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

[Kilopylae]

Any advice to proceed to court would be grossly irresponsible.

Sadly I'm inclined to agree. You'd never convince a court.

Assuming the OP is telling the truth (which I think we are bound to do, and which doesn't feel impossible to me), I don't think this is fair, though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

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

Presumably very few such people, since most travellers would be Londoners who would use Oyster or a contactless card.

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

But I thought there was evidence that they were staying at a hotel near there. So if they can substantiate that they really did start from Wembley Stadium, where there are no barriers, then that surely supports their claim that their alleged statement was invented by the person questioning them.

 

[SteveM70]

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

Not unless / until they're charged, I believe

 

[Bertie the bus]

But I thought there was evidence that they were staying at a hotel near there. So if they can substantiate that they really did start from Wembley Stadium, where there are no barriers, then that surely supports their claim that their alleged statement was invented by the person questioning them.

The thing is they might not have short fared. They might have caught the train from Wembley Stadium and they either thought they could buy on board or just decided to pay when challenged and therefore didn’t purchase a ticket. On arrival at Marylebone they encountered barriers and came up with they were in a rush in the hope they could just buy one there. That didn’t work so they later did some Googling and found if they didn’t have an opportunity to purchase before travel that is a valid reason for not having a ticket and therefore came up with the ticket machine being worked on story and it has just since been embellished based on comments on this thread.

 

[AlterEgo]

But I thought there was evidence that they were staying at a hotel near there. So if they can substantiate that they really did start from Wembley Stadium, where there are no barriers, then that surely supports their claim that their alleged statement was invented by the person questioning them.

I can knock you up a hotel confirmation email if you like on Canva - or just edit an existing one I have for the Ibis Wembley in my inbox. You can just go in and edit the booking reference and date! I could have it with you in 10 minutes.

Look, the OP signed the statement which contains this admission; this is not in dispute.

 

[AndroidBango]

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!!

I might be reading too much into it, but the mention of the machine logs in post no. 174 might imply that TIL have evidence that the machine wasn't broken (or think they have evidence).

 

[Thebaz]

If the voice recording is legit two things stand out. 1) If legit, it will certainly be time-stamped and contains the conversation at the TVM albeit in the background. 2) Even if the details in the conversation cannot be heard properly on the recording, in itself it proves that OP did not run through the barriers as they would have been out of breath. Unless they're superhuman. Both can be correlated with the known timing of the train's arrival at Wembley. If the OP wants to continue to protest their innocence on this basis I think it would be worth them contacting a no win-no fee solicitor and see if they're interested.

I really can't see why they would bother stringing along everyone here for 8 pages (and probably more) - unless for some weird kicks - if they were not innocent

 

[Spaceship323]

On arrival at Marylebone they encountered barriers

Can you not buy a ticket from the excess fares window anymore? I have done this in the past when the machine at Amersham wasn't working

 

[CyrusWuff]

Can you not buy a ticket from the excess fares window anymore? I have done this in the past when the machine at Amersham wasn't working

Marylebone still has an excess window, but anyone asking for a ticket from Wembley or Harrow would almost certainly be taken aside by Revenue Protection staff if they're present due to short faring being rife.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

All the talk of whether the ticket machine was being worked on is ridiculous.
There are two ticket machines at Wembley Stadium station.
You have to pass two signs on entry to the unbarriered station, one of which tells you where the machines are located. One of them is on the footbridge, one on the London-bound platform.
Even sssuming one machine was temporarily unavailable, there WAS an opportunity to buy a paper ticket.
I suspect what really happened is they saw a train about to depart and just chanced it. A contractor working on the machine on the footbridge would surely have known the location of the other TVM. Is it likely they would not have told the OP where to go?

If the OP got to the platform and found the ‘poorly-sited’ TVM being worked on, it means they passed a working machine (and thus an opportunity to buy a ticket) on the footbridge.

If the settlement offer is still on the table, take it!!

 

[kristiang85]

All the talk of whether the ticket machine was being worked on is ridiculous.
There are two ticket machines at Wembley Stadium station.
You have to pass two signs on entry to the unbarriered station, one of which tells you where the machines are located. One of them is on the footbridge, one on the London-bound platform.
Even sssuming one machine was temporarily unavailable, there WAS an opportunity to buy a paper ticket.
I suspect what really happened is they saw a train about to depart and just chanced it. A contractor working on the machine on the footbridge would surely have known the location of the other TVM. Is it likely they would not have told the OP where to go?

If the OP got to the platform and found the ‘poorly-sited’ TVM being worked on, it means they passed a working machine (and thus an opportunity to buy a ticket) on the footbridge.

If the settlement offer is still on the table, take it!!

But the OP is not familiar with London, and given the two machines are far apart it is not unreasonable to suggest you can easily miss where a second one is (most people walk into a station expecting it to be obvious, not reading notices first) - then when seeing a member of staff on the first machine they see, it is also not unreasonalbe to ask how to buy a ticket and get on the train if advised to do so.

Do we know it was the less obvious one they came to first?

I do have a lot of sympathy here, as I can't believe someone will go to all this angst and effort over a fabricated story.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

But the OP is not familiar with London, and given the two machines are far apart it is not unreasonable to suggest you can easily miss where a second one is (most people walk into a station expecting it to be obvious, not reading notices first) - then when seeing a member of staff on the first machine they see, it is also not unreasonalbe to ask how to buy a ticket and get on the train if advised to do so.

Do we know it was the less obvious one they came to first?

I do have a lot of sympathy here, as I can't believe someone will go to all this angst and effort over a fabricated story.

The ‘less obvious one’ is on the platform. The London-bound platform.
There is no ticket office building. You can’t easily miss the signs about buying a ticket & about the location of the ticket machines. I know this area.

 

[talldave]

I do have a lot of sympathy here, as I can't believe someone will go to all this angst and effort over a fabricated story.

Yes, but this is railforums where the rail industry can do no wrong and every passenger is a fare dodger until they can prove themselves innocent.

I find the attitude towards the OP from some on here disappointing (and, yes , I know about the report function).

 

[Kilopylae]

I do have a lot of sympathy here, as I can't believe someone will go to all this angst and effort over a fabricated story.

I feel the same, OP's being treated here the same dismal way they were treated by the railway, and it sucks.

 

[Bungle158]

I think that the general premise on sites like this is that the OP is giving an open and honest account of their problem.

However, many commentators work within the industry, or are otherwise experts and have spotted potential issues. Is it unreasonable though, to suggest that these may have arisen due to a lack of clarity in some posts?

I agree that the OP's posting style may be seen as "combatative," but if accused of an offence they did not, or at least feel they did not commit, that is understandable

 

[LAX54]

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.

So if the guy working on it worked for Flowbird, as above poster says, then they would not have a clue about the TOC's rules surely ?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The difficulty we have is that while the OP has been consistent in their story (see post #37), it's a fundamentally unlikely one. While it's not for me to put words into their mouth, I think that the OP may recognise the problem of lack of plausibility - hence their willingness to consider paying a settlement while asserting their innocence. But it's one thing to (however unwillingly) pay a settlement while proclaiming your innocence, and another to be taken to court and be publicly accused of wrongdoing - which could explain their determination to defend themselves there.

Like many other contributors here, I think the best available advice is to try and settle this matter before court. I appreciate that the OP does not have the amount now claimed by TIL to hand for a settlement: that being the case it might be worth seeing if a courteously worded letter or email enquiring if it would be possible to bring the matter to an end for the original proposed settlement amount (something like £87 if I remember rightly) would work. This would be on the basis that TIL are probably as sick of the sight of this matter as I expect the OP to be.

If that won't work, then the OP's only option will be to go to court. I'm not sure if we've mentioned that this allows one last opportunity to settle matters out of court in that we hear from time to time of people finding the prosecutor before everyone physically goes into court, and agreeing a settlement there and then. But in preparation for that not to work, the OP needs to
- be absolutely clear what the charge is
- be prepared to establish the facts through the evidence they hold and witnesses they can call. At this point they need to remember that TIL will (a) have their own evidence which may point in a different direction and (b) be entitled to cross examine any witnesses the OP puts up
- once the facts have been established, be prepared to argue that these facts support the OP's position (presumably that they are not guilty of the charge)

There can be no guarantee that the OP will win. But on the assumption that what they have told us is true, I do not see that it is guaranteed that they will lose.

 

[CyrusWuff]

If the OP got to the platform and found the ‘poorly-sited’ TVM being worked on, it means they passed a working machine (and thus an opportunity to buy a ticket) on the footbridge.

The TVM on the footbridge is by the lift to the Northbound platform. As such, you wouldn't go past it if approaching from the Stadium side.

However, the one on the Londonbound platform is at the bottom of one of the sets of stairs. To miss that one, you'd have to use the other set and then avoid walking towards the London end of the platform.

 

[LAX54]

so, would the best option be, pay before it's too late, then carry on with the dispute ? there will be no time constraints then, as an aside was it cash or card at Premier Inn ?

 

[Starmill]

so, would the best option be, pay before it's too late, then carry on with the dispute ? there will be no time constraints then, as an aside was it cash or card at Premier Inn ?

It would be a very, very difficult thing to carry on with the dispute after paying the settlement.

 

[LAX54]

It would be a very, very difficult thing to carry on with the dispute after paying the settlement.

OK Fair enough, wasnt sure if you could

 

[RPI]

A few points.

* you've claimed a few times that CCTV will be on your side. By this point in time, that CCTV will almost certainly no longer exist. Ditto the body cam footage. It's usually retained for up to a month.

Certainly with cameras at my TOC, we "bookmark" each interaction where the footage is evidential, it can then be retained by the prosecutor if necessary for evidence.

 

[MotCO]

The difficulty we have is that while the OP has been consistent in their story (see post #37), it's a fundamentally unlikely one. While it's not for me to put words into their mouth, I think that the OP may recognise the problem of lack of plausibility - hence their willingness to consider paying a settlement while asserting their innocence. But it's one thing to (however unwillingly) pay a settlement while proclaiming your innocence, and another to be taken to court and be publicly accused of wrongdoing - which could explain their determination to defend themselves there.

Like many other contributors here, I think the best available advice is to try and settle this matter before court. I appreciate that the OP does not have the amount now claimed by TIL to hand for a settlement: that being the case it might be worth seeing if a courteously worded letter or email enquiring if it would be possible to bring the matter to an end for the original proposed settlement amount (something like £87 if I remember rightly) would work. This would be on the basis that TIL are probably as sick of the sight of this matter as I expect the OP to be.

If that won't work, then the OP's only option will be to go to court. I'm not sure if we've mentioned that this allows one last opportunity to settle matters out of court in that we hear from time to time of people finding the prosecutor before everyone physically goes into court, and agreeing a settlement there and then. But in preparation for that not to work, the OP needs to
- be absolutely clear what the charge is
- be prepared to establish the facts through the evidence they hold and witnesses they can call. At this point they need to remember that TIL will (a) have their own evidence which may point in a different direction and (b) be entitled to cross examine any witnesses the OP puts up
- once the facts have been established, be prepared to argue that these facts support the OP's position (presumably that they are not guilty of the charge)

There can be no guarantee that the OP will win. But on the assumption that what they have told us is true, I do not see that it is guaranteed that they will lose.

If the OP opts to go to Court, then under the disclosure rules, I assume TIL (and the defendent) will have to provide and share all the evidence they have. At that point, could the OP see that it is game over and try to seek a settlement either before or on the day of the Court hearing?

 

[Brissle Girl]

If the OP opts to go to Court, then under the disclosure rules, I assume TIL (and the defendent) will have to provide and share all the evidence they have. At that point, could the OP see that it is game over and try to seek a settlement either before or on the day of the Court hearing?

They could of course ask. Whether Chiltern/TIL would agree to it is a very moot point.

 

[benjamin11111]

just an update for everyone. I managed to settle with til. But this is the confusing part. So my GF got home last week. She hasn't received any letters from TIL. I'm confused to why they went after me and not her.

It's been two months since she's heard from them

 

[Brissle Girl]

Given the great interest your case raised, are you willing to give any more details of what the settlement was?

 

[MotCO]

just an update for everyone. I managed to settle with til. But this is the confusing part. So my GF got home last week. She hasn't received any letters from TIL. I'm confused to why they went after me and not her.

It's been two months since she's heard from them

This implies she has received a letter. I assume you mean that it is two months since the incident?

 

[lkjhgf]

hi @benjamin11111 can you confirm whether you contacted your MP in the end and whether they were of any assistance with this? I am experiencing a similar matter and based on your experience, came across the same investigator with a body camera who tends to lie.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

hi @benjamin11111 can you confirm whether you contacted your MP in the end and whether they were of any assistance with this? I am experiencing a similar matter and based on your experience, came across the same investigator with a body camera who tends to lie.

Hi @lkjhgf - welcome to the forum!

It's obviously @benjamin11111 's choice whether they get back to you, but if you'd like help from us in general, please start a separate thread: we find that no two cases are exactly the same, and having more than one case on one thread leads to us getting muddled. We'd hate to give you advice based on someone else's facts!

 

[benjamin11111]

Given the great interest your case raised, are you willing to give any more details of what the settlement was?

Yeah I settle for £278 of the top of my head.

This implies she has received a letter. I assume you mean that it is two months since the incident?

So she received one letter months ago the same as when I sent of my reply to them. However they still haven’t got back to her. Whereas with me they chased me constantly

hi @benjamin11111 can you confirm whether you contacted your MP in the end and whether they were of any assistance with this? I am experiencing a similar matter and based on your experience, came across the same investigator with a body camera who tends to lie.

I did but i settled. So they didn’t happen but they did say they could of helped so definitely contact your mp

Hi @lkjhgf - welcome to the forum!

It's obviously @benjamin11111 's choice whether they get back to you, but if you'd like help from us in general, please start a separate thread: we find that no two cases are exactly the same, and having more than one case on one thread leads to us getting muddled. We'd hate to give you advice based on someone else's facts!

Sorry I’ve got a new job hence the late reply but I will reply. If you have any question let me know