*Settled* Summons For Traveling Without Tick & False Info

[Person1]

Really in need of help and advice....

Traveling to Manchester Victoria , I intended to purchase ticket from on board conductor. I don't travel via train very often and this is how I had always purchased ticket. I now understand the rules of purchasing before travel but at the time I was not aware and I genuinely intended to pay. On this particular day train was very busy and no conductor came round. Upon arriving at Manchester I went straight to the ticket counter to purchase a ticket. I was then approached by a plain clothed person (who I now understand to be an officer )

I explained the situation and the gentleman asked for my personal details. Stupidly I gave an incorrect surname, DOB and slightly different address. In hindsight I realise how stupid this was and can only say at the time it was part panic and part confusion as to what was going on. (Officer showed no ID did not explain process etc again in hindsight I should have asked for this and asked more questions to clarify) Details were checked via phone and of course didn't match up so I immediately gave correct details.

A few weeks after incident I received a letter from Arriva North (previously Northern Rail) saying an incident had been reported and asking for my version of events. I replied with a letter explaining circumstances and apologising and offer to pay full fare plus admin costs.

Now I have a summons to court and I am being charged with the two offences (entering train without a valid ticket and supplying false details)

As I say in hindsight I know I did not behave correctly and am more than happy to pay a fine but as I work in the education sector I cannot risk a criminal record as I would most certainly lose my job. I'm very stressed and worried about the whole thing.

Any advice or information on how likely I would be able to settle this out of court with Arriva North? And the best way to go about it? Thank You

 

[najaB]

Any advice or information on how likely I would be able to settle this out of court with Arriva North? And the best way to go about it?

I'll get to advice in a moment, but first...

Stupidly I gave an incorrect surname, DOB and slightly different address. In hindsight I realise how stupid this was and can only say at the time it was part panic and part confusion as to what was going on.

I don't understand, and what the case worker will be struggling to understand is why being panicked caused you to forget your name, address and DOB and somehow come up with another.

as I work in the education sector I cannot risk a criminal record as I would most certainly lose my job.

And, as someone who works in the education sector, you must surely be aware that honesty and integrity are essential attributes in anyone who intends to continue working in education. When you're stressed at work what will happen?

Any advice or information on how likely I would be able to settle this out of court with Arriva North? And the best way to go about it?

The normal advice is to be forthright, honest and open in your dealings with the TOC. As a summons has already been issued you don't have much time to deal with it. Now the good news is that, based on your description of the summons, they appear to be intending to prosecute under the Railway Byelaws which are non-recordable offences. This means that, even if you are prosecuted you won't get a criminal record.

 

[Person1]

Hi
Thank you for your reply.
The summon refers to byelaw 18 (1) and 24 in relation to the travel without ticket offence.

The false information offence refers to S.5(3)(c) of the regulation of Railways Act.

Would these both be non recordable offences?

In regards to supplying the false information I was confused as to who the officer was and why it was needed and panicked about supplying personal information. The only appeal I could make on this point is that the officer did not properly identify himself or explain process. Not making excuses, I know it was not the correct way to go about things and on reflection I can see how stupid this was.

 

[najaB]

Would these both be non recordable offences?

No. A Regulation of Railways Act conviction would show up on a records check for 12 months.

 

[Person1]

No. A Regulation of Railways Act conviction would show up on a records check for 12 months.

That what I would want to avoid at all costs if possible.

Once summons has been sent would you say is it too late to settle out of court? Or possibly still an option?

 

[najaB]

The only appeal I could make on this point is that the officer did not properly identify himself or explain process.

Unfortunately, the RoRA doesn't explicitly require the authorised person to identify themselves so that appeal/defence isn't particularly strong.

 

[najaB]

Once summons has been sent would you say is it too late to settle out of court? Or possibly still an option?

No, it is possible to reach a settlement right up to the case is called (which, I suppose, though it occurs in the court building is still an out of court settlement)

 

[Person1]

Any advice on the best action to take to improve my chances of obtaining an out of court settlement? Do you have knowledge if Arriva North are easy to deal with? Have read other posts about some companies bring easier to settle with than otheres

 

[najaB]

Do you have knowledge if Arriva North are easy to deal with? Have read other posts about some companies bring easier to settle with than otheres

It's a comparatively new TOC but the 'old Northern' was known to be relatively easy to negotiate with.

 

[vinnym70]

Newbie here so please be gentle! OP says gave incorrect surname, DOB and slightly different address. However, has still managed to be contacted successfully by the TOC (and/or their representatives) to ask for their version of events. If contact can be made (successfully) then isn't OP likely to already be falling foul of providing incorrect details? I assume a quick look in the electoral register has managed to resolve the discrepancies thus creating liability for providing incorrect details in the first instance?

 

[Person1]

Hi
I originally provided false details then, once they were checked via telephone I immediately gave correct details to the officer, this is how they were able to contact me for my version of events.

 

[vinnym70]

I still think that you've opened yourself up to some liability in the original false declarations. If the original details given were false enough then contact via telephone would, in itself, have been a difficult thing to establish. In lying, and providing details similar enough to your own, the court (were you to go there) would likely hold that against you IMHO. Settling outside of court would be beneficial in your circumstances, I believe, but whether the TOC thinks that is a reasonable course of action having already proved you provided incorrect details in the initial engagement would be something that only the TOC and their legal representation could opine on. If, as you stated, you deliberately gave false info BUT you were still oddly contactable nonetheless, you've put yourself in a very difficult corner.

 

[Person1]

Sorry I don't think I have explained properly. When I say details were checked via telephone I mean they called through to head office (or something similar) to check details. This was done was I was still stood at the station with the officer. Once confirmed they didn't add up I gave him my real details

 

[najaB]

I still think that you've opened yourself up to some liability in the original false declarations.

Yes, that is why a summons has been issued for contravening the Regulation of Railways Act § 5.3 (c).

 

[vinnym70]

Even so. You've attempted to provide false details in the first instance. Once challenged you've bent over and admitted it. That's just another piece of evidence the TOC will take to court should you ever go there. If the opportunity is open to you, accept your situation, offer assurances you'll not do the same again and be factual throughout. As previous respondents have noted, you may well have the opportunity to do this up until you're about to be called into court to have your case heard. If the prosecution are open then you may well be able to negotiate a settlement. If the opportunity arises, then I would be inclined to take any pre-court settlement you can afford to prevent having any offences recorded against you. Remember the TOC may present you in court as someone of poor character for having lied initially and that will, undoubtedly, count against you quite heavily. You can't change what you've done but you can take steps to limit the impact of those mistakes on your future.

 

[najaB]

Even so. You've attempted to provide false details in the first instance. Once challenged you've bent over and admitted it.

This is not in doubt, as noted above that is why they are charging the OP with a RoRA offence.

 

[falcon]

You say "I was then approached by a plain clothed person" -
"I explained the situation and the gentleman asked for my personal details".

Why did you explain the situation and give details to someone in plain cloths who had not identified themselfs?

 

[vinnym70]

I suspect that most rail travellers will know that details are checked when given. Mostly I've been seen details checked when the passenger is unable or unwilling to pay. There's some info missing here regarding ability to have purchased ticket at commencement of journey. I suspect some of this is covered by the plain clothed representative who approached the OP. Were the details of the original journey plausible in the first place, the matter would haven been handled differently - penalty fare or similar dependant on the TOC and/or route. It feels like the journey fell foul of known evasions, coupled with the lies around name/address/DOB suggests significantly that the TOC, in this instance, will be highly willing to pursue prosecution.

 

[Person1]

Even so. You've attempted to provide false details in the first instance. Once challenged you've bent over and admitted it. That's just another piece of evidence the TOC will take to court should you ever go there. If the opportunity is open to you, accept your situation, offer assurances you'll not do the same again and be factual throughout. As previous respondents have noted, you may well have the opportunity to do this up until you're about to be called into court to have your case heard. If the prosecution are open then you may well be able to negotiate a settlement. If the opportunity arises, then I would be inclined to take any pre-court settlement you can afford to prevent having any offences recorded against you. Remember the TOC may present you in court as someone of poor character for having lied initially and that will, undoubtedly, count against you quite heavily. You can't change what you've done but you can take steps to limit the impact of those mistakes on your future.

Very much hoping for a pre court settlement and am I prepared to pay any costs to avoid having a criminal record. Would a letter or email to Arriva Prosecution be the best way to go?

 

[najaB]

Would a letter or email to Arriva Prosecution be the best way to go?

That's probably the best course of action at this point, yes.

 

[Person1]

That's probably the best course of action at this point, yes.

Thank you. I will do this as a first step and update the post when I get a response.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree entirely with the advice given by najaB. But I want to add another consideration into this question of an 'out of court settlement' for you to reflect on.
The Company is at liberty to accept a compensatory settlement at its discretion, whether just by correspondence, by correspondence and phone, or in person on the day of the Trial just before the Prosecutor goes into Court.

Without knowing more about your abilities, I am wondering if you are going to be able to do that negotiation effectively and objectively. You have already explained how you reacted to being asked your name, (a reaction which in your words, led to panic and then lying), so I'm tempted to think that you might be better able to achieve an effective and negotiated outcome if you engage a solicitor to do this for you.
Only you can access your abilities in that negotiation, and in being objective when questioned, but please do make that assessment of your abilities under stress. If you decide that you would be better assisted by an uninvolved professional, then please contact any local law firm whose specialisations includes Criminal Defence work. They wont be able to achieve an outcome that is unavailable to you directly, but they may be able to remain focussed on the objective without experiencing panic and its response of lying.
Just a thought.

 

[185143]

Straying off topic-but I was under the impression that the first thing an RPI did when questioning someone was to show their ID? Even the Merseyrail Byelaw Enforcement officers do that.

I know for a fact I wouldn't engage with someone in plain clothes asking for personal details until I'd seen some ID. (Which, again, I was under the impression had to be shown?)

 

[falcon]

Straying off topic-but I was under the impression that the first thing an RPI did when questioning someone was to show their ID? Even the Merseyrail Byelaw Enforcement officers do that.

I know for a fact I wouldn't engage with someone in plain clothes asking for personal details until I'd seen some ID. (Which, again, I was under the impression had to be shown?)

I have asked the OP that question in post #17 but he has chosen to remain silent.

 

[island]

I understand that an authorised person should show his/her ID on demand when exercising his/her powers. I do not understand there to be a proactive requirements to present it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I understand that an authorised person should show his/her ID on demand when exercising his/her powers. I do not understand there to be a proactive requirements to present it.

Byelaw 24 requires an authorised person to show ID that gives the name of their employer and "a means of identifying the authorised person", if required to do so when exercising powers under the Byelaws. So that wouldn't seem to apply if they were inspecting tickets under RoRA, but it would apply if it related to kicking people off trains or taking details for Byelaw 18 offences.

Interestingly, most WMT (ex LM) staff still don't have an up-to-date ID card, most still say London Midland. As LM is no longer their employer I would reject such identification as not showing their employer.

 

[scrapy]

Generally the plain clothes Northern(Carlisle security) employees have a badge/lanyard saying Northern revenue enforcement officer no. ××× as a means of identification. This may be under a coat but should be shown on request. They do not have any photo identification or name badges.

 

[gray1404]

I have requested to see ID twice. Once from a plain clothed person working for Transport Investigations Limited. Second from a Merseyrail RPI attempting to issue a Penalty Fare. On both occasions the ID was merely flashed at me and neither gave enough time for me to read the detail (let alone take note of them). Both refused to show it again when asked saying I had been shown it already.

On both occasions I proceeded to walk away and stated that I would only engage once ID had been satisfactory shown. Neither decided to pursue me, save for the Merseyrail RPIs given uneducated comments as I walked away.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I have requested to see ID twice. Once from a plain clothed person working for Transport Investigations Limited. Second from a Merseyrail RPI attempting to issue a Penalty Fare. On both occasions the ID was merely flashed at me and neither gave enough time for me to read the detail (let alone take note of them). Both refused to show it again when asked saying I had been shown it already.

On both occasions I proceeded to walk away and stated that I would only engage once ID had been satisfactory shown. Neither decided to pursue me, save for the Merseyrail RPIs given uneducated comments as I walked away.

Unfortunately, whilst they would be committing an offence by not showing their ID (assuming they are exercising Byelaw powers rather than RoRA), so would you by not showing the ticket when asked... Tit for tat, I suppose. Let's guess who would be prosecuted (if anyone), though...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Person1, I think that some of the people who are responding to your request for assistance are having a little conversation among themselves which you should NOT take as advice. In particular, I strongly advise you NOT to follow 'ForTheLoveOf's suggestion of prosecuting the Railway Company under Byelaw 24 (3) without having very robust evidence to support a conviction and the assurance from very good legal advice that it is a prosecution which is likely to succeed, and is at a price which you are content to pay if you fail. Please be very, very cautious if you feel inclined to follow the course of action which 'ForTheLoveOf' has hinted at.

It is sometimes said on this forum that a legal claim following a railway ticketing incident merits specialist legal expertise - with which I disagree, but a citizen bringing a private prosecution against a Company which is likely to succeed certainly does require a high standard of professional competence. I speak from a position of some experience, having seen very many such claims fail through lack of a competant assessment of the evidence, the probabilities and the risks.

Please don't add yourself to that list of failures.

----- EDIT ----- An afterthought -----

If you were thinking of bringing an action against the Company, then I should point out this distinction to you :-
In the Civil Courts, we sometimes see a claim and a counter-claim being heard in the one hearing on Appeal. Both are considered as a whole.
In the Criminal Courts, each offence stands on it own merits, and one Prosecution against an accused will not normally influence another Prosecution brought by the accused (though there are arguments to suspend one until the other is resolved).
I do acknowledge that it is a common response of some people, when accused of something, to ignore the accusation, and instead, to try to find fault with their accuser, but that behaviour rarely leads to a beneficial outcome. It usually compounds their problem.

At the risk of repeating myself, please be very careful before taking any encouragement or assurance from the advice from 'ForTheLoveOf'.