Legal ticketing dispute

[cipher20]

I mistakingly used my sisters 16+ oyster card to travel to uni a few months ago. We have share some clothes so this type of things sometime happens. However, the ticket inspector was unconvinced by this explanation/following official protocol, took my details, and told me to expect a letter with an update on the matter.
I have now received a single prosecution notice for this use. I know my explanation may be not prevent me from being found guilty under the law, but I am unable to being myself to plead guilty for what I know is a genuine mistake. I put a weekly top-up on my student oyster card and therefore the idea of me wanting to fare avoid does not make logical sense. Plus the potential consequence regarding my medical (school and) career further my justification on a 'not guilty' plea. Thus, I am currently in the process of obtaining legal representation.

Will my mistakingly using my sister's 16+ card once earlier in the month (yes same situation) be data available/useable to tfl in the court trial? They have not indicated they have or will use this information in the notice, but I am wary of tfl using this data record to imply that my behaviour somehow shows a pattern of fare evasion and or negligence.

 

[221129]

Does it say what legislation they are charging you under? Chances are if it is a bylaw offence then you are likely to be found guilty and you would lose any discount of an early plea. However this would not result in a criminal record. If it is something else then it might not be as clear cut.

 

[30907]

Asuming you are not entitled to your own 16+ Oyster, then you obtained travel at a price which you were not entitled to.
If you are charged under the Byelaws with not having a valid ticket, I cannot see that you have a defence in law.
A conviction is unlikely to have any impact on your career, though you should not try to hide it.
I assume you were not caught on the previous occasion - the journey history will not show who used the card.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Before you decide not to plead 'not guilty' because this was (in your words) a genuine mistake, you might want to have a look at what the law says. (n.b. I'm assuming that this was on the underground or TfL Rail: the law is separate for buses and trams but I would expect it to have the same effect.)

If you are charged under the TfL byelaws (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf) I would assume that you are charged under byelaws 17 or 18:

TRAVEL AND FARES

17. Compulsory ticket areas
(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 17(1) or 17(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) the Operator or an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) the Operator or an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

You will see that these require you to have 'a valid ticket'. Because you had your sister's ticket instead of yours, you didn't have a valid ticket. But also look at what the byelaws don't say. They don't say anything about intending to travel without a valid ticket. So you having made a genuine mistake doesn't actually mean you are in the clear: you are guilty of breaching the byelaws, and if you go to court and argue that you are not guilty then you will lose.

Or you may be charged under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5):

5Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.
(...)

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; (...)

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

(...)

In this case, your having made a genuine mistake might be a defence - you were not intending to not pay your fare. But I can also see the prosecution arguing that a reasonable person would check that they had their own Oyster card rather than their sister's card. So if the magistrates agree with the prosecution's argument, you could still lose.

In short, if you appear in court the chances aren't good of getting off without being punished.

So what can you do? There's nothing that we can suggest that is guaranteed to get this matter to go away. But you should think about the following:

- TfL may be prepared to settle this matter out of court. There is nothing to lose by writing to them, explaining that you realise that you made a mistake and that you won't do it again: apologise for the mistake, and ask if it would be possible to make a settlement by paying for the fare that you didn't pay, and by paying for the costs of the investigation. If TfL agree to this (and they are under no obligation to agree) expect to pay a few hundred pounds - investigations are quite expensive. You should already have had a letter from TfL (I'm basing this on the TfL 'Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecution-policy.pdf) which says at section 9.1 ' TfL Investigators/Prosecutors will send a Verification Letter to all those suspected of fare evasion or other offences. The Verification Letter invites the alleged offender to provide an explanation under caution for the alleged offence or to provide any comments about the alleged incident.') so you should have an address to write to.

- consider how serious an impact a conviction would have on your career. If I have read your posting rightly, you're at, or are planning to go to, medical school. It would be worth looking at the guidance doctors have about criminal convictions: for example, the BMA (the doctors' trade union) have guidance at https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guid...ulatory-proceedings-within-and-outside-the-uk. If you read this, you will see that all convictions have to be notified - but there's nothing that says that having a conviction will automatically mean that you can't be a doctor. My expectation (and I would emphasise that I have no special knowledge here so I could be wrong) would be that as long as you are open about being convicted of not having paid a fare, it won't cause you any problems. People do make genuine mistakes: other people (the ones running medical schools and regulating doctors) understand this, and will probably allow for it, saving their regulation for people who aren't making mistakes but knowingly or recklessly breaking the rules.

 

[ninhog]

If this has happened more than once, consider keeping your Oyster cards separately so that this kind of mistake can’t happen again in future.

 

[cipher20]

Before you decide not to plead 'not guilty' because this was (in your words) a genuine mistake, you might want to have a look at what the law says. (n.b. I'm assuming that this was on the underground or TfL Rail: the law is separate for buses and trams but I would expect it to have the same effect.)

If you are charged under the TfL byelaws (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/railway-byelaws.pdf) I would assume that you are charged under byelaws 17 or 18:



You will see that these require you to have 'a valid ticket'. Because you had your sister's ticket instead of yours, you didn't have a valid ticket. But also look at what the byelaws don't say. They don't say anything about intending to travel without a valid ticket. So you having made a genuine mistake doesn't actually mean you are in the clear: you are guilty of breaching the byelaws, and if you go to court and argue that you are not guilty then you will lose.

Or you may be charged under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5):



In this case, your having made a genuine mistake might be a defence - you were not intending to not pay your fare. But I can also see the prosecution arguing that a reasonable person would check that they had their own Oyster card rather than their sister's card. So if the magistrates agree with the prosecution's argument, you could still lose.

In short, if you appear in court the chances aren't good of getting off without being punished.

So what can you do? There's nothing that we can suggest that is guaranteed to get this matter to go away. But you should think about the following:

- TfL may be prepared to settle this matter out of court. There is nothing to lose by writing to them, explaining that you realise that you made a mistake and that you won't do it again: apologise for the mistake, and ask if it would be possible to make a settlement by paying for the fare that you didn't pay, and by paying for the costs of the investigation. If TfL agree to this (and they are under no obligation to agree) expect to pay a few hundred pounds - investigations are quite expensive. You should already have had a letter from TfL (I'm basing this on the TfL 'Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecution-policy.pdf) which says at section 9.1 ' TfL Investigators/Prosecutors will send a Verification Letter to all those suspected of fare evasion or other offences. The Verification Letter invites the alleged offender to provide an explanation under caution for the alleged offence or to provide any comments about the alleged incident.') so you should have an address to write to.

- consider how serious an impact a conviction would have on your career. If I have read your posting rightly, you're at, or are planning to go to, medical school. It would be worth looking at the guidance doctors have about criminal convictions: for example, the BMA (the doctors' trade union) have guidance at https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guid...ulatory-proceedings-within-and-outside-the-uk. If you read this, you will see that all convictions have to be notified - but there's nothing that says that having a conviction will automatically mean that you can't be a doctor. My expectation (and I would emphasise that I have no special knowledge here so I could be wrong) would be that as long as you are open about being convicted of not having paid a fare, it won't cause you any problems. People do make genuine mistakes: other people (the ones running medical schools and regulating doctors) understand this, and will probably allow for it, saving their regulation for people who aren't making mistakes but knowingly or recklessly breaking the rules.

Thank you for sharing this information.
I am being prosecuted by Tfl under bylaw 17(1). This is the first-time I have been stopped by a ticket inspector. In your opinion, do you think it is better to write to Tfl for a settlement personally or through a solicitor that specialises in these matters?

If this has happened more than once, consider keeping your Oyster cards separately so that this kind of mistake can’t happen again in future.

This occasion was the third time it had happened. I had enquired to Tfl before about contactless cards for 18+ student oyster cards but told there was no immediate plans to do so. in hindsight, I, maybe naively, thought that my paying for a quite expensive weekly oyster every week of the academic year meant that I can't fare avoid as I pre-paid for my ticket in advance of all my journeys.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I am being prosecuted by Tfl under bylaw 17(1). This is the first-time I have been stopped by a ticket inspector. In your opinion, do you think it is better to write to Tfl for a settlement personally or through a solicitor that specialises in these matters?

On the basis of what you have told us, you are guilty of the offence under byelaw 17(1) and will be convicted: making a genuine mistake is not a defence against this byelaw. So essentially your only way to avoid a conviction is to ask very, very nicely for an out of court settlement.

Unfortunately, I don't know whether it will be more effective to employ a solicitor than to write yourself. What I can be certain of is that using a solicitor will be a cost, in addition to any settlement that you and TfL agree.

But if I have understood things properly, you are already a student. That being the case, it seems to me that you would be well advised to talk to your student union who may be able to give affordable access to a legal professional. If you are a medical student, it may be worth talking to the Medical Defence Union (or their competitors, whose names escape me) - if you are already signed up with them, and if this is a threat to your career, then this seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that they can help you with.

If you do end up writing yourself, then I would suggest you bear the following points in mind:
- understand that you were in the wrong and that TfL are entitled to the proper fare from every passenger
- apologise, and explain what you will be doing to avoid the problem happening again (e.g. checking that you have your card, and not your sister's before going out)
- be brief: whoever gets to make a decision won't want to have to wade through several pages to find out what you're trying to tell them
- be courteous: whoever gets to make the decision will find it easier to be nice to you if you are nice to them
- don't bother with special pleading: the fact that a conviction may make the rest of your life difficult isn't really TfL's problem, so why should they consider it?

Finally, bear in mind that you can ask more than once for an out of court settlement. Even if you are first refused, from time to time we hear of cases when a discussion with the prosecutors at the courthouse but before actually going into court is successful in getting an out of court settlement.

 

[30907]

Thank you for sharing this information.
I am being prosecuted by Tfl under bylaw 17(1). This is the first-time I have been stopped by a ticket inspector. In your opinion, do you think it is better to write to Tfl for a settlement personally or through a solicitor that specialises in these matters?


This occasion was the third time it had happened. I had enquired to Tfl before about contactless cards for 18+ student oyster cards but told there was no immediate plans to do so. in hindsight, I, maybe naively, thought that my paying for a quite expensive weekly oyster every week of the academic year meant that I can't fare avoid as I pre-paid for my ticket in advance of all my journeys.

To add to Fawkes Cat's reply:

It seems to be common practice (going by this forum!) for TfL to go for the Byelaw 17(1) option, for which you may be thankful.

Does your last sentence mean that you had a weekly Travelcard valid for the journey you actually made? If so, you have an additional point to make in asking for an out of court settlement.
You are welcome to post a draft letter (anonymised, of course) on here for people to comment.

 

[cipher20]

To add to Fawkes Cat's reply:

It seems to be common practice (going by this forum!) for TfL to go for the Byelaw 17(1) option, for which you may be thankful.

Does your last sentence mean that you had a weekly Travelcard valid for the journey you actually made? If so, you have an additional point to make in asking for an out of court settlement.
You are welcome to post a draft letter (anonymised, of course) on here for people to comment.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I have mistakingly used her card on three occasions, but was caught on this one occasion.For which i am being prosecuted. I was worried of Tfl looking at my sister's journey history and seeing that there was trips from station A (home station) to Station B (location of university) on a pervious occasions when most journey's are from station A to Station C (her sixth form) and attempting to infer that i am a serial offender.

 

[cipher20]

On the basis of what you have told us, you are guilty of the offence under byelaw 17(1) and will be convicted: making a genuine mistake is not a defence against this byelaw. So essentially your only way to avoid a conviction is to ask very, very nicely for an out of court settlement.

Unfortunately, I don't know whether it will be more effective to employ a solicitor than to write yourself. What I can be certain of is that using a solicitor will be a cost, in addition to any settlement that you and TfL agree.

But if I have understood things properly, you are already a student. That being the case, it seems to me that you would be well advised to talk to your student union who may be able to give affordable access to a legal professional. If you are a medical student, it may be worth talking to the Medical Defence Union (or their competitors, whose names escape me) - if you are already signed up with them, and if this is a threat to your career, then this seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that they can help you with.

If you do end up writing yourself, then I would suggest you bear the following points in mind:
- understand that you were in the wrong and that TfL are entitled to the proper fare from every passenger
- apologise, and explain what you will be doing to avoid the problem happening again (e.g. checking that you have your card, and not your sister's before going out)
- be brief: whoever gets to make a decision won't want to have to wade through several pages to find out what you're trying to tell them
- be courteous: whoever gets to make the decision will find it easier to be nice to you if you are nice to them
- don't bother with special pleading: the fact that a conviction may make the rest of your life difficult isn't really TfL's problem, so why should they consider it?

Finally, bear in mind that you can ask more than once for an out of court settlement. Even if you are first refused, from time to time we hear of cases when a discussion with the prosecutors at the courthouse but before actually going into court is successful in getting an out of court settlement.

On the basis of what you have told us, you are guilty of the offence under byelaw 17(1) and will be convicted: making a genuine mistake is not a defence against this byelaw. So essentially your only way to avoid a conviction is to ask very, very nicely for an out of court settlement.

Unfortunately, I don't know whether it will be more effective to employ a solicitor than to write yourself. What I can be certain of is that using a solicitor will be a cost, in addition to any settlement that you and TfL agree.

But if I have understood things properly, you are already a student. That being the case, it seems to me that you would be well advised to talk to your student union who may be able to give affordable access to a legal professional. If you are a medical student, it may be worth talking to the Medical Defence Union (or their competitors, whose names escape me) - if you are already signed up with them, and if this is a threat to your career, then this seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that they can help you with.

If you do end up writing yourself, then I would suggest you bear the following points in mind:
- understand that you were in the wrong and that TfL are entitled to the proper fare from every passenger
- apologise, and explain what you will be doing to avoid the problem happening again (e.g. checking that you have your card, and not your sister's before going out)
- be brief: whoever gets to make a decision won't want to have to wade through several pages to find out what you're trying to tell them
- be courteous: whoever gets to make the decision will find it easier to be nice to you if you are nice to them
- don't bother with special pleading: the fact that a conviction may make the rest of your life difficult isn't really TfL's problem, so why should they consider it?

Finally, bear in mind that you can ask more than once for an out of court settlement. Even if you are first refused, from time to time we hear of cases when a discussion with the prosecutors at the courthouse but before actually going into court is successful in getting an out of court settlement.

I will inform and discuss my situation with my med school union representative regarding this case and possible consequences. Was initially very hesitant to do so. It is unfortunate that statistics on Tfl's out of court settlements and protection victories in court under bylaw 17(1) seem difficult to find. If anybody knows the existence of such data, this would be greatly appreciated?
Thank you all for your thoughts.

 

[30907]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I have mistakingly used her card on three occasions, but was caught on this one occasion.For which i am being prosecuted. I was worried of Tfl looking at my sister's journey history and seeing that there was trips from station A (home station) to Station B (location of university) on a pervious occasions when most journey's are from station A to Station C (her sixth form) and attempting to infer that i am a serial offender.

I think this is highly unlikely. In any case you are being prosecuted for a single offence and they can't then make further allegations in court.

However, I asked about this sentence:

In hindsight, I, maybe naively, thought that my paying for a quite expensive weekly oyster every week of the academic year meant that I can't fare avoid as I pre-paid for my ticket in advance of all my journeys.

Do you mean that you had a Travelcard Season valid for your journey, even though it was at home? If so, it is something you should mention in your favour.

 

[MikeWh]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I have mistakingly used her card on three occasions, but was caught on this one occasion.For which i am being prosecuted. I was worried of Tfl looking at my sister's journey history and seeing that there was trips from station A (home station) to Station B (location of university) on a pervious occasions when most journey's are from station A to Station C (her sixth form) and attempting to infer that i am a serial offender.

Someone at sixth form will be using a cheaper travelcard than someone at university. Travelcards on the 16+ zip card cost 50% of the adult price whereas those on the 18+ Student Oyster only enjoy a 30% discount. Furthermore, if you travel beyond the zones of the travelcard then the 16+ single fares are again half price while the 18+ single fares are the same as adult fares.

 

[some bloke]

The GMC says students must inform their medical school immediately if they are charged - see paragraph 76 of the PDF:

Achieving good medical practice: guidance for medical students

This guidance outlines the standards expected of you – both inside and outside medical school – and shows how the principles and values of Good medical practice apply to you as a student.

www.gmc-uk.org

I am being prosecuted by Tfl under bylaw 17(1).

That's good news - no-one is alleging dishonesty. So it is easier to discuss with anyone related to your career.

It's hard to see how this offence makes much difference to your fitness to practise as a doctor, though the fact that you used the card three times might indicate a slight degree of incompetence and it's advisable to tell the truth in any communication about this incident. Employers of doctors are legally entitled to truthful answers about all past convictions.

Will my mistakingly using my sister's 16+ card once earlier in the month (yes same situation) be data available/useable to tfl in the court trial?

I am wary of tfl using this data record to imply that my behaviour somehow shows a pattern of fare evasion and or negligence.

I was worried of Tfl looking at my sister's journey history and seeing that there was trips from station A (home station) to Station B (location of university) on a pervious occasions when most journey's are from station A to Station C (her sixth form) and attempting to infer that i am a serial offender.

It's unlikely to be relevant to the trial for this charge, as you are only being prosecuted for this one offence. (Theoretically perhaps they might be able to add evidence of other uses, but you are guilty as charged anyway.)

If you mean this is a single justice procedure notice, neither the company's representative nor you will attend court.

Single justice procedure notices

Find out about single justice procedure notices and how you should respond.

www.gov.uk

Of course the honest thing would be to admit to the other offences and pay for the travel. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they could then prosecute alleging repeated fare evasion, or it might be more sensible for them to see extra reason to be lenient because you were honest.

I have now received a single prosecution notice for this use.

When do you have to respond to the notice by?

You might like to call the BMA in case they have useful information/guidance, as well as the student union (who may offer some free legal advice).

Declaring a criminal conviction

Find out what constitutes a criminal conviction, what you must do if you have committed a criminal offence, and why you must disclose this information as a doctor.

www.bma.org.uk

do you think it is better to write to Tfl for a settlement personally or through a solicitor that specialises in these matters?

It is unfortunate that statistics on Tfl's out of court settlements and protection victories in court under bylaw 17(1) seem difficult to find. If anybody knows the existence of such data, this would be greatly appreciated?

Statistics don't necessarily help much to show what to do in your particular case. People who are very happy to spend money might hire a solicitor when others wouldn't. It is possible that a solicitor might be able to express things in a way that helps TfL see why they should be lenient. Have you already written to TfL about this?

I'm not sure what you mean about victories, but you are clearly guilty of the minor offence and it's not clear why you would plead anything other than guilty.

You might possibly get TfL to agree a settlement. But in any case please remember that this offence is a bit like a minor speeding offence. And although it may seem embarrassing, people do make mistakes.

 

[jumble]

The GMC says students must inform their medical school immediately if they are charged - see paragraph 76 of the PDF:

Achieving good medical practice: guidance for medical students

This guidance outlines the standards expected of you – both inside and outside medical school – and shows how the principles and values of Good medical practice apply to you as a student.

www.gmc-uk.org

That's good news - no-one is alleging dishonesty. So it is easier to discuss with anyone related to your career.

It's hard to see how this offence makes much difference to your fitness to practise as a doctor, though the fact that you used the card three times might indicate a slight degree of incompetence and it's advisable to tell the truth in any communication about this incident. Employers of doctors are legally entitled to truthful answers about all past convictions.

I am confused and hope I have misunderstood the impression that you may be advising the OP to tell the GMC he/she fare dodged 3 times
As TFL presumably have no idea if he/she or the the rightful owner used the card on the other 2 occasions I am not sure I consider this prudent
I think it highly unlikely TFL will be more lenient if the OP fesses up to previous misuse.

I am in mind of an episode of Police Interceptors last week where a traffic cop stopped a car because he thought the a male disqual driver was driving
The wife was driving and the cop said thats fine and you can go.
At that moment the male said " I thought you had stopped us because the car has no MOT"
Kerching FPN of £100

 

[some bloke]

hope I have misunderstood the impression that you may be advising the OP to tell the GMC he/she fare dodged 3 times

The GMC say students should tell the medical school rather than the GMC, that they have been charged.

If the medical school or in relevant circumstances anyone else with a legal right to know about convictions, such as a future employer, were to ask questions such as "was that the only time?" it would seem advisable to tell the truth.

"Fare dodged" is not what cipher20 is saying they did, if it implies deliberate evasion.

 

[jumble]

The GMC say students should tell the medical school rather than the GMC, that they have been charged.

If the medical school or in relevant circumstances anyone else with a legal right to know about convictions, such as a future employer, were to ask questions such as "was that the only time?" it would seem advisable to tell the truth.

"Fare dodged" is not what cipher20 is saying they did, if it implies deliberate evasion.

Correct Medical School
They are IMHO never going to ask if it was the only time any more than a prosecutor in a court would ask but if they did the OP needs to do what their conscious tells them is correct
There is a huge difference between not mentioning something that you have done and telling a blatent porkie

Who knows if the fare evasion was deliberate you don't and neither do I

 

[30907]

Correct Medical School. They are IMHO never going to ask if it was the only time any more than a prosecutor in a court would ask but if they did the OP needs to do what their conscious tells them is correct

Who knows if the fare evasion was deliberate you don't and neither do I

One poster some months ago was asked by their (future) school to produce a written reflection on their behaviour (ISTR in a rather more serious case) so I suppose it is just possible the OP might need to decide how to reply.

I entirely agree that - from the court's viewpoint and therefore ours - deliberate fare evasion is not being alleged.

I think we need to await the OP's return....

 

[some bloke]

One poster some months ago was asked by their (future) school to produce a written reflection on their behaviour

For all we know, the medical school, the GMC or a future employer might raise - however briefly - the incident in an interview, where behaviour in the interview as well as words may be noted.

Although the charge doesn't imply dishonesty, it's consistent with it, so it might not be surprising if some questions were asked.