Summons by TIL on behalf of Chiltern and a lying ticket enforcer

[KirkstallOne]

So I was making a voice recording and my girlfriend was the one who spoke with the person. Hence why it’s in the background’s

It does make sense and it does sound like good evidence that you haven’t breached a byelaw if you have the original and it has metadata showing the time and date it was recorded. If you did send it to a friend then even better, he can submit a witness statement to that effect. However be aware this does sound very convenient for your case so be prepared to defend it’s authenticity. An obvious question would be how often you record and send such memos?

Regarding your letter, I don’t think TIL will be too interested in arguing further with you at this point. Since you seem determined to see this through to court if necessary, a much shorter, more forceful letter may be more effective. Firstly, that you reject any accusation of a byelaw breach because you had been given verbal permission to travel, and you have evidence of this that you are happy to see examined in court. Secondly, you reject any intent to evade payment as required for a RoRA 5.3 breach and you note that their evidence on this matter has been inconsistent which you will highlighting to the court. Thirdly, for expediency and convenience you are prepared to settle the matter for the original fare owing (or pick some higher amount for a better chance for them to accept it, the original offer would be a good figure). Failing that, you will be pleading not guilty to any prospective charges and will be defending these accusations in court, and applying for costs.

The only way I can settle is if the deadline is extended. If it’s not extended I will be going to court.

On this point, it is never too late to settle. This is often done via direct negotiation on the day of the case.

 

[Snow1964]

I would change the part about voice recording to say, I happened to be using my phone, and the conversation was being recorded. I am now aware that the person attending to the Ticket machine saying please buy ticket from guard can, by chance, be heard in the background.

Got to be careful about openly saying anything like were deliberately recording without permission.

As for ticket machine being attended to, much more likely to exist if it was external party, because job would have to be booked, and probably invoiced. However if someone on station had done it as part of routine activities unlikely to be any record.

If there is body cam from Inspector, and chooses to wipe it ahead of a proposed court hearing involving the subject of the recording, then that is plain stupidity. Might look they trying to erase the actual version because disagrees to witness statement.

 

[simonw]

That is true.

I wrote an email on the other page as my latest reply. But haven’t heard any comments.

If anyone does have anything to add like positives or negatives I’d really appreciate that

If you have an audible recording of your companion being told they could buy on the train, then I would write back saying you have such a recording and attach a copy. I would then await their response. I wouldn't antagonise them by using words like lying, even if you believe they have.

 

[benjamin11111]

It does make sense and it does sound like good evidence that you haven’t breached a byelaw if you have the original and it has metadata showing the time and date it was recorded. If you did send it to a friend then even better, he can submit a witness statement to that effect. However be aware this does sound very convenient for your case so be prepared to defend it’s authenticity. An obvious question would be how often you record and send such memos?

Regarding your letter, I don’t think TIL will be too interested in arguing further with you at this point. Since you seem determined to see this through to court if necessary, a much shorter, more forceful letter may be more effective. Firstly, that you reject any accusation of a byelaw breach because you had been given verbal permission to travel, and you have evidence of this that you are happy to see examined in court. Secondly, you reject any intent to evade payment as required for a RoRA 5.3 breach and you note that their evidence on this matter has been inconsistent which you will highlighting to the court. Thirdly, for expediency and convenience you are prepared to settle the matter for the original fare owing (or pick some higher amount for a better chance for them to accept it, the original offer would be a good figure). Failing that, you will be pleading not guilty to any prospective charges and will be defending these accusations in court, and applying for costs.


On this point, it is never too late to settle. This is often done via direct negotiation on the day of the case.

Perfect I will use those notes to amend my email. One thing I plan to add. Is to write that my intent to settle outside of courts is not an admission of guilt. We will just have to see if they accept this.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Post #16 shows a map of the station. There are two symbols of what looks like someone slightly bending over operating a TVM. Unfortunately, there is no key, but I assume these are the locations of the ticket machines.

I’m amazed nobody thought of consulting Google Earth. As I stated, I am familiar with this particular station.
The Oyster Validators are represented by the icons of a person leaning over an upright structure (how many TVMs have you ever been able to lean over?).
The signage at the station is clear; it tells you there are 2 TVMs, and their locations.
The OP has been informed both were working on that day, anyway.
Perhaps it was in fact an Oyster Validator that was under maintenance.

Pay, and learn the lesson, is my advice to the OP.
Get a friend to loan you the money, or use a credit card.

 

[Brissle Girl]

This incident happened in September and has had much toing and froing between the OP and the train company. Now, in January, when it is mentioned that the only realistic defence is one in which it can be proven the mystery member of staff gave permission, a voice memo suddenly emerges just moments later.

I’m out. My advice is to pay the settlement without delay because this feels like relentless digging a deeper hole.

Agree. It appears absurdly coincidental that a) the conversation was recorded b) it was completely forgotten about just a few minutes later when challenged c) several months later something triggers the OP to go looking for it and d) bingo, it happens to be found.

As noted, were the evidence to be fabricated, production in court would likely result in a subsequent prosecution for perjury, which would be infinitely more serious.

 

[Wethebest838]

I really think OP it’s best to just pay the settlement then complain after and show your proof as then a complaint can be made higher to someone in upper management in TIL or Chiltern. As once it’s been disposed of administratively, you’re free to complain as much as you like and show your proof. Then, the ball can be in your court as right now, TIL/Chiltern have the ball in their court and trust me..that ball is going to stay there.

Thing is, your partner will also have to do the exact same thing you’re doing if you try to get them to hear you out in court.

 

[DaleCooper]

Agree. It appears absurdly coincidental that a) the conversation was recorded b) it was completely forgotten about just a few minutes later when challenged c) several months later something triggers the OP to go looking for it and d) bingo, it happens to be found.

As noted, were the evidence to be fabricated, production in court would likely result in a subsequent prosecution for perjury, which would be infinitely more serious.

Even if the recording is genuine there is no proof of the identity of the voices. I don't think such recordings carry much weight in court and might not even be admissible.

 

[Titfield]

Even if the recording is genuine there is no proof of the identity of the voices. I don't think such recordings carry much weight in court and might not even be admissible.

In court I think the prosecutor would make the points of (a) lack of proof of it being a recording of the event which took place (b) lack of disclosure to the prosecutor at an earlier time in the proceedings

I suspect that if this was just produced in court the Magistrates would reject it having weighed up the points made by both sides and indeed my criticise the OP for failing to disclose earlier.

As I said in my earlier post whatever the rights and wrongs of this the OP has to weigh up the possible outcomes. IMHO going to court will be costly and may result in a conviction.

 

[Sultan]

I’m amazed nobody thought of consulting Google Earth. As I stated, I am familiar with this particular station.
The Oyster Validators are represented by the icons of a person leaning over an upright structure (how many TVMs have you ever been able to lean over?).
The signage at the station is clear; it tells you there are 2 TVMs, and their locations.
The OP has been informed both were working on that day, anyway.
Perhaps it was in fact an Oyster Validator that was under maintenance.

Pay, and learn the lesson, is my advice to the OP.
Get a friend to loan you the money, or use a credit card.

I was about to mention that considering the cost that you may have to pay should you take this to court and judgement is not found in your favour, if possible to re-visit the station and see for yourself whether it is a reasonable defense that you were unable to purchase a ticket. Pictures from @Skimpot flyer show signage which very clearly state where the 2 ticket machines are located. One was being worked on, but the other presumably was working fine and I assume can accept your chosen method of payment (cash). You say that the person working on the machine gave you permission to travel - can you think of any reason why they wouldn't have pointed you to the working machine? I'm not sure how far or difficult it would be to return to the station so that you can gather any additional mitigating circumstances but it may be a relatively small investment to enhance your version of events.

As for the recording, you mention it was your intention to send this to someone. Did this happen and do you have proof? You may wish to invite the recipient of the recording to enter a witness statement of the said fact. This may add weight to your version as to why such a recording was made, and also why this has only just come to light.

I still believe that paying the latest settlement offered is the best course of action here. And also get your girlfriend to check for any post sent to the address that she gave.

 

[Bungle158]

If this goes to court and a not guilty plea entered, l would expect there to be an adjournment and the case listed for trial at a later date. This for a number of reasons, including the need for both sides to collate evidence, make required disclosures and generally prepare the case.

Evidence will be given under oath

Should the OP be found guilty, there will be no reduction in tariff and costs will presumably be higher.

 

[rs101]

I’m amazed nobody thought of consulting Google Earth. As I stated, I am familiar with this particular station.
The Oyster Validators are represented by the icons of a person leaning over an upright structure (how many TVMs have you ever been able to lean over?).
The signage at the station is clear; it tells you there are 2 TVMs, and their locations.
The OP has been informed both were working on that day, anyway.
Perhaps it was in fact an Oyster Validator that was under maintenance.

Pay, and learn the lesson, is my advice to the OP.
Get a friend to loan you the money, or use a credit card.

No, those icons on the map don't necessarily mean they're Oyster validators.

Here's a map of Manningtree station (my local) with the same icon just inside the lobby.

Given that Manningtree is 1 hour from Liverpool street and well outside the Oyster zone, they can't be Oyster validators. It's actually where the ticket machine used to be a few years ago, before it was moved outside to the paved area. There are smartcard readers by both green entrance/exits, which aren't shown on the map. Nor does it show the lifts which were installed about 4 years ago. The Greater Anglia virtual tour is accurate though - https://virtualtour.greateranglia.co.uk/manningtree/

So it seems the National Rail maps are not to be relied upon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "leaning over" picture is a TVM. It's an accurate picture of the shape of the Shere FastTicket machines Virgin Trains used to use which were the first new-generation "all destinations" ones in the mid 2000s. It doesn't represent Oyster validators though I forget what the symbol for those is.

 

[rs101]

The "leaning over" picture is a TVM. It's an accurate picture of the shape of the Shere FastTicket machines Virgin Trains used to use which were the first new-generation "all destinations" ones in the mid 2000s. It doesn't represent Oyster validators though I forget what the symbol for those is.

The maps are a mess - Stratford has a key, but also uses completely different symbols for TVMs and doesn't show any Oyster validators at all.

https://images.nationalrail.co.uk/e8xgegruud3g/39vHBksgkh5fOjT4VAxTCS/810e82b97f5c945f56ea9239e90ad830/Stratford__London__station_map.JPG

 

[Llanigraham]

Even if the recording is genuine there is no proof of the identity of the voices. I don't think such recordings carry much weight in court and might not even be admissible.

Agree, and my understanding is that unless the "speaker" was told that a recording was being made then it is not admissible evidence.

 

[spag23]

Agree, and my understanding is that unless the "speaker" was told that a recording was being made then it is not admissible evidence.

Despite not being a lawyer, I'd tend to disagree. Haven't there been many prominent cases (murderers, terrorists, bank robbers etc) where clandestine recordings have been presented as crucial evidence.
In any case, here we are (perhaps?) talking about getting the TOC to withdraw their accusation (and avoid press/MP embarrassment), rather than it even reaching Court.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The "leaning over" picture is a TVM. It's an accurate picture of the shape of the Shere FastTicket machines Virgin Trains used to use which were the first new-generation "all destinations" ones in the mid 2000s. It doesn't represent Oyster validators though I forget what the symbol for those is.

Indeed. I stand corrected.
The OP says they can’t afford to pay the settlement, yet proposes to go to court to almost certainly result in a bigger financial hit.
The railway will say the opportunity to pay and adequate signage to locate the means to pay existed.

 

[benjamin11111]

I’m amazed nobody thought of consulting Google Earth. As I stated, I am familiar with this particular station.
The Oyster Validators are represented by the icons of a person leaning over an upright structure (how many TVMs have you ever been able to lean over?).
The signage at the station is clear; it tells you there are 2 TVMs, and their locations.
The OP has been informed both were working on that day, anyway.
Perhaps it was in fact an Oyster Validator that was under maintenance.

Pay, and learn the lesson, is my advice to the OP.
Get a friend to loan you the money, or use a credit card.

Definelty a TVM was being worked on.

I want to settle trust me. If that was an option I would have. But it's either settle or rent. And choosing a place to live does come first

I could have the person I sent it to testify

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I stand corrected.
The OP says they can’t afford to pay the settlement, yet proposes to go to court to almost certainly result in a bigger financial hit.

Not that I'd recommend to the OP to go to Court, but one thing does speak in its favour - they, unlike the TOC, may be amenable to a payment plan for the fine and other payments.

To the OP though I'd recommend to beg, borrow or steal (joke, don't steal) to pay the settlement if at all possible.

 

[WizCastro197]

Definelty a TVM was being worked on.

I want to settle trust me. If that was an option I would have. But it's either settle or rent. And choosing a place to live does come first

I could have the person I sent it to testify

What’s the likelihood you’ll succeed at court though? Will the legal costs eg. Paying for solicitor not equate to more than settling now even if you do succeed?

My advice is don’t go to court, you’ll come off it way worse if you don’t win. If you can borrow the money from a friend or family member try do it. Better safe than sorry at this point.

 

[island]

What proof do you have of your journey from Wembley Stadium? You mention this upthread but don’t say what it is. Is it a hotel confirmation?

Legally speaking you’re not required to prove your innocence (it’s for the prosecution to prove your guilt) but this may help your defence if, as you say, you can prove the journey commenced there.

This is incorrect. If the OP wishes to claim that there were no working ticketing facilities at Wembley Stadium, the burden of proof is on them to show it.

It seems to me that the railway will have evidence that the ticket machines were working that day. Of course, their evidence may not be absolutely right - but the railway will likely insist that it is. And since it seems to be a matter of some contention as to whether or not Wembley Stadium station has barriers I imagine that they will be able to produce photographs to prove that point - or else they will have to withdraw that particular part of their argument.

Of course, you also have your own evidence. If this goes to court it will be for the magistrate to decide which evidence is (a) true and (b) relevant, so leading to the decision on whether you are guilty or not.

And for the reasons given here:

It’s not about the standard of proof, exactly (reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities) but of the burden of proving the element of the argument. S 101 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1990 establishes that where a defendant could be not guilty of an offence due to a statutory proviso or exception, it is for the defendant to prove that the proviso or exception is true. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/101

A prosecutor for the bylaws offence must make the court sure that the defendant a) boarded a train b) intending to travel on that train and c) without a valid ticket entitling him to make that journey; at that point the court must convict unless the defendant can show that a) there was no way to buy a ticket at the station where he started his journey or b) he was given permission to travel by an authorised person (or a sign).

the presumption is that the ticketing facilities were working and permission to travel was not given.

This incident happened in September and has had much toing and froing between the OP and the train company. Now, in January, when it is mentioned that the only realistic defence is one in which it can be proven the mystery member of staff gave permission, a voice memo suddenly emerges just moments later.

I’m out. My advice is to pay the settlement without delay because this feels like relentless digging a deeper hole.

I agree. I would remind readers that perjury and perverting the court of justice carry jail time, unlike skipping your train fare*.

Definelty a TVM was being worked on.

I want to settle trust me. If that was an option I would have. But it's either settle or rent. And choosing a place to live does come first

Why do you want to settle if you are not guilty?

*Yes yes I know you can technically get up to 3 months for a second offence, but nobody ever does.

 

[nw1]

Having been sympathetic earlier I will admit to being very suspicious of the voice recording emerging "just like that". Seems very odd.

 

[LAX54]

Having been sympathetic earlier I will admit to being very suspicious of the voice recording emerging "just like that". Seems very odd.

If you were so incensed at being accused, that would be the first thing you fired back at them on day 1

 

[benjamin11111]

Thank you for your email which I have read with interest. I will indeed answer your questions for you. The law states that you must pay for your rail journey before travel where facilities exist for you to do so. The railways are not obliged to accept any payment given that an offence was committed.

When stopped and asked where you had travelled from you initially stated that you ran through the gates to catch the train. Given that there are no gates at Wembley stadium this alerted the Officer to the fact that it was a suspicious thing to have said. This is noted on the Inspectors contemporaneous notes. At no time did you state when being asked that you had been given any permission to travel and you had no written authority to do so. And indeed, you only have given this story when you believed that you were to be charged with the Byelaw offence.

You were not in possession of any written authority to travel and the fact that you did so and the comments recorded on the contemporaneous notes to which you signed are sufficient for a charge to be made under the Regulation of railways Act Section 5.3(a). whether you reject this or not is irrelevant. The law states that you must pay the rail fare before boarding. You are in fact advised to seek independent legal advice in this matter from a Solicitor trained in Criminal law and who is registered with the Law Society, it's also an idea to choose one who has experience in rail fare law as this is a specialised area.

The railways will cite Corbyn vs Saunders (1977) [1978] 1 WLR 400. Corbyn defined the conditions which satisfy an "intent to avoid payment" where he passed an open ticket Office. It was determined that there was no need to suggest that he had a permanent intention to avoid payment, just that there had been an opportunity to pay and that he did not take that opportunity.

You had an opportunity to pay for a ticket before travel and chose not to take that opportunity additionally by your own admission on the day you ran for the train (signed by yourself on the contemporaneous notes).
You were initially offered an administrative disposal which you chose not to take up and the railways are never obliged to make this offer in the same way that you were never obliged to accept it is entirely a choice that you make.

This matter was passed to me following your communication to conduct a review of the case and sufficient evidence exists for the matter to proceed. When the railways wrote to you no charge had been decided and the initial letter mentions the Byelaws simply because you were to be offered the administrative disposal, but the charge was decided after that event.

The facts are therefore:
• You clearly stated that you ran through the Barriers for the train.
• You did not hold a valid rail ticket for the rail journey.
• You did not mention at the time anything such as you were given permission to travel.
• Signs exist at Wembley Stadium that inform you that it is an offence to board without a ticket.
• No member of staff was present at Wembley stadium on the date in question.
• You elected not to take up the offer that was made to you.
• It was only after the event and your research that you said that you were given permission despite that not being the case.
• There are no guards south of Banbury and all Chiltern railway staff and indeed the customers are aware of this.

Given the full facts of the case and having reviewed all of the evidence I am more than happy for the matter to proceed to court. I am additionally aware that you are not happy with the decision, but I have attempted to be fair and gave you another opportunity to resolve the matter again administratively. Unfortunately, in the same way that all work is costed fairly the offer that has been made is because of the additional work that has been performed as a direct result of your not taking the original offer.

This additional work has been undertaken since the initial offer was made.
• A full case review.
• Additional Correspondence.
• Additional Investigation into your most recent claims such as the machine logs etc.
• The additional time that has been required by me dealing with your complaint.
• The raising of the Arrest Summons number, Full Witness statements and Summons to Court.

Should you elect for the matter to go to court and plead Not Guilty the matter will go to Trial at that stage all information and evidence will be supplied to you under CPIA (disclosure Rules). We are not obliged to disclose this prior to this.

A small point of note: you have asked for a witness statement from the person that gave you permission to travel. This is impossible as there was no member of rail staff at Wembley on that day. But all other information will of course be disclosed at that time including the investigation into the machine logs etc. Costs for a Trial will be around £850.00 this amount is due to trial Preparation and witness attendance and if convicted we will ask for all costs involved in your case this might be slightly higher given the additional work that has been required.

You may wish to visit RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 8 - Legal | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk) And in particular 8.7.1.3 Out of Court Settlement if you believe that the amount is too high, Its actually well below the amounts quoted here. This has been fairly costed and is in no way punitive. Your case has cost a significant amount of time.

One final comment this evening and I am obliged to draw your attention to it, Perjury is an offence both from a Prosecution Witness or the defendant. The Prosecution Authority takes a very dim view of this. You have repeatedly stated that The Inspector Lied both within your emails and online. We take such allegations very seriously. The Inspector on the day completed the report which you signed and that forms the basis for the initial report.


RESPONSE FROM MICHAEL above

Everyone I don't see how this is legal. When it says Inspectors contemporaneous notes. I know for a fact that me and my parter didn't state we ran through barriers and I know for a fact that we did state we had permission to travel.

Now they are saying there were no staff at Wembley on that day. I don't see how they can say this when I was there an employee was working on the machine and it was open. Should I ask Michael, so if no staff was there that day then why would a person be standing by the machine with it open, had someone had access to it who shouldn't have. CCTV will prove the fact that I was right.

I don't see how the Inspectors contemporaneous notes can be addmisable in court when it's clear the inspector did not write down what is true. And his body cam footage will prove this. If it did go to court and body cam footage did show the truth then it's a clear lie, but if they don't show it, it's clear they wouldn't show them as it would catch them out. Any thoughts.

 

[Alex C.]

Whilst I don't have any comments on the above email - have we seen TOCS referring customers here for advice previously, that certainly seems unusual to me?

 

[AndroidBango]

A few points.

* you've claimed a few times that CCTV will be on your side. By this point in time, that CCTV will almost certainly no longer exist. Ditto the body cam footage. It's usually retained for up to a month.

* An engineer fixing a machine is not necessarily 'railway staff' in the sense you seem to suggest he was.

* Why did you sign the inspector's report if you thought their content was untrue? Claiming subsequently that it's untrue is not credible.

* His comment about perjury suggests extreme scepticism about your supposed voice recording.

* I hope I'm wrong, but I think you have talked yourself into a very expensive conviction here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If that is actually from TIL I'm quite impressed at the level of detail and explanation in it - and I'm not usually someone to sing their praises!

 

[bcarmicle]

Whilst I don't have any comments on the above email - have we seen TOCS referring customers here for advice previously, that certainly seems unusual to me?

Based on the investigator's comments, it's clear that they are aware of this thread and so it is likely that the referral is to draw the OP's attention to a source that they might be more likely to trust.

 

[KirkstallOne]

So is the second offer still on the table? That seems to be the case although it is not very clear from their response.

You should think very carefully about pursuing this further. I appreciate you feel this is a great injustice, but a trial will be extremely time consuming (you will have to attend court at least twice) and given the notes that you signed it seems likely you will be convicted unless the voice memo is extremely convincing. It has not convinced most members of this forum.

If you are found guilty the penalty will be a heavy fine plus costs (or worse given the mention of perjury) and a criminal conviction for a recordable offence. From your difficulty in paying the settlement this sounds like something you can afford even less. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Any thoughts.

Several but the overriding one is unless this alleged voice recording of the man attending to the ticket machine has a date and timestamp that proves it was made at the time of travel I would take note of the comments about perjury and not even think about taking this to court based on that "evidence". The court won't look favourably on you producing some recoding made by a mate several months later.