank you all for your feedback. It was well appreciated

 

[yorkie]

True, but I don't think that profile is compatible with someone spending close to £200 in tickets in three months (which we have documented evidence of) like her. Her travel expenses are more than covered with her maintenance fees as a University student; she has absolutely no reason to evade a small fare like this in comparison. It is more logical that she lost such a ticket. That is assuming of course I even mention this in the plea letter.

I wouldn't use any of these excuses in the letter; there's nothing there that helps in my opinion (but that's just my opinion). Logic does not come into it. As for a "profile", well I wouldn't go down that road either based on the evidence they have, and I wouldn't go trying to counter that evidence with your own evidence (except as a last resort if an out of court settlement is not accepted).

 

[Paul Kelly]

It strikes me that the whole story (out of zone at London Bridge, trying to put a few pounds on Oyster to get out resulting in a maximum charge, not topping up because of believing it was unfair, thinking the issue of the 18+ discounted travelcard would be recorded on the Oyster card etc.) is so complex that it would be unlikely somebody would fabricate such a complicated story. I find it quite believable and indeed an interesting perspective on how baffling someone could find the whole ticketing system.

But it looks in fact like the RPI did believe the story, or at least believed that a genuine mistake had been made, which is why the OP's sister was let off with only being charged a penalty fare. But the fact the penalty fare was not paid means that the current situation has now become much more serious, and the complex reasons for not having a valid ticket on the day and presenting an Oyster card with a negative balance are not relevant to the present situation.

Sounds to me like the OP's letter needs to focus only on the confusion that resulted in the penalty fare not being paid, explaining about the misunderstandings but apologising profusely for them, and offering the fare due plus a substantial sum to cover the TOC's costs.

 

[Ferret]

Shino, definitely worth an attempt at settling out of Court still. There are people who have done far worse than your sister and successfully negotiated their way out of appearing at Court. For instance, I've heard through a colleague of somebody who used a 'Blue Peter' Season Ticket (here's one I made earlier!) didn't end up in Court because they paid the money owed and a substantial admin fee.

So, start composing that letter - if the offer is attractive enough to the railway company then they'll accept it.

 

[island]

I agree that it would be best to have such a Travelcard loaded onto Oyster, for numerous reasons.

A Travelcard loaded onto Oyster wouldn't have worked in this instance, as it would have been invalidated due to the negative PAYG balance.

 

[shino]

Summary: The matter has been settled out of court.

Background: I called the LOROL this morning with a question; in references to fare evasion on TFL, it is cited that the individual would be have a 21 day window period to pay and that they would be sent reminders. I cannot recall us receiving such reminders so I called LOROL to confirm if this was a process they followed. I was passed on to another department where a gentlemen did confirm that a court summons would not be sent before two reminders to pay. I was flabbergasted. He explained that he hears it all the time; when the court summon letter arrives, realising the seriousness of the matter, people claim they never got the two letters.

It was difficult for me to comprehend how we never saw these letters. They must have obviously been delivered, but why had we not seen them? The day she was 'caught', she frantically came to me for help and advice. She was frightened by the ordeal as she'd never been in trouble. This doesn't match the idea of her intentionally ignoring the warning letters asking her to pay. So there I am frightened for her having dawned on me she now fits a profile.

I then asked for the gentlemen's name and I think my heart stopped when his name matched that of the prosecutor on the summons we received. When I woke up, I had in mind to write a plea letter asking for an out of court settlement - I would have had to thought long and hard in how to present such a plea, the language to use etc, and yet here he was on the phone directly to me.

Fortunately, he was a nice man who, if not felt empathy for her, seemed to for me calling up on her behalf. He originally said he would consider an out of settlement deal, but after 10 minutes of trying to best explain to him the events that led up to this incident he did offer such a settlement. It totalled just under £230.

Suffice to say I am relieved and very thankful for his leniency, as I can imagine there are many scammers out there who try to play innocent when caught. Thank you to Yorkie and the others here who helped and believed this to be a genuine case.

 

[bb21]

Glad that you had it all sorted, as the alternative could have a very serious impact on her career.

I'm sure she has learned a lot from this experience.

 

[yorkie]

No problem, glad we could be of assistance, and thanks for letting us know the outcome.

I believe an Out of Court Settlement was the best course to take, as a court case would have been very stressful and could have been difficult to win, and very costly.

I hope also that she can ensure such situations are avoided in future, by following the advice in this thread, but if you, her, or anyone else requires any further advice, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[Ferret]

I'm glad this has been resolved Shino. I'd go further than Yorkie and say a Court case would almost certainly have resulted in a conviction, with all the associated nasty consequences for her future. I'm sure she appreciates all the effort you've made on her behalf.

 

[snail]

Fortunately, he was a nice man who, if not felt empathy for her, seemed to for me calling up on her behalf.

Pleased you got a 'fair' result in the end.

Your comment about him showing sympathy to you for calling is an interesting one. I have to say I think my initial response would be "why couldn't she do this for herself?".

 

[shino]

Pleased you got a 'fair' result in the end.

Your comment about him showing sympathy to you for calling is an interesting one. I have to say I think my initial response would be "why couldn't she do this for herself?".

Ultimately she could have done but as her mother is abroad at the moment I felt responsibility to take an active role. As she was at work and comes home when their offices close, I was given the opportunity by the prosecutor to speak on her behalf as an alternative. I was free, so I thought why not

 

[Ferret]

Ultimately she could have done but as her mother is abroad at the moment I felt responsibility to take an active role. As she was at work and comes home when their offices close, I was given the opportunity by the prosecutor to speak on her behalf as an alternative. I was free, so I thought why not

She's lucky you were there and prepared to help! I doubt the prosecutor would be that bothered as to who he was speaking to - his job is to get a satisfactory resolution for his employer and he's obviously done so.

 

[snail]

I doubt the prosecutor would be that bothered as to who he was speaking to - his job is to get a satisfactory resolution for his employer and he's obviously done so.

Yes, I think I know too many academics who get very annoyed when parents ring up to discuss their offsprings' results. Their usual response is "they are an adult, let them speak for themselves"!

 

[Ferret]

Yes, I think I know too many academics who get very annoyed when parents ring up to discuss their offsprings' results. Their usual response is "they are an adult, let them speak for themselves"!

Haha, that's maybe a different kettle of fish!

 

[6Gman]

Shino, you're an ace brother! Hope you're appreciated!

Glad you got a "sort of" satisfactory conclusion.

But please, please don't let her travel without some means of payment again.

Good luck.

 

[Stigy]

As I posted at the other place....I see it's been sorted now, but for reference purposes i thought i'd post lol.


If the incident occured between Clapham Junction and Willesden Junction, the prosecuting body would be London Overground (TfL?). The Penalty Fare would have been cancelled on the incident date for whatever reason, as these are not issued in the post (there's no obligation for a staff member to issue a Penalty Fare anyway, as these are just another means of disposal). The letter received would have been one to ascertain what occured, for your sister to put her side accross and for her to verify her details. This would, or at least should, have been clear in their letter.

Unfortunately, there is an offence in not being able to produce a ticket for travel under Railway Byelaw 18(2). So regardless of if proof of purchase is obtained, this is not acceptable like a ticket is (the point being that anybody could give their ticket to anybody else etc etc). Unfortunately, railway Byelaws are Strict Liability matters which mean no intent to defraud the comapny need be evident. Of course there is also the more serious Regulation of Railways Act 1889 to play with, if intent was to be reasonably proved, but in this case I'd imagine it would be the former. Having said that, as Mr Gates has said, it really depends on what was asked at the time. Not having money up-front for a Penalty Fare Notice doesn't constitute to having no money for a ticket, assuming that was what your sister couldn't afford? Even if she had no money at all on her, the fact that she said she lost her ticket would only stand to make a Byelaw breach relevant I'd imagine, as this doesn't show any intent to avoid payment, as she obviously said that she did have a ticket initially!

You should contact London Overground and explain, and they might be willing to settle the matter administratively, with their costs payable etc. You should apologise and tell them that this was a first offence and nothing like this has ever occured before etc etc. They don't have to acept, but trust me, it's far better than the stress of court. The Regulation of Railways Act carries a stiffer penalty than a Byelaw breach, but both are criminal matters, heard by Magistrates or a district Judge.

As a side notes, surely the Court Summons states who is prosecuting the case? (Mr X V TfL or something?)