Summons to Magistrates - Overdistance Avoidance

[greentrees7]

I've just received a summons to magistrates' court for fare evasion, and am wondering if this will result in a serious conviction?

I bought return tickets on the Trainline app on January 14th from Catford Bridge to London Bridge, although I boarded at Hayes.

Southeastern officers came on a few stations before Catford Bridge, and so I'm questioned over my tickets and an interview is conducted. Because returns from Catford Bridge to London Bridge is £2.20 cheaper than returns from Hayes to London Bridge, this is marked as fare evasion (which I understand). Additionally, because I bought tickets on the Trainline app, I was told that similar instances would be looked at on my Trainline account. When the interview was concluded, I was told by the officer 'not to worry', and that usually I'd just have to pay the fines and not much else.

I have now received a summons letter detailing offences on the 21st December 2024, 23rd December 2024, and the 14th January 2025, with a fine: 'total fares avoided 5 journeys @ £5 = £25' and prosecution costs of £150. I intend to pay this in full.

While I accept the 14th January and the 23rd December, on the Trainline app I have no such journey on the 21st December? I can't remember what I was doing on that day, but I did not buy a ticket on Trainline this day, so I'm confused as to where they have gotten this from?

I intended to plead guilty (in absence) and pay the fine as I want to be as cooperative as possible, but wonder what this means in terms of convictions (which I know sounds a silly question given I intend to plead guilty, but I am confused over the severity of this...), or if I should appeal against the journey on the 21st?

Thank you in advance for any and all advice!

 

[Trainman40083]

Have you ignored a previous communication? Maybe by email, in your junk folder.

 

[signed]

What you need to do is to contact SE ASAP (but please post your reply here beforehand), to try to get them to settle you out court. You still have time to do so.

Normally this is not the first letter you recieve, is it really the only communication you have recieved?

 

[greentrees7]

Thank you for your replies.

I did receive an earlier letter, but some of the form was misprinted so I wasn't sure if this was a legit letter (as they asked some further details about myself), and on this forum I had seen some people suggest to not reply to this letter to avoid giving more information - which I can now see was not the advice I should have followed! I will attempt to contact them ASAP to explain this.

What you need to do is to contact SE ASAP (but please post your reply here beforehand), to try to get them to settle you out court. You still have time to do so.

Normally this is not the first letter you recieve, is it really the only communication you have recieved?

What you need to do is to contact SE ASAP (but please post your reply here beforehand), to try to get them to settle you out court. You still have time to do so.

Normally this is not the first letter you recieve, is it really the only communication you have recieved?

Thank you again for your help. I've had a look at other threads and how they've worded their communication and have drafted the following to be sent to the prosecutions email. Thank you in advance for any help on this!

"Hello,

I have received a Summons to Magistrates Court letter regarding Southeastern Prosecutions Case No SETMG000824156.

I've come to understand that there was a previous attempt to contact me about this case, which I had not realised. I had concerns about the communication's authenticity, as it had my birthday noted incorrectly and one of the tables was only half printed. Given I was asked to reply with sensitive information about myself, I hope you can understand my apprehension. I wish to reiterate that this was not my intention to not reply.

Given these circumstances, I wish to use this opportunity to kindly ask if this case could be settled out of court, with me paying any outstanding fares and any other associated costs in full immediately. I am deeply regretful of my actions and fully understand the severity of the situation. I would like to stress that since the incident, this behaviour has not been repeated.

When approached, I fully cooperated and provided identification immediately, truthfully explained my situation, and allowed the officer to view past Trainline tickets on my phone. I reiterated my regrets and relayed I understood the situation, both of which still stand.

I hope you can understand my confusion regarding the communication and that it was absolutely not my intention to escalate the situation. I apologise for the inconvenience caused by this. I am dedicated to preventing any future occurrences of this, and would be extremely grateful for the opportunity to resolve this by paying any appropriate costs. Please know I am willing to make immediate payment and offer my full cooperation.

Thank you in advance for your time and any help you can provide, and I look forward to your response."

 

[island]

I intended to plead guilty (in absence) and pay the fine as I want to be as cooperative as possible,

Just to note that if you plead guilty you will have to pay a fine, most likely coming to just under a week's earnings, as well as being charged the £150 costs and £25 compensation.

but wonder what this means in terms of convictions (which I know sounds a silly question given I intend to plead guilty, but I am confused over the severity of this...)

A conviction would give you a criminal record for one year.

I agree with other posters who recommend getting in touch with Southeastern first thing Tuesday morning to see if they are willing to settle out of court. At this stage I would say quibbling over two of the five offences is probably not the right strategy as it'll make very little difference to the financial settlement.

 

[greentrees7]

Just to note that if you plead guilty you will have to pay a fine, most likely coming to just under a week's earnings, as well as being charged the £150 costs and £25 compensation.

A conviction would give you a criminal record for one year.

I agree with other posters who recommend getting in touch with Southeastern first thing Tuesday morning to see if they are willing to settle out of court. At this stage I would say quibbling over two of the five offences is probably not the right strategy as it'll make very little difference to the financial settlement.

Thank you for this advice. I've sent the email and will see what they say. And agreed, I don't think it's worth me bringing up those 2 offences! I really hope to settle this outside of court - even though I have sent the email, some solicitors have come back to me saying they could help out - do you think a solicitor is a wise idea in this case?

 

[furlong]

The charges still seem all confused. What's Lower Sydenham got to do with anything here? At that point on the journey when you were spoken to you had not used any ticket yet as your ticket only began at a later station, so how could you possibly have travelled beyond what you had paid for at that point? The charge looks like a thought crime from the future! (We see this a lot - what has SE got against using 5(3)(a) like everyone else? The courts are clear that "his fare" means a valid fare for the journey undertaken.) If they don't settle (but they probably will) you might consider taking legal advice on this point i.e. are you not guilty of the specific charges even though you might be guilty of different ones?
Then they are seeking compensation that day for the fare in the wrong direction! The statement of facts contradicts the charge in placing the offence at a different location - is that a tacit admission neither location makes sense as they try two different places? - and simply offers no evidence in respect of the other two charges (disregard the outward and focus on the return journey only?). Is there some additional evidence provided (that should have been summarised in the statement of facts)?

 

[tspaul26]

What's Lower Sydenham got to do with anything here? At that point on the journey when you were spoken to you had not used any ticket yet as your ticket only began at a later station, so how could you possibly have travelled beyond what you had paid for at that point?

One can infer that the OP was intercepted by RPIs in the Lower Sydenham area. Apart from that point, it is the next station along from Catford Bridge i.e. the first part of the line of route beyond the distance paid for.

(We see this a lot - what has SE got against using 5(3)(a) like everyone else? The courts are clear that "his fare" means a valid fare for the journey undertaken.)

Which had not been paid for the whole journey.

Section 5(3)(b) is appropriate in this instance given the over travelling.

If they don't settle (but they probably will) you might consider taking legal advice on this point i.e. are you not guilty of the specific charges even though you might be guilty of different ones?

There is nothing in this line of argument: the OP paid for a shorter distance and has over travelled, has admitted this under caution and has admitted that his intention was to avoid the payment of the additional fare due.

Then they are seeking compensation that day for the fare in the wrong direction!

The additional fare is the same in both directions so nothing turns on this.

The statement of facts contradicts the charge in placing the offence at a different location - is that a tacit admission neither location makes sense as they try two different places?

There is no contradiction as far as i can see.

and simply offers no evidence in respect of the other two charges (disregard the outward and focus on the return journey only?).

A statement of facts is not a full witness statement. There is sufficient narration in it to enable a conviction to be entered on all three charges if the OP pleads guilty.

Is there some additional evidence provided (that should have been summarised in the statement of facts)?

That is not what a statement of facts does and is not what it is used for in court following a guilty plea.

 

[furlong]

There is nothing in this line of argument: the OP paid for a shorter distance and has over travelled, has admitted this under caution and has admitted that his intention was to avoid the payment of the additional fare due.

At Lower Sydenham where the offence is stated as being alleged to have been complete, and where the passenger was presumably interviewed, the passenger has not yet over travelled and an attempt to commit this particular offence is not itself an offence: What if the passenger had left the train at Catford (as they should have been advised to do to prevent the crime had this been the actual offence under investigation under this interpretation)? Then they would not have travelled "the distance" between Catford and London at all - the ticket presented would have been completely unused and could have been retained for use on a separate journey - so surely in no sense could they have been considered to have "proceeded by train beyond that distance" when they never travelled that distance at all? If that were the case, the production of a ticket valid between any alternative stations anywhere in the country would suffice to complete this offence! The situation is surely simply the straightforward one of the passenger not having paid "his fare" - no need to stretch the meaning of "beyond" and deal with convoluted interpretation? Is there really some argument why 5(3)(a) would not apply but 5(3)(b) would?

(I think the word 'previously' in 5(3)(a) has the effect of pushing the test for payment of the correct fare back to the beginning of the travelling, necessarily based on the circumstances as they were understood to be at that point in time i.e. at the start of the journey. If, having begun to travel, the passenger decides to extend his journey, I think 5(3)(b) is needed so a fresh test can be applied for payment of the additional fare due - this time "previously" places the test at the point of travelling beyond the place the fare was already paid up to. On this analysis, when the passenger has not paid his fare for the beginning of his journey, then I think 5(3)(a) remains directly applicable and 5(3)(b) is of no assistance.)

 

[greentrees7]

Hi all, I've sent the email and received the automatic reply, but am concerned that it may not be read in time? As I received the letter on late Friday afternoon (2nd May), 3 days have gone by when I'm assuming no staff would have been in to read and reply to any emails (weekend + bank holiday Monday), meaning I've only been given 7 working days for them to respond when they say it could take up to 10 days to respond. I'm also aware that a response could come back later this week saying they won't settle out of court, leaving me only a few days to get a solicitor's help. Others on this forum have said that Southeastern are not the fastest at responding. If anyone has any opinions on whether a solicitor would be a good idea given the time frame, any opinions would be much appreciated!

 

[ikcdab]

I think it depends on how important it is to you to avoid a court conviction. We have seen on here that some solicitors seem to be able to get very rapid responses from the train companies. So engaging one tomorrow could sort things out. But that comes at a price that may well be more than a court fine. If south Eastern don't respond in time, then you can attend the court and meet with their prosecutor before the hearing and you may be able to get a settlement on the day.
Otherwise, if a court conviction doesn't worry you or your employer, then just let it take it's course.

 

[signed]

In any case, you do need to appear, so you will be able to discuss with the prosecutor if SE doesn't reply in time.

 

[greentrees7]

UPDATE: Thank you for your advice - Southeastern got back to me this morning and offered an out-of-court settlement! (although was notified of this just after I paid an initial fee for some solicitors - oh well!). Thank you all for your time and input into helping my situation - I never would've known it was possible to go back to Southeastern and ask for an out-of-court settlement. It's hugely appreciated.


For future reference/those in a similar situation, this was the email that I sent:
Hello,

I have received a Summons to Magistrates Court letter regarding Southeastern Prosecutions Case No XXXXXXXXXXX

I've come to understand that there was a previous attempt to contact me about this case, which I had not realised. I wish to reiterate that this was absolutely not my intention to not reply to official Southeastern communication.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to use this email to outline my case and apologise, as I was unable to do so through the original correspondence. Given these circumstances, I wish to kindly ask for the opportunity if this case could be settled out of court, with me paying any outstanding fares and any other associated costs in full immediately. I want to communicate how regretful I am of my actions, and I fully understand the severity of the situation. I would like to stress that since the incident, this behaviour has not and will not be repeated.

When approached, I fully cooperated and provided identification immediately, truthfully explained my situation, and allowed the officer to view past tickets on my phone without delay. I reiterated my regrets and relayed I understood the situation. I now know how serious my error of judgement was, and wish to apologise sincerely for this. I know over-distance is not only a burden upon other passengers, but also to staff and the company as a whole, which I truly apologise for. I want to assure you that I have learned from my wrongdoings and again, have ceased my previous behaviour.

I hope you can understand it was absolutely not my intention to escalate the situation, and I apologise for the inconvenience caused. I am dedicated to preventing any future occurrences of this, and would be extremely grateful for the opportunity to resolve this by paying any appropriate costs. Please know I am willing to make immediate payment and offer my full cooperation.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,
XXX

 

[Haywain]

Good to hear that you've got an acceptable resolution, but a little unfortunate with the solicitor fee. Please don't do anything that causes you to need to come back for more help.

 

[philthetube]

suggest that you immediately contact solicitors, they may offer a partial refund,

Nothing to lose.