TFL Prosecution - Court Summons Upcoming UPDATE

[bamfzflame]

I have been monitoring this sub for awhile since the incident took place so I'll break it down as best I can to get the best advice.

So my close friend has been using a 18+ student oyster card that is not his for the past few months (the oyster card is his friends), since March. He is a fresh graduate with a job in healthcare. At the time he was pretty much broke due to just graduating and landed his first job and so was trying to save a few pennies by using a student travel card. He was caught in May at Ealing station where they were carrying out checks on discounted cards. When he was stopped an inspector and 3 TFL officers approached him. The inspector asked did he tap in with a discounted card, he was flustered so lied and said no. The inspector said she knows he did as the lights illuminated, in which he gave in and said yes and showed the card. The lady said the card is not his and he said yes i know it is my friends. The lady asked how often the card is used by him and he said only today. I do think when she asked when the card was used he did not know that the inspector meant on other occasions, rather than just for that day. It was the first day he used it that week. (This is important for later) Especially due to it being quite late in the evening, so he was tired and I think some words were just said out of context. From what I was told the lady seemed almost delighted that she had caught him, she said a letter would be sent in the post detailing events and possible prosecution.

The letter arrived a week later and asked him for his version of events. At this point I was worried on his behalf and so we contacted a solicitor (Manak Solictiors) as we heard that it is possible to settle out of court. This specific solicitor seemed knowledgeable as well. We attended the solicitors meeting and honestly left disappointed as the solicitor did not seem helpful at all. The travel cards were bought on and off between March and May, a total of 6 travel cards were bought totalling approximately 60 journeys. Once the solicitor heard this it was almost like he shut off and pretty much destroyed any hope we had. He said our chances for settling out of court were less than 20% due to the number of travelling instances and said if it were to be below 10 then we would have a chance, and gave us advice on a letter we could write ourselves to send off to TFL. If I am being honest, I think fare evasion solicitors need to be more clear on how the amount of fares evaded can affect your success rate, before the consultation even takes place. The meeting cost us £150 which was quite annoying to pay off having left with pretty much no help.


A letter was drafted based on the advice on this forum as well as the solicitor, (showing remorse, what was learnt, how the correct fare is being paid, mitigating circumstances etc..) I do think the letter that was sent was really good as my friend was genuinely sorry that it happened and extended his apologies to the staff at Ealing. The letter was sent off to TFL with the intention of trying to get an out of court settlement.

A few weeks go by and TFL respond via email saying they have received his case and are looking into it however, they think that it is in there best interest to pursue this further. He responded back again showing deep remorse as well as proof that he has been paying the correct fare since the incident and additional mitigating circumstances.

Mid July TFL send a letter and he receives a 15 page document of them intending to prosecute with a court summons taking place sometime in October. I was quite shocked when I saw the letter. The offense is Byelaw (17) 1 and they are seeking contribution towards the cost of TFL. The document details a transcript between him and the TFL inspector that stopped him as well as all the journeys he has made with the travel card. The transcript does not look good obviously as he looks as though he was lying about the number of times the card was used, but as I said he thought the inspector meant for the week.

He has the option to plead Guilty or Not Guilty in court. They attached a financial circumstances form which needs to be filled in. He intends to plead guilty as the letter states that due to him committing around 60 offences he is able to not get charged for all of them and just the 1 if he pleads guilty for all of the journeys he made. The fare amount evaded was less than £100 which makes it disheartening to know that they are not willing to take an out of court settlement even through pleading. I know there are cases of people avoiding hundreds of pounds through using freedom passes etc.. which entitles the user to free travel, so less than £100 does not seem like a lot in comparison.

The court hearing is at Lavender hill magistrates court and from what I have read about the court it does not seem likely that he will be able to get out of this and will be prosecuted. I know reviews are not everything but that is all to go off from. Does anyone know what this court is like if they have been in the same position?

I feel extremely worried for my friend as I know it was just a stupid mistake on his end and he has learnt his lesson. He knows the consequences of his actions and is worried for his future. Especially as he just got promoted at work and will have to disclose it to them. He is only 22 years old and so both of us are worried at how this may affect his chances of getting a Visa to travel abroad to the USA etc.. (He is a UK citizen). Is there any chance this could affect him getting a mortgage or loan in the future? I understand that as a Byelaw it is "Spent" straight away but can someone confirm this? And that it does not show on standard DBS checks but can show up on Enhanced DBS checks (This is what the solicitor said). How bad are byelaw offences in comparison to a more serious offence and how are they viewed by employers/lenders etc..?

The next steps from here are to possibly contact another solicitor to get some advice on this and if somehow it is possible by some miracle to get out of this without a prosecution. If it does get to court I have read here that it is somewhat a good idea to take cash to court and speak to the prosecutor beforehand to see if they can settle out of court and pay the amount they are asking off which I will tell my friend to do. Is there any way in which another letter can be sent directly to the prosecutor or to TFL to see if they respond? If anyone has any helpful advice on anything and how to handle this (how the court goes, what it means for the future, personal experience etc...) then it would be much appreciated !

I think I have mentioned everything but if needed I can provide more information as well as any documents redacted.

I will keep this post regularly updated up until the final outcome.

 

[30907]

I am not in the least surprised that TfL have chosen to prosecute, nor that the solicitor saw little chance of success.

There is no harm in writing back reiterating the points made - your friend should feel free to post a draft for comment.

Fortunately TfL has chosen, as they commonly do, to prosecute under the Byelaws which, as you say, means it is a non-recordable offence. It may show up on an enhanced DBS, but it is then up to the employer to judge whether it constitutes a risk. In any case it is always wise to admit to any conviction before you are found out!

I would be very surprised if it affected a credit agency's decision, and your friend needs specialist advice about visas which this forum cannot give.

 

[Hadders]

TfL historically take a more robust approach to prosecution. More recently they have softened their stance but they are unlikely to agree to an out of court settllement where there is evidence of fare evasion over a long period of time.

There is nothing to stop you approaching the prosecutor at the court on the day of the hearning and seeing it it is possible to come to an agreement before the case is heard. This has been successful on occasions with National Rail Train Operating Companies but I can't say whether or not it has worked when TfL are prosecuting.

A Bye-laws conviction won't normally show on a DBS check and something like this shouldn't unduly affect your career but there is a need to be honest and declare it if you are asked a question about it.

 

[Gloster]

There is nothing to stop you approaching the prosecutor at the court on the day of the hearning and seeing it it is possible to come to an agreement before the case is heard. This has been successful on occasions with National Rail Train Operating Companies but I can't say whether or not it has worked when TfL are prosecuting.

Others may be better able to advise you on this, but I believe (from reading this forum) that if the prosecutor agrees to you paying a sum immediately before the case, you will be expected to pay it by card over the ‘phone using a number that the prosecutor gives you. I very much doubt that they would accept cash.

 

[MotCO]

A Bye-laws conviction won't normally show on a DBS check and something like this shouldn't unduly affect your career but there is a need to be honest and declare it if you are asked a question about it.

I would go further and say that you should tell your friend to tell his employer as soon as the court decision is made, i.e. be proactive rather than wait to be asked. Withholding a 'conviction' from your employer is seen as worse than the effect of declaring it. If your friend is in the NHS, then a union rep may be able to give advice.

( I also think that there is a good lesson here. Avoiding fares of around £100 will cost your friend at least that as a fine, plus £150 for the earlier legal advice.)

 

[bamfzflame]

TfL historically take a more robust approach to prosecution. More recently they have softened their stance but they are unlikely to agree to an out of court settllement where there is evidence of fare evasion over a long period of time.

There is nothing to stop you approaching the prosecutor at the court on the day of the hearning and seeing it it is possible to come to an agreement before the case is heard. This has been successful on occasions with National Rail Train Operating Companies but I can't say whether or not it has worked when TfL are prosecuting.

A Bye-laws conviction won't normally show on a DBS check and something like this shouldn't unduly affect your career but there is a need to be honest and declare it if you are asked a question about it.

Yeah I assumed that they are unlikely to settle out of court especially due to the number of occurrences but wondered is there any way on the off chance that they could possibly settle out of court.

Thanks I will tell my friend to give that a go.

Yes, he understand that he will need to declare this to his job if asked.

Do you know if when a DBS check is ran it shows the reasoning for prosecution or the exact prosecution type? I am not familiar with how it works. If they were to see that it is merely fare evasion it should not affect jobs too much? I understand it differs from employer to employer and the sector you are in. As he is in the health sector I would assume it would not as he is not dealing with money.

I am not in the least surprised that TfL have chosen to prosecute, nor that the solicitor saw little chance of success.

There is no harm in writing back reiterating the points made - your friend should feel free to post a draft for comment.

Fortunately TfL has chosen, as they commonly do, to prosecute under the Byelaws which, as you say, means it is a non-recordable offence. It may show up on an enhanced DBS, but it is then up to the employer to judge whether it constitutes a risk. In any case it is always wise to admit to any conviction before you are found out!

I would be very surprised if it affected a credit agency's decision, and your friend needs specialist advice about visas which this forum cannot give.

Yes I will tell him to give it a go in sending an email to the prosecutions team to see if they can still be considerate in the case.

I think his biggest worry is ability to get a mortgage/loan in the future as well as a Visa as he has family in the states which he visits every few years. But as you have said it is quite a tricky question to ask in this sub

 

[bamfzflame]

Others may be better able to advise you on this, but I believe (from reading this forum) that if the prosecutor agrees to you paying a sum immediately before the case, you will be expected to pay it by card over the ‘phone using a number that the prosecutor gives you. I very much doubt that they would accept cash.

I have read this in other posts as well, either way I would hope that they accept this as an agreement before the case goes ahead.

Is there a way in which would be good to approach the prosecutor?

I would go further and say that you should tell your friend to tell his employer as soon as the court decision is made, i.e. be proactive rather than wait to be asked. Withholding a 'conviction' from your employer is seen as worse than the effect of declaring it. If your friend is in the NHS, then a union rep may be able to give advice.

( I also think that there is a good lesson here. Avoiding fares of around £100 will cost your friend at least that as a fine, plus £150 for the earlier legal advice.)

Yes I agree with you, he will tell his line manager as soon as the decision is made. I believe it states in his contract to do so anyway. I think TFL are going to recover the lost amount as well as an additional fine and so that number sadly will be a bit higher

 

[Deafdoggie]

I doubt it will effect their ability to get a mortgage. However, it will need to be declared when applying for home insurance. I doubt it'll stop them getting it, but it's possible the insurance company will charge more. To them, people with convictions are a higher risk.

 

[greyman42]

I doubt it will effect their ability to get a mortgage. However, it will need to be declared when applying for home insurance. I doubt it'll stop them getting it, but it's possible the insurance company will charge more. To them, people with convictions are a higher risk.

A minor offence like this will not make any difference to home insurance prices.

 

[no12no]

Are you able to share the letter you had sent them?

 

[DelayRepay]

This is a question to people more experienced and under no circumstances should the OP or their friend consider it advice.

Is this a case where it might be worth making a proactive offer to settle out of court (i.e. suggesting an amount). I know the usual advise is to let the TOC suggest a settlement value, but in this case it seems they're going to court anyway. If the amount offered was more than the compensation that the court would award to TfL, is there a chance they'll accept it? Financially TfL would benefit as they would recover more money than through a successful prosecution, and would incur less costs.

I don't think this is too different to trying to negotiate with the prosecutor on the day, but could potentially avoid the need to go to court at all.

 

[furlong]

If the amount offered was more than the compensation that the court would award to TfL, is there a chance they'll accept it? Financially TfL would benefit as they would recover more money than through a successful prosecution, and would incur less costs.

You mean something that they might think looks a bit like am attempt to bribe them? No. Stick to the tried and tested formula of offering to cover actual losses/contractual obligations plus direct investigation costs. But this sounds like the sort of case that almost always ends up in court. They are already offering the OP a concession by suggesting they are prepared to handle this in a way that leaves the OP with just one formal conviction instead of sixty (while still allowing the totality of the offending to be considered when sentencing).

 

[bamfzflame]

I doubt it will effect their ability to get a mortgage. However, it will need to be declared when applying for home insurance. I doubt it'll stop them getting it, but it's possible the insurance company will charge more. To them, people with convictions are a higher risk.

My understanding is that as it is "Not Recorded" they will not be able to see unless its an enhanced DBS check. It is also not financially related I guess? Since it is a byelaw 17 and not classed as fraud? Correct me if I am wrong

A minor offence like this will not make any difference to home insurance prices.

Is there any way to be sure of this? Anything I check online does not really help, it seems like the only way is to speak to a solicitor that specialises in this kind of thing but its expensive as is !

You mean something that they might think looks a bit like am attempt to bribe them? No. Stick to the tried and tested formula of offering to cover actual losses/contractual obligations plus direct investigation costs. But this sounds like the sort of case that almost always ends up in court. They are already offering the OP a concession by suggesting they are prepared to handle this in a way that leaves the OP with just one formal conviction instead of sixty (while still allowing the totality of the offending to be considered when sentencing).

Yes I saw it as taking a bribe as well although it does sound promising in theory. I think I will tell my friend to stick to just attempting a last ditch effort on offering to pay court costs and admin fees and hope for the best although I dont think it will stick. And yes you make a good point about the 1 conviction, I do think it is lucky to be a byelaw and not a railway conviction

 

[Islineclear3_1]

On the face of it, this is more than a minor offence.

Your friend has been using somebody else's student Oyster. This may constitute fraud and clearly your friend admits to having used for a few months. As a side note, how has this "somebody else" been able to travel?

What role does your friend do in healthcare? Is it patient-facing? If so, any DBS checks will be "enhanced" and if convicted, the certificate may state the offence as "Fraud".

This could potentially be quite serious

 

[AlterEgo]

What role does your friend do in healthcare? Is it patient-facing? If so, any DBS checks will be "enhanced" and if convicted, the certificate may state the offence as "Fraud".

Are you sure that is the case? A fraud conviction is not being pursued here.

 

[greyman42]

Is there any way to be sure of this? Anything I check online does not really help, it seems like the only way is to speak to a solicitor that specialises in this kind of thing but its expensive as is !

I don't know how best to check but you will find that when you apply for home insurance, they have no interest in this type of offence.

 

[jumble]

On the face of it, this is more than a minor offence.

Your friend has been using somebody else's student Oyster. This may constitute fraud and clearly your friend admits to having used for a few months. As a side note, how has this "somebody else" been able to travel?

What role does your friend do in healthcare? Is it patient-facing? If so, any DBS checks will be "enhanced" and if convicted, the certificate may state the offence as "Fraud".

This could potentially be quite serious

I think you may be in danger of scaremongering
The single offence the OP is being charged is exactly the same as might be given if the OP was caught going through barriers at Rayners lane Station when they are unattended to go and visit the toilet on the paid side

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think you may be in danger of scaremongering
The single offence the OP is being charged is exactly the same as might be given if the OP was caught going through barriers at Rayners lane Station when they are unattended to go and visit the toilet on the paid side

How is that exactly the same?

The OP's friend has been using an 18+ oyster card (that does not belong to him) for several months. He has now been summoned to court

Are you sure that is the case? A fraud conviction is not being pursued here.

That's why I used the word "may"...

 

[30907]

How is that exactly the same?

It's (potentially) the same strict-liability Byelaw, just being to multiple offences.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's why I used the word "may"...

Why would it show an offence the OP isn’t being prosecuted for? We should be realistic with people asking for advice, not scaremongering them. This is a minor bylaw offence.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Why would it show an offence the OP isn’t being prosecuted for? We should be realistic with people asking for advice, not scaremongering them. This is a minor bylaw offence.

I bow to your superior knowledge sir. I just hope it ends well for the OP's friend

 

[XAM2175]

The OP's friend has been using an 18+ oyster card (that does not belong to him) for several months. He has now been summoned to court

It says clearly in the first post that the offence is being charged is under Byelaw 17(1), which is "No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket." While the act of deliberately using a discounted ticket to which they're not entitled could quite possibly be charged under a more serious offence, it's not what TfL have chosen to do.

 

[jumble]

It says clearly in the first post that the offence is being charged is under Byelaw 17(1), which is "No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket." While the act of deliberately using a discounted ticket to which they're not entitled could quite possibly be charged under a more serious offence, it's not what TfL have chosen to do.

This is precisely how I saw the situation. No one from TFL mentioned fraud so why should the OP be remotely concerned about the possibility ?

 

[bamfzflame]

Hi all,

Just thought I would pop by with an update so anyone in a similar situation could benefit.

So my friend went to court (Lavender hill magistrates), which I am pretty sure is where all of TFLs court cases go. He arrived early and was seated in a waiting area for the prosecutor to come and speak to him however from his account, the process was not very smooth. He had sent his financial information as well as a form accepting his offences prior to going to court and it was a tracked letter which was marked as signed for. However, the court did not receive this apparently and had no recording of any conversation between him and TFL. In other words, the court was completely unaware of my friends documents that he had sent even though they had asked for them to be sent prior to his attendance.

There were others waiting with him for the same offence. He wanted to speak to the prosecutor beforehand but they did not arrive until the time of the hearing and so he was only able to speak to the prosecutor for a few minutes. The prosecutor just explained what would happen. He tried his luck in trying to convince the prosecutor for a last ditch OOC but they said no due to insufficient mitigating circumstances, which is understandable. He was then led to the court room where him and others were called one by one. Once he was called the magistrates presented there case, as they did not receive his response he (luckily) had it on his phone and so read out the response he sent to TFL originally, apologising for his actions etc.. He said out of the 2 magistrates, one seemed sympathetic to his reasonings whereas the other seemed more cut throat. I can assume why since they deal with dozens of these a week so its a repetitive process for them. After he read his letter out the magistrates spoke amongst themselves and said that due to his low income they would reduce his fine amount (He thinks this was also due to the sympathetic magistrate favouring him a little for being remorseful) . They asked if he would be able to pay it in one go and he said yes. After that he spoke to a clerk which gave him the details of his case and who to contact to pay the fine and advice on prosecutions. Of course this means he was convicted so does have a conviction against his name. The only confusion was that they did not state whether it was a 1 year spent conviction or unspent so both of us are a little confused.

My advice to anyone thinking of fare evading, do not do it. It is not worth it and you will be caught and TFL will not budge with trying to settle OOC. The entire process from when he was caught to his court date was 5 months which is a long time of stress and worry. For the most part I do not think TFL even acknowledge any pleas you may send them. I'm not saying dont bother but 2 letters/emails that were sent to TFLs prosecution team were ignored with even the magistrates being unaware.

If you are currently in the process of prosecution with TFL, the only way you will be able to settle OOC or even get a warning is if your mitigating circumstances are extreme/severe. From my understanding being financially restricted is not enough to warrant a mitigation excuse so I wouldnt bother using that as an excuse. But if you DO NOT have a solid reason, it is almost certain that you will be prosecuted and will just have to plead guilty and face the consequences. TFL is very harsh with prosecutions and I think even now they do not settle OOC even if you have fare evaded a handful of times (this was also mentioned by the prosecutor). I hope this helps anyone in a similar situation with TFL, I dont want to create worry but this is likely going to be the reality for a lot of people in the same situation so it is better for you to be prepared now than later.

If anyone has questions then I'll still respond to this thread!

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for keeping us updated.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hi all,

Just thought I would pop by with an update so anyone in a similar situation could benefit.

So my friend went to court (Lavender hill magistrates), which I am pretty sure is where all of TFLs court cases go. He arrived early and was seated in a waiting area for the prosecutor to come and speak to him however from his account, the process was not very smooth. He had sent his financial information as well as a form accepting his offences prior to going to court and it was a tracked letter which was marked as signed for. However, the court did not receive this apparently and had no recording of any conversation between him and TFL. In other words, the court was completely unaware of my friends documents that he had sent even though they had asked for them to be sent prior to his attendance.

There were others waiting with him for the same offence. He wanted to speak to the prosecutor beforehand but they did not arrive until the time of the hearing and so he was only able to speak to the prosecutor for a few minutes. The prosecutor just explained what would happen. He tried his luck in trying to convince the prosecutor for a last ditch OOC but they said no due to insufficient mitigating circumstances, which is understandable. He was then led to the court room where him and others were called one by one. Once he was called the magistrates presented there case, as they did not receive his response he (luckily) had it on his phone and so read out the response he sent to TFL originally, apologising for his actions etc.. He said out of the 2 magistrates, one seemed sympathetic to his reasonings whereas the other seemed more cut throat. I can assume why since they deal with dozens of these a week so its a repetitive process for them. After he read his letter out the magistrates spoke amongst themselves and said that due to his low income they would reduce his fine amount (He thinks this was also due to the sympathetic magistrate favouring him a little for being remorseful) . They asked if he would be able to pay it in one go and he said yes. After that he spoke to a clerk which gave him the details of his case and who to contact to pay the fine and advice on prosecutions. Of course this means he was convicted so does have a conviction against his name. The only confusion was that they did not state whether it was a 1 year spent conviction or unspent so both of us are a little confused.

My advice to anyone thinking of fare evading, do not do it. It is not worth it and you will be caught and TFL will not budge with trying to settle OOC. The entire process from when he was caught to his court date was 5 months which is a long time of stress and worry. For the most part I do not think TFL even acknowledge any pleas you may send them. I'm not saying dont bother but 2 letters/emails that were sent to TFLs prosecution team were ignored with even the magistrates being unaware.

If you are currently in the process of prosecution with TFL, the only way you will be able to settle OOC or even get a warning is if your mitigating circumstances are extreme/severe. From my understanding being financially restricted is not enough to warrant a mitigation excuse so I wouldnt bother using that as an excuse. But if you DO NOT have a solid reason, it is almost certain that you will be prosecuted and will just have to plead guilty and face the consequences. TFL is very harsh with prosecutions and I think even now they do not settle OOC even if you have fare evaded a handful of times (this was also mentioned by the prosecutor). I hope this helps anyone in a similar situation with TFL, I dont want to create worry but this is likely going to be the reality for a lot of people in the same situation so it is better for you to be prepared now than later.

If anyone has questions then I'll still respond to this thread!

I see from the original post that your friend works in healthcare. We don't know what your friend's job is, but there are some healthcare roles where you have to declare a conviction to the regulator (GMC, NMC etc.). And it strikes me as quite likely that even if your friend isn't in a regulated role, this is the sort of thing that may have also leaked into their terms of employment (Employer says something like 'if our doctors have to tell us about convictions, then why shouldn't our cleaners/cooks/administrators/etc?')

Your friend should check urgently if they need to declare a conviction: if they are a member of a union then their union rep is a good person to ask whether this needs to be reported. If it does need to be reported then do so: not doing so when it is required is likely to be taken very badly by the employer who will argue that (1) failure to report when it's required is a breach of contract and (2) that this is trying to cover up the conviction which amounts to lying and is also a breach of trust between employer and employee. Either of these could be enough to lead to dismissal.