Threatened with court

[DaveNewcastle]

I've ended up being so lost with everyone's comments and suggestions and the such, could you be so kind to
summarise your advice/what I should do next? Thanks.

I'll be happy to. Yes.
It will have to be tomorrow now and I will send you a PM.
I'm sorry, but this forum includes some very well informed professionals and also lots of people with opinions. We love their opionios at times, but they do sometimes get them confused with the facts, which are much less exciting and which take much longer to research.

 

[All Line Rover]

I'll be happy to. Yes.
It will have to be tomorrow now and I will send you a PM.
I'm sorry, but this forum includes some very well informed professionals and also lots of people with opinions. We love their opionios at times, but they do sometimes get them confused with the facts, which are much less exciting and which take much longer to research.

And one of our well informed professionals is Dave!

Also, am I able to send you a PM Dave, because when I try to do so it says that your inbox is full. I'm sorry but I don't know where else to mention this!

 

[All Line Rover]

Ooh no, you're getting the wrong end of the stick! I'm eighteen, but someone asked why buy a discounted ticket if I knew I wasnt eligible for
the discount - I say, no point getting a child (would get found out easily.. look incredibly old), and no point trying to jump over the barriers/fences so a Railcard discount ticket makes sense! (Well, it doesn't anymore but you know what I mean...)

A Railcard discount makes sense if you buy a Railcard for the minute sum of £20(ish) quid!

 

[bb21]

I have split this thread into two and the discussion about the frequency of on-train checks of railcard goes here, so that we remain on topic for the OP's benefit.

 

[Stigy]

Without wanting to confuse matters further, I'll just add my input. Same as what Dave has said really, in that you're more than likely going to receive a letter from C2C at some point in the near future, and it'll probably say that they intend to proceed to prosecute you under s.5(3)a Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RRA), which carries a maximum sentence of £1,000 fine and/or 3-months imprisonment (the latter is only enforceable on subsequent breaches of the same offence). Realistically though, you could have a string of previous convictions for the same offence but will never see the inside of a prison cell, purely because there isn't enough room. Likewise, unless you're very welthy, very persistant or both, a £1,000 fine will be very unlikely. Courts tend to use a week's average salary for RRA offence fines, means permitting (£350), and half of that (£175) for railway Byelaw offences. As you're a student, and depending on what you tell the courts you can afford to pay, you could look at a fine of a lot less than £350. Bear in mind though that the TOC's costs will be added to this, as will the compensation (fare owed) and victim surcharge (£15 that goes to Victims of Crime charity).

Could amount to an expensive day out, and I'd urge anybody to try to avoid court where possible. A lot of TOCs have a policy that for first offences they'll offer an administrative settlement by way as a final warning, with no further action taking place. This usually means about £100 to £200 for the offender, but no prospect of court or a criminal record! They usually take in to account the cost of the fare avoided, and possibly previous warnings (Penalty Fares, UFNs etc). I would suggest you write to the TOC when you receive their correspondence, and offer to pay all their reasonable costs so as to keep the matter from going to court, and apologise profusely! They by no means have to accept, and can still go to court, but it's worth a try for the cost of postage!

Good Luck.

 

[radamfi]

Is it possible that a fine levied by the court would be less than what an out of court settlement would be? If that is the case, the OP would have to decide whether it is worth paying more to avoid a criminal record.

 

[Mike395]

Is it possible that a fine levied by the court would be less than what an out of court settlement would be? If that is the case, the OP would have to decide whether it is worth paying more to avoid a criminal record.

Quite possibly, although in 9/10 cases at least, it'd be worth the extra to avoid a criminal record that could hamper future job prospects etc.

 

[Stigy]

Is it possible that a fine levied by the court would be less than what an out of court settlement would be? If that is the case, the OP would have to decide whether it is worth paying more to avoid a criminal record.

The fine itself, yes. However you've got the costs to pay (which is the equivalent to what the out of court settlement would be), plus Victim Surcharge, plus the compensation if applicable (fare avoided). So say the court ordered a fine of £50, the defendant would also have to pay around £100 costs, £15 surcharge and the cost of the fare avoided. Looking at around £200 anyway in the grand scheme of things!

The idea of the court system is to offer a fair and unbias system to all parties involved, and sometimes going to court can work in the defendant's favour, especially if it's not a particularly clear-cut case. Magistrates look favourably on defendants who turn up at court, even if pleading guilty, and for an early guilty plea they often don't penalise you as much as they otherwise would do.

 

[SouthStand]

@AllLineRover. I wonder if some of your posts are your old habit of posting the first thing that pops into your head without any research? The legal liability of minors is defined in law, and defined very precisely - it is not a variable which you 'think'. Just today one case was abandoned precisely because of that age threshold. Its black and white, so please don't confuse the OP.

Consider yourself chastised

 

[455driver]

I did promise Yorkie that I would avoid the ticketing threads but would like to add a couple of points-
1/ the OP has been very honest with the information which MAY go in his favour.
2/ The OP has admitted that he has applied a discount he is NOT entitled to due to not holding a rail card.
3/ C2C like to "make examples" of fraudsters which the OP has admitted he is.
4/ Due to the amount of evidence against the OP C2C are VERY unlikely to settle out of court due to the 99% chance of a successful prosecution.
5/ The OP seems to think that saying sorry will make things right (who do you think you are, an MP), sorry but it doesnt work like that (not for us "normals" anyway), you play with the big boys, you play by their rules, and C2C are ruthless.
6/ I hope the OP has realised that it isnt worth the risk and being successfully prosecuted (for fraud) WILL give you a criminal record which can have serious consequences not only for future employment but also travel, try going to America or Australia for example.

I wish him well for the future but there isnt much he can do now apart from wait for the letter and HOPE C2C are in a good mood, unlikely as it is.
Please learn from this, it is too late after the event, it may already be too late.

 

[bb21]

The idea of the court system is to offer a fair and unbias system to all parties involved,

I must say I find it a bit odd that the court tries to be fair yet imposes a fine that is dependent on the individual's personal circumstance. This means that the penalty varies for the same offence depending on who you are rather than the nature of the offence and I would hardly consider that fair.

 

[bnm]

I must say I find it a bit odd that the court tries to be fair yet imposes a fine that is dependent on the individual's personal circumstance. This means that the penalty varies for the same offence depending on who you are rather than the nature of the offence and I would hardly consider that fair.

Ability to pay has to be taken into account. There's little point fining someone so much that the payments would leave them unable to meet basic living expenses. Or are you arguing that the rich need to be fined more?

 

[bb21]

Ability to pay has to be taken into account. There's little point fining someone so much that the payments would leave them unable to meet basic living expenses. Or are you arguing that the rich need to be fined more?

Maybe a payment plan could be put in place so that someone poorer can repay x amount over the course of y months rather than all in one go. How can the same offence have differing levels of penalties attached? Are we saying that richer people committing the same offence is more criminal than poorer people? That's certainly what a higher level of fines would suggest to me.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I really know nothing about how this works, but it seems very logical to me that the fine should vary depending on the criminal's ability to pay. If we accept that the punishment should be appropriate to the offence, then if the fine was always the same amount of money, the punishment (i.e. the impact of the fine) would vary depending on how rich the criminal was. For a very rich person who could easily afford to pay it, then the fine in itself would really be no punishment at all (but of course the criminal record may be). If the fine is allowed to vary, then the punishment "effect" can remain constant.

 

[bb21]

I suppose it really depends on how you look at it, doesn't it?

I can see your point.