Settlement of £115.50 for 'Failing to show a valid rail ticket' (due to expired railcard) - help please!

[gayketchup]

Was recommended from Reddit to post this on here too

Hi all,

I made a train journey a few months back with a purchased ticket alongside my 16-25 railcard. I hadn't realised that by this point my railcard had expired as I don't often travel via train.

When the train conductor saw my ticket, they took my details and nothing more. I wasn't presented with the opportunity to pay for a full-fare ticket or even pay a penalty fare. The conductor gave me a different kind of ticket and then went on.

I received a letter a few weeks later from 'Transport Investigations Limited' regarding the matter and sent a letter back to them explaining the situation and how it was just an honest mistake. They have now written back to me wanting to proceed the matter, fining me with 'administration costs' coming to £115.50. Bearing in mind the ticket I will have paid for at the time was about £10.

I could understand being asked to pay for a full ticket or a small penalty fare for the mistake, but I just think £115.50 is excessive, wildly unfair, and to be honest it will be a struggle for me to get this money together, but they are saying I have to pay this within 21 days of the letter (dated 21st October). Are there any options I can take here to avoid this? What are my rights here? Can this be reduced / avoided?

It's really stressing me out, advice is wholly appreciated.

Thank you!

 

[Nova1]

You are never entitled to a penalty fare or to be offered the chance to buy a ticket from the conductor.

Unfortunately you've committed the very simple offence of travelling without a valid ticket. Argueably it is slightly harsh from your side, but you have to see how they don't know if you've made a mistake or if you're taking a piss like the other hundred people they've referred for prosection.

As you've been offered a "out of court" settlement by TIL, your best way to go now is probably just to pay it, then it will go away and won't progress to court. If you let it progress to court it's going to cost you a lot more money, time, and leave you (probably) with a conviction.

As much as you may think it is unfair, you have committed an offence, and in some way, being offered this settlement is the easy way out for you.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

...I just think £115.50 is excessive, wildly unfair, and to be honest it will be a struggle for me to get this money together, but they are saying I have to pay this within 21 days of the letter (dated 21st October). Are there any options I can take here to avoid this? What are my rights here? Can this be reduced / avoided?

Welcome to the forum.

We have seen a number of new posters on here of recent, who have got into difficulty using a discounted ticket with an expired railcard.

Unfortunately, paying the requested settlement amount is likely to be your best, and cheapest, course of action.

If you fail to do so, and the matter goes to court, you are more than likely to be found guilty, and the amount you would then have to pay would be almost certainly more than £115.50.

So best take this on the chin, pay up within the requested timeframe, and move on.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

This is an unfortunate incident but my advice is to pay the settlement to make the matter go away. The last thing you need is this escalating an ending up in the Magistrates Court where you would be found guilty and face a fine and costs of more than the amount you are being asked to pay now, as well as potential criminal record.

 

[Haywain]

And in stress terms, you’ve got a good deal by being offered a settlement straight away - that doesn’t seem to happen much with TIL.

 

[nanstallon]

The problem with these cases seems to be that an innocent mistake is treated as deliberate fare dodging. It does seem unfair, when someone has made an honest mistake, but it would probably be argued that the OP should have taken a look at his discount card before travelling, and would then have realised that it was out of date.

If I were the OP, I'd pay the settlement figure, and put it down to experience. Going to court could be disastrous as a court record, however trivial, would close the door to many careers.

 

[Haywain]

The problem with these cases seems to be that an innocent mistake is treated as deliberate fare dodging. It does seem unfair, when someone has made an honest mistake,

How would you (or anyone else, obviously) distinguish between the honest mistake and the deliberate fare dodging?

 

[SteveM70]

The problem with these cases seems to be that an innocent mistake is treated as deliberate fare dodging.

In exactly the same way that accidentally going 35mph in a 30 mph limit is. Strict liability and all that.

 

[nanstallon]

How would you (or anyone else, obviously) distinguish between the honest mistake and the deliberate fare dodging?

Most criminal offences involve an element of mens rea ('guilty mind'), which the prosecution has to prove, because you are innocent until proven guilty. For example, I may be in a market and see a hat I like, I put it on to see how it fits, it does but my friend says it doesn't suit me; however I absentmindedly forget to give it back to the stallholder - the prosecution must satisfy the court that I had intended to permanently deprive the stallholder of the hat. Often this is not difficult, but the principle remains.

However, the railways seem to be in a privileged position and simply travelling on a reduced fare with an expired railcard is treated as an offence regardless of intent. It does seem unfair; the person accused should be considered innocent unless the prosecution prove that he must have known his railcard was out of date and was 'trying it on'. The court would make its own decision, based on surrounding facts and impressions - demeanour of the accused, how long the railcard had been expired, how frequently he travelled by train, etc.

 

[trenopendo]

Slightly off topic, but is travelling with a valid railcard but being unable to prove it (dead phone) a strict liability offense?

 

[SteveM70]

Slightly off topic, but is travelling with a valid railcard but being unable to prove it (dead phone) a strict liability offense?

Most TOCs seem to allow one get out of jail free card whereby the cardholder can send proof after the event

 

[Haywain]

Most criminal offences involve an element of mens rea ('guilty mind'), which the prosecution has to prove, because you are innocent until proven guilty. For example, I may be in a market and see a hat I like, I put it on to see how it fits, it does but my friend says it doesn't suit me; however I absentmindedly forget to give it back to the stallholder - the prosecution must satisfy the court that I had intended to permanently deprive the stallholder of the hat. Often this is not difficult, but the principle remains.

However, the railways seem to be in a privileged position and simply travelling on a reduced fare with an expired railcard is treated as an offence regardless of intent. It does seem unfair; the person accused should be considered innocent unless the prosecution prove that he must have known his railcard was out of date and was 'trying it on'. The court would make its own decision, based on surrounding facts and impressions - demeanour of the accused, how long the railcard had been expired, how frequently he travelled by train, etc.

So you simply want everyone taken to court?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In exactly the same way that accidentally going 35mph in a 30 mph limit is. Strict liability and all that.

No, not at all. Going at 35mph in a 30 limit makes you statistically more likely to kill in a collision. Forgetting to renew your railcard means that EnormousBigCo is deprived of £2 to share among its shareholders.

These are not the same.

Last weekend I travelled to Worcester. I bought my ticket with a Network Railcard discount and then, belatedly, remembered it was my Cotswold Line Railcard I’d renewed, not my Network Railcard. Fortunately I noticed this soon enough on the rain that I could buy a new Railcard from the crappy app with its endemic login problems, which finally took my payment on, I think, the fifth attempt.

Cotswold Line conductors are good people. I have confidence any of them would have been understanding. In the other direction - Oxford or Paddington gateline? I’m not so sure.

An honest mistake does not deserve a £115 fine. And equating it to dangerous driving... well.

 

[trenopendo]

An honest mistake does not deserve a £115 fine. And equating it to dangerous driving... well.

I agree from a moral perspective, but the thing is that a Magistrate will look at the law and convict in 2 seconds or less.

So an honest mistake doesn't deserve a 115 GBP, but paying this and avoiding ruination of your life does.

It's a bargain, really.

 

[malc-c]

Interesting analogies being given here. My take is that in life it is the individuals responsibility to ensure the things that matter are in date when used. Try telling the traffic cop you're sorry you forgot to renew your driving licence when they pull you for doing that 35mph in a 30 zone hinted above. Whilst the may well believe the expiry was genuinely overlooked, the fact is that an offence has been committed and they have to act accordingly.

Likewise the OP here committed an offence, irrespective if it was unintentional or not... and as others have said the best option is to pay up to stop it proceeding to court. £115 is a small price to pay compared to a criminal conviction.... - That's my 2p worth

 

[1955LR]

Just to put the settlement figure in perspective, my local paper today has an item concerning a court case of of an individual " failing to produce a valid rail ticket" for an £8.30 fare and was fined £220 plus compensation of £8.30 plus costs of £150 and victim surcharge of £34 . Total £412.30 and a criminal conviction.

 

[SteveM70]

No, not at all. Going at 35mph in a 30 limit makes you statistically more likely to kill in a collision. Forgetting to renew your railcard means that EnormousBigCo is deprived of £2 to share among its shareholders.

Nobody is talking about consequences here. The point was - and still is - that the offences are analogous insofar as both are judged purely on what the offender did, not on his/her intent or the consequences thereof. You might think that unfair, but that’s how it is at the moment. I suppose the analogy continues - in both you might get lucky with a policeman or an RPI who might take a lenient view and have the proverbial word in your ear, and in both you might get a “jobsworth” who always applies the letter of the law.

An honest mistake does not deserve a £115 fine. And equating it to dangerous driving... well.

Does an honest mistake deserve a £100 fine, 3 points on the driving licence and whatever the cost is in terms of increased insurance premiums?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you simply want everyone taken to court?

Anyone accused of fare evasion can choose to have their day in Court if they wish, simply by declining to pay any settlement and pleading not guilty when the summons arrives, but legal advice should be sought before doing this, as Courts don't rule on what is fair, they rule on matters of law, and the law very often is not fair.

 

[nanstallon]

So you simply want everyone taken to court?

No, but everyone should have the opportunity to argue their case that they did not deliberately intend to dodge paying their full fare. If they know that they were trying it on, they won't want to go to court and will settle out of court if given the opportunity to do that.

 

[RPI]

No, but everyone should have the opportunity to argue their case that they did not deliberately intend to dodge paying their full fare. If they know that they were trying it on, they won't want to go to court and will settle out of court if given the opportunity to do that.

Which they can do by going to court. Why should the railway, aka the taxpayer in the case of most TOC's now, lose revenue because someone can't simply check their that their own railcard is in date? Its a bit of self responsibility in the same way you check your passport is in date, your drivers licence, your go outdoors card and so on.

If its a genuine oversight then the offer of a settlement is more than fare, if the ticket was just excessed every time this happened then there would be no deterrent.

Its not difficult to check that your own railcard which lives either in your wallet or on your phone is in date, if you don't check and things like this happen then you have consequences to face, yes its unfortunate and can happen to anyone, but when it does just own it!

 

[nanstallon]

At present, anyone can insist on going all the way to court; nobody is forced to accept a settlement. But if you go to court, and it is a strict liability offence, then IMHO it is unfair because absentmindedness is not dishonesty.

Perhaps someone who genuinely forgot to check the validity of his railcard could be given the opportunity of paying double the difference between full fare and the discounted fare already paid.

 

[Nova1]

Perhaps someone who genuinely forgot to check the validity of his railcard could be given the opportunity of paying double the difference between full fare and the discounted fare already paid.

It's really up to whoever you're caught by to show any discretion. Normally I would have expected a penalty fare to be given for an offence like the OPs, but obviously whoever they were caught by decided to just refer for prosecution. I don't think loosening up our rules around not paying your fare is the solution to any problem. It is harsh but most of the other passengers on the train probably had a valid ticket...

 

[island]

I am afraid your choice is to pay or go to court. The amount is non-negotiable, although occasionally requests have been entertained to pay in a small number of monthly instalments (e.g. 3).

 

[Haywain]

it is unfair because absentmindedness is not dishonesty.

That's the purpose of strict liability. It could equally be argued that speeding in a car is not dishonesty, along with many other criminal offences. In the case of the Railway Byelaws, the consequences of a conviction are minimal in anything other than a financial sense.

 

[RPI]

At present, anyone can insist on going all the way to court; nobody is forced to accept a settlement. But if you go to court, and it is a strict liability offence, then IMHO it is unfair because absentmindedness is not dishonesty.

Perhaps someone who genuinely forgot to check the validity of his railcard could be given the opportunity of paying double the difference between full fare and the discounted fare already paid.

Re reading the OP's post i can't see any reference to strict liability, only a byelaw 18 offence in this case would be strict liability, a RoRA prosecution has to prove a degree of intent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re reading the OP's post i can't see any reference to strict liability, only a byelaw 18 offence in this case would be strict liability, a RoRA prosecution has to prove a degree of intent.

Can a TOC throw both and see what sticks, or does double jeopardy prevent that?

 

[swt_passenger]

At present, anyone can insist on going all the way to court; nobody is forced to accept a settlement. But if you go to court, and it is a strict liability offence, then IMHO it is unfair because absentmindedness is not dishonesty.

Perhaps someone who genuinely forgot to check the validity of his railcard could be given the opportunity of paying double the difference between full fare and the discounted fare already paid.

How do you tell “genuinely forgot” from “intentionally didn’t renew” - people have been waiting for a foolproof method for years…

 

[RPI]

Can a TOC throw both and see what sticks, or does double jeopardy prevent that?

I've been to court for cases before where the "charge" laid before the court was RoRA but when the defendant turns up their solicitor will plea bargain that they'll plead guilty to byelaw 18. Not sure if plea bargaining is a thing anymore, the last such case that I remember this was around 10 years back but had several before that.

 

[nanstallon]

How do you tell “genuinely forgot” from “intentionally didn’t renew” - people have been waiting for a foolproof method for years…

True, but there are many cases (other than railway fare cases, but where mens rea has to be proved by the prosecution) where the court has had to decide from the evidence, what the accused's intent was.

I am afraid your choice is to pay or go to court. The amount is non-negotiable, although occasionally requests have been entertained to pay in a small number of monthly instalments (e.g. 3).

In practical terms, and setting aside any ethical issues about carelessness not being the same as dishonesty, that is sound advice and in the OP's position I'd pay up quickly and avoid the very serious risks of getting a criminal record, however undeserved.

 

[island]

Can a TOC throw both and see what sticks, or does double jeopardy prevent that?

It is open to a TOC to lay both charges in their information to the magistrates court. In all likelihood the prosecutor would just “pick one” on the day and offer no evidence on the other. But there’s nothing stopping them proceeding with both – though magistrates would likely sentence for the S5 with the byelaw offence taken into consideration.

Aside: Double jeopardy is an American concept and United Kingdom law does not have an absolute bar on being prosecuted twice for the same or substantially the same set of circumstances, even if previously acquitted. The topic is quite complex and certainly off topic for this forum.