• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TFL Court Case Result - Clarification needed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jack76

New Member
Joined
22 Dec 2020
Messages
3
Location
London
Hi all,

at the end of Feb I got caught with my wife's Annual Pass on the way to work. (never done anything like that before no previous 'troubles with the law". but this is beside the point)
Case was made under: Bylaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws.
Tried to settled out-of-court without success.
Plead guilty using on-line service stated my defense and provided all that was required.
in July 2020 After case was heard (without my present in the court) I have received Court Case Result.
Description: entered compulsory ticket area on the Transport for London regional railway network without a valid ticket.
Orders: Fine
Amount: £xxx
There was no other description or explanation of what this actually meant.
I have paid the fine immediately and did not think much of it.

However since my content insurance renewal is coming up I decided to make sure I am 'in the clear'.
I have requested basic DBS check certificate couple of weeks ago as well as Subject Access Request (ACRO).
Both certificates had came back clean. No records for DBS nor PNC. no mentions on spent or unspent convictions.

I am not sure how to read this info.
Judging by the certificates there is no criminal convictions records under my name.

It's very confusing as I thought since the court orders were submitted 6 months ago, if I had a criminal record it would have shown as unspent even under basic DBS (i understand that fine is spent after 1 year.) but certi shows nothing. Additionally court letter had no mention of any criminal records that will be 'imposed'.

Therefore mu questions are:
Do I need to declare any of this to my employer? (I am office worker and my company does only basic DBS checks for employment purposes. They do not ask to declare any unspent convictions throughout the employment)
Do I need to declare this to my home content Insurance? (my current contracts asks if I was "ever convicted of any criminal offense" or should I read it: "Do you have any unspent criminal convictions?")
Do I declare smth that I cannot find any confirmation for? Alternatively if I do have record how else can I find out?

I cannot request standard or enhanced checks as an individual which does not help to figure it all out.
I am trying to do the right thing but I am lost :(

I'd appreciate any advise.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,282
Location
Airedale
A Railway/TfL Byelaw offence is non-recordable, hence it doesn't show up even while unspent.
You therefore don't need to inform your employer, but I can't comment on your insurance.
 

Jack76

New Member
Joined
22 Dec 2020
Messages
3
Location
London
Thank you for clarifying on the DBS front. This is certainly a relief.
Non-recordable offence is something i have not come across in my ‘search for the truth’.

Would still appreciate any guidance or advice on insurance from the forum.
Thank you
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,111
Location
Powys
A Railway/TfL Byelaw offence is non-recordable, hence it doesn't show up even while unspent.
You therefore don't need to inform your employer, but I can't comment on your insurance.

Not necessarily correct. It will depend on the exact wording in the employed person's contract. Typically it can be:
Have you ever been prosecuted/convicted of a criminal offence? or
Have you ever been prosecuted/convicted at a Court? or

The second would mean that even By-Law offences (now recordable) need to be reported.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
7,316
Thank you for clarifying on the DBS front. This is certainly a relief.
Non-recordable offence is something i have not come across in my ‘search for the truth’.

Would still appreciate any guidance or advice on insurance from the forum.
Thank you
I'm guessing ref house contents insurance this may vary from policy to policy according to provider (maybe) - is it easy to download your policy handbook (or whatever the really long T&Cs document they always send you is called) and word search on 'convictions' or some such to see if anything is mentioned. Sorry, I feel like I'm suggesting something you have probably already done.... otherwise I have no idea on that aspect.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
3,061
It comes down to what your particular contracts (for employment and insurance) say. So you may need to talk to someone with knowledge of these specific points. For insurance, maybe talk to a broker - this year, don’t just use the internet to get the best price. For employment, talk to your trade union if you have one. More tentatively, if you don’t have a union then talk to a trusted colleague or pay for an employment law expert.
 
Last edited:

pedr

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2016
Messages
238
The position is complicated because a lot of separate systems and policies don’t necessarily work together or use the same terminology.

Pleading guilty to an bylaw offence results in a conviction for a criminal offence. Not all convictions are recorded, and those that aren’t recorded won’t show up on on a DBS check (railway bylaw offences apparently shouldn’t ever be recorded but there might be circumstances where they are). But people making decisions about a person, such as insurers, are (sometimes) entitled to ask about convictions, not “would a DBS check show a conviction”. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act says that offences punished by a fine are spent after 12 months - but not everyone has to follow the RoOA restrictions and as 12 months haven’t passed that’s not directly relevant now.

The truthful answer to “have you been convicted of a criminal offence” asked within 12 months of the conviction date is “yes”. Whether you have to proactively declare that depends on the contract/agreement/circumstance.
 

Jack76

New Member
Joined
22 Dec 2020
Messages
3
Location
London
thank you for all replies. I guess as always this comes down to the “small print”. Fortunately only content insurance is only thing i need to be worry about at this stage. So will clarify this.

I’d like to understand one additional thing. If the iffence is not-recorded (which is not in my case) no dbs nor pnc shows it. Where does the record of conviction actually exists?
As I mentioned I am trying to do the right thing but also trying to fully understand my position.

This is very confusing ;(
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,282
Location
Airedale
Not necessarily correct. It will depend on the exact wording in the employed person's contract. Typically it can be:
Have you ever been prosecuted/convicted of a criminal offence? or
Have you ever been prosecuted/convicted at a Court? or

The second would mean that even By-Law offences (now recordable) need to be reported.
I was referring only to the OP's situation: they stated that their employer does not require them to declare the conviction.
If they were to change jobs within the 12 months that might be another matter.

In general, I think the consistent advice from Forum members is "if in doubt, declare it" - which probably applies to the insurance question too.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,601
I think the consistent advice from Forum members is "if in doubt, declare it" - which probably applies to the insurance question too.
I worked in insurance some years ago, and agree with this sentiment. At that time the question was generally worded as "Have you ever been convicted..." and specified a crime involving dishonesty of any kind (and failing to pay the correct fare fits the bill) - this was found on most insurance applications including car insurance where it was additional to questions about motoring convictions. Even if the wording has changed, declaring a minor conviction will not be seen as a negative.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
7,316
I suppose one point is that insurance that will not pay out when you need it is simply not worth spending money on at all - so if by not declaring something meant that may not pay out - that is no good to you.

So in line with what others have said best to answer that question as a 'yes' and tell them what the conviction is. At least there are other insurers you can choose from, or as suggested, Brokers which is a good idea.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,601
best to answer that question as a 'yes' and tell them what the conviction is. At least there are other insurers you can choose from, or as suggested, Brokers which is a good idea.
If answering yes and giving the facts does have a negative outcome, the problem that follows is that you then have to answer in the affirmative the question as to whether you have ever had insurance refused as well as the one about convictions. Theses things lead people to be economical with the facts as the alternative is going to a broker and likely having higher costs. It's a potentially vicious circle but honesty is the best policy.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
3,061
If answering yes and giving the facts does have a negative outcome, the problem that follows is that you then have to answer in the affirmative the question as to whether you have ever had insurance refused as well as the one about convictions. Theses things lead people to be economical with the facts as the alternative is going to a broker and likely having higher costs. It's a potentially vicious circle but honesty is the best policy.
Surely a knowledgeable broker would not suggest going to an insurer likely to refuse the risk? So insurance wouldn't be refused as such - just not sought.

Although as above @Haywain has worked in insurance so is much more likely to know the answer than I am.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,601
Surely a knowledgeable broker would not suggest going to an insurer likely to refuse the risk? So insurance wouldn't be refused as such - just not sought
I think this is true but I believe the vast majority of insurance applications will be made without the assistance of brokers, and online it is very easy to skip giving the right answers.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
I suppose one point is that insurance that will not pay out when you need it is simply not worth spending money on at all - so if by not declaring something meant that may not pay out - that is no good to you.

So in line with what others have said best to answer that question as a 'yes' and tell them what the conviction is. At least there are other insurers you can choose from, or as suggested, Brokers which is a good idea.
My own experience is that no insurance company will pay out with out a fight.
This is based on a colleague loosing items when my car was broken into, his travel insurance refused to pay unless I wrote a letter point blank refusing to claim on my car insurance.
A new for old contents policy where having obtained statements that the carpet was not re-fittable after water damage, they sent their own expert who claimed the shrinkage would not be an issue to refit. Eventually after a year of argument we got a new carpet. Ironically the burglars must have stepped over the cheque and the company refused all the burglary claim as we had no individual insurance valuations for each item.
A subsidence claim that went on for five years, three different fixes, because their appointed builder said the company were to mean to get the job done properly first time and it was always the same on every job he did for them
My dad's car which caught fire whilst he was driving, so they basically all but accused him of doing it himself, took 4 weeks to collect the car and then reduced the pay out due to "rear bumper damage" that did not exist before they collected it from our local garage who the insurers blamed for the delay in the collection Just to rub it in when they did ring him to say they were paying they tried to say his excess was £250 until he pointed out it was £100.

And yet strangely when I worked at BA and our B777 landed short at LHR due to frozen fuel the insurers paid out on the hull loss in 3 days!

Bottom line never give them a reason to deny a claim but not having mentioned things that may be only vaguely relevant.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
16,262
Location
0036
My own experience is that no insurance company will pay out with out a fight.
This is based on a colleague loosing items when my car was broken into, his travel insurance refused to pay unless I wrote a letter point blank refusing to claim on my car insurance.
A new for old contents policy where having obtained statements that the carpet was not re-fittable after water damage, they sent their own expert who claimed the shrinkage would not be an issue to refit. Eventually after a year of argument we got a new carpet. Ironically the burglars must have stepped over the cheque and the company refused all the burglary claim as we had no individual insurance valuations for each item.
A subsidence claim that went on for five years, three different fixes, because their appointed builder said the company were to mean to get the job done properly first time and it was always the same on every job he did for them
My dad's car which caught fire whilst he was driving, so they basically all but accused him of doing it himself, took 4 weeks to collect the car and then reduced the pay out due to "rear bumper damage" that did not exist before they collected it from our local garage who the insurers blamed for the delay in the collection Just to rub it in when they did ring him to say they were paying they tried to say his excess was £250 until he pointed out it was £100.

And yet strangely when I worked at BA and our B777 landed short at LHR due to frozen fuel the insurers paid out on the hull loss in 3 days!

Bottom line never give them a reason to deny a claim but not having mentioned things that may be only vaguely relevant.
This comes down to the fact that the excess profits of most of the providers of consumer insurance have been competed away by price comparison websites. If an insurer isn’t “above the fold” on the Go Compare the Meerkat Supermarket results then their policy won’t be purchased.

The result is that the providers screw costs down by hiking excesses, making add-ons out of what was traditionally included, and being relentlessly strict on claims.

But I’m getting quite off topic...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top