SWR Fare Evasion, Report for Prosecution, Repeat Short Farer

[Rmord]

Hello,
I was caught short faring recently, on a SWR train, and am awaiting my letter.
There are no gate barriers at Esher station and so I decided to change the From station to a station nearer my destination (Waterloo).
On the train I was then stopped by a revenues protection officer, and stupidly (out of panic or just plain stupidity) I initially lied that the ticket machine had made a mistake, then lied about my name and home address, which was promptly spotted and then gave real name, address and admitted that I didn't pay the full fare because it was too expensive.
This isn't my first time short faring, nor is it my first time being caught (although 5+ years ago for not having valid ticket and was given a penalty on the spot).
I'm incredibly stressed and worried at the potential consequences (and have fully learnt my lesson and form here on in will be buying a railcard and full purchasing every fare); I take the train infrequently (return journey every 2-3 weeks from either Esher or Thames Ditton for approx 2 years, sometimes buying a full ticket, sometimes short faring). What's mainly worrying me and my questions at this stage: a) my ticket purchases are at the self service stands with the same card, can they bring up this history b) I have previously (not often) tapped in using my contactless on SWR trains and not tapped out, only to later fill in an incomplete journey form on TFL to be refunded a quantity, would an investigation bring this up c) will initially lying about my identity and address affect me (having been polite the whole time, but explaining I have reservations about data security) d) will my previous fine (can't remember exactly the name of it, but it was on the spot for £25 approx 5+ years ago) affect me with regards to this?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I admit I've been incredibly stupid in doing this in the first place.

 

[furlong]

a) Yes they can bring up old purchases if they want to.
b) Again, they could check this if they wanted to.

However, on this forum, we have not heard of this particular train company doing either of those things before. There could always be a first time though and we know that many train companies are getting better at joining information together.

c) While they might be able to pursue this as well as a separate offence (assuming the inspector followed correct protocol), normally as long they did get the correct information from you and you co-operate thereafter, they tend to focus only on the substantive matter i.e. the fare evasion itself.

d) A one-off thing 5 years ago is unlikely to make any difference to how they proceed.

Normal advice - make a private note for yourself of everything you can remember about what happened - what you did, who said what etc. then try to put it our of your mind knowing that you can refer back to that note later when you need to - and get on with your life until you receive a letter making sure you always get the right ticket from now on and avoid fraudulent refunds so that you can't be caught out again which could only make things much worse.

 

[Rmord]

Thank you @furlong for your response, I will post the letter once I receive.

I'm spiralling a bit about being prosecuted for fraud. In your/anyone's experience, would admitting to the RPO that I didn't pay for the full fare because it was too expensive lead me down a road of prosecution for fraud?

Thanks again.

 

[Haywain]

I'm spiralling a bit about being prosecuted for fraud. In your/anyone's experience, would admitting to the RPO that I didn't pay for the full fare because it was too expensive lead me down a road of prosecution for fraud?

It's really unlikely. You have given enough evidence to be convicted of a lesser offence, and that is what they will go for if you cannot agree to settle the matter.

 

[Titfield]

Thank you @furlong for your response, I will post the letter once I receive.

I'm spiralling a bit about being prosecuted for fraud. In your/anyone's experience, would admitting to the RPO that I didn't pay for the full fare because it was too expensive lead me down a road of prosecution for fraud?

Thanks again.

The threshold for a successful prosecution for fraud is high and would require compelling evidence.

We see on here many statements made by passengers at the time of being stopped that are untrue or are incriminating in one or more ways. However TOCS seem to proceed on the basis of what the passenger puts in a written statement replying to a letter from the TOC or when interviewed having been asked to attend an interview post event. They know that statements made by passengers at the time of being stopped may not be the true or whole story.

I would await the letter from the TOC. On the basis of what you have told us I think you would be able to obtain an out of court settlement but it may be expensive however I do have some concerns about the refunds for incomplete journeys you have applied for and been given.

If you are able to do so I think I would review my travelling history for the past 2 -3 years and try a create an accurate listing for every short fare and every refund.

Bear in mind the TOCS objective is to get the money they are owed for unpaid fares, recover their admin costs and get a commitment that you do not offend again. If you engage with them they are much more likely to go down the out of court settlement route than a time consuming court case which from their point of view may achieve less.

 

[Haywain]

We see on here many statements made by passengers at the time of being stopped that are untrue or are incriminating in one or more ways. However TOCS seem to proceed on the basis of what the passenger puts in a written statement replying to a letter from the TOC or when interviewed having been asked to attend an interview post event. They know that statements made by passengers at the time of being stopped may not be the true or whole story.

Regardless of the truth of such statements, if they have been cautioned prior to making them they can be presented at court and it would then be to the accused to provide suitable evidence to refute such comments. A statement along the lines of "I didn't pay the full fare because it was too expensive" would, to me, appear to be very compelling evidence of deliberate fare evasion.

Nonetheless, this does not alter my view that the TOC would not prosecute for fraud because they already have sufficient evidence to successfully obtain a conviction for a lesser offence.

 

[Titfield]

Regardless of the truth of such statements, if they have been cautioned prior to making them they can be presented at court and it would then be to the accused to provide suitable evidence to refute such comments. A statement along the lines of "I didn't pay the full fare because it was too expensive" would, to me, appear to be very compelling evidence of deliberate fare evasion.

Nonetheless, this does not alter my view that the TOC would not prosecute for fraud because they already have sufficient evidence to successfully obtain a conviction for a lesser offence.

Yes I agree that such statements could be presented at court. However I think the statement would have less weight attached to it rather than intent being proven by the offences themselves.

I do agree with your view that the TOC would not prosecute for fraud for the reasons you have given. As stated and seen in so many of these cases it is the engagement by the OP with the TOC that seems to be the determinant of the severity of the outcome.

 

[Haywain]

However I think the statement would have less weight attached to it rather than intent being proven by the offences themselves.

I am not a magistrate, but I am not convinced of that.

As stated and seen in so many of these cases it is the engagement by the OP with the TOC that seems to be the determinant of the severity of the outcome.

I don't fully agree with this - it is engagement with the TOC that determines whether an out of court settlement might be offered, rather than what offence will be charged in court.

 

[Titfield]

I am not a magistrate, but I am not convinced of that.

I don't fully agree with this - it is engagement with the TOC that determines whether an out of court settlement might be offered, rather than what offence will be charged in court.

I based my first statement on some conversations with magistrates (2) but I accept that magistrates views differ. I think any lawyer would try to challenge any statement made at the time of being stopped if it was unfavourable to their client as having been made without the benefit of advice and whilst stressed. Hence I think magistrates would place greater weight on what can be reasonably inferred from an act of the passenger rather than a statement.

The second statement I should have worded with greater care. My intention was to draw the clear distinction that engagement could result in an out of court settlement being offered rather than the more severe outcome of being summonsed to court which appears to be an almost inevitable outcome of not engaging. I wasnt suggesting that engagement could result in a lesser offence being charged in court.

 

[island]

Yes I agree that such statements could be presented at court. However I think the statement would have less weight attached to it rather than intent being proven by the offences themselves.

People are convicted up and down the country week in week out based on their statement that they did not have money for the fare/did not pay it because it was too expensive/were trying to save money. Evidence in a statement given under caution is admissible evidence and is given full weight. "The offences themselves" can't prove a thing. Evidence proves offences. Not the other way round.

 

[Rmord]

People are convicted up and down the country week in week out based on their statement that they did not have money for the fare/did not pay it because it was too expensive/were trying to save money. Evidence in a statement given under caution is admissible evidence and is given full weight. "The offences themselves" can't prove a thing. Evidence proves offences. Not the other way round.

Excuse my ignorance - but would the RPO questioning me on my ticket on the train have been "under caution." I can't remember him using that terminology or anything that would suggest it was under caution.

 

[island]

Excuse my ignorance - but would the RPO questioning me on my ticket on the train have been "under caution." I can't remember him using that terminology or anything that would suggest it was under caution.

I can’t comment on what an RPO may or may not have said or done on a given occasion I’m afraid.