Why do you contribute to threads in the Disputes Section when sometimes people have deliberately broken the law?

[malc-c]

This is a general comment, which just goes to show how great the folk here are.

If you posted a comment say on a software forum along the lines of "I have knowingly installed a cracked version of the software and want help from those who've paid the full price for the software to give me advice" you would be slated and would come into flack from all directions. But here people who go about knowingly defrauding the railway companies out of money by not paying the full price for tickets, get caught, and then request the advice from normal people who most probably pay the full price for their tickets on how to avoid a criminal record... and they receive it without prejudice !

I'm not in the industry, and for the most have been an law abiding person, so my normal thought to these sort of posts is that they knowingly committed an offence, they got caught so should man up and accept the consequences. I admire them for being up front and making their case public (I wonder if the teams from the railway companies that prosecute people read this forum), and I admire the support they get from other experienced forum members who give advice on how best to minimise the impact, or even get cases dropped against the OP's.

I also admire the owners of the forum, as most forums moderate similar subjects where it could be suggested that by having a platform where for the most, advice is given to those who have committed offenses on how best to get away with things, and thus could be seen as condoning activities like defrauding / theft etc being discussed.

As I said, it's just a general comment and not directed at the OP. Having a place where free legal advice and opinions are given must be very reassuring to someone facing a hefty fine, costs and the possibility of a criminal record.

 

[yorkie]

This is a general comment, which just goes to show how great the folk here are.

If you posted a comment say on a software forum along the lines of "I have knowingly installed a cracked version of the software and want help from those who've paid the full price for the software to give me advice" you would be slated and would come into flack from all directions.

I'm not sure how well the term "cracked" is known among the public, but for the benefit of anyone who isn't sure, you are basically talking about software piracy.

I'm not sure what advice you envisage would be sought?

I assume the software company would be seeking compensation for the loss of revenue, plus some extra in damages, and therefore the question would be 'should I pay this?' and the answer would probably simply be 'yes'.

Perhaps some people would not answer the question and instead simply give abuse to the person asking, if that is what you are suggesting? I don't know if I would expect that to happen or not, but without being familiar with the community in question, I really couldn't say. But that wouldn't be productive, and a good forum wouldn't encourage, condone or tolerate abuse being given as a response to a question!

But here people who go about knowingly defrauding the railway companies out of money by not paying the full price for tickets, get caught, and then request the advice from normal people who most probably pay the full price for their tickets on how to avoid a criminal record... and they receive it without prejudice !

Not paying the "full price" is not necessarily fraud (there are many legitimate ways to avoid "full price"; how would you even define "full price" anyway?!), but notwithstanding that, if someone has not paid for a valid fare, you are right that people who are seeking help get advice that is the best advice, for not only the people who have committed the offence, but also the train company, as well as taxpayers.

I'm not sure that this would be particularly surprising?

I'm not in the industry, and for the most have been an law abiding person, so my normal thought to these sort of posts is that they knowingly committed an offence, they got caught so should man up and accept the consequences

As a general rule, the consequences that are the best for all parties involved, is to reach an out-of-court settlement.

(Well, that is, unless you are looking at it from a lawyer's view point, in which case maybe you would want these matters to clog up the courts, and generate more work for those in the legal profession? )

I admire them for being up front and making their case public (I wonder if the teams from the railway companies that prosecute people read this forum)

Yes, they certainly do.

, and I admire the support they get from other experienced forum members who give advice on how best to minimise the impact,

Minimising the impact generally means reaching a settlement, which as well as being the best outcome for the individual concerned, also results in:

• more income for the railways
• minimising the burden on taxpayers
• reducing the burden on the courts

or even get cases dropped against the OP's.

Do you have any examples of where a customer has defrauded the railway, and the case was dropped entirely, with no settlement or any other payment being required whatsoever (if that is what you are suggesting, or have I misunderstood?)

I also admire the owners of the forum,

Thanks; though for the avoidance of doubt, please do bear in mind that no-one takes any form of salary, we are run on a not-for-profit basis with zero employees, and that those giving advice are not in any way 'owners', and do so on an entirely voluntary/unpaid basis.

as most forums moderate similar subjects where it could be suggested that by having a platform where for the most, advice is given to those who have committed offenses on how best to get away with things, and thus could be seen as condoning activities like defrauding / theft etc being discussed.

Defrauding is not condoned; do you have an example of an instance where you think it has been? If you can provide a link and quote I'll take a look.

If anyone finds a post which they believe to be condoning defrauding the railways, then I would ask that this is reported, by using the 'report' link at the bottom of the post in question.

As I said, it's just a general comment and not directed at the OP. Having a place where free legal advice and opinions are given must be very reassuring to someone facing a hefty fine, costs and the possibility of a criminal record.

At the risk of sounding pedantic (sorry!), technically it's not 'legal advice' per se; legal advice has a specific definition and what is posted on this forum doesn't constitute that.

The informal advice given to people who have clearly done wrong here, is - put simply - generally to engage in the process.

In some instances we have been (completely falsely) accused of working for/with train companies, by some people who don't want to engage; this is clearly untrue, but demonstrates how differently situations can be interpreted by different people!

 

[Cowley]

It’d be interesting to get a few takes on this because it’s a question that comes up quite frequently.

 

[AlterEgo]

People are entitled to a defence in a civilised society.

If you are arrested, you are allowed to have a solicitor free of charge while being questioned. Free! And they will advise you on your potential defences, your culpability, and the consequences.

If you are caught fare evading, you are not usually arrested and usually have no right to free legal representation. Such representation comes after the fact and is expensive. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable for other citizens to give their (non-professional, free) opinion and advice.

 

[Bluejays]

I think it's good that there is advice for people, it's also good that the advice given is delivered by people who have a decent knowledge of the industry and it's rules and procedures.

While I can see the rationale behind the 'no critical comments ' ruling I do think it becomes a bit daft in places. The particulary egregious cases, and the complete idiots should be allowed to be dealt with more bluntly imo.

I can vaguely remember the case of a staff member (maybe agency staff) last year, who had ignored the advice of gateline and then found themselves in trouble. I think cases like that individual need to be pilloried, because not only are they trying it on themselves but they are potentially risking having travel facilities withdrawn for others (if a certain scheme was withdrawn for instance, as the company decided it was getting abused).

Same goes for anything hugely fraudulent (doctored tickets ect) or cases that involve the person suggesting they 'pushed past' or were abusive to staff. I think there should be leeway to be harsher with these individuals rather than the 'constructive messages only' kind of rules.

Then again, I'm not the one who has to spend my time moderating it

 

[FenMan]

I think it's good that there is advice for people, it's also good that the advice given is delivered by people who have a decent knowledge of the industry and it's rules and procedures.

While I can see the rationale behind the 'no critical comments ' ruling I do think it becomes a bit daft in places. The particulary egregious cases, and the complete idiots should be allowed to be dealt with more bluntly imo.

I can vaguely remember the case of a staff member (maybe agency staff) last year, who had ignored the advice of gateline and then found themselves in trouble. I think cases like that individual need to be pilloried, because not only are they trying it on themselves but they are potentially risking having travel facilities withdrawn for others (if a certain scheme was withdrawn for instance, as the company decided it was getting abused).

Same goes for anything hugely fraudulent (doctored tickets ect) or cases that involve the person suggesting they 'pushed past' or were abusive to staff. I think there should be leeway to be harsher with these individuals rather than the 'constructive messages only' kind of rules.

Then again, I'm not the one who has to spend my time moderating it

I think it is fair to ask questions that the TOC would also be minded to ask, as they can uncover OPs who are telling a pack of lies or aggressively showing no contrition for their actions. There've been a couple of instances recently where OPs have "gone away" when their account of events has unravelled (personally I'd prefer they continued engaging in the dialogue, but some people cannot be halped).

That said, many more OPs fully engage with the advice provided and often get results that are equitable in their circumstances, with the added bonus that they're less likely to become repeat offenders.

 

[pedr]

Everyone benefits when those accused of crimes know precisely what the situation is, and what actions they can take to make the process easier. TOC investigation teams presumably receive letters which are simpler to deal with from people who come here for advice than they do from people who haven't accepted that their conduct was criminal, who are confused about penalty fares vs criminal accusations, who respond with frustration and anger etc. Things might be slightly different if train companies did not routinely choose to offer financial settlements instead of prosecuting, but in effect the interests of defendants, train companies, and posters here are reasonably aligned: everyone wants this to be a process which reinforces the importance of avoiding ticketing irregularities in as straight-forward a way as possible.

Advice given here is realistic, disabuses some posters of their misconceptions about the law relating to railway ticketing, and doesn't either give false hope or allow posters to remain ignorant of the legal requirements they should have followed and should do in the future.

And since the train companies do make mistakes, the expertise built up here, and honed through the more routine threads, can work to prevent actually unjust penalties in some circumstances.

 

[jfollows]

I deliberately break the law all the time, and I don't believe in casting judgement on others who break the law, and it's not for me to determine that my law-breaking is less serious than someone else's.
If I can post something which helps someone here who admits to breaking the law, by explaining something relevant or giving advice on a good course of action, then I'm happy to do this.
I don't post much in this section because there are others more competent than me who already do so, and I generally don't see the point in giving my inferior advice, but if I can help inform the transgressor in some way, I'm happy to do so.

 

[Watershed]

I would see the advice and assistance offered on this subsection of the forum as broadly equivalent to what a defence solicitor might do.

For the avoidance of doubt, it's by no means proper legal advice (there is no liability insurance or industry body to complain to if the advice is bad!) but that's effectively the role it substitutes for, since most people either cannot afford a solicitor or would find the cost disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Defence solicitors are there to advise and represent even clients whom they suspect are guilty, as a minimum to make sure the correct process is followed and that the prosecutor proves guilt. In a civilised society that values proper justice, this is an important safeguard. Therefore, I don't think there is anything wrong with advising people who admit they have broken the law.

In many cases we can also advise people on how to resolve an irregularity by means of an out of court settlement, which in many ways benefits everyone - the courts and TOC have one less case to deal with, and the passenger avoids a criminal conviction.

 

[Haywain]

I think it is important to note that on the odd occasion we find someone coming and asking how to get away with what they have done, and how to continue doing it they get pretty short shrift. We are not here to encourage law breaking in any way, and we can usually spot insincerity quite easily. That's not to say that we're not sometimes fooled but I'd say it's pretty rare. For the rest, in English law everybody is entitled to a defence and that's what we help with, although in many cases (those not involving TfL, principally) it's a case of avoiding court action and getting the outcome that is best for the poster seeking help.

 

[RPI]

If you're accused of an offence you're entitled to be treated fair and this forum helps people achieve that, it also helps people manage their expectations of what sanctions they may face and prepare themselves for that, whether that is just a case of saving up for a settlement.

Whilst I always do my level best to tell any person that I have cause to deal with the potential course of action that will follow, not everyone who does the same or similar job to me are quite as helpful.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If you posted a comment say on a software forum along the lines of "I have knowingly installed a cracked version of the software and want help from those who've paid the full price for the software to give me advice"

You can't have read many software forums. Reddit is absolutely full of people with cracked versions of the Adobe Creative Cloud apps asking for help and I can't remember ever seeing a "just pay for the software" reply.

 

[30907]

I have been responding to these posts for several years. If people ask advice we should give it. We should also gently point out that what they have done is wrong in law (and morally, in many cases) - but most posters already know that anyway.

The people who have to be persuaded to tell anything like the truth are more difficult to deal with, and IME are most likely to meet challenging replies. Fortunately there aren't that many in proportion.

And of course it isn't always obvious whether someone has committed an offence anyway - especially since some prosecutors are sloppy in applying the law, and train companies in complying with the letter of it.

 

[fandroid]

We don't advise on how to defraud the railway. What the sub-forum does illustrate by being there for others to read is how almost all of the full-fare avoiding tricks our "customers" employ are doomed to fail fairly soon. On top of that, a prolonged period of apparent success merely makes its eventual downfall even more painful.

Another issue is that many who come here for advice have had money problems which pushed them into cheating on fares. When a job depends on rail travel but doesn't pay enough to cover it, then it's understandable that temptation follows. We aren't able to vet all who plead poverty, but it's certain that many are genuine, and good advice on how to minimise the impact shouldn't be given grudgingly.

 

[Cowley]

Some very well made points above. Thanks for taking the time to reply everyone, it’s appreciated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main reason I'm happy to contribute on these is that I strongly believe the railway should lose the right to prosecute privately, as a minimum under the Byelaws but ideally RoRA as well, with the Fraud Act being available for very serious incidents, and that rather people who either casually evade or simply make a mistake e.g. an expired Railcard should simply get, and pay, a Penalty Fare. Thus I'm more than happy to assist them in getting a settlement of that sort of magnitude rather than a much higher fine and criminal record.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can't really add to what's gone above but as with others my view is that everyone is entitled to understand what they're facing and have a cool assessment of the options that now face them dispose of the matter with the least amount of fuss possible. As has been pointed out when someone comes on here asking for help to evade their fare or continue to evade their fare they get booted pretty quick. But the overwhelming majority of people seeking help here have already been caught and now need help to understand what they can do following that.

Everyone is entitled to a defence and to ensure that a proper legal process is being followed correctly. It's why I get so wound up when the likes of the Daily Mail (and sadly politicians who should know better) get a bee in their bonnet at the idea of lawyers having the temerity to defend people and then get even more upset at the idea that if you cannot afford a defence one should be provided for you at state expense via Legal Aid (what's left of it).

Thankfully for railway matters most people don't need to engage the services of a solicitor (let alone a barrister) and the information can be provided via this Forum for them to then go and resolve the matter under their own steam.

For the rest, in English law everybody is entitled to a defence and that's what we help with, although in many cases (those not involving TfL, principally) it's a case of avoiding court action and getting the outcome that is best for the poster seeking help.

I would argue that actually its the outcome that's best for everyone! If court action is avoided via an out of court settlement then the railway keeps all the money, the court system doesn't have to spend time dealing with the case (though with our sausage factory justice system it wouldn't take that much time to be fair), the TOCs prosecution team doesn't spend time dealing with something petty, etc etc.

There's a reason why in civil justice the court expects that the party seeking redress will have offered the chance to settle the matter before bringing their legal claim!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

My take (and I know this is pompous, but happily we have other people here who can do better): I try to encourage justice to be done. So if we're looking at a case where someone is in the wrong, in general I will encourage them to pay up. If the railway is in the wrong, I will encourage them to challenge the railway.

This of course involves me making a judgement. I try not to let that come through in how I word posts: I suspect that I fail...

It also means that I tend not to encourage technical challenges to (for example but in particular) penalty fares (e.g. not using the magic words, poster positioning not quite right). Others will take this line and I think they are wrong - but no doubt they think I am wrong so we come out more or less even.

 

[Statto]

Most OPs are asking for help & advice how to approach the TOC for the offence(s) they're facing, as to what they can expect to happen next, which is perfectly fine.

Now & again you get some trying to get off the offence, who promptly get the short shrift on here, & then you get some being completely evasive when you further question them, & know more than they're letting on, so you can't help them

 

[Hadders]

Regular readers of the forum know that I frequently give advice on this section. I am not legally qualified and do not, and never have, worked for the railway. My comments and observations are:

- I do not condone fare evasion. I want the the railway to maximise its revenue and for everyone to pay their fares.
- Railway ticketing is complex. Those of us who frequent this forum do understand it, but the average person believes it's complex and difficult to understand.
- Many people don't realise railway ticketing offences are criminal, rather than civil law.
- The advice I give is to help people who have been caught understand the process and what is likely to happen, and tell them how the situation might be resolved
- The railway sometimes doesn't follow its own processes and/or the law. We can help advise where this is the case.
- Out of court settlements avoid clogging up the criminal justice system with minor matters, and result in the railway obtaining more money than it would have done had they have prosecuted successfully in court.
- There are some cases where I think prosecution should be the result (eg industrial levels of fare evasion)

I do think the whole system of how railway ticketing offences are dealt with should be reviewed but there are some watch-outs:

- If railway ticketing matters are decriminalised (as many on here want to see) we would end up with action through the County Court to recover unpaid fares and penalties. The unintended consequence here is that a ticketing matter end up with a CCJ and all the issues that come with it....
- Out of Court settlements are arbitary, and unregulated. There is no transparency to them which doesn't feel quite right.
- Penalty Fares seem appropriate if there is a proper appeals system (which there isn't until you get to stage 3). Maybe PFs should be able to be issued retrospectively rather than Out of Court Settlements

 

[Sultan]

If we know (or suspect in some cases, when the story doesn't add up) that someone has deliberately broken the law (whether knowingly or not), I like to think that contributions educate the OP to the error of their ways, and the expected (possible) outcome of their actions. I don't believe anyone assists actively in getting them 'off the hook' on a technicality. But the TOCs themselves need to ensure they adhere to the strict procedures and guidelines in bringing the matter to the attention of the traveler correctly - as @Hadders has said, railway ticketing is complex and what can seem to be simple errors (forgetting a rail card, for example) can attract a substantial penalty well in excess of the perceived misdemeanor. Hopefully the majority of the cases fall into the latter where putting it down to experience is the pragmatic option.

I hadn't really thought of the possible consequence of decriminalizing ticketing matters - better the devil we know perhaps on that one, however unfair (at times) it might seem.

 

[Titfield]

I hadn't really thought of the possible consequence of decriminalizing ticketing matters - better the devil we know perhaps on that one, however unfair (at times) it might seem.

Yes as much as I would like to see ticketing matters decriminalised I very much fear that there are many unforeseen consequences which would only become apparent once the change had been made.

 

[neilmc]

It's perfectly in order to advise people who have wilfully broken the law regarding railway ticketing on how to compose a letter expressing remorse, whether it would be worth contacting a solicitor, what the penalty is likely to be, etc.

It also has to be borne in mind that on occasions it is the rail industry itself which has broken the law by refusing to accept perfectly valid tickets or combinations thereof, accusing passengers of having boarded at a station other than where they did so, refusing to sell certain tickets that don't maximise benefit to the TOC, refusing to pay Delay Repay etc, etc and it's good that this is broadcast as such in a public forums by those who have the expertise to challenge the industry, which seems to tolerate a level of incompetence and bloody-mindedness which would be unacceptable in other public service sectors. Now whether they take a blind bit of notice is a moot point but it's an education for us all, as a local councillor I worry whether my local authority does something which might see it feature in the pages of Private Eye's "Rotten Boroughs" and ideally the TOCs should have the same worry about their failures being exposed in this forum.

 

[fandroid]

- Penalty Fares seem appropriate if there is a proper appeals system (which there isn't until you get to stage 3). Maybe PFs should be able to be issued retrospectively rather than Out of Court Settlements

Straying off topic a bit, possibly, but many of us here do seem to be frustrated by the seemingly arbitrary application of PFs. Partly due to the legislation (no retrospective notices) and partly due to the varying numbers of "authorised persons". That may colour some of our advice, although the moderators do keep us on topic, which is to advise the OP in each case as to how to get the best outcome for them

 

[35B]

People are entitled to a defence in a civilised society.

If you are arrested, you are allowed to have a solicitor free of charge while being questioned. Free! And they will advise you on your potential defences, your culpability, and the consequences.

If you are caught fare evading, you are not usually arrested and usually have no right to free legal representation. Such representation comes after the fact and is expensive. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable for other citizens to give their (non-professional, free) opinion and advice.

Absolutely. Not to mention that on a lot of the threads which go silent, I suspect the advice given creates the space for the OPs to realise the reality of their situation, and offer a guilty plea/accept that a settlement is the best they can hope for.

While I can see the rationale behind the 'no critical comments ' ruling I do think it becomes a bit daft in places. The particulary egregious cases, and the complete idiots should be allowed to be dealt with more bluntly imo.

I think tone is important - your "utter idiot" might be my "poor naive person". The value of what is offered here is that it isn't overly judgmental, which encourages people to ask questions without fear of being judged. It's often the ones who most deserve help who are most afraid of exposing themselves to censure.

 

[MotCO]

Straying off topic a bit, possibly, but many of us here do seem to be frustrated by the seemingly arbitrary application of PFs. Partly due to the legislation (no retrospective notices) and partly due to the varying numbers of "authorised persons". That may colour some of our advice, although the moderators do keep us on topic, which is to advise the OP in each case as to how to get the best outcome for them

Doesn't this depend on whether the passenger is 'caught' by the guard/train manager or an RPI?

I would like to add a couple of other points which I don't think have been raised earlier in this thread.

1. This forum, being independent of TOCs etc can give independent advice. Thus when an aggrieved passenger feels that they have been unfairly penalised, we can provide independent advice that the TOC has acted properly and to chalk it down to experience. They may not like this advice, but we can confirm what the TOC has said and done with independent, no vested-interest advice is correct

2. Some passengers may not have a good command of English. We are able to help them draft a letter which covers all the salient points in a concise way (having teased out all the facts), which must make it easier for the TOC to assess the case and react accordingly.

 

[Titfield]

It may appear that PFs are issued arbitrarily but could it be the case that they are issued when the issuer is satisfied that this is a genuine mistake (to use the oft quoted phrase) but a PF is not issued when the person examining the ticket has concerns that this may not be a genuine mistake but knowing fare evasion.

 

[ainsworth74]

Doesn't this depend on whether the passenger is 'caught' by the guard/train manager or an RPI?

It does but that's what drives the arbitrary nature. My train to work up here is a common target of on train RPIs but, being Northern, has a conductor who can sell fares. This means that one day you catch the same train from the same station and are able to buy a ticket from the person on the train wearing a Northern uniform but the next day you go to buy a ticket from the person on the train wearing a Northern uniform and are charged a Penalty Fare for doing so! I have heard that argument occur on the train and it seems clear that it feels very arbitrary to the person involved and I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for them in that respect (not in terms of not having bought a ticket before travelling however).

 

[SteveM70]

- Railway ticketing is complex. Those of us who frequent this forum do understand it, but the average person believes it's complex and difficult to understand

That's interesting - for me, I'd say those of us on this forum probably understand it better than most "normals", but doubtless many of us have imperfect knowledge. And for the "average person", I suspect a lot of them absolute don't realise the level of complexity and that's the nub of a lot of the problems we see

But in response to the OP, as an occasional contributor on this sub-forum, I'll chip in if there's something specific to a thread where I think I can help (eg local knowledge), and I try to start from the position of each OP being honest with us. Where I think it becomes clear they aren't, I won't get involved