Tazi Hupefi
Member
Moderator note: Spilt from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-fraud-mentioned-settlement-possible.220101/
Before court, the operator can ask for absolutely anything they like.
At court, as you say, it's actual losses only, but you also end up with a conviction.
I think you're confusing an out of court settlement for criminal matters with some sort of civil litigation.As an out-of-court settlement in place of a criminal prosecution, I think they can ask for the amount of money that puts them back into the position they would have been in if the person concerned had not committed the offences alleged. Both sides would expect that a court would enforce such an agreement i.e. once paid, any attempt to prosecute could easily be blocked, and an attempt to ask the courts to force the money to be returned would fail. That means paying the total difference between what was actually paid and what would have been paid if the correct tickets were bought in the first place, plus any costs that are not unreasonable and were specifically incurred dealing with the case. The company is not meant to use the threat of a private prosecution to make any profit, nor abuse its position as a company permitted to operate trains to make money in ways outside the parameters of its operating agreement with the government such as attempting to impose any "penalty". (If they want you to pay any penalty, then they should prosecute and allow the court to decide the level to set that at.) So in short, yes, that means working out how much you avoided paying and paying that back, plus some administration costs.
Now, separately under civil law, the train company might argue that a higher amount is owed according to the contract set out in the National Rail Conditions of Travel, perhaps based on the cost of Anytime single tickets and potentially disregarding some or all of the fares already paid. So the two figures - a lower one based on criminal law, and a more uncertain higher one based on civil law - provide a range within which it may be possible to negotiate a settlement figure. With a prosecution, the criminal court is more likely to award compensation based on the lower figure, but with a negotiated settlement the company might get something closer to the higher figure and avoid the uncertainty of leaving it to the courts to determine the amount. The £43,000 settlement mentioned earlier appeared to be based on paying new single fares and probably at the top end of the range that a civil court might have awarded. After the press coverage, some people called for prosecution but that got nowhere - people couldn't find a way around the out-of-court settlement. There was a separate Chiltern case in the press where, after conviction, the criminal courts only awarded an amount at the low end of the range, calculated on the basis that the offender would have bought season tickets not singles.
Before court, the operator can ask for absolutely anything they like.
At court, as you say, it's actual losses only, but you also end up with a conviction.
Last edited by a moderator: