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

[Class93]

May I ask, if you said they were lying, why did you choose to settle?

 

[chawky]

Any chance you can post the infamous voice clip?

 

[KirkstallOne]

I think this reflects badly on TIL. They basically accused you of lying but were still willing to settle. Seems all they care about is the monetary outcome.

Anyway, glad you got it resolved and thanks for updating the forum on the outcome.

 

[island]

I think this reflects badly on TIL. They basically accused you of lying but were still willing to settle. Seems all they care about is the monetary outcome.

Anyway, glad you got it resolved and thanks for updating the forum on the outcome.

TIL/the TOC gets more money out of a settlement than a conviction, so it will almost invariably be in their interests to settle regardless.

 

[Haywain]

I think this reflects badly on TIL. They basically accused you of lying but were still willing to settle. Seems all they care about is the monetary outcome.

The same must apply to the OP then.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is a rare instance of the TOC coming out well in my opinion. The OP was clearly not being fully honest and the company called them out on that, yet still gave the OP the chance to avoid being convicted for the offence.

The settlement figure is high because the OP made the company waste a lot of time in investigating things which couldn’t ultimately be substantiated.

 

[benjamin11111]

Hi all it's me again,

There is a massive update.

The situation is still the same but now it concerns my partner. My partner received the intial letter from TIL and she replied via email. She never received a reply by email or post. PLEASE NOTE: she lives at student halls in University and letters can easily go missing. Today after being away for a while, due to the the Easter break, she found a letter. It was a court summons. Basically TIL had sent replies to my partner but since she never received she didn't reply hence they went down the route to prosecute.

This is where it get's worse. This letter must have arrived a week ago or so. Her court date is in Buckinghamshire today at 2. She can't get there as she only found out at 1am today. She also can't afford to purchase a last minute ticket, as cost of living especially at university is super hard. On the court summons there's no phone number. She called up 101 or 111 ( the police one), who gave her a number (court number). She called them and they said they will do everything they can to change the date. If they can't change it, she won't get there and this means it's automatically guilty. Hopefully they can change it. If they do change my partner and myself (me representing her) will be going to court against TIL. I'll keep everyone updated. Any thoughts anyone

Here's an update. My partner is seeing me tonight so i will look at the letters and documents. What she has told me so far, is the ticket enforcer notes on the situation are very broad and leave out a-lot of key relevant details. Like leaving out the part where he told us that no legal action or fine would happen because of this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi all it's me again,

There is a massive update.

The situation is still the same but now it concerns my partner. My partner received the intial letter from TIL and she replied via email. She never received a reply by email or post. PLEASE NOTE: she lives at student halls in University and letters can easily go missing. Today after being away for a while, due to the the Easter break, she found a letter. It was a court summons. Basically TIL had sent replies to my partner but since she never received she didn't reply hence they went down the route to prosecute.

This is where it get's worse. This letter must have arrived a week ago or so. Her court date is in Buckinghamshire today at 2. She can't get there as she only found out at 1am today. She also can't afford to purchase a last minute ticket, as cost of living especially at university is super hard. On the court summons there's no phone number. She called up 101 or 111 ( the police one), who gave her a number (court number). She called them and they said they will do everything they can to change the date. If they can't change it, she won't get there and this means it's automatically guilty. Hopefully they can change it. If they do change my partner and myself (me representing her) will be going to court against TIL. I'll keep everyone updated. Any thoughts anyone

Here's an update. My partner is seeing me tonight so i will look at the letters and documents. What she has told me so far, is the ticket enforcer notes on the situation are very broad and leave out a-lot of key relevant details. Like leaving out the part where he told us that no legal action or fine would happen because of this.

She’ll just have to settle like you did, and get in touch with Chiltern to do so. Has she been successful in postponing the court hearing?

 

[benjamin11111]

When i settled it hadn't gone to court. Is it still possible to settle once a court date's been set. However knowing TIL to settle would cost £300 plus which she can't afford so it will be going to court 90 percent sure. No news as of yet to court date.

What is the punishment if found guilty ?

I've looked at the sentencing council and the fine is a percentage of weekly income. She has no weekly income due to being at university so surely the fine is nothing

 

[ainsworth74]

I've looked at the sentencing council and the fine is a percentage of weekly income. She has no weekly income due to being at university so surely the fine is nothing

Where there is a very low weekly income then they assume an income of £120pw and use that to calculate the fine.

Where:

• an offender’s only source of income is state benefit (including where there is relatively low additional income as permitted by the benefit regulations) or
  
• the offender is in receipt of income from employment or is self-employed but the amount of income after deduction of tax and national insurance is £120 per week or less,

– the relevant weekly income is deemed to be £120.

3. Definition of relevant weekly income – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

 

[WesternLancer]

I've looked at the sentencing council and the fine is a percentage of weekly income. She has no weekly income due to being at university so surely the fine is nothing

IIRC from other threads posted on here where students have made the same point, it has been explained that students are deemed to have an income (by virtue of their student loans I think) and that this income is at the low or lowest end of the scale. Presumably the relevant court income papers have to be completed appropriately to ensure that (her university or student union welfare advice office ought to be able to help with such paperwork).

EDIT - @ainsworth74 explains the situation as I posted this.

 

[benjamin11111]

Just have to see when the court date is. I think there's a good possibility of this getting dismissed or found not guilty. When sentencing i'm, if found guilty, the judge must take into account, that a fine to big could have negative affects on the defendant.

It seems very excessive from TIL this. A 5 or 6 pound train ticket after being told to purchase one at next station, is going to court. If we went to court, one of our arguments will be TIL is basically witch hunting. As they first accused us of short ticketing and proposed we were offending on the regular. Then once we proved to them we weren't they changed what they thought we were doing.

i do appreciate everyone's help. So thank-you. I''ll update accordingly

 

[island]

Where there is a very low weekly income then they assume an income of £120pw and use that to calculate the fine.

3. Definition of relevant weekly income – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

This is correct – but, the court will only know this applies to the defendant if said defendant has responded to the court with the relevant forms.

 

[Pushpit]

Just have to see when the court date is. I think there's a good possibility of this getting dismissed or found not guilty. When sentencing i'm, if found guilty, the judge must take into account, that a fine to big could have negative affects on the defendant.

You may be confusing sentence with guilt - two separate issue, with sentence following a machine like process. Sure the sentence can be adjusted according to one's financial position, but it's not, in itself, going to change a conviction nor the machine like process. At my local court, a well known footballer got a £40,000 fine for a minor motoring offence, since that was his weekly "wage" x 1.5. Had he been a student it would have been £180. Given your £300 out of court settlement, I would guess your partner is looking at a fine in the £400 to £600 area bearing in mind court costs and the victim surcharge. The court will be usually sympathetic to paying this back in monthly instalments, ideally under 1 year in all, but it can be longer.

 

[skyhigh]

What is the specific offence they are prosecuting under?

 

[benjamin11111]

What is the specific offence they are prosecuting under?

the first offence was

Regulation of Railways Act 1889.​

Due to them thinking we short ticketed. After proving we don't short ticket. They now want to convict under.

Railway BYELAWS 17.1 17.2

 

[Puffing Devil]

You may be confusing sentence with guilt - two separate issue, with sentence following a machine like process. Sure the sentence can be adjusted according to one's financial position, but it's not, in itself, going to change a conviction nor the machine like process. At my local court, a well known footballer got a £40,000 fine for a minor motoring offence, since that was his weekly "wage" x 1.5. Had he been a student it would have been £180. Given your £300 out of court settlement, I would guess your partner is looking at a fine in the £400 to £600 area bearing in mind court costs and the victim surcharge. The court will be usually sympathetic to paying this back in monthly instalments, ideally under 1 year in all, but it can be longer.

That's surprising - to the best of my knowledge all minor motoring offences top out at a Level 4 fine, which is a maximum of £2.5K

 

[Pushpit]

That's surprising - to the best of my knowledge all minor motoring offences top out at a Level 4 fine, which is a maximum of £2.5K

I'm trying to remember the case. Joelinton got a £31k fine but that was for drink driving. However he was originally stopped for speeding; and that fine was reduced from the starting point for an early guilty plea (so was over £40k to begin with).

 

[Haywain]

I think there's a good possibility of this getting dismissed or found not guilty.

I'm afraid you are being wildly optimistic - you do not have a defence that could lead to such an outcome.

 

[island]

That's surprising - to the best of my knowledge all minor motoring offences top out at a Level 4 fine, which is a maximum of £2.5K

Depends on the offence. For example failing to stop for a constable, driving a defective or overloaded goods vehicle, or not having the tachograph on are level 5, which since March 2015 is uncapped.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I'm trying to remember the case. Joelinton got a £31k fine but that was for drink driving. However he was originally stopped for speeding; and that fine was reduced from the starting point for an early guilty plea (so was over £40k to begin with).

Depends on the offence. For example failing to stop for a constable, driving a defective or overloaded goods vehicle, or not having the tachograph on are level 5, which since March 2015 is uncapped.

Drink Drive and Failure to Stop are not what I would call "minor" offences. Both are L5, unlimited.

Overloaded goods vehicle seems high, though when you consider the potential harm, it may merit L5, especially when punishing companies. [Mods - please move this if going to off-piste for the thread]

 

[benjamin11111]

I'm afraid you are being wildly optimistic - you do not have a defence that could lead to such an outcome.her def

her defense is we were given permission by an authorized person. It's the prosecution who have to prove we are guilty, which i think is quite hard for them to do.

It's also defense we were not cautioned by the member of staff who spoke with us, and in his notes he left out key notes. I'm not sure but wouldn't his notes be inadmissible since he lied to us about what the statements were for, since he did say we would not receive a fine or any prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

her defense is we were given permission by an authorized person. It's the prosecution who have to prove we are guilty, which i think is quite hard for them to do.

It's for you to prove a defence, i.e. you have to prove that an authorised person did give permission and had enough information to do so (e.g. asking the cleaner if a given train was going to London wouldn't be enough, nor would a contractor working on a TVM have that authority). I suspect you'll not be able to do this.

It's also defense we were not cautioned by the member of staff who spoke with us, and in his notes he left out key notes. I'm not sure but wouldn't his notes be inadmissible since he lied to us about what the statements were for, since he did say we would not receive a fine or any prosecution.

I don't believe that would be a defence, no.

 

[Gloster]

I have to say, that taking into consideration the title and the language used in some of the OP’s posts, I suspect that the OP may have failed the ‘attitude test‘ at the very start. This makes no judgement on the veracity of the statements made by the OP or those made by others.

 

[benjamin11111]

It's for you to prove a defence, i.e. you have to prove that an authorised person did give permission and had enough information to do so (e.g. asking the cleaner if a given train was going to London wouldn't be enough, nor would a contractor working on a TVM have that authority). I suspect you'll not be able to do this.



I don't believe that would be a defence, no.

on the definitions of the bylaws it says an authorized person is
“authorized person” means:

1.a person acting in the course of his duties who:

(a) is an employee or agent of an operator

Surely someone working on the ticket machines. then it is reasonable to assume that he is authorized, as he an agent of the operator

 

[ainsworth74]

her defense is we were given permission by an authorized person. It's the prosecution who have to prove we are guilty, which i think is quite hard for them to do.

How about a scenario?

Prosecution: We believe the defendant is guilty because they failed to produce a valid ticket, here is the signed witness statement of our revenue officer saying that they did not have a valid ticket and they are available to come and give oral testimony and answer questions if required.​

​

Defendant: Ah but I was authorised to travel without a ticket!​

​

Prosecution: Authorised by who?​

​

Defendant: Someone working on the ticket machines!​

​

Prosecution: Here are our maintenance records for the time in question which show that there no maintenance being done at the applicable time.​

​

Defendant: Well we certainly spoke with someone who was working on the machines!​

​

Prosecution: Even if that is true contractors working on Ticket Machines are not authorised to give permission to travel and so would not do this. However what was the name of this person so we can check our own records and those of our contractors?​

​

Defendant: Oh, er, well I don't really know.​

​

Prosecution: A description?​

​

Defendant: Well they were male...​

​

Prosecution: So all you can tell us is that someone, whose name you don't know, was working on a the TVMs, which we have no record of, told you that you could travel without a valid ticket, something that they wouldn't have done anyway as they know not to, whilst we have a witness statement demonstrating that you had no valid ticket and no other reason for not having a valid ticket?​

​

Defendant: ...​

Obviously that isn't exactly how a court case would play out but hopefully it illustrates that whilst you go into the proceedings with the presumption of innocence it remains wise to be able to actually evidence the validity of the defence that you're seeking to rely upon. The other side will certainly be bringing evidence to show the guilt of the other party and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it will be quite persuasive by itself.

 

[benjamin11111]

I have to say, that taking into consideration the title and the language used in some of the OP’s posts, I suspect that the OP may have failed the ‘attitude test‘ at the very start. This makes no judgement on the veracity of the statements made by the OP or those made by others.

Apologies if i have come across it's not my intention. This is just a stressful situation.

In terms of my title the ticket enforcer was lying, so it makes sense to describe it as that

 

[simonw]

Apologies if i have come across it's not my intention. This is just a stressful situation.

In terms of my title the ticket enforcer was lying, so it makes sense to describe it as that

A word of advice: You may think they were lying, but it won't help you persuade those you need to persuade to use emotive language like that.

 

[Pushpit]

Apologies if i have come across it's not my intention. This is just a stressful situation.

In terms of my title the ticket enforcer was lying, so it makes sense to describe it as that

Or was it they were simply mistaken? Or even correct? If you look at this thread, with an independent set of eyes, very little of this is to your credit. Not least there was clearly more you could have done to prevent the court case against your partner, given your own out of court settlement. This certainly doesn't come across as a terrible miscarriage of justice, but rather a lot of poor attention to detail. You are in damage limitation mode at this point.

 

[benjamin11111]

How about a scenario?

Prosecution: We believe the defendant is guilty because they failed to produce a valid ticket, here is the signed witness statement of our revenue officer saying that they did not have a valid ticket and they are available to come and give oral testimony and answer questions if required.​

​

Defendant: Ah but I was authorised to travel without a ticket!​

​

Prosecution: Authorised by who?​

​

Defendant: Someone working on the ticket machines!​

​

Prosecution: Here are our maintenance records for the time in question which show that there no maintenance being done at the applicable time.​

​

Defendant: Well we certainly spoke with someone who was working on the machines!​

​

Prosecution: Even if that is true contractors working on Ticket Machines are not authorised to give permission to travel and so would not do this. However what was the name of this person so we can check our own records and those of our contractors?​

​

Defendant: Oh, er, well I don't really know.​

​

Prosecution: A description?​

​

Defendant: Well they were male...​

​

Prosecution: So all you can tell us is that someone, whose name you don't know, was working on a the TVMs, which we have no record of, told you that you could travel without a valid ticket, something that they wouldn't have done anyway as they know not to, whilst we have a witness statement demonstrating that you had no valid ticket and no other reason for not having a valid ticket?​

​

Defendant: ...​

Obviously that isn't exactly how a court case would play out but hopefully it illustrates that whilst you go into the proceedings with the presumption of innocence it remains wise to be able to actually evidence the validity of the defence that you're seeking to rely upon. The other side will certainly be bringing evidence to show the guilt of the other party and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it will be quite persuasive by itself.

That's a great way to see it.

Prosecution: We believe the defendant is guilty because they failed to produce a valid ticket, here is the signed witness statement of our revenue officer saying that they did not have a valid ticket and they are available to come and give oral testimony and answer questions if required.
Defendant: Ah but I was authorised to travel without a ticket!
Prosecution: Authorised by who?
Defendant: an agent working on the ticket machine, so we asked him for advice he said to board the train and eithier buy from the guard or at the next station, this advice is also backed on chilterns website. So we followed advice by the agent and chiltern's website
Prosecution: Here are our maintenance records for the time in question which show that there no maintenance being done at the applicable time.
Defendant: Well we certainly spoke with someone who was working on the machines, the machine was open and thus we couldn't buy a ticket. Maybe he was refilling the tickets, CCTV will prove my verisoin of events
Prosecution: Even if that is true contractors working on Ticket Machines are not authorised to give permission to travel and so would not do this. However what was the name of this person so we can check our own records and those of our contractors?
Defendant: Someone working on an offical ticket machine with a id badge, this means it would be reasonable for a member of the public to assume this person was authoirsed. So going forward everytime i get advice from a member of your staff do you recomened i take their name and even take a photo of them for a description.
Prosecution: A description?
Defendant: Well they were male...
Prosecution: So all you can tell us is that someone, whose name you don't know, was working on a the TVMs, which we have no record of, told you that you could travel without a valid ticket, something that they wouldn't have done anyway as they know not to, whilst we have a witness statement demonstrating that you had no valid ticket and no other reason for not having a valid ticket?

Defendandt: You are looking for a conviction here. you first accused me of short ticketing and thought this was one of multiple offences, once proved this wasn't the case you changed your offence you wanted to convict me under. We followed advice. As a gesture we are prepared to share our trainline accounts to prove we also buy tickets. this was the first time we couldn't and followed your staff members advice
Let's talk about your witness. His bodycam footage will prove he said, by us giving us our details we can pay for the ticket and we won't recieve a fine or any convinctions. he must of known this wasn't the case and lied. So how can we be sure his witness statmenet is honest

This is how i see it. i am at work typing this fast. so spelling mistake there may be

Or was it they were simply mistaken? Or even correct? If you look at this thread, with an independent set of eyes, very little of this is to your credit. Not least there was clearly more you could have done to prevent the court case against your partner, given your own out of court settlement. This certainly doesn't come across as a terrible miscarriage of justice, but rather a lot of poor attention to detail. You are in damage limitation mode at this point.

How can my partner settle out of court when TIL never replied to her through email or letter. She was wanting to settle out of court but was waiting for their reply to her email which she never received.