Ticket confiscated and told to expect a court date

[Iskra]

Yes, it's also better to wait a little, as any contact from Chiltern may reveal how much they are actually aware of. It's much better to take the penalty for perhaps one journey, than go pro-actively admitting to 100+ counts of fare evasion.

 

[WesternLancer]

Apart from the cost in coming forward before receiving a letter, is there anything else I should be aware of proactively coming forward?

I would hope Manak solicitors will be just as ready to help you in the event of you actually being contacted by Chiltern, hopefully as keen as they are to help before you have been accused of anything...

 

[Iskra]

I would hope Manak solicitors will be just as ready to help you in the event of you actually being contacted by Chiltern, hopefully as keen as they are to help before you have been accused of anything...

It's in their interest for the OP to incriminate themself, as then the OP is more likely to need their legal services! Legal assistance in a black and white case, may just add to the eventual bill. The economics of the justice system are interesting and at times perverse, hence why I strongly recommend that the OP sits tight for the moment and does not make any hasty decisions until contact is made from Chiltern, which may never come.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's in their interest for the OP to incriminate themself, as then the OP is more likely to need their legal services! Legal assistance in a black and white case, may just add to the eventual bill. The economics of the justice system are interesting and at times perverse, hence why I strongly recommend that the OP sits tight for the moment and does not make any hasty decisions until contact is made from Chiltern, which may never come.

I wouldn't like to comment

Tho it is worth adding that people who come help on this forum, and choose to use a solicitor to assist them, do report positively about this firm and their experience of using their services, for what it's worth (I have no connection nor have ever used them).

But yes, I too would say sit tight, but if you are thinking of getting legal help - it can be no bad thing to have touched base with a firm.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Apart from the cost in coming forward before receiving a letter, is there anything else I should be aware of proactively coming forward?

You can listen to some of the people on here who are telling you what they think you want to hear or you can look at the facts and make a decision for yourself.

The facts are Chiltern's actions were very unusual, verging on the bizarre. That says to me they have something on you. Nobody knows exactly what or how much they have but it is a fairly safe bet they have something and aren't going to just do nothing so you aren't going to get away Scot free.

My advice is seeing as you have already consulted with solicitors then ask them what they consider the best way forward is and follow their advice.

 

[Criv]

A bit confused now to be honest, I have seen a lot of positive feedback and recommendations on Manak Solictors for my exact case I.e. proactively coming forward. To be honest they were not forceful or selling at all and gave me pro’s and con’s from both sides objectively so I don’t feel ‘sold’ to. Can I ask, is there any benefit in coming forward not or reactively if I get a letter?

You can listen to some of the people on here who are telling you what they think you want to hear or you can look at the facts and make a decision for yourself.

The facts are Chiltern's actions were very unusual, verging on the bizarre. That says to me they have something on you. Nobody knows exactly what or how much they have but it is a fairly safe bet they have something and aren't going to just do nothing so you aren't going to get away Scot free.

My advice is seeing as you have already consulted with solicitors then ask them what they consider the best way forward is and follow their advice.

That was exactly my question with the solictor, I ask for his honest view and he said just that. Based on this type of scenario they have 100% success rate.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I would wait until (if) you are contacted. And see what they say before deciding how to respond and whether to engage Manak.

 

[WesternLancer]

A bit confused now to be honest, I have seen a lot of positive feedback and recommendations on Manak Solictors for my exact case I.e. proactively coming forward. To be honest they were not forceful or selling at all and gave me pro’s and con’s from both sides objectively so I don’t feel ‘sold’ to. Can I ask, is there any benefit in coming forward not or reactively if I get a letter?


That was exactly my question with the solictor, I ask for his honest view and he said just that. Based on this type of scenario they have 100% success rate.

It's good to hear your report of how they responded to your query.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Can I ask, is there any benefit in coming forward not or reactively if I get a letter?

The number of times you have done it a fraud charge is a possibility. It might not be the most likely outcome but it is a possibility depending on how much Chiltern know so whether you wish to be proactive or reactive largely depends on whether you consider the money more important or the potential impact on your life worrying about if/when you will receive a letter from Chiltern.

Solicitors are the professionals and if they make an approach on your behalf I doubt they are going to go straight in and say you’ve done it over 100 times but from their initial approach they will probably be able to better ascertain exactly what Chiltern do know and therefore give a better indication of how much it will cost you.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I've read through this thread with interest. I can understand the OP being attracted to the advice - of proactively coming forward - given by the solicitors firm, not least because I imagine they are feeling rather awkward and the aphorism 'honesty is the best policy' might be playing round in their head. However, given the circumstances and the fact that no details were taken (name, address etc), nor was the OP spoken to under caution, it does seem like they'd be incriminating themselves if they just 'fessed up.

Perhaps the punishment here is the feeling of shiftyness and uncertainty.

As others have said, the OP should ensure they are whiter than white from now on.

I'm almost half-tempted to suggest that if they opened an online account and bought their tickets from Chiltern they'd then have a 'paper trail' (or rather digital trail) of their correct behaviour from this moment going forwards, but I suppose the lack of a paper trail before this point in time could also be regarded as suspicious, and I suppose ditto if they suddenly switched from paper tickets to e-tickets.

Instead as a belt and braces I might suggest keeping hold of any paper tickets not swallowed by an automatic ticket gate, likewise keeping a purchase receipt from the TVM or ticket office, but also perhaps keeping them filed away at home rather than retaining them in a wallet or purse used during travel. It's probably an overly paranoid suggestion but the OP could switch to using a different payment card (e.g. credit card rather than bank debit card), or at least get a replacement debit card with a new card number.

However, the suggestions in the last two paragraphs are probably completely redundant to this matter.

 

[ikcdab]

So you have defrauded the rail company more than 200 times.... If it was me, that huge scale of dishonesty would prey heavily on me and I would want to admit it, take what is is coming to me and move on. Keeping quiet and hoping my dishonesty is overlooked and goes away would not be a line I would advocate.

 

[RAPC]

I think that based on the scale of your fraud, if you do proactively confess and try to settle, you are going to be landed with a rather large bill just to cover the fares that you will be expected to repay.

The benefit of doing this, is the potential for a settlement and getting ahead of any possible action by Chiltern. As others have said, there is no guarantee that they will be in contact after all of this time. One potential reason why it is taking so long, is if the active investigation is requiring responses from a credit card company to confirm personal details and the number of transaction that could be fraudulent. It takes time to sort the paperwork and necessary proof to make the request, plus also it isn't always quick to get the information back, so a number of months is very possible.

Ultimately, the only person who can make this decision is the OP. If you confess, you will be potentially paying a considerable sum to settle. If you ride it out, you have to weigh up risk vs reward. Whatever you decide, I hope you have the best outcome possible, as well as hopefully going straight with any future ticket purchases.

 

[Adam Williams]

It's in their interest for the OP to incriminate themself, as then the OP is more likely to need their legal services! Legal assistance in a black and white case, may just add to the eventual bill. The economics of the justice system are interesting and at times perverse, hence why I strongly recommend that the OP sits tight for the moment and does not make any hasty decisions until contact is made from Chiltern, which may never come.

I think I would agree with this recommendation.

The staff at Manak's have a responsibility to act in their clients' best interests, and not to unfairly take advantage of them or mislead them. This is required by their regulator.

So you have defrauded the rail company more than 200 times.... If it was me, that huge scale of dishonesty would prey heavily on me and I would want to admit it, take what is is coming to me and move on. Keeping quiet and hoping my dishonesty is overlooked and goes away would not be a line I would advocate.

I hope you're not in the legal profession, because this sort of inappropriate pressure to self-incriminate is exactly the sort of thing that I don't think aligns with the SRA's principles and their Code of Conduct.

The benefit of doing this, is the potential for a settlement

Waiting for Chiltern to send a letter does not rule out pursuing an out-of-court settlement at the point of receiving that initial communication.

What OP did was wrong, and I don't condone fare evasion at all - but they need to act in their own interests, and the advice here should reflect that. If their conscience is still bothering them in e.g. a year's time, there are some charities that do vital work in the rail space.

 

[sansyy]

At the end of the day, the case cannot go anywhere with a case number and until a letter is received in the mail with that included case number there is no reason to incriminate yourself or worry about what’s going to come as at the end of the day, you have defrauded the railway but more importantly there is still no letter confirming it yet. The best thing to do as suggested is to just continue as normal and not do it again and hope within 6 months you receive no letter and they were scaring you (and succeeding) from shortfaring again.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Given these tickets were purchased via TVM, rather than an online retailer, it is vastly less likely they will realise the extent of your fare evasion. If you come forward and admit to 100+ counts of fare evasion, I rather think your chances of it not going to court are rather slim with Chiltern. The significant sum of cases will look very badly against your favour. If you came forward while instructing a lawyer you have a better chance, but also will be spending thousands in the end most likely.

I run a business, and our card retailer automatically puts together all transactions by payment card number. I can see instantly all transactions ever made to us by the same card. And I use the cheapest system! It's therefore very likely Chiltern will have this facility.
If you're paying a solicitor for advice It's probably best to follow that advice. Do bear in mind, Chiltern may offer a settlement for just the one offence. Then come back later for the others. Settling all of them in one go removes that problem.

 

[Haywain]

It's in their interest for the OP to incriminate themself, as then the OP is more likely to need their legal services!

Solicitors are required to act in the best interests of their clients. Acting otherwise would not see them last too long.

 

[fandroid]

Just to clarify. What do people think the "just one offence" is?

The OP didn't pass the gateline with that ticket, and didn't board a train with it. The ticket was valid until they boarded a train or even, depending on the train, they had stopped at and passed the destination on the ticket.

I know one part of the legislation involves "intent to travel without a valid ticket", but it would be a slightly unusual prosection, not the usual ones we see based on the byelaws or the RoR Act.

 

[Haywain]

Just to clarify. What do people think the "just one offence" is?

The OP didn't pass the gateline with that ticket, and didn't board a train with it. The ticket was valid until they boarded a train or even, depending on the train, they had stopped at and passed the destination on the ticket.

I know one part of the legislation involves "intent to travel without a valid ticket", but it would be a slightly unusual prosection, not the usual ones we see based on the byelaws or the RoR Act.

Attempting to use a ticket can also be an offence.

 

[Benjwri]

Attempting to use a ticket can also be an offence.

Although it is a fair point that intent is far harder to prove here. Most cases where attempting to use a ticket is the evidence are clear cut, as the user is not eligible for the ticket attempted to be used. In those cases it is clear they attempted to use an invalid ticket.

However here the OP attempted to use a valid ticket. To prove they attempted to use an invalid one Chiltern has to prove they were intending on travelling past the validity of the ticket. That is a lot harder.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If the only trains ready for boarding aren't going to the station on the ticket then there's a strong clue there.

And also, as the OP appears to have meekly accepted the ticket being taken without a fuss and then gone and purchased one for their intended journey, and presumably gone through the same check again to gain access to the platforms, that's another strong clue.

 

[AlterEgo]

This thread is a classic case of overthinking. Would put a fiver on "nothing happens" - no, they will not contact the credit card company (who will not disclose the information to a private company anyway), or the police. The whole episode is just a warning shot across the bows, likely because there was no RPI around, and it seems to have rattled the OP - rightly so.

 

[Adam Williams]

This thread is a classic case of overthinking

With frankly quite questionable advice as a result!

The point of this section is not to make life easier for the TOC that would bring a prosecution.

 

[AlterEgo]

With frankly quite questionable advice as a result!

The point of this section is not to make life easier for the TOC that would bring a prosecution.

I agree. The advice to simply run to the TOC and admit everything without even being contacted (!!!!!!) is not in the OP's interests and I can only assume the solictor did not have or understand all the facts, else their advice is questionable at best. There is NO benefit to doing this prior to being contacted.

The facts matter in this case.

The company does not have the OP's details, did not even bother to interview them, and are unlikely to be able to procure them without involving the police - which is such a slim possibility that it should be discounted if and until the OP hears from them or the TOC. We have seen precisely zero cases on here where a paper ticket has had the coppers involved and disclosures forced from card companies to identify a purchaser.

There's far too much focus on theoreticals and around-the-edges internet point scoring that it has been detrimental to the OP, who has (in view view unnecessarily) been told to seek legal advice.

 

[Iskra]

I agree. The advice to simply run to the TOC and admit everything without even being contacted (!!!!!!) is not in the OP's interests and I can only assume the solictor did not have or understand all the facts, else their advice is questionable at best. There is NO benefit to doing this prior to being contacted.

The facts matter in this case.

The company does not have the OP's details, did not even bother to interview them, and are unlikely to be able to procure them without involving the police - which is such a slim possibility that it should be discounted if and until the OP hears from them or the TOC. We have seen precisely zero cases on here where a paper ticket has had the coppers involved and disclosures forced from card companies to identify a purchaser.

There's far too much focus on theoreticals and around-the-edges internet point scoring that it has been detrimental to the OP, who has (in view view unnecessarily) been told to seek legal advice.

While I agree with all that has been said, at the end of the day the OP is the one panicking and the responsibility for all this is theirs alone. It is probably best not to commit multiple acts of fraud, if you aren't resilient enough to deal with the associated consequences, real or imagined.

 

[spag23]

Some might point out that the OP's financial account has benefitted substantially from their actions. But their Peace-of-Mind account is consequently in deficit. As they use different currencies (££s vs fingernails), only the OP can determine the net balance, and whether the "transfer" was worth it. (I am not a banker )

 

[Criv]

Many thanks for all input and conversations. I have decided to proactively reach out and try settle out of court, I feel terrible about it all and hopefully this will demonstrate my remorse and indication that I have clearly learnt from my lesson. This will never happen again. Fingers crossed I get to settle and gets completed promptly.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I agree. The advice to simply run to the TOC and admit everything without even being contacted (!!!!!!) is not in the OP's interests and I can only assume the solictor did not have or understand all the facts, else their advice is questionable at best. There is NO benefit to doing this prior to being contacted.

The facts matter in this case.

The company does not have the OP's details, did not even bother to interview them, and are unlikely to be able to procure them without involving the police - which is such a slim possibility that it should be discounted if and until the OP hears from them or the TOC. We have seen precisely zero cases on here where a paper ticket has had the coppers involved and disclosures forced from card companies to identify a purchaser.

There's far too much focus on theoreticals and around-the-edges internet point scoring that it has been detrimental to the OP, who has (in view view unnecessarily) been told to seek legal advice.

At least one of those facts appears to directly contradict what a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion said. The OP made the initial approach to a solicitor without any prompting from anybody and it is perfectly reasonable to advise people who have consulted a solicitor to follow the advice they have given rather than advice offered by random strangers on the internet.

 

[AlterEgo]

At least one of those facts appears to directly contradict what a solicitor who specialises in fare evasion said. The OP made the initial approach to a solicitor without any prompting from anybody and it is perfectly reasonable to advise people who have consulted a solicitor to follow the advice they have given rather than advice offered by random strangers on the internet.

It seems prudent to question or caveat the advice a (very expensive) solicitor gave, which is to run straight to the train company and confess everything when there is no evidence at all that the train company even knows who they are. This strikes me as extremely unusual legal advice and contrary to their client's interests. I think if the solicitor told the client to jump off a cliff we might have something to say about that, even if it is to ask if the solicitor is aware of the exact facts of the matter at hand from their client.

Nonetheless, the OP has decided to settle and that is that. It will have to be an expensive lesson for them.