Short ticketing - being investigated

[Haggis18142]

Hello,

Yesterday I was stopped by an inspector at Welwyn Garden City station as I attempted to show a digital Trainline ticket from Hatfield to Welwyn Garden City (the 2nd leg of a return ticket from Welwyn Garden City). I had not been to Hatfield - I had been to Finsbury Park and admitted this to the inspector. He had a special device which was able to check whether my digital Trainline ticket had been tapped in at Hatfield, and he called up a worker at Hatfield to check that they were tapping in all digital tickets at the time of which I had just travelled.

I was then told that I would be investigated (all my previous Trainline journeys) and asked for some basic details which I gave accurately. The inspector informed me that for all fares that I was suspected of dodging I would have to pay the full fare (adjusted for 16-25 railcard) minus the fare that I had paid. I did not answer any prompts that he gave regarding other journeys, and only spoke about my admittance that I had dodged this particular fare.

After doing my research (on these forums and wider) it is clear to me that I could potentially be in quite a spot of bother.

Firstly regarding Trainline:
-I have no registered Trainline account, all previous tickets were bought as a guest.
-I have had my current phone for about 5 months. I did not purchase many Trainline journeys on this phone. I have deleted the app and have no remaining data (on my end at least) on it.
-From what I understand if I hadn't deleted the app I would have been able to see my previous logged journeys. Do Trainline still have access to this even though I don't have an account? I was paying by Apple Pay so would they investigate all tickets I have ever bought with that Apple Pay? Is that even possible?

It is important to note at this point that I have travelled between Welwyn and Hatfield before, and I only go to London occasionally (the inspector gloated to me about how they'd recently charged someone 47 grand for consistent short ticketing over an extended period of time). I have been to Hatfield before and have returned late in the evening where the barriers are open at Hatfield. The ticket price and type for this would be consistent with the one purchase for this short ticketing journey to Finsbury Park.

If Trainline, or whoever is investigating this matter, has access to previous tickets purchased by me, do they have the technology to check whether these past digital tickets have been tapped in at each station? Similar to the physical device that this inspector had on him at the time to check my current active ticket.

In regards to paying outstanding fares, if they have access to my previous journeys will they flatly assume that all returns between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield I have bought are invalid? Will this potentially extend to other Trainline journeys between other stations in the past on my other phone bought with the same bank account? I know the amount I should have to pay in outstanding fares is very very low but I am concerned at being charged an exorbitant fee plus extras with the threat of court.

Realistically would they ever go back through say CCTV for example from journeys that were months maybe even years ago to check that I had been present at the station and the barriers were open for example if I questioned the fee?

I understand what I've done is very stupid (so please spare me the moral lecture) but I do no want this to end up in a criminal record; it's an absolute no with my current situation. However my current situation can also not accept an inflated payback price.

The advice I've seen so far has been that to achieve an out of court settlement (which is of course ideally what I want) I should engage with the process, apologise, and pay for what they ask for. I would be willing to do this if the fine is reasonable. If it not reasonable, and they say threatened me with court, are they realistically ever going to go to the lengths stated before (CCTV) to check the validity of every journey I've ever done through Trainline (if they're even capable of seeing this as I have no account)?

I'm innocent until proven guilty. So it's up to them to investigate all of these journeys that I could be charged for. Am I getting way over my head here or I am correct in this assumption?

Apologies for the long ramble, I've tried to detail as much information as possible. Any queries or further info please feel free to ask.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum

The advice I've seen so far has been that to achieve an out of court settlement (which is of course ideally what I want) I should engage with the process, apologise, and pay for what they ask for. I would be willing to do this if the fine is reasonable. If it not reasonable, and they say threatened me with court, are they realistically ever going to go to the lengths stated before (CCTV) to check the validity of every journey I've ever done through Trainline (if they're even capable of seeing this as I have no account)?

I'm innocent until proven guilty. So it's up to them to investigate all of these journeys that I could be charged for. Am I getting way over my head here or I am correct in this assumption?

Picking up on the above point, if the matter gets to court then, as a criminal prosecution, the railway (the prosecutor) would have to prove their case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. That's not the same as proving that in every specific instance they can say what train you were on, where you got on and where you got off: it's proving that the railway's view is much more likely than not - so much more likely that no one would reasonably think that something else would have happened.

This is both good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that you can't think that just because the railway can't find CCTV of you on every occasion then they can't prosecute successfully. But the good news is that it's open to you to find your own evidence to cast doubt on any assertion that the railway might make that every Welwyn - Hatfield fare that you bought was short for a journey to Finsbury Park.

How would you do this? If you regularly have cause to go to Hatfield, I'm assuming it's not just because there's a particularly lovely park there that you walk in by yourself. Presumably your trips have a purpose. If that purpose involves visiting a friend or relative, then they should be able to vouch for you (ideally specifically: 'Mx Haggis came to see me in Hatfield on 29 February from 3.00 pm to 10.00 pm having got the train from Welwyn', but generically isn't bad: 'Most weeks, Mx Haggis visits me in Hatfield on Tuesdays and Saturdays'). If your trip involves buying anything (shopping, cinema tickets, beer - whatever) then you may well have till receipts or records from your credit/debit card to show that you were in Hatfield rather than travelling into Finsbury Park.

As you've spotted, it's up to the railway to make their case - so you have the (comparatively) easy job of just casting doubt on their argument. So as you are concerned about what they might allege, think about what you can prove which wouldn't support their case.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Yes you can see scans and where they were.

 

[Haggis18142]

Welcome to the forum


Picking up on the above point, if the matter gets to court then, as a criminal prosecution, the railway (the prosecutor) would have to prove their case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. That's not the same as proving that in every specific instance they can say what train you were on, where you got on and where you got off: it's proving that the railway's view is much more likely than not - so much more likely that no one would reasonably think that something else would have happened.

This is both good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that you can't think that just because the railway can't find CCTV of you on every occasion then they can't prosecute successfully. But the good news is that it's open to you to find your own evidence to cast doubt on any assertion that the railway might make that every Welwyn - Hatfield fare that you bought was short for a journey to Finsbury Park.

How would you do this? If you regularly have cause to go to Hatfield, I'm assuming it's not just because there's a particularly lovely park there that you walk in by yourself. Presumably your trips have a purpose. If that purpose involves visiting a friend or relative, then they should be able to vouch for you (ideally specifically: 'Mx Haggis came to see me in Hatfield on 29 February from 3.00 pm to 10.00 pm having got the train from Welwyn', but generically isn't bad: 'Most weeks, Mx Haggis visits me in Hatfield on Tuesdays and Saturdays'). If your trip involves buying anything (shopping, cinema tickets, beer - whatever) then you may well have till receipts or records from your credit/debit card to show that you were in Hatfield rather than travelling into Finsbury Park.

As you've spotted, it's up to the railway to make their case - so you have the (comparatively) easy job of just casting doubt on their argument. So as you are concerned about what they might allege, think about what you can prove which wouldn't support their case.

Thanks for the swift reply - all of the return tickets I have ever bought between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield have been within the last month so a low number. Will they also investigate tickets between other stations that I have bought with Trainline and charge me for those? Or just Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City?

I'm aware that I may not receive anything through the post for a while so I don't know what the settlement could stand as.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks for the swift reply - all of the return tickets I have ever bought between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield have been within the last month so a low number. Will they also investigate tickets between other stations that I have bought with Trainline and charge me for those? Or just Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City?

I'm aware that I may not receive anything through the post for a while so I don't know what the settlement could stand as.

I don't know - but there maybe someone along soon who does.

 

[WesternLancer]

I don't think they will just write to you with a settlement offer. My hunch is they will write and say 'you were caught - we believe this has happened on other occasions, we are minded to take you to court - what is your side of the story?' type thing.

Then you will have to reply along lines you state and if lucky you will get offered a settlement.

I would think the problem comes when if that settlement is based on higher evaded fares than you have done, the extent to which they are prepared to enter into a debate about that (using the excellent advice from @Fawkes Cat ) rather than just withdraw the settlement offer and 'see you in court' - where you will be guilty of at least one occasion that is an offence at least - so then you get the criminal record that you have stated is something you seriously wish to avoid - this the only way to avoid that is thus to pay the settlement offer - even if it is inflated (should just be offered of course).

Although the question gets raised we do not seem to see many examples of people 'negotiating down' the settlements based on debates about the number of genuine fare dodges made to a location that they may also travel to. Whether this is because people don't report back or they just get nowhere I can not say.

I doubt they are going to go trawling through loads of old CCTV - it's more a case of 'give us £x00 to settle or we will take you to court'. If you don't want to go to court there is not much to do apart from pay the settlement asked it seems to me.

But for certain, start getting your evidence that supports legitimate visits to Hatfield (or other places) since if you wish to reply to the railway and admit the genuine offences (doing this may not be wise however) it would then allow you to list the genuine visits and back that up with evidence to support those occasions in the hope that the railway will accept and believe them.

Will they also investigate tickets between other stations that I have bought with Trainline and charge me for those?

No idea on that one - I guess that might depend on if they look to them like they may also be 'short fares' and thus they have a suspicion to put to you. So it probably depends on the fares concerned. EG if you bought a Welwyn to Peterborough ticket I can't see them accusing you of actually going to York say, without any evidence to support that.

 

[Deafdoggie]

If Trainline, or whoever is investigating this matter, has access to previous tickets purchased by me, do they have the technology to check whether these past digital tickets have been tapped in at each station?

Yes they have the technology.

Will they also investigate tickets between other stations that I have bought with Trainline and charge me for those?

I suspect they will get all journeys and look at them all as potentially being being short-faring. This means they can go back to you (if they want to) with a settlement offer including all them. You can choose to pay this (if they offer it) or see them in court.

 

[Haggis18142]

So when they get in contact with me, I should apologise and offer to pay a negotiated settlement fee?

 

[WesternLancer]

So when they get in contact with me, I should apologise and offer to pay a negotiated settlement fee?

see some of the other examples on threads and advice on what to write (see posts from @Hadders for a good guide of the sort of approach to take in your response) - more a question of 'asking if they will allow you to' rather than 'offering to' I suspect.

When you get the letter and have worked up your draft reply you could post an anonymous draft here for comment if you think that would help. You will find other cases on here where people have done that.

 

[Haggis18142]

see some of the other examples on threads and advice on what to write (see posts from @Hadders for a good guide of the sort of approach to take in your response) - more a question of 'asking if they will allow you to' rather than 'offering to' I suspect.

When you get the letter and have worked up your draft reply you could post an anonymous draft here for comment if you think that would help. You will find other cases on here where people have done that.

ok thank you

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

It sounds as though was what is known as a 'revenue block' operating at Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. Passengers were having their tickets scanned upon entry at Hatfield so when checked upon arrival at Welwyn Garden City it would be possible to see if they had started their journey there.

What will happen next is that you are likely to receive a letter from the train company, or an investigation company acting on their behalf. The letter will say that they have received a report, are considering prosecuting you and asking for your version of events. It is important that you engage with and reply to this letter. You might want to include the following in your reply:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Make sure your reply is short and concise, don't give a sob story - they've heard it all before. Most train companies are usually prepared to offer an administrative settlement (commonly known as an out of court settlement) for people who engage with the process and who haven't come to their attention before. There is no guarantee of this and the train company would be well within their rights to prosecute you in the magistrates court.

It is possible that the railway company might contact Trainline and ask for details of your ticket purchasing history. I doubt they will search CCTV, only 31 days worth of footage is routinely kept, they can keep longer than this but only in specific circumstances for example, as part of a specific investigation.

The key thing is to see exactly what the letter they send to you asks. You need to reply truthfully but equally you aren't required to incriminate yourself. When you receive your letter post a copy of it in this thread (with personal details redacted) along with your draft reply and forum members will be happy to proof read it.

 

[Adam Williams]

-I have no registered Trainline account, all previous tickets were bought as a guest.

Presumably you still provided an email address, or Apple Pay provided one on your behalf.

-I have had my current phone for about 5 months. I did not purchase many Trainline journeys on this phone. I have deleted the app and have no remaining data (on my end at least) on it.

As I suspect you know, what you do on your end to the app on your phone isn't going to change what's stored server-side in relation to your purchases.

Equally, I strongly suspect Trainline would be legally entitled to refuse to action a GDPR data erasure request under these circumstances (and if it was actioned, I guess that could constitute spoliation?)

Do Trainline still have access to this even though I don't have an account?

Put it this way: I would place a very large wager on it being the case that they still have access, yes. I'd be concerned about a retailer that didn't store this sort of basic information, tbh.

I was paying by Apple Pay so would they investigate all tickets I have ever bought with that Apple Pay? Is that even possible?

Entirely possible, merchants can request that Apple Pay passes over specific contact information which then allows tying purchases together unless changed: https://developer.apple.com/documen...request/2216121-requiredshippingcontactfields

I think based on my experience, it's fair to assume that this will all be stored against the transaction by the retailer where it's made available by Apple Pay and is accurate/complete - and it's trivial to filter transactions using this contact information.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sometimes when confronted with evidence of multiple fare evasions, but without sufficient proof to bring a court case, the TOC will offer to settle.

I don’t advise the OP to query any settlement figure which they believe there is insufficient proof for but for which they are aware they are liable. Very often the TOC will instead prosecute for the single offence they caught red handed and cut their losses.

So, if the objective is not to get a criminal record, the OP is advised to settle without quibble and not try to be too clever, having already been caught.

 

[Fokx]

Firstly regarding Trainline:
-I have no registered Trainline account, all previous tickets were bought as a guest.
-I have had my current phone for about 5 months. I did not purchase many Trainline journeys on this phone. I have deleted the app and have no remaining data (on my end at least) on it.
-From what I understand if I hadn't deleted the app I would have been able to see my previous logged journeys. Do Trainline still have access to this even though I don't have an account? I was paying by Apple Pay so would they investigate all tickets I have ever bought with that Apple Pay? Is that even possible?

Just for some perspective although I don’t work for Trainline or a revenue department is that in my previous role (None railway) I was able to track a complete history of transactions using just the last four digits of a bank card (or Apple Pay disguise number) for the purpose of tracing returns so I imagine it’s entirely possible to trace previous transactions you have made in theory. All you’d have to do is search a database for transactions also paid by card ending in 1234 between stations A and B and investigate the scan logs of each ticket which can be done retrospectively.

As other posters have mentioned, deleting your own purchase history won’t delete the information stored by you on Trainline’s own servers. The device that you purchase tickets on won’t matter either but using the same log in, guest email address or bank card would for example.

 

[RPI]

Signing in as a guest doesn't mean you can't be investigated further, there will be a payment card and/or an email address to link the transactions.

CCTV can be and is used for such investigations now, its not as time consuming as it used to be as any scans or the purchase time will indicate quite a specific time window to look at and with it all being digital is incredibly easy.

Granted, they won't do this in every case but if a significant amount of history is suspected then they may well.

 

[Watershed]

CCTV can be and is used for such investigations now, its not as time consuming as it used to be as any scans or the purchase time will indicate quite a specific time window to look at and with it all being digital is incredibly easy.

Granted, they won't do this in every case but if a significant amount of history is suspected then they may well.

But there would only be ~30 days of CCTV unless this is a long running investigation concluding with a 'sting', so not enough to prove evasion over a period of many months.

 

[cactustwirly]

Presumably you still provided an email address, or Apple Pay provided one on your behalf.


As I suspect you know, what you do on your end to the app on your phone isn't going to change what's stored server-side in relation to your purchases.

Equally, I strongly suspect Trainline would be legally entitled to refuse to action a GDPR data erasure request under these circumstances (and if it was actioned, I guess that could constitute spoliation?)


Put it this way: I would place a very large wager on it being the case that they still have access, yes. I'd be concerned about a retailer that didn't store this sort of basic information, tbh.


Entirely possible, merchants can request that Apple Pay passes over specific contact information which then allows tying purchases together unless changed: https://developer.apple.com/documen...request/2216121-requiredshippingcontactfields

I think based on my experience, it's fair to assume that this will all be stored against the transaction by the retailer where it's made available by Apple Pay and is accurate/complete - and it's trivial to filter transactions using this contact information.

Just picking up on this, if the data is stored by the Train line, what legal mechanism do GTR have to go digging through Train lines data? Surely they'd need a court warrant surely?

Just for some perspective although I don’t work for Trainline or a revenue department is that in my previous role (None railway) I was able to track a complete history of transactions using just the last four digits of a bank card (or Apple Pay disguise number) for the purpose of tracing returns so I imagine it’s entirely possible to trace previous transactions you have made in theory. All you’d have to do is search a database for transactions also paid by card ending in 1234 between stations A and B and investigate the scan logs of each ticket which can be done retrospectively.

As other posters have mentioned, deleting your own purchase history won’t delete the information stored by you on Trainline’s own servers. The device that you purchase tickets on won’t matter either but using the same log in, guest email address or bank card would for example.

How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that those last 4 digits definitely came from the same card? And how do you prove that is the OPs card?

Hello,

Yesterday I was stopped by an inspector at Welwyn Garden City station as I attempted to show a digital Trainline ticket from Hatfield to Welwyn Garden City (the 2nd leg of a return ticket from Welwyn Garden City). I had not been to Hatfield - I had been to Finsbury Park and admitted this to the inspector. He had a special device which was able to check whether my digital Trainline ticket had been tapped in at Hatfield, and he called up a worker at Hatfield to check that they were tapping in all digital tickets at the time of which I had just travelled.

I was then told that I would be investigated (all my previous Trainline journeys) and asked for some basic details which I gave accurately. The inspector informed me that for all fares that I was suspected of dodging I would have to pay the full fare (adjusted for 16-25 railcard) minus the fare that I had paid. I did not answer any prompts that he gave regarding other journeys, and only spoke about my admittance that I had dodged this particular fare.

After doing my research (on these forums and wider) it is clear to me that I could potentially be in quite a spot of bother.

Firstly regarding Trainline:
-I have no registered Trainline account, all previous tickets were bought as a guest.
-I have had my current phone for about 5 months. I did not purchase many Trainline journeys on this phone. I have deleted the app and have no remaining data (on my end at least) on it.
-From what I understand if I hadn't deleted the app I would have been able to see my previous logged journeys. Do Trainline still have access to this even though I don't have an account? I was paying by Apple Pay so would they investigate all tickets I have ever bought with that Apple Pay? Is that even possible?

It is important to note at this point that I have travelled between Welwyn and Hatfield before, and I only go to London occasionally (the inspector gloated to me about how they'd recently charged someone 47 grand for consistent short ticketing over an extended period of time). I have been to Hatfield before and have returned late in the evening where the barriers are open at Hatfield. The ticket price and type for this would be consistent with the one purchase for this short ticketing journey to Finsbury Park.

If Trainline, or whoever is investigating this matter, has access to previous tickets purchased by me, do they have the technology to check whether these past digital tickets have been tapped in at each station? Similar to the physical device that this inspector had on him at the time to check my current active ticket.

In regards to paying outstanding fares, if they have access to my previous journeys will they flatly assume that all returns between Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield I have bought are invalid? Will this potentially extend to other Trainline journeys between other stations in the past on my other phone bought with the same bank account? I know the amount I should have to pay in outstanding fares is very very low but I am concerned at being charged an exorbitant fee plus extras with the threat of court.

Realistically would they ever go back through say CCTV for example from journeys that were months maybe even years ago to check that I had been present at the station and the barriers were open for example if I questioned the fee?

I understand what I've done is very stupid (so please spare me the moral lecture) but I do no want this to end up in a criminal record; it's an absolute no with my current situation. However my current situation can also not accept an inflated payback price.

The advice I've seen so far has been that to achieve an out of court settlement (which is of course ideally what I want) I should engage with the process, apologise, and pay for what they ask for. I would be willing to do this if the fine is reasonable. If it not reasonable, and they say threatened me with court, are they realistically ever going to go to the lengths stated before (CCTV) to check the validity of every journey I've ever done through Trainline (if they're even capable of seeing this as I have no account)?

I'm innocent until proven guilty. So it's up to them to investigate all of these journeys that I could be charged for. Am I getting way over my head here or I am correct in this assumption?

Apologies for the long ramble, I've tried to detail as much information as possible. Any queries or further info please feel free to ask.

Hypothetically I think it would be difficult GTR to prove anything, the only evidence they have is your admissions, and I'm guessing the fact that your ticket wasn't scanned.

To charge you with multiple offences they need concrete evidence that you have done this on multiple occasions. Which they don't have. I suspect they'll only go for one offence

 

[reb0118]

Just picking up on this, if the data is stored by the Train line, what legal mechanism do GTR have to go digging through Train lines data? Surely they'd need a court warrant surely?
[

Data can be shared for the investigation, detection, and prevention of criminal acts. No warrant is required.

How do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that those last 4 digits definitely came from the same card? And how do you prove that is the OPs card?
[

That would only be the first indication. A more thorough check would probably be done afterwards. Although, ask yourself this - what would be the likelihood of a person holding a card with the same last four digits making similar journeys to the OP being discovered. In any case I think this is academic.

Hypothetically I think it would be difficult GTR to prove anything, the only evidence they have is your admissions, and I'm guessing the fact that your ticket wasn't scanned.

To charge you with multiple offences they need concrete evidence that you have done this on multiple occasions. Which they don't have. I suspect they'll only go for one offence

The evidence only has to be beyond reasonable doubt - not absolute.

 

[crablab]

Data can be shared for the investigation, detection, and prevention of criminal acts. No warrant is required.

Requires a "DPA form" to be sent across which states how the data will be shared and stored etc. Would be surprised if there wasn't one in place already - this kind of data sharing in fraud investigations is very common.

 

[cactustwirly]

Data can be shared for the investigation, detection, and prevention of criminal acts. No warrant is required.



That would only be the first indication. A more thorough check would probably be done afterwards. Although, ask yourself this - what would be the likelihood of a person holding a card with the same last four digits making similar journeys to the OP being discovered. In any case I think this is academic.



The evidence only has to be beyond reasonable doubt - not absolute.

There is reasonable doubt, it could be argued that the tickets could have been bought by different cards with the same last 4 digits.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would make Hatfield to WGC journeys, and why their e-ticket wasn't scanned. From my point of view there is plenty of doubt in this case, except the fact that the OP confessed.

I have a forensics background, so I have a good idea what is and isn't strong evidence....

FWIW if I was the OP I'd be looking to make an out of court settlement for the journey where you admitted to short faring.
If GTR approach you with accusations about your journey history, if you have a legitimate reason for making those journeys, I would stick with this and ask GTR what evidence they have otherwise.

 

[Haywain]

There is reasonable doubt, it could be argued that the tickets could have been bought by different cards with the same last 4 digits.

Just saying it does not create reasonable doubt. And once the tickets are identified there will likely be a means of identifying where they went - such as the phone number or email address.

 

[cactustwirly]

Just saying it does not create reasonable doubt. And once the tickets are identified there will likely be a means of identifying where they went - such as the phone number or email address.

I booked tickets for my elderly grandma etc
Just because someone has booked tickets doesn't necessarily mean they traveled

 

[AlterEgo]

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. Ultimately the company is unlikely to be able to prove to a criminal standard that 100 journeys met the evidential test beyond reasonable doubt, so;

A) the company prosecutes for the single offence it has very strong evidence for, or
B) they attempt to settle out of court for a larger number of offences they don’t have criminal court-worthy evidence for

As the OP has indicated their highest priority is not going to court and being convicted, we should advise them to settle. The side arguments seem academic to me.

 

[Deafdoggie]

FWIW if I was the OP I'd be looking to make an out of court settlement for the journey where you admitted to short faring.
If GTR approach you with accusations about your journey history, if you have a legitimate reason for making those journeys, I would stick with this and ask GTR what evidence they have otherwise.

And the problem is they are under no obligation at all to offer an out of court settlement. Start arguing with them and they'll withdraw it. Then it's off to court and a criminal record which the OP wants to avoid. Maybe, just maybe, if you were not bothered about a criminal record you could try that, but as the OP said they were bothered about a criminal record then they really should just pay what is asked (if it's asked) so it's settled and goes away.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. Ultimately the company is unlikely to be able to prove to a criminal standard that 100 journeys met the evidential test beyond reasonable doubt, so;

A) the company prosecutes for the single offence it has very strong evidence for, or
B) they attempt to settle out of court for a larger number of offences they don’t have criminal court-worthy evidence for

As the OP has indicated their highest priority is not going to court and being convicted, we should advise them to settle. The side arguments seem academic to me.

Exactly this.

 

[Haggis18142]

Hi all,

It has been awhile but I have finally received my 'Notice of intention to prosecute' by letter, and would like to know whether the previous advice in how to respond will be right for this letter.
It reads as follows:

'Dear _,

On (Date/Time) your details were taken by a Revenue Protection Inspector at WELWYN GARDEN CITY Station.

This letter is to inform you of our intention to take this case to the Magistrates Court and on the reverse it provides you with the opportunity to tell us what happened from your point of view. Information should be both factual and honest.

Travel fraud costs the rail industry over £400 million per year and Govia Thameslink Railway has a zero tolerance policy approach to fare evasion on our network. We always ask that the courts impose the maximum penalty for offenders, which can include the following:

• A Criminal Record
• Fine of up to £1000
• Prison Sentence
• Suspended Sentence
• Community Service
• Compensation
• Costs

You must reply to this letter within 14 days of the above date including the reference above on any correspondence. We DO NOT accept any appeal over the phone, any correspondence MUST be sent in writing.

Please DO NOT send any money with your reply.

Yours sincerely

Fare Evasion Manager'

On the back of the letter there is then a singular bullet point detailing the offence - 'That you on (Date), Did enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, and upon inspection at Welwyn Garden City (WGC); did not produce a valid ticket entitling travel.'

There is then a 'response from passenger' section.

All help much appreciated.

 

[andrew749]

Personally I would follow Hadders' advice in post #11. I think it would be sensible to confine your comments to the journey in question.

 

[30907]

You have been charged with a single offence under the Railway Byelaws.

This is simple for the prosecutor to prove - and from your point of view means that a guilty verdict is non-recordable; it might appear on an enhanced DBS but is unlikely to excite an employer. Obviously you would prefer an out of court settlement, but a court case is unlikely to be a disaster.

As they have not mentioned any other occasion, you can assume they are not pursuing you for multiple offences or short-faring, both of which would warrant a more serIous charge.

Follow Hadders' advice, and respond courteously and apologetically. Pay a settlement if it is offered (this is when you will know if have accessed your history!) or the fine (which is means tested) if not.

 

[Hadders]

Feel free to post a copy of your draft reply to the letter in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it for you.

 

[Haggis18142]

Ok this is my draft letter:
'To whom it may concern,

I am very apologetic regarding the incident detailed above, and have certainly learnt lessons from this to implement going forwards. It is now clear to me that this is not a light matter, and will certainly improve my behaviour in the future. I am keen to settle this matter without court action, and would therefore like to offer to pay the outstanding fare alongside any administrative costs which I am sure come along with a process such as this.

I hope this reaches you in haste and that I hear from you soon.'

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Ok this is my draft letter:
'To whom it may concern,

I am very apologetic regarding the incident detailed above, and have certainly learnt lessons from this to implement going forwards (what are they?). It is now clear to me that this is not a light matter, and will certainly improve my behaviour in the future make sure that I buy a ticket for my full journey before getting on the train. I am keen to settle this matter without court action, and would therefore like to offer to pay the outstanding fare alongside any administrative costs which I am sure come along with a process such as this.

I hope this reaches you in haste and that I hear from you soon.'(irrelevant)

Unusually for first attempts that we see here, I think this is a little short. I've suggested a couple of points where you should say more - and one point where I think you should say less.