Letter of intended prosecution.

[NH86]

Hi.
My husband works for a rail company and gets concession travelling through London zones 1-9.
We live in Essex and he travels to London for work. Today he took our car to a specialist mechanic in Erith.
We rarely travel south of the water.
Husband checked the zone and the station was zone 6.
He can use his concession on our local line upto zone 6 and has to pay to travel further more which he has an annual card for.
Anyway, he tapped in at Slade Green no issue. Got to Cannon Street and his Oyster card stated ‘seek assistance’.
Gate staff informed him that his concession pass was not valid for travel on this rail line.
Honest held mistake made so went to the ticket office and asked to purchase a ticket for the journey he had just made.
Ticket office staff were dismissive and rude, not believing it was a genuine mistake. This resulted in the husband being ‘reported’.
Unfortunately the ticket office staff did not say what the report was for, and after some research I believe he has been reported for a criminal offence - unsure which offence as he wasn’t told much of anything.
This was Southeastern Rail.
I have tried to find their policy for reporting an offence and haven’t been able to find anything.
I’m a little worried and feel the decision to report is disproportionate to the misunderstanding.

 

[Darandio]

Hi.
My husband works for a rail company and gets concession travelling through London zones 1-9.
We live in Essex and he travels to London for work. Today he took our car to a specialist mechanic in Erith.
We rarely travel south of the water.
Husband checked the zone and the station was zone 6.
He can use his concession on our local line upto zone 6 and has to pay to travel further more which he has an annual card for.
Anyway, he tapped in at Slade Green no issue. Got to Cannon Street and his Oyster card stated ‘seek assistance’.
Gate staff informed him that his concession pass was not valid for travel on this rail line.
Honest held mistake made so went to the ticket office and asked to purchase a ticket for the journey he had just made.
Ticket office staff were dismissive and rude, not believing it was a genuine mistake. This resulted in the husband being ‘reported’.
Unfortunately the ticket office staff did not say what the report was for, and after some research I believe he has been reported for a criminal offence - unsure which offence as he wasn’t told much of anything.
This was Southeastern Rail.
I have tried to find their policy for reporting an offence and haven’t been able to find anything.
I’m a little worried and feel the decision to report is disproportionate to the misunderstanding.

You say your husband was asked to purchase a ticket for the journey he had just made, did he purchase this ticket or refuse citing the mistake?

 

[SeaKing]

I read that to be he asked to purchase a ticket and Ticket Office refused.

 

[Darandio]

I read that to be he asked to purchase a ticket and Ticket Office refused.

Ah yes, see it now. Thanks.

 

[NH86]

You say your husband was asked to purchase a ticket for the journey he had just made, did he purchase this ticket or refuse citing the mistake?

He asked to purchase a ticket for his travel, the ticket office staff refused.

 

[sheff1]

He can use his concession on our local line upto zone 6 and has to pay to travel further more which he has an annual card for.

Can you confirm exactly what the annual card is.

 

[Ralph Ayres]

We definitely need a much clearer explanation of the various cards involved, using the actual descriptions on the documents involved. Is the "concession" a discount set on a public Oyster card to give cheap pay as you go travel, or some sort of Staff Pass on an Oyster card, or a different card or ticket or pass? Is the annual card a season ticket from say Bishops Stortford to Cheshunt? You might want to avoid revealing your actual home station, but naming one further out and the correct inner one should make things clear enough.
Any rail staff travel entitlement should have been clearly explained by the company's HR people at time of issue, and rail staff are normally made aware that misuse is not viewed lightly.

 

[matt_world2004]

Hey, what company is this travel concession for?

 

[some bloke]

If your husband belongs to a trade union they should be able to help, perhaps including some free legal advice.

 

[30907]

Any rail staff travel entitlement should have been clearly explained by the company's HR people at time of issue, and rail staff are normally made aware that misuse is not viewed lightly.

This sounds like the sort of incident that might go down the disciplinary route rather than a threat of prosecution one.
That said, until we know what sort of ticket the OP's husband was using or misusing there's not much more to say.

 

[MikeWh]

Taking the OPs location (Southend) into account then it looks like travel is with C2C and a staff Oyster takes over at Upminster. Slade Green has no barriers so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the card did not validate there but this fact was not noticed.

 

[Haywain]

Does Cannon Street have an excess fare window/office/desk?

 

[island]

Does Cannon Street have an excess fare window/office/desk?

Yes, there’s a part time one opposite platform 6.

 

[talldave]

Sad, but unsurprising, to see the rail industry treat its own staff with the same disdain as the travelling public when a mistake is made.

 

[Haywain]

Yes, there’s a part time one opposite platform 6.

I suspect that is where the OP's husband encountered a revenue inspector.

 

[Haywain]

Sad, but unsurprising, to see the rail industry treat its own staff with the same disdain as the travelling public when a mistake is made.

Not at all. It is important that staff should be held to at least the same standards as customers. Heavily discounted travel is a major benefit and should not be abused, intentionally or accidentally.

 

[hkstudent]

Taking the OPs location (Southend) into account then it looks like travel is with C2C and a staff Oyster takes over at Upminster. Slade Green has no barriers so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the card did not validate there but this fact was not noticed.

OP's husband tapped in at Slade Green, so shouldn't be the issue of validating oyster.

 

[MikeWh]

OP's husband tapped in at Slade Green, so shouldn't be the issue of validating oyster.

If, as I suspect, the Oyster is a staff pass then it wouldn't validate at Slade Green, being a Southeastern station. But as Slade Green only has validators it may not have been noticed that a red light was displayed and two beeps sounded.

 

[hkstudent]

If, as I suspect, the Oyster is a staff pass then it wouldn't validate at Slade Green, being a Southeastern station. But as Slade Green only has validators it may not have been noticed that a red light was displayed and two beeps sounded.

Well, the two beep sound are quite enourmous on both side of the platforms. It should be quite noticeable.
BTW, what improvements can be made at Slade Green once GTR Passenger Benefit Fund finally arrives at Slade Green?

 

[MikeWh]

Well, the two beep sound are quite enourmous on both side of the platforms. It should be quite noticeable.

Agreed, but it's been missed before, especially if the station is busy and/or a train is running through. Your other question is off-topic for this thread, you can start a new thread in the stations forum.

 

[NH86]

Morning,
My husband received a letter from SouthEastern Rail asking for him to confirm he was involved in an incident on 18/03/2020.
The letter is dated 28/10/2020, 7 months after the ‘incident’.
There’s no detail of what the offence is.
He did travel from Slade Green on his staff Oyster card, thinking it’d cover his journey. When he went to tap out, his Oyster card didn’t let him out. Barrier staff told him to go buy a ticket, he was happy to do this as realised his staff Oyster didn’t cover him on that line. Honest mistake - he was basing his travel on zones. Never travel South of the water. Only time he’s used the line too. The ticket staff were rude, dismissive and decided they wouldn’t let him buy a ticket, but instead would report him.
Wasn’t given any type of receipt at the time and the letter received today, makes no note of the offence.
I’m worried that this will be a criminal prosecution and there is no telephone number to discuss this and figure out what the offence is/way to resolve it without a court case.
Any advice?

 

[RPI]

They have six months to lay information before the court, provided they had done that within the six months then it would still go ahead but I cant see why they would have done that then wait at least a month to write to you?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I assume that this is the same incident that you let us know about in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/concession-usage.202319/? Hopefully the moderators will be kind enough to merge the two threads and reopen it.

My immediate response (but I am not a lawyer, nor a railway employee) is that if the 'intended prosecution' is under the railway byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act (or anything else that is a summary offence) then unless SouthEastern have already advised the court about their plan to prosecute they are out of time: I understand that the charge has to be taken to court within six months of the alleged offence and as the OP points out 28/10/20 is more than six months after the alleged offence.

But as pointed out in the previous thread, it's conceivable that a staff travel irregularity could end up as a discipline issue.

In the circumstances, I think that the OP's husband needs to talk to their union.

 

[NH86]

I assume that this is the same incident that you let us know about in https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/concession-usage.202319/? Hopefully the moderators will be kind enough to merge the two threads and reopen it.

My immediate response (but I am not a lawyer, nor a railway employee) is that if the 'intended prosecution' is under the railway byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act (or anything else that is a summary offence) then unless SouthEastern have already advised the court about their plan to prosecute they are out of time: I understand that the charge has to be taken to court within six months of the alleged offence and as the OP points out 28/10/20 is more than six months after the alleged offence.

But as pointed out in the previous thread, it's conceivable that a staff travel irregularity could end up as a discipline issue.

In the circumstances, I think that the OP's husband needs to talk to their union.

Yes same incident.
Hadn’t heard anything from SouthEastern until today.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[NH86]

They have six months to lay information before the court, provided they had done that within the six months then it would still go ahead but I cant see why they would have done that then wait at least a month to write to you?

I’m not sure either. Very confusing.
This is definitely the first correspondence we have had from them.

I don’t know if I could find out if the courts are involved instead of waiting for more information from SouthEastern.

I’ve just noticed the letter states ‘authorized for prosecution’.
Does anyone know what this means?

I have read it as someone has decided the incident meets the criteria for prosecution but it hasn’t been passed to the courts yet?

 

[Kilopylae]

Could you upload a photograph/scan of the letter with any identifying details blacked out?

 

[MikeWh]

The previous thread has now been merged with this one.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The previous thread has now been merged with this one.

Thanks!

 

[island]

If they have not already laid the information before the court (the technical term for the first step in a prosecution) then any prosecution would be out of time and the magistrates cannot take the case.

 

[furlong]

Write an honest response about the mistake, apologise, don't repeat the criticism of the staff concerned, and offer again to pay the fare and any costs involved in dealing with the matter.
While it sounds like it's out of time for prosecution, they could still withdraw travel facilities and/or report it to the employer as a disciplinary matter.