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

[Llanigraham]

Everyone I don't see how this is legal. When it says Inspectors contemporaneous notes. I know for a fact that me and my parter didn't state we ran through barriers and I know for a fact that we did state we had permission to travel.

Now they are saying there were no staff at Wembley on that day. I don't see how they can say this when I was there an employee was working on the machine and it was open. Should I ask Michael, so if no staff was there that day then why would a person be standing by the machine with it open, had someone had access to it who shouldn't have. CCTV will prove the fact that I was right.

I don't see how the Inspectors contemporaneous notes can be addmisable in court when it's clear the inspector did not write down what is true. And his body cam footage will prove this. If it did go to court and body cam footage did show the truth then it's a clear lie, but if they don't show it, it's clear they wouldn't show them as it would catch them out. Any thoughts.

.
1/ Yes it looks perfectly legal to me.
2/ Contemporanous notes are simply a report on what happened AT THE TIME. They do not have to be written as the event took place, but can be written up later elsewhere. (When I was prosecuting people for a Government Dept that is exactly what we did, as do the Police)
3/ They are possibly or most probably correct that there were no RAILWAY staff, (ie working for the Train Operator or Network Rail) working on the machine. That person may well have been a contractor.
4/ Unless you asked for CCTV evidence at the start I doubt it will now be available as it is generally over-written after a short period. That is perfectly legal.
5/ Did the inspector have his body cam on? Somehow I doubt it, and point 4 applies.

Several but the overriding one is unless this alleged voice recording of the man attending to the ticket machine has a date and timestamp that proves it was made at the time of travel I would take note of the comments about perjury and not even think about taking this to court based on that "evidence". The court won't look favourably on you producing some recoding made by a mate several months later.

I don't think the alleged voice recording would be admissable as evidence.

 

[Royston Vasey]

If that is actually from TIL I'm quite impressed at the level of detail and explanation in it - and I'm not usually someone to sing their praises!

And the quality of the English!

 

[furlong]

So to paraphrase the letter:

1) They don't believe you.
2) They have lots of independent reasons why they really really don't believe you.
3) If you really are making this up, trying to be clever, and don't come clean now and pay the new higher settlement that's on offer, but continue, then don't be surprised if the process ends with you in prison. The punishment if you are caught making stuff up is many many times worse than the fine for what you are accused of doing.

On the other hand, if we take everything at face value, how might the mistakes have happened?

1) How could your recollection of the interview be so fundamentally different from the contemporaneous notes they have of it? Perhaps they've got the notes mixed up and it was someone else they stopped. Rarely, we have seen situations like that before on the forum, but you would hope that they've double- and triple- checked that by now and know the notes were written at the time, the time fits with the arrival time of the service you used, and it is your signature there (and you didn't sign below a blank space that got filled in from memory the following day).

2) Perhaps they've only accessed a filtered version of the machine's log records that excludes maintenance and supervisor events from it.

Any other ideas?

By the way, I think we're still waiting for
1) (a transcript of) the voice recording
2) information about how frequently you record such notes (which you'd be able to prove) e.g. 100 each day? 1 each week?

 

[AlterEgo]

Honestly OP just pay the settlement, you’ve been well caught out here on multiple fronts. Your account had red flags all over it from the outset. Some posters here are very graciously giving you the benefit of doubt you don’t deserve.

 

[island]

Agree, and my understanding is that unless the "speaker" was told that a recording was being made then it is not admissible evidence.

This understanding is not correct.

 

[nw1]

If you were so incensed at being accused, that would be the first thing you fired back at them on day 1

I'm not sure what actually went on, but my assessment would be that there was no intentional fare-dodging by the OP, but it's likely (IMO) they fell foul of the Byelaws and they realise that, but can no longer provide the evidence that they were directed onto the train by a member of staff. So I still feel sympathy towards them in that respect, but I too would urge them not to play that recording in court.

I think I am now in agreement with others in recommending the OP just pays the settlement.

 

[Haywain]

So to paraphrase the letter:

“See you in court.”

 

[LAX54]

I'm not sure what actually went on, but my assessment would be that there was no intentional fare-dodging by the OP, but it's likely (IMO) they fell foul of the Byelaws and they realise that, but can no longer provide the evidence that they were directed onto the train by a member of staff. So I still feel sympathy towards them in that respect, but I too would urge them not to play that recording in court.

I think I am now in agreement with others in recommending the OP just pays the settlement.

I suppose, we all make mistakes, some may not have been directly our fault, but we end up paying, it's just life I suppose, life isnt always fair !

Several but the overriding one is unless this alleged voice recording of the man attending to the ticket machine has a date and timestamp that proves it was made at the time of travel I would take note of the comments about perjury and not even think about taking this to court based on that "evidence". The court won't look favourably on you producing some recoding made by a mate several months later.

London Underground machines are maintained by Cubic Transportation Systems, so one could assume that National Rail could use a similar system ? Enginneers just working around the Country, different location / TOC everyday ?

 

[Haywain]

London Underground machines are maintained by Cubic Transportation Systems, so one could assume that National Rail could use a similar system ? Enginneers just working around the Country, different location / TOC everyday ?

In the case of Chiltern the TVM provider and maintainer will be Flowbird.

 

[talldave]

I suppose, we all make mistakes, some may not have been directly our fault, but we end up paying, it's just life I suppose, life isnt always fair!

I'm not sure what mistake the OP made? They go to the ticket machine at a station, find it opened with someone working on it who instructs them to pay on the train. One short train ride later they're effectively told it's £256* or court (and way more than £256*)?

* since two people are travelling we're presumably talking about £512.

 

[skyhigh]

They go to the ticket machine at a station, find it opened with someone working on it who instructs them to pay on the train.

From the email above TIL contends that there was never anyone working on the machines and they have the logs to back that up.

 

[johnny_t]

I'm not sure what mistake the OP made? They go to the ticket machine at a station, find it opened with someone working on it who instructs them to pay on the train. One short train ride later they're effectively told it's £256* or court (and way more than £256*)?

* since two people are travelling we're presumably talking about £512.

You know on that programme with David Mitchell and Lee Mack, and sometimes they press a button and the word 'true' comes up behind them ?

I think the train company's contention is that the other button should have been pressed...

 

[skyhigh]

This whole thing is a mess.

The OP has managed to argue themselves from an £86 settlement offer to a full blown prosecution case. Their partner has unread mail which might mean they've already been convicted in their absence. They didn't use Contactless "because reasons". They have answered questions on here but failed to provide information that they said they would have done - e.g. the transcript or copy of the recording.

I don't think I've ever read such a forthright email from a prosecutor - which gives me the impression that if this proceeds to court they will strongly fight it.

The OP knows what the truth is but from TIL's point of view, the OP has changed their story, suddenly found the exact 'evidence' that they need and apparently contradicts information that TIL hold.

They need to think very carefully about how they progress from here. If they stand up in Court and say "This man was working on the ticket machine and gave me permission to travel and here's a recording of that" and TIL then present the court with logs proving the machines were in working order, they were not under maintenance and provide a statement from Flowbird/Chiltern that nobody visited the station on that date to service the machines it will go down incredibly badly.

There is a serious risk here that an £86 settlement offer may end up in a custodial sentence.

 

[talldave]

From the email above TIL contends that there was never anyone working on the machines and they have the logs to back that up.

Of course they do. And nobody lied, ever! Are the machines managed by the Post Office by any chance? Anyone can create an empty log file, can't they?

 

[CarrotPie]

Of course they do. And nobody lied, ever! Are the machines managed by the Post Office by any chance? Anyone can create an empty log file, can't they?

I thought TIL were warning the OP against perjury, not the other way round!

 

[Brissle Girl]

Of course they do. And nobody lied, ever! Are the machines managed by the Post Office by any chance? Anyone can create an empty log file, can't they?

I think there are a lot of regular advisors to this board who are deeply unconvinced by the story that the OP has given for numerous reasons.

 

[skyhigh]

Of course they do. And nobody lied, ever! Are the machines managed by the Post Office by any chance? Anyone can create an empty log file, can't they?

So you're seriously suggesting that, despite all the furore going on at the moment, TIL are manufacturing faked evidence to secure prosections?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought TIL were warning the OP against perjury, not the other way round!

I can't see a TOC lying about something like that. It could be that they were just cleaning the machine or something (which wouldn't be logged) but...

I think there are a lot of regular advisors to this board who are deeply unconvinced by the story that the OP has given for numerous reasons.

...it sounds more to me like the OP isn't telling the entire truth, yes.

So you're seriously suggesting that, despite all the furore going on at the moment, TIL are manufacturing faked evidence to secure prosections?

I have very little time for TIL (though I'm very impressed at the in-depth nature of that prosecutor's response) however I think suggesting they would do this is just false.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I think there are a lot of regular advisors to this board who are deeply unconvinced by the story that the OP has given for numerous reasons.

I think the normal "rule" on threads on the disputes board is to assume the person asking for advice is being open about what they did or didn't do, and to offer support and ideas in good faith. But this case seems to be testing the patience (and credulity) of some regulars here. Is it because of a seeming implausibility regarding the (alleged) facts of the case? Is it because of the combative tone of the enquirer? My one thought is that someone new to such railway problems, who really did experience exactly what we've been told, might indeed be so outraged as to be very combative.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I can't see a TOC lying about something like that. It could be that they were just cleaning the machine or something (which wouldn't be logged) but...

Did the OP say that the machine was "opened" or the like?

Even if they were just cleaning it / restocking tickets / etc. etc. if the machine's door was opened I would imagine that would be enough for it to be logged.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I think the normal "rule" on threads on the disputes board is to assume the person asking for advice is being open about what they did or didn't do, and to offer support and ideas in good faith. But this case seems to be testing the patience (and credulity) of some regulars here. Is it because of a seeming implausibility regarding the (alleged) facts of the case? Is it because of the combative tone of the enquirer? My one thought is that someone new to such railway problems, who really did experience exactly what we've been told, might indeed be so outraged as to be very combative.

Agree with the normal “rules”, although where we suspect that we are not being told the truth we do challenge, if only because if we are suspicious, so will the investigators, who weren’t born yesterday, and will know all the tricks in the book.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'm not sure what mistake the OP made? They go to the ticket machine at a station, find it opened with someone working on it who instructs them to pay on the train. One short train ride later they're effectively told it's £256* or court (and way more than £256*)?

* since two people are travelling we're presumably talking about £512.

One person knows the partial truth of what happened – the RPI – and one person knows the whole truth – the OP. Everybody else can only assess the situation based on what has been said and what has been said, even by the OP themselves, doesn’t support the OP’s account, e.g. signing a statement that they later claim is a pack of lies, remembering that the “man at the machine” was wearing a uniform, had a badge and exactly what they said but forgetting within a few minutes (the time it took to get to Marylebone) that they had recorded the conversation and only remembering 4 months later, offering to settle despite claiming they have incontrovertible proof they have done nothing wrong.

In my view anybody encouraging the OP to proceed to court is giving irresponsible advice.

 

[talldave]

So you're seriously suggesting that, despite all the furore going on at the moment, TIL are manufacturing faked evidence to secure prosections?

In reality they don't have to create anything, since a lack of a logging action results in nothing. But what if the logging doesn't work because the microswitch on the TVM doesn't work? Without CCTV it's just as impossible to prove that the machine wasn't opened as it is to prove that it was.

 

[Brissle Girl]

In reality they don't have to create anything, since a lack of a logging action results in nothing. But what if the logging doesn't work because the microswitch on the TVM doesn't work? Without CCTV it's just as impossible to prove that the machine wasn't opened as it is to prove that it was.

Methinks you are clutching at straws to think of ways to favour the OPs point of view. If a microswitch wasn’t working, it would have been noticed that there weren’t any logs of it being opened for a longer period.
Anyway, feel free to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[skyhigh]

In reality they don't have to create anything, since a lack of a logging action results in nothing. But what if the logging doesn't work because the microswitch on the TVM doesn't work?

Which is complete speculation. What if the log data they have (and will present to the Court) shows the previous and subsequent times the machine was opened? What if the log data shows tickets being sold from the machine at the time the OP was at the station?

Without CCTV it's just as impossible to prove that the machine wasn't opened as it is to prove that it was.

Unless the 'closed' status is logged as well as the 'open' status.

 

[SteveM70]

In reality they don't have to create anything, since a lack of a logging action results in nothing. But what if the logging doesn't work because the microswitch on the TVM doesn't work? Without CCTV it's just as impossible to prove that the machine wasn't opened as it is to prove that it was.

What we don't know, but Chiltern/TIL will know, is how many other tickets were or weren't bought from that machine around that time, and how many other people did or didn't arrive at Marylebone from Wembley asking for tickets because the machine was out of order

 

[Kilopylae]

I feel OP has been treated appallingly by the railway and appallingly here. The ticket machine was broken: so, in good faith, he asked what to do, did what he was told, and from thereon out he's been treated like a criminal.

forgetting within a few minutes (the time it took to get to Marylebone) that they had recorded the conversation and only remembering 4 months later

Am I alone in not finding this implausible? If he was recording something else (like for a Snapchat story or a voice note in a WhatsApp chat to his landlord or whatever) and he didn't realise he'd picked up the conversation in the background, he wouldn't know/be conscious that he'd recorded it, so it wouldn't be in his mind to mention it at Marylebone — but whilst desperately searching through his logs from that day (as we encouraged him to do! — e.g. looking for hotel receipts), he thought to check the unrelated recording and was lucky enough to discover that it did have the maintenance guy in the background.

offering to settle despite claiming they have incontrovertible proof they have done nothing wrong.

As many people here have pointed out, he could lose in court. Being afraid of a criminal record is NOT a sign of guilt!!

 

[CarrotPie]

What we don't know, but Chiltern/TIL will know, is how many other tickets were or weren't bought from that machine around that time, and how many other people did or didn't arrive at Marylebone from Wembley asking for tickets because the machine was out of order

Are they not required to disclose that to the OP, since it could aid/crush their defence?

 

[AlterEgo]

I feel OP has been treated appallingly by the railway and appallingly here. The ticket machine was broken: so, in good faith, he asked what to do, did what he was told, and from thereon out he's been treated like a criminal.


Am I alone in not finding this implausible? If he was recording something else (like for a Snapchat story or a voice note in a WhatsApp chat to his landlord or whatever) and he didn't realise he'd picked up the conversation in the background, he wouldn't know/be conscious that he'd recorded it, so it wouldn't be in his mind to mention it at Marylebone — but whilst desperately searching through his logs from that day (as we encouraged him to do! — e.g. looking for hotel receipts), he thought to check the unrelated recording and was lucky enough to discover that it did have the maintenance guy in the background.


As many people here have pointed out, he could lose in court. Being afraid of a criminal record is NOT a sign of guilt!!

The OP has introduced about six or seven Swiss Cheese implausibilities which render them not worthy of belief without substantiating evidence in my view. The entire account made little sense from the beginning, and TIL concur.

They have the OP's signed admission that they "ran through barriers" (which don't exist at Wembley Stadium, btw), anyway.

Any advice to proceed to court would be grossly irresponsible.

Are they not required to disclose that to the OP, since it could aid/crush their defence?

No, they've deduced from themselves that the OP is, on balance, a complete liar who is wasting their time despite repeated offers to settle.

 

[Bertie the bus]

As many people here have pointed out, he could lose in court. Being afraid of a criminal record is NOT a sign of guilt!!

If you read what they said in their correspondence with TIL they are not afraid of a criminal record. They are adamant all the evidence proves their innocence but they might settle, if they can be bothered, because they "haven't got the time to go to court".