Summons by TIL on behalf of Chiltern and a lying ticket enforcer

[spag23]

I have a voice memo or whatever it's called from the man given permission to travel.

This would obviously be very strong evidence to support your case. But it does beg the question as to why you didn't mention this (highly unusual, but prescient) matter before. How comes a recording was made before this thread's advice to do so in future?

 

[benjamin11111]

Sorry just to be clear, you now have a voice memo of the man fixing the TVM giving you permission to travel? Was this a recording you made of him, or did he record a message to send to your mobile phone number?

This seems a strange thing to have unless you were aware of the potential problems you would encounter boarding a train without a ticket be

to be clears was speaking to him and I was recording a voice memo that picked up on the convo.

Your partner should check their post as a matter if urgency, I think. They run the risk of being convicted in absentia.

To play devil's advocate, would the person with whom you have been corresponding not be a little cynical about you just having 'found' this voice memo now? I ask this not to antagonise, but to suggest the investigator might be suspicious about the nature of this recording. Does the metadata of the file show it was recorded on the day of the event? If it does not, it will be viewed as valueless, and, I suspect, an attempt to lie.

I don't know what metadata is apologies. let alone how to check.

It was quite lucky I did record this. But I don't think it's even ;possible to change the date of stuff on iPhone

thoughts on email though, is it worth sending

 

[tony6499]

Wouldn't someone who worked at Wembley know that there weren't guards on their trains into Marylebone ?

 

[benjamin11111]

Wouldn't someone who worked at Wembley know that there weren't guards on their trains into Marylebone ?

true,

any thoughts on the email

If I do go to court and get proven not guilty can I reclaim costs

 

[WesternLancer]

Wouldn't someone who worked at Wembley know that there weren't guards on their trains into Marylebone ?

not esp eg if they were for example a ticket machine maintenance contractor (and we don't know who they were / who they were employed by)

 

[Kilopylae]

Network Rail staff have no authority to authorise a passenger to travel. That authority is only available to specific staff of the Train Operating Companies.

Not the passenger's problem.

 

[Haywain]

If I do go to court and get proven not guilty can I reclaim costs

You can try, but the odds would be against you having any success.

 

[AlterEgo]

This incident happened in September and has had much toing and froing between the OP and the train company. Now, in January, when it is mentioned that the only realistic defence is one in which it can be proven the mystery member of staff gave permission, a voice memo suddenly emerges just moments later.

I’m out. My advice is to pay the settlement without delay because this feels like relentless digging a deeper hole.

 

[AndroidBango]

And I re-emphasise: your partner must check their mail, or get someone to do it for them, as a matter of urgency. If this has been going on since September and they havent engaged with the TOC, they may well have already been summonsed and convicted (or be well on the way to it).

 

[benjamin11111]

This incident happened in September and has had much toing and froing between the OP and the train company. Now, in January, when it is mentioned that the only realistic defence is one in which it can be proven the mystery member of staff gave permission, a voice memo suddenly emerges just moments later.

I’m out. My advice is to pay the settlement without delay because this feels like relentless digging a deeper hole.

Well I hadn’t really looked for evidence properly until as they was no need to.

I only need evidence if it goes to court.

And I re-emphasise: your partner must check their mail, or get someone to do it for them, as a matter of urgency. If this has been going on since September and they havent engaged with the TOC, they may well have already been summonsed and convicted (or be well on the way to it).

Surely if she is summoned then the courts have to take into account she isn’t here with proof of course

 

[SuspectUsual]

Well I hadn’t really looked for evidence properly until as they was no need to.

I only need evidence if it goes to court.

Or to prevent it going to court

 

[Snow1964]

You can try, but the odds would be against you having any success.

There are two possible ways asking the court (unlikely they will agree), or simply billing the rail company.

I would go for latter, not unreasonable to charge the same admin fee amount that that they were proposing, as your time to defend what they spent. After 21 days if not paid and you have reminded them, simply fill out a small claims court application online.

 

[AndroidBango]

Well I hadn’t really looked for evidence properly until as they was no need to.

I only need evidence if it goes to court.


Surely if she is summoned then the courts have to take into account she isn’t here with proof of course

No - this is a SJPN. If you don't respond within 21 days, court proceedings will usually proceed in your absence and almost certainly result in a conviction.

It explains this in one of the letters you posted earlier in the thread.

 

[benjamin11111]

Or to prevent it going to court

That is true.

I wrote an email on the other page as my latest reply. But haven’t heard any comments.

If anyone does have anything to add like positives or negatives I’d really appreciate that

 

[LondonExile]

Well I hadn’t really looked for evidence properly until as they was no need to.

I only need evidence if it goes to court.


Surely if she is summoned then the courts have to take into account she isn’t here with proof of course

Only you know the truth of this, but what I would warn you of here is that if you've fabricated evidence after the fact (and your descriptions here do look exactly like that scenario, whether it's reality or not), then if discovered you can expect to be sent to prison. The classic case is R vs Huhne and Pryce, where a Cabinet Minister was revealed (long after the matter was otherwise concluded) to have lied about who was behind the wheel when their car was caught speeding. They took a criminal matter where the expected penalty was only points on a license and potentially a short driving ban, into one where they served prison time and lost their career.

For your partner, they can file a "Statutory Declaration" to reset the clock to a point where they can then plead Guilty or Not Guilty if they've been convicted in absentia, but it is better all round if they don't get to this point in the first place.

Something else you should bear in mind - from reading this thread, you've clearly failed to convince at least some members of this forum of your version of events. If (when?) this goes to court, you can expect very similar questions and if you fail to convince the Magistrates or District Judge (especially as the defence of being authorised puts the burden of proof onto you...), you'll end up being convicted (perhaps wrongly, but convicted nonetheless.)

 

[benjamin11111]

There are two possible ways asking the court (unlikely they will agree), or simply billing the rail company.

I would go for latter, not unreasonable to charge the same admin fee amount that that they were proposing, as your time to defend what they spent. After 21 days if not paid and you have reminded them, simply fill out a small claims court application online.

The latter does seem the better way. If it goes to court. If they do drop it is that way still possible

 

[AndroidBango]

That is true.

I wrote an email on the other page as my latest reply. But haven’t heard any comments.

If anyone does have anything to add like positives or negatives I’d really appreciate that

You would probably get a better response if you paste the text into a post.

 

[benjamin11111]

Only you know the truth of this, but what I would warn you of here is that if you've fabricated evidence after the fact (and your descriptions here do look exactly like that scenario, whether it's reality or not), then if discovered you can expect to be sent to prison. The classic case is R vs Huhne and Pryce, where a Cabinet Minister was revealed (long after the matter was otherwise concluded) to have lied about who was behind the wheel when their car was caught speeding. They took a criminal matter where the expected penalty was only points on a license and potentially a short driving ban, into one where they served prison time and lost their career.

For your partner, they can file a "Statutory Declaration" to reset the clock to a point where they can then plead Guilty or Not Guilty if they've been convicted in absentia, but it is better all round if they don't get to this point in the first place.

Something else you should bear in mind - from reading this thread, you've clearly failed to convince at least some members of this forum of your version of events. If (when?) this goes to court, you can expect very similar questions and if you fail to convince the Magistrates or District Judge (especially as the defence of being authorised puts the burden of proof onto you...), you'll end up being convicted (perhaps wrongly, but convicted nonetheless.)

All of the version of events and evidence I’ve put on here has been true. I put everything I know so you can all make your best opinions

So I understand I haven’t had convinced everybody on here. I’ll be honest I joined this forum for this situation, and have at times found it confusing to upload etc, but I’ve worked it.

Whatever happens I will keep posting updates. As this may help some people
If they ever get in a similar situation

this is the email I’ve wrote. Still need to proof read before sending


Good Morning Michael,

I am going to address two matters in this email. Firstly being clarification, and secondly being my intent to settle this outside of court. IT’s worth to note in your previous email you said ' This sum includes the unpaid fare’. This has been the first opportunity given by chiltern to pay my fare. Something I tried to do at Marylebone but wasn’t given the opportunity to do so.

At Wembley station there are two ticket machines, one on the platform and one on the bridge that is out of site from the platform. I’ve only just found out about the one on the bridge through searching online, meaning it’s reasonable to say from our view that we thought there was only one machine as we couldn’t see the other. Firstly since you say that there were two fully functional machines, could you provide the logs to prove that they weren’t worked on at all on the 20th of September. Secondly, the person who gave me permission to purchase my ticket form the guard or at the next stop was working on the machine on the platform and had id. It is perfectly reasonable to say that he was authorised from my point view as a person able to offer permission as he was working on railway property and had an id badge. Since I apparently haven’t had permission to travel could I please ask to see a copy of the witness statement from this member of staff. If no witness report can be shown or even exists could you please clarify how you know I haven’t had permission to travel. Since the only three people to witness that he gave me permission to travel was himself, me and my witness. Without speaking with him you can’t say I wasn’t given permission to travel.

Next can you please clarify why your story of what I’ve done has changed numerous times. Firstly I was to be in breach of National byelaw 18.1 (2005), then it was changed to Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.3(a) along with Byelaw 9.2 and finally it is now to be charged to just Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.3(a). I’m just confused to why it has changed so much, and would like clarification on what law you think I have broken. I’m just confused because it has changed so much.

Furthermore, can you please explain how I have broken Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5.3(a) for boarding a railway service without having previously paid and with the intent to avoid the payment of the rail fare. There is no clear evidence of intent to avoid the payment of the fair. This can be clearly demonstrated by CCTV at Marylebone, which shows me actively seeking a member of staff upon getting of the train to purchase a ticket
Finally, the report from the person taking my details, is fraudulent as he has written down an untrue story of events to make it seem as if I’ve short ticketed. The person taking my details wore a body camera, and this will prove that he did not write down what I said. This was my first time travelling with chiltern on this route, so why would I lie and say I ran through barriers, it doesn’t make sense. I clearly stated the truth and he wrote down the opposite to make it look like I’ve short ticketed. Could I also ask to see a copy of this report so I can clarify to see if there’s other lies written on this report.

Today I’ve just come across even more evidence in my favour, I can prove for a fact that I was given permission to travel. I have a voice recording of him stating what to do ‘board the next train and purchase a ticket at your next stop or from there guard’. I’m happy to send you this evidence as-well

If we went to court, I can prove theirs no short ticketing and state what the truth is. The witness statement from the person who gave me permission to travel, ticket machine logs, cctv and the body camera. Will prove my innocence.

I don’t have the time to take this to court and will try and settle this outside of court. Unforuntslty times are tough, and as of today it’s either rent money or settlement with you. I will try my best to settle this within the time frame but I can’t promise. If I can pay it’s great we can settle. If I can’t pay I’ll email you to let you know, but I can pay the fare of the train ticket no matter what. It’s the admin costs I can’t afford.

 

[KirkstallOne]

That is true.

I wrote an email on the other page as my latest reply. But haven’t heard any comments.

If anyone does have anything to add like positives or negatives I’d really appreciate that

I think people feel they aren’t being given the full story, particularly around the voice memo. Surely you remember recording or being sent this memo since the only purpose of obtaining it would be for the exact purpose you now need it. If so why has it only been discovered now?

If we don’t know the full story then it is very hard to advise on the contents of a letter.

 

[Haywain]

I am going to address two matters in this email. Firstly being clarification, and secondly being my intent to settle this outside of court.

Are you disputing that you committed the offence or agreeing that you did? A settlement is only appropriate to keep the matter out of court if you are guilty. If you didn't commit the offence you shouldn't be paying to make the matter go away.

Well I hadn’t really looked for evidence properly until as they was no need to.

I only need evidence if it goes to court.

I'm not convinced that a random voice recording on a mobile phone will be accepted by the court as compelling evidence.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think people feel they aren’t being given the full story, particularly around the voice memo. Surely you remember recording or being sent this memo since the only purpose of obtaining it would be for the exact purpose you now need it. If so why has it only been discovered now?

If we don’t know the full story then it is very hard to advise on the contents of a letter.

Exactly this

To have thought to make a voice recording at the time is exceptional; to subsequently forget about the recording’s existence until now is truly remarkable

 

[benjamin11111]

I

I think people feel they aren’t being given the full story, particularly around the voice memo. Surely you remember recording or being sent this memo since the only purpose of obtaining it would be for the exact purpose you now need it. If so why has it only been discovered now?

If we don’t know the full story then it is very hard to advise on the contents of a letter.

So the voice memo is a recording I made on the platform to send to someone about birthday plans. which picks up the permission to travel towards the end but it is faint. I only realised after I listened a number of times last night. That’s why I forgot about it.

Last night I went through every gallery I have every nook and cranny on my devices. The hours spent looking for something did actually uncover something.

I hope that made sense.

Exactly this

To have thought to make a voice recording at the time is exceptional; to subsequently forget about the recording’s existence until now is truly remarkable

So I was making a voice recording and my girlfriend was the one who spoke with the person. Hence why it’s in the background’s

There’s no motive to me lying on hear. I’m offering the truth for opinions

Are you disputing that you committed the offence or agreeing that you did? A settlement is only appropriate to keep the matter out of court if you are guilty. If you didn't commit the offence you shouldn't be paying to make the matter go away.


I'm not convinced that a random voice recording on a mobile phone will be accepted by the court as compelling evidence.

I’m disputing that I have committed an offence. A cheap settlement would be preferable as if I have to take a day of work then go to court on the trains. The cost will be more than the settlement.

The trouble is I can’t afford to settle until the end of month but this current settlement expires this Thursday.

Are you saying that if I dont pay the settlement it will go away.

The phone recording might have make it more likely I did get permission

 

[flythetube]

- Why is your partner not also being prosecuted/threatened with prosecution? Were they not stopped, or did they settle, or did they have a ticket or use contactless?
- You mention that when you were stopped you were not cautioned. Were you interviewed or asked any questions? The sequence of events you describe at Marylebone does not make sense, because Chiltern are very, very hot on anyone coming ticketless into Marylebone and saying they boarded at Wembley. They habitually stop you, caution you, ask a series of questions including ones that assess your guilt, etc. Not just "take your details and off you go".
- You mention Chiltern have dropped the short ticketing allegation. If they have dropped the short ticketing allegation and now, apparently, believe you did board at Wembley, why are you so keen to prove you boarded there? According to you, they now accept this fact. So I don't understand why so much of the discussion has centred around this.
- Why in your correspondence have you asked to settle the matter outside of court? This is an invitation for Chiltern to do exactly that - send you a settlement figure to dispose of the alleged offence, which they have done so. You are adamant you committed no offence, so there is, from your point of view, nothing to settle.


You have a big problem here. Notwithstanding all the above, there is a second ticket machine at Wembley Stadium. Whether you could see it or not is unfortunately immaterial to the matter at hand. Therefore, if the first machine was out of order, it is incumbent on you to find and use other ticket facilities on the station premises, even ones you can't see from the entrance you used down to the platform, or instead to use contactless, which is by far the cheapest and easiest way to pay your fare (you mention that you don't have a contactless card but decline to say why - this is quite unusual and I would expect you to be asked why you didn't pay by contactless in court. Sometimes people come from overseas and don't have UK banking facilities whatsoever, and come from places which don't deal in contactless, but whatever the reason, you should have it ready and preferably be able to substantiate it).

And hence you have only one defence left, the member of staff you spoke to who authorised you to travel to Marylebone without a ticket.

The onus is on you as the defendant to provide that defence. That means you can't just stand up in court and say "the man on the platform told me" because anyone can do that - you need to evidence that. And practically this means calling that person as a witness, which you have a near-zero prospect of doing.

Not having a Contactless Card is rare but not unheard of.

For a long while after Contactless became the norm, Co-Operative Bank customers with Basic Cashminder accounts were denied the opportunity to change their cards to contactless.

Some overseas visitors also do not possess contactless cards in addition to their cards being unsupported on the Tfl network which is a separate issue altogether!!

 

[AndroidBango]

I

So the voice memo is a recording I made on the platform to send to someone about birthday plans. which picks up the permission to travel towards the end but it is faint. I only realised after I listened a number of times last night. That’s why I forgot about it.

Last night I went through every gallery I have every nook and cranny on my devices. The hours spent looking for something did actually uncover something.

I hope that made sense.


So I was making a voice recording and my girlfriend was the one who spoke with the person. Hence why it’s in the background’s

There’s no motive to me lying on hear. I’m offering the truth for opinions


I’m disputing that I have committed an offence. A cheap settlement would be preferable as if I have to take a day of work then go to court on the trains. The cost will be more than the settlement.

The trouble is I can’t afford to settle until the end of month but this current settlement expires this Thursday.

Are you saying that if I dont pay the settlement it will go away.

The phone recording might have make it more likely I did get permission

If you don't pay the settlement it will go to court. You might ask if they would consider extending their deadline until your payday, but they are under no obligation to do so - especially as this has been going on so long.

 

[alholmes]

Regarding the email you’ve written back to TIL, I’m not going to address the various points you’ve made in it. If I were the prosecutor, my response would be simple - I’d address the points that you’ve raised at the court hearing, and leave it at that. The prosecutor is under no obligation to enter into any further dialogue before court.

i think it’s wishful thinking if you expect to get a written witness statement from the ticket machine repair man, or CCTV from Marylebone (won’t be kept this long), or bodycam film (won’t be kept this long), or ticket machine logs (do they even exist?). So I wouldn’t rely on any of that as potential evidence.

 

[furlong]

So the voice memo is a recording I made on the platform to send to someone about birthday plans. which picks up the permission to travel towards the end but it is faint. I only realised after I listened a number of times last night. That’s why I forgot about it.

Could you possibly share this with us?

E.g. type up the words as a conversation
girlfrend: <words>
railway person: <words>
girlfriend: <words>
railway person: <words>
...

or alternatively if you know how to, cut out that section of the audio and upload it somewhere where we could download it?

 

[spag23]

If the OP indeed has a genuine recording (preferably timestamped) of staff audibly giving them prior permission to obtain their tickets after boarding the train, I don't see why they are seeking a settlement. The Company should be instead be withdrawing the allegation and their associated claim for costs.

 

[Titfield]

Your account may indeed be a truthful account of what happened despite there being a number of elements which seem to a disinterested observer to be very unlikely.

The decision that you have to make is do you (a) settle and that is the end of the matter (b) go to court and run the risk that the court prefers the version of the TOC rather than your version. If you go to court and employ a solicitor there fees will have to be paid irrespective of the outcome. If you lose in court the costs will be considerable as outlined in an earlier post.

I wont repeat or precis the view of many posters on the elements of your account but personally I think you will have a mountain to climb to persuade a court that your version is indeed the truth.

I rather think that you should stand back and take a pragmatic view and look at the difference in the outcomes and the probability of each:

Option a with a certain cost of X, option b with a cost which ranges wildly but if you employ a solicitor will have a certain cost of xxxx.

I am not sure how much more the forum members can genuinely assist you with.

 

[LowLevel]

It's entirely reasonable for a member of the public to assume that anyone with railway clothing/lanyards, manning gates, working in railway offices or on railway equipment is empowered to authorise ticketless travel, if they issue such an authorisation. Joe Public can't be expected to know the employment status of this person, or the nature of the service contracts between the myriad (these days!) of companies "partnering" with the rail companies. I would expect the TOCs to demand that contractors ensure that their unqualified staff are trained not to authorise ticketless travel. And I'd argue that TOCs are bound to honour authorisations improperly given in these circumstances.

Would you therefore argue by extension that, given the lack of mind reading abilities, railway staff should therefore accept as given any statement by a passenger that "X said it was OK", whether or not it was actually said at all in the first place, as that is the only logical destination for your statement.

We've been there enough times. In an ideal world, sure, railway staff shouldn't give verbal authorisations and dishonest passengers/travellers shouldn't lie. But they do.

I am not saying this is what has happened in this case incidentally - it is quite plausible and I assume the passenger has been unlucky enough to get caught up in Chiltern's purge on criminals thinking they're clever for short faring from Wembley Stadium.

But from your statement I could buy a ticket on my phone now for a ticket in 5 hours time for a fiver, jump on a train and lie to the ticket inspector that "X on the platform said it was OK" and the ticket inspector should simply accept that statement and pass the ticket for travel.

It simply doesn't work in practice, ideal though it might seem.

 

[benjamin11111]

Could you possibly share this with us?

E.g. type up the words as a conversation
girlfrend: <words>
railway person: <words>
girlfriend: <words>
railway person: <words>
...

or alternatively if you know how to, cut out that section of the audio and upload it somewhere where we could download it?

Yes. I’ll try and cut it. But if no like I’ll type it

Would you therefore argue by extension that, given the lack of mind reading abilities, railway staff should therefore accept as given any statement by a passenger that "X said it was OK", whether or not it was actually said at all in the first place, as that is the only logical destination for your statement.

We've been there enough times. In an ideal world, sure, railway staff shouldn't give verbal authorisations and dishonest passengers/travellers shouldn't lie. But they do.

I am not saying this is what has happened in this case incidentally - it is quite plausible and I assume the passenger has been unlucky enough to get caught up in Chiltern's purge on criminals thinking they're clever for short faring from Wembley Stadium.

But from your statement I could buy a ticket on my phone now for a ticket in 5 hours time for a fiver, jump on a train and lie to the ticket inspector that "X on the platform said it was OK" and the ticket inspector should simply accept that statement and pass the ticket for travel.

It simply doesn't work in practice, ideal though it might seem.

The only way I can settle is if the deadline is extended. If it’s not extended I will be going to court.

I’ll send the email tomorrow. I’ll post it in the forum when a reply is given to let you guys have an update