If someone writes in and effectively manages to admit a criminal offence (whilst trying to do something else) if wouldn't surprise me if some TOCs saw that as free money.). I'm not suggesting what the likelyhood of it happenening is, merely that a risk exists. You wouldn't need a TIR/MG11 if there's a useful unrequested confession been sent in.
-
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!
Unpaid Fare Notice with East Midlands train-Should I appeal, please help!
- Thread starter conrua
- Start date
- Status
If someone writes in and effectively manages to admit a criminal offence (whilst trying to do something else) if wouldn't surprise me if some TOCs saw that as free money.). I'm not suggesting what the likelyhood of it happenening is, merely that a risk exists. You wouldn't need a TIR/MG11 if there's a useful unrequested confession been sent in.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I wouldn't urge the OP to appeal, however I would urge the OP to write in and complain. The guard was (unfortunately) right to charge a full fare (though might have in the circumstances more kindly excessed the fare paid to an off peak return).
It is a disgrace that the guard was angry at someone clearly new to the railway and not fully fluent in the English language. It is equally appalling that the guard did not ask the OP to write his own name down, even if on another piece of paper, or to spell it out. I would hope that EMT customer services would quickly refund all charges and apologise profoundly for this.
Incidentally, are guards not given training on how to converse with people not fluent with English, and with foreign names?
It is a disgrace that the guard was angry at someone clearly new to the railway and not fully fluent in the English language. It is equally appalling that the guard did not ask the OP to write his own name down, even if on another piece of paper, or to spell it out. I would hope that EMT customer services would quickly refund all charges and apologise profoundly for this.
Incidentally, are guards not given training on how to converse with people not fluent with English, and with foreign names?
And a TOC can retrospectively begin proceedings under Byelaws or RoRA when a PF has been successfully appealed? Say, even when the appellant hasn't incriminated themselves? What about evidence gathering and interview under caution at the time the PF was issued? Surely those would've needed to be carried out for any chance of building a case. Remembering also that you are not read your rights under PACE when being issued a Penalty Fare.
If a TOC can build a case solely on a Penalty Fare being issued and then successfully appealed, then the deck isn't just stacked in their favour; the TOC is the only one being dealt cards!
I don't think anything I've mentioned has had to do with successful appeals. All I've said was that in the process of making an appeal one could supply information which may prove self-incriminating, and may lead the TOC decide to not pursue (in this case) the UPFN and prosecute instead. Whether a PACE-compliant interview has been conducted is neither here nor there.
It sounds in this account like an Off Peak fare was initially demanded, the OP agreed instead to leave at the next stop but stayed on the train. That has 'trying it on' writ large to me, however innocent it actually was.
So can someone be retrospectively charged with a criminal offence without having been 'read their rights'?
Last edited:
Yes. An interview under caution is a piece of evidence. So is a confession note. If I were to write to Tesco's and say I'd been stealing apples from them it wouldn't surprise me if they asked for me to be prosecuted. The only difference is the railway can prosecute under criminal law without having to ask someone else to do it.
A very fair point. There are two other possibilities here - one is that under the pressure of the moment the OP decided to choose the former option due to the large £44 fee, then considered it a bad idea to get off; the other is that in the OP's culture, it's better to agreed to go along with a member of authority than to argue, even if the word isn't kept.
It sounds like the OP had no problem giving away his/her details having denied the option of getting off at the next stop.
- Status