Tfl Prosecution court date 2023

[2023tfl]

I was caught using my fathers over 60s Oyster card in January 2023. I admitted that I had used it with my fathers knowledge as I am a university student and I dont have a job. Tfl did their investigation and discovered that I had used it 34 times under a period of 3 months - I only used them for the same destination- to university. I have received this letter summoning me to attend court - it states that if I plead guilty to the offences I have accused of and the court finds me guilty of the charges I will not be charged/prosecuted. Please advise me if I have understood this correctly- in other words I just have to pay the unpaid travel fees + TFLs court fees which the letter states. This would mean I will not have a criminal conviction?
Fyi - 34 offences is the number of times within a period of under 3 months that I used the over 60s oyster card. I AM MORTIFIED and regret using the card. Thi is the first time something like this has happened to me.

 

[Enthusiast]

No, you have not understood this correctly.

That document refers to offences to be "Taken into Consideration" (TIC). It means that if you plead guilty to the one offence you have been charged with, the other offences (which you have not been formally charged with) will be considered dealt with at the same time and no separate penalties will be imposed for them (though the court may order you pay the compensation claimed). You will still have a conviction against your name for the one offence.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The letter talks of TfL's missing fare income and their costs of bringing the case, which they want awarded to them by the court; but that's on top of whatever fine (and court costs) the court decides on for the offence(s). (In an out-of-court settlement, ie doing a deal with TfL to avoid court involvement - which of course you're not being offered here - you would just pay TfL's costs and missing fares, in return for conceding what you did, but avoid court fines and a criminal record etc. But you're in too deep for that, hence the expected fine, criminal record, etc, that will be the result of the court case.)

Your owning up to the other offences besides the one charged - as per this letter - means that you avoid the separate extra convictions, but still have to reimburse all the other fares, not just the one which the criminal charge relates to. However, since it seems likely they could, without too much difficulty, prosecute you for some or all of the other offences as well anyway, then agreeing to this seems the easier course! The court penalty for a single conviction, with others "taken into account", would be less than the court penalty for the whole batch of convictions which might result if you didn't agree to what's suggested here and TfL still pursued the other charges.

Presumably, also, if you told them you'd used the card with your father's knowledge, then he's liable to be prosecuted too?

 

[simonw]

Best not to say "this is the first time something like this has happened to me" if you've done it 34 times.

 

[Haywain]

Presumably, also, if you told them you'd used the card with your father's knowledge, then he's liable to be prosecuted too?

Not that we've seen a case of this on the forums, as far as I know.

 

[Gloster]

What type of card was your father’s: standard, staff, disabled (or whatever it is called), etc?

 

[fandroid]

Could the father have the card permanently or temporarily revoked? Presumably it was seized when the OP was challenged

 

[furlong]

This is simply about efficiency. It would take more effort for them to prosecute you for every offence, so they offer you a deal. If you agree, they prosecute just one offence (assuming you have another sheet of paper saying that) and you save them the time and effort of prosecuting the other 34 and in return you end up with only one conviction instead of 35 convictions. In practice the punishment you are given may be less as well (but it doesn't have to be). If you ever have to disclose convictions, there's a big difference between having to explain 1 conviction and having to explain how you acquired 35 of them!

 

[WesternLancer]

I was caught using my fathers over 60s Oyster card in January 2023. I admitted that I had used it with my fathers knowledge as I am a university student and I dont have a job. Tfl did their investigation and discovered that I had used it 34 times under a period of 3 months - I only used them for the same destination- to university. I have received this letter summoning me to attend court - it states that if I plead guilty to the offences I have accused of and the court finds me guilty of the charges I will not be charged/prosecuted. Please advise me if I have understood this correctly- in other words I just have to pay the unpaid travel fees + TFLs court fees which the letter states. This would mean I will not have a criminal conviction?
Fyi - 34 offences is the number of times within a period of under 3 months that I used the over 60s oyster card. I AM MORTIFIED and regret using the card. Thi is the first time something like this has happened to me.
View attachment 131034

Also as well as above usefull advice, see if the university / students union have free welfare or legal advice you might be able to access to assist you with this situation.

 

[MikeWh]

What type of card was your father’s: standard, staff, disabled (or whatever it is called), etc?

I was caught using my fathers over 60s Oyster card in January 2023.

 

[AlbertBeale]

A further thought - did you hear from TfL after the incident, before you got the paperwork of which you've shared a part above? If the correspondence you've shown is from the court, presumably there was some prior communication from TfL beforehand, saying they were minded to take you to court? At that stage, it might have been advisable to at least attempt to get an out-of-court settlement - did you even try that? You would need to have apologised a lot, said how you realised it was wrong to do what you did, how you've learned your lesson, and offered to pay their costs and fares owed, etc etc. Given the number of offences involved, and the nature of the case (misuse of a concessionary card), then I'd imagine that avoiding a court case was always going to be unlikely. However, if you skipped that stage (of attempting to side-step a court hearing), you might consider trying it even now. (Though perhaps others here will say there's no point?)

TfL can decide not to push the prosecution right up to the moment the court hears the case, so if avoiding a criminal record is crucial for you you might not want to miss out on trying to avoid it (even if you're not likely to succeed). It might not make any difference financially though - TfL can in effect name their price to drop the case.

 

[2023tfl]

No, you have not understood this correctly.

That document refers to offences to be "Taken into Consideration" (TIC). It means that if you plead guilty to the one offence you have been charged with, the other offences (which you have not been formally charged with) will be considered dealt with at the same time and no separate penalties will be imposed for them (though the court may order you pay the compensation claimed). You will still have a conviction against your name for the one offence.

Thank you

What type of card was your father’s: standard, staff, disabled (or whatever it is called), etc?

Standard over 60s - gives free travel on the underground after 9 am

A further thought - did you hear from TfL after the incident, before you got the paperwork of which you've shared a part above? If the correspondence you've shown is from the court, presumably there was some prior communication from TfL beforehand, saying they were minded to take you to court? At that stage, it might have been advisable to at least attempt to get an out-of-court settlement - did you even try that? You would need to have apologised a lot, said how you realised it was wrong to do what you did, how you've learned your lesson, and offered to pay their costs and fares owed, etc etc. Given the number of offences involved, and the nature of the case (misuse of a concessionary card), then I'd imagine that avoiding a court case was always going to be unlikely. However, if you skipped that stage (of attempting to side-step a court hearing), you might consider trying it even now. (Though perhaps others here will say there's no point?)

TfL can decide not to push the prosecution right up to the moment the court hears the case, so if avoiding a criminal record is crucial for you you might not want to miss out on trying to avoid it (even if you're not likely to succeed). It might not make any difference financially though - TfL can in effect name their price to drop the case.

Yes I did receive one of those letters that people recieve when caught with using invalid ticket or someone elses travel card. I did grovel, appologise and asked to settle out of court. So how would I ask to settle out of court even with this court date being scheduled?

The letter talks of TfL's missing fare income and their costs of bringing the case, which they want awarded to them by the court; but that's on top of whatever fine (and court costs) the court decides on for the offence(s). (In an out-of-court settlement, ie doing a deal with TfL to avoid court involvement - which of course you're not being offered here - you would just pay TfL's costs and missing fares, in return for conceding what you did, but avoid court fines and a criminal record etc. But you're in too deep for that, hence the expected fine, criminal record, etc, that will be the result of the court case.)

Your owning up to the other offences besides the one charged - as per this letter - means that you avoid the separate extra convictions, but still have to reimburse all the other fares, not just the one which the criminal charge relates to. However, since it seems likely they could, without too much difficulty, prosecute you for some or all of the other offences as well anyway, then agreeing to this seems the easier course! The court penalty for a single conviction, with others "taken into account", would be less than the court penalty for the whole batch of convictions which might result if you didn't agree to what's suggested here and TfL still pursued the other charges.

Presumably, also, if you told them you'd used the card with your father's knowledge, then he's liable to be prosecuted too?

Does this mean its on my record permanently? Will it show up in every DBS check?

 

[AlterEgo]

It will not show on a Standard DBS and will only show in very rare and specific circumstances on an Enhanced DBS check.

 

[island]

It will not show on a Standard DBS and will only show in very rare and specific circumstances on an Enhanced DBS check.

I'm not sure we can say that with certainty. Unless I've missed it, there are no details of the offence with which the OP has been charged. I know TfL normally charges "being in a CTA without a ticket" which is indeed no -recordable but they may not have done here.

 

[2023tfl]

I'm not sure we can say that with certainty. Unless I've missed it, there are no details of the offence with which the OP has been charged. I know TfL normally charges "being in a CTA without a ticket" which is indeed no -recordable but they may not have done here.

This is what I have been charged with.

It will not show on a Standard DBS and will only show in very rare and specific circumstances on an Enhanced DBS check.

Does it stay on my record permanently?

 

[AlterEgo]

View attachment 131061
This is what I have been charged with.


Does it stay on my record permanently?

Your conviction will be a matter of public record for evermore, but whether and how people access that is the question. This is a bylaw offence which isn’t recordable on the Police National Computer but which is a matter of public record with the Court.

 

[2023tfl]

When you say public record - does that mean it will appear on an enhanced DBS check?

When you say public record - does that mean it will appear on an enhanced DBS check?

As in - is there a time limit on how long it will appear on an enhanced DBS check? After a year will it still appear? For a teaching position in a school - will this show up? Will I have to reveal this to my employer?

 

[island]

What AlterEgo said in post 13 is accurate – this offence should* not appear on a basic or standard DBS check at all, and is unlikely to appear on an enhanced DBS check – it would depend on the relevant officer's assessment of whether it was relevant to the role applied for, and I expect in most cases it will not be relevant.

For completeness, the offence is still recorded, and applications for positions of utmost integrity such as roles in national security, law enforcement, and the judiciary, and applications for firearms licences, will still have access to this record.

*I write "should" to account for the fact that non-recordable offences do occasionally show up on a criminal record, owing to circumstances such as clerical errors or the offence being dealt with at the same time as one or more recordable offences.

 

[2023tfl]

What AlterEgo said in post 13 is accurate – this offence should* not appear on a basic or standard DBS check at all, and is unlikely to appear on an enhanced DBS check – it would depend on the relevant officer's assessment of whether it was relevant to the role applied for, and I expect in most cases it will not be relevant.

For completeness, the offence is still recorded, and applications for positions of utmost integrity such as roles in national security, law enforcement, and the judiciary, and applications for firearms licences, will still have access to this record.

*I write "should" to account for the fact that non-recordable offences do occasionally show up on a criminal record, owing to circumstances such as clerical errors or the offence being dealt with at the same time as one or more recordable offences.

What about a teaching position? Will I have to reveal it to my employer when they do an enhanced DBS check? Also will it appear on the an enhanced DBS check forever or is there a time limit on how long it appears?

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes I did receive one of those letters that people recieve when caught with using invalid ticket or someone elses travel card. I did grovel, appologise and asked to settle out of court. So how would I ask to settle out of court even with this court date being scheduled?

Write again I guess is all you can do - more grovelling etc. There have been cases on here in the past where at this stage people have engaged solicitors to help them and TfL have then agreed to settle. I'm not sure it's necessary to have a solicitor to do that (they might agree to your persistent requests but the problem is you have been frequently and repeatedly offending) - but it may be that if a solicitor is involved they consider that the whole thing is being taken more seriously and scrutinised by a legally trained person so that might be what tipped them over to agreeing to settle in those cases.

But you would have to consider the cost of that or as I said before see if your Student Union has an arrangement with a legal firm who can help at reduced or no fees. many students unions do.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What about a teaching position? Will I have to reveal it to my employer when they do an enhanced DBS check? Also will it appear on the an enhanced DBS check forever or is there a time limit on how long it appears?

The general advice we give is that it's better to be open about things like this if there's any risk of whoever you're telling finding out by themselves. That way, you show that you are not hiding anything, so there's no reason for them to think you're not being honest. Most employers aren't all that interested in what people have done in their past life, except to the extent that it predicts what they may do in their current situation. And if you're being honest now about thing that you did in the past, then that should suggest that you will carry on being honest - which is what they want from an employee.

Also, I know of a number of teachers who have been convicted of fare dodging, and it hasn't prevented them subsequently getting jobs - although I don't know if they included a number of occurrences taken into consideration. But on balance, I would expect that if you are

• open with potential employers (which shows that you are now being honest),
• prepared to have a rather embarrassing conversation as part of the recruitment process (it's never good talking about things you have done wrong) and
• most importantly of all do not repeat the offence (which proves that you have learnt your lesson and are no longer a potential bad example to school children)

then this should not be a problem in you getting a teaching job.

(Edited for a typo: thing > things)

 

[island]

I can add little to the excellent advice of Fawkes Cat other than that, in principle, the offence becomes filtered 11 years after conviction and exempt from disclosure on any level of DBS check.

 

[2023tfl]

THANK YOU to everyone for your advice and being so prompt at responding. You are angels on the internet. I definitely have learned my lesson. This is the dumbest thing I have done.

One other thing - on the offences to be taken into consideration- it lists 34 journeys - 4 of those were for using the bus 4 times - I never used my dads oyster card for travelling on the bus. I know for a fact that I did not travel on those 4 journeys. Should I get a solicitor to help me contest those in hopes that it will lead to tfl dropping the prosecution and settling out of court?

 

[Puffing Devil]

That document refers to offences to be "Taken into Consideration" (TIC). It means that if you plead guilty to the one offence you have been charged with, the other offences (which you have not been formally charged with) will be considered dealt with at the same time and no separate penalties will be imposed for them (though the court may order you pay the compensation claimed). You will still have a conviction against your name for the one offence.

This is not correct. The court is encouraged to impose a higher penalty for the substantive offence than would have been imposed without the TIC offences, though it is seen as an "Aggravating Factor", not a whole new set of offences to sentence for.

The sentence imposed on an offender should, in most circumstances, be increased to reflect the fact that other offences have been taken into consideration [....] The presence of TICs should generally be treated as an aggravating feature that justifies an upward adjustment from the starting point. Where there is a large number of TICs, it may be appropriate to move outside the category range, although this must be considered in the context of the case and subject to the principle of totality. The court is limited to the statutory maximum for the conviction offence.

Sentencing Guidelines

 

[furlong]

One other thing - on the offences to be taken into consideration- it lists 34 journeys - 4 of those were for using the bus 4 times - I never used my dads oyster card for travelling on the bus. I know for a fact that I did not travel on those 4 journeys. Should I get a solicitor to help me contest those in hopes that it will lead to tfl dropping the prosecution and settling out of court?

See item 5 in the document. Explain that the bus journeys were not yours, don't sign the statement that says 34, but cross it out and write an alternative statement on the lines provided admitting to the 30 if that's your decision and sign and date that.

 

[martyn.connoll]

It will not show on a Standard DBS and will only show in very rare and specific circumstances on an Enhanced DBS check.

I'm not so sure on that. It won't be considered spent right away. So may still appear on a basic check under LASPO rules.

 

[spag23]

FWIW the OP seems to have been unaware that ticket barriers flag up to local (and CCTV) staff that a high value ticket has just been swiped. This may instigate a manual check, especially if a 60+ card has been used by a 20 year old. The OP needs to spread the word that this practice is not only expensive and potentially career-affecting. But it's also so easy to detect; a one-off might escape their attention, but 34 times was tempting fate.

 

[Western Sunset]

The general advice we give is that it's better to be open about things like this if there's any risk of whoever you're telling finding out by themselves. That way, you show that you are not hiding anything, so there's no reason for them to think you're not being honest. Most employers aren't all that interested in what people have done in their past life, except to the extent that it predicts what they may do in their current situation. And if you're being honest now about thing that you did in the past, then that should suggest that you will carry on being honest - which is what they want from an employee.

Also, I know of a number of teachers who have been convicted of fare dodging, and it hasn't prevented them subsequently getting jobs - although I don't know if they included a number of occurrences taken into consideration. But on balance, I would expect that if you are

• open with potential employers (which shows that you are now being honest),
• prepared to have a rather embarrassing conversation as part of the recruitment process (it's never good talking about things you have done wrong) and
• most importantly of all do not repeat the offence (which proves that you have learnt your lesson and are no longer a potential bad example to school children)

then this should not be a problem in you getting a teaching job.

(Edited for a typo: thing > things)

I agree.

If I'd interviewed a candidate for a teaching post and they'd told me openly they'd been daft when a student and evaded fares but had learned their lesson, I wouldn't have held it against them. BUT if they withheld said info, I would have taken a different view.

Learn from the experience; be open and honest.

Good luck with your teaching career.

 

[island]

I'm not so sure on that. It won't be considered spent right away. So may still appear on a basic check under LASPO rules.

Non-recordable offences, which for the most part are offences for which imprisonment is not a possible penalty, don't normally appear on criminal records. Exceptions to this include if the offence is sentenced at the same time as a recordable offence, or if the legal adviser at the court makes a clerical error. Whilst you are technically correct to say "it won't be considered spent right away", it will still not appear on DBS checks for the foregoing reason.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not so sure on that. It won't be considered spent right away. So may still appear on a basic check under LASPO rules.

But it’s not a recordable offence, and a Basic check only discloses offences held on the PNC.