'Verification Letter' Crosscountry trains

[scotland123]

Hi,

Me and a group of friends, all 19/20 year old students, were travelling from Glasgow to Sheffield. Five rail card tickets were bought by one of my friends, who had a valid railcard, but three of us did not. We traveled anyway, which I acknowledge was a big mistake and it was my duty to ensure we had a valid ticket. Upon being informed that our tickets were not valid by a conductor, we panicked and stated that our railcards had been left at home.

We have now received a 'verification letter' from Transport Investigations Limited informing us we have 21 days to give an explanation or to provide comments about the incident.

Any explanation/comments given by us will be taken into account and reviewed before arriving at the decision to prosecute, under the byelaws act or the regulation of railways act.

Obviously what we did was stupid and we hold our hands up, but if possible we would like to avoid a criminal record. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the mostlikely outcome is, and how we should respond?

Thanks.

 

[furlong]

Whereabouts did this happen - between which stations? How many of you received letters - 3 of you or all 5? Did you change trains? Which train company is dealing with this?

 

[scotland123]

Whereabouts did this happen - between which stations? How many of you received letters - 3 of you or all 5? Did you change trains?

Believe it was between York and Doncaster. 3 of us.

 

[furlong]

And was it a through train from Glasgow? (The station at which you boarded can sometimes make a difference.)

 

[scotland123]

And was it a through train from Glasgow? (The station at which you boarded can sometimes make a difference.)

Yeah it was

 

[furlong]

Things to consider.
Entering the train happened in Scotland but a possible byelaw offence (byelaw 18) was detected in England. Use of the Regulations of Railway Act normally needs evidence of an intention not to pay the correct fare - but is there evidence you knew (or should have known) that your friend had bought you the wrong ticket? A lie about having a railcard might show intent?

 

[scotland123]

Things to consider.
Entering the train happened in Scotland but a possible byelaw offence (byelaw 18) was detected in England. Use of the Regulations of Railway Act normally needs evidence of an intention not to pay the correct fare - but is there evidence you knew (or should have known) that your friend had bought you the wrong ticket? A lie about having a railcard might show intent?

The lie about having the railcard at home is what I think they will be using as evidence as there's no other way they would be able to prove intent.

 

[furlong]

Or to put it another way, the attempted cover-up only made things worse.

 

[furlong]

So now, it's the normal formula used on many threads like this - come clean and be honest, and try to negotiate a settlement out-of-court (without inadvertently causing problems for your other 2 friends too). This is harder with TIL/CrossCountry than with other operators and might need persistence but it's not impossible.

 

[scotland123]

So now, it's the normal formula used on many threads like this - come clean and be honest, and try to negotiate a settlement out-of-court (without inadvertently causing problems for your other 2 friends too). This is harder with TIL/CrossCountry than with other operators and might need persistence but it's not impossible.

Thanks. What do you think a likelihood of going to court/getting a criminal record is? Should I seek legal advice or is this not necessary?

 

[furlong]

If you read other threads, you'll probably conclude CrossCountry normally prosecutes. If that worries you, seeking legal advice sooner rather than later would be better, to try to reduce the impact and get help with trying to negotiate a settlement. You might see from other threads the sorts of settlements that happen, and try to get in quickly with an offer e.g. sending a cheque to cover the fare owed and a generous estimate of their costs with your reply now, hoping they'll accept it as a settlement and close the case at this early stage (i.e. before they've even reached the "shall we prosecute?" decision point).

 

[najaB]

You might see from other threads the sorts of settlements that happen, and try to get in quickly with an offer e.g. sending a cheque to cover the fare owed and a generous estimate of their costs with your reply now, hoping they'll accept it as a settlement and close the case at this early stage (i.e. before they've even reached the "shall we prosecute?" decision point).

Be wary of making too generous an offer, lest it's seen as an attempt to buy your way out of trouble.

 

[Mag_seven]

Be wary of making too generous an offer, lest it's seen as an attempt to buy your way out of trouble.

But surely such a payment is just that, regardless of the amount?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

OP - in case you are wondering why we were asking about where the problem was discovered, that is because it's impractical (effectively impossible) for railway companies to prosecute ticketing offences in Scotland. But you were travelling in England when the problem arose so that doesn't help you.

 

[londonboi198o5]

Hi,

Me and a group of friends, all 19/20 year old students, were travelling from Glasgow to Sheffield. Five rail card tickets were bought by one of my friends, who had a valid railcard, but three of us did not. We traveled anyway, which I acknowledge was a big mistake and it was my duty to ensure we had a valid ticket. Upon being informed that our tickets were not valid by a conductor, we panicked and stated that our railcards had been left at home.

We have now received a 'verification letter' from Transport Investigations Limited informing us we have 21 days to give an explanation or to provide comments about the incident.

Any explanation/comments given by us will be taken into account and reviewed before arriving at the decision to prosecute, under the byelaws act or the regulation of railways act.

Obviously what we did was stupid and we hold our hands up, but if possible we would like to avoid a criminal record. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the mostlikely outcome is, and how we should respond?

Thanks.

You have said about you knew the tickets required a railcard but travelled anyway. you had the opportunity to go into the very large travel Center in Glasgow central before boarding and could have explained the problem and rectified it BEFORE you boarded the train. Best thing to do is reply back honestly and truthfully. Did the inspector note anything Down ie that you said you left your railcard at home. If so this may complicate things more

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think the relevant facts of the matter will be this. You can't be prosecuted in England for an offence that occurred entirely whilst in Scotland (a breach of Railway Byelaw 18(1) - boarding the train in Glasgow without a valid ticket). You weren't in breach of Byelaw 18(2) as you did hand over your ticket for inspection and verification of validity, although of course the ticket was not valid.

So it is only a potential RoRA offence for which you can be prosecuted. If you weren't the one who bought your ticket and you didn't know that your friend had added on the Railcard discount (despite you not having a Railcard) then I don't think you would be guilty of a RoRA offence. But the fact that you said you did have a Railcard but had just forgotten it, is fairly clear evidence of intent to avoid payment of the fare, and as such, I don't think CrossCountry would find any difficulty in prosecuting such an offence.

From Corbyn v Saunders we know that a RoRA offence can be considered to be committed at any stage of the journey, until such time as you leave railway property entirely. Of note, since the relevant Section 5(3)(a) talks about "travels without previously having paid his fare", I think it is clear that the offence is continuously being committed whilst on the train, so jurisdiction is not an issue for that.

 

[js1000]

Be wary of making too generous an offer, lest it's seen as an attempt to buy your way out of trouble.

Agreed. There is a balance between showing contrition and not appearing too eager to pay up in the letter.

 

[Stigy]

I’d say this comes down to what evidence they have of the RoRA offence occurring. The version of events seems very sketchy. If a ‘conductor’ merely took details and reported the matter, there’s really no evidence to suggest a breach of the RoRA 1889. If however they were stopped by an RPI and questioned under caution, it could quite easily be a different matter. I’d say to secure a conviction under the RRA1889 (in this case), one would need to be questioned under caution or invited in for an interview under caution.

 

[221129]

I’d say this comes down to what evidence they have of the RoRA offence occurring. The version of events seems very sketchy. If a ‘conductor’ merely took details and reported the matter, there’s really no evidence to suggest a breach of the RoRA 1889. If however they were stopped by an RPI and questioned under caution, it could quite easily be a different matter. I’d say to secure a conviction under the RRA1889 (in this case), one would need to be questioned under caution or invited in for an interview under caution.

The caution in this instance would be irrelevant.

 

[Stigy]

The caution in this instance would be irrelevant.

Only if there’s enough evidence without a full Q&A. There’s a couple of defences to a RRA charge without proper questioning, unless I’m missing some vital info when I skimmed the thread?

 

[221129]

Had a railcard discounted ticket with no Railcard is bread and butter....

 

[Stigy]

Had a railcard discounted ticket with no Railcard is bread and butter....

Bread and butter for us because we know there was an act of dishonesty. But what about the defences one might present?

"I didn't buy the ticket"

"It was issued by the ticket by the ticket office. My friends asked for one with a railcard, I didn't, there was a confusion"

Yes it's the traveller's responsibility to make sure they have a correct ticket, but if they don't, does that constitute fare evasion? Under caution, an RPI could easily put most defences to bed, unless the defendant is just going to lie through their teeth and deny all knowledge. The above defences bring quite a large element of doubt to the table in any case, both of which are perfectly valid scenarios.

You know as well as I do that as nice as it would be, you can't just say somebody is guilty of an offence under most legislation even if we know they are. Looking at it outside the box from a lay person's point of view, the prosecution won't be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this offence occurred, unless they provide some evidence in addition to a discounted rail ticket.

 

[30907]

I think the relevant facts of the matter will be this. You can't be prosecuted in England for an offence that occurred entirely whilst in Scotland (a breach of Railway Byelaw 18(1) - boarding the train in Glasgow without a valid ticket).

With your wide legal knowledge, are you able to point to evidence (case-law or whatever) that a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution for a journey begun in Scotland must fail?

 

[Stigy]

With your wide legal knowledge, are you able to point to evidence (case-law or whatever) that a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution for a journey begun in Scotland must fail?

No. Because I’ve never come across this before. In all honesty I don’t see why Byelaws can’t be used in Scotland? Scotland is mentioned in them in terms of at least one Byelaw? If anyone cares to elaborate?

If we are talking Byelaw convictions, then I appreciate its strict liability and there’s a strong case if it can be used. I was referring to RRA solely on the basis that the Byelaw couldn’t be used.

And it’s not a “vast legal knowledge”, it’s 12 years of railway legislation, application and court procedural knowledge.

Although admittedly I’m stumped by Scottish law.

 

[30907]

No. Because I’ve never come across this before. In all honesty I don’t see why Byelaws can’t be used in Scotland? Scotland is mentioned in them in terms of at least one Byelaw? If anyone cares to elaborate?

If we are talking Byelaw convictions, then I appreciate its strict liability and there’s a strong case if it can be used. I was referring to RRA solely on the basis that the Byelaw couldn’t be used.

And it’s not a “vast legal knowledge”, it’s 12 years of railway legislation, application and court procedural knowledge.

Although admittedly I’m stumped by Scottish law.

I was quoting ForTheLoveOf not you - I'm with you on this!

 

[Stigy]

I was quoting ForTheLoveOf not you - I'm with you on this!

Haha, sorry....it was an assumption on my part I thought you were 221129 (all the numbers) and since I had just responded to him/her I assumed....blah blah

 

[najaB]

In all honesty I don’t see why Byelaws can’t be used in Scotland?

They can, the issue is that an offence that occurs in Scotland has to be brought in a Scottish court and private prosecutions are as common up here as unicorns.

 

[furlong]

I think that the suggestion was that if the train was "entered" in Scotland, then the location of any offence under byelaw 18(1) would be in Scotland, and in Scotland a private prosecution needs the permission of the Lord Advocate and is extremely rare. (For a fuller understanding, read for example this background information to a petition trying to get this changed.) But breaches of RoRA might be alleged at times and locations in England.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

With your wide legal knowledge, are you able to point to evidence (case-law or whatever) that a Byelaw 18(1) prosecution for a journey begun in Scotland must fail?

@furlong answered it well:

I think that the suggestion was that if the train was "entered" in Scotland, then the location of any offence under byelaw 18(1) would be in Scotland, and in Scotland a private prosecution needs the permission of the Lord Advocate and is extremely rare. (For a fuller understanding, read for example this background information to a petition trying to get this changed.) But breaches of RoRA might be alleged at times and locations in England.

Exactly. A case of alleged gang rape was refused permission for a private prosecution a few years ago. If that fails, I don't see that a "petty" railway ticketing case makes the cut - and the TOCs recognise this, accepting that prosecution in Scotland, for offences committed there, is simply not feasible. Not to mention the fact that Scottish criminal procedure requires there to be two separate witnesses to corroborate each alleged fact.

 

[najaB]

Not to mention the fact that Scottish criminal procedure requires there to be two separate witnesses to corroborate each alleged fact.

Not always, and possibly not for much longer.