Thanks for your view on this. I have already told them the claim has been withdrawn due to agreed payment, by email, and they replied before I posted a letter. I don't have a notice of discontinuance yet as that has not arrived. I did also speak to a legal helpline who shared the same view, as well as a local solicitor, so I am just going to wait and see what happens. Many thanks

in-house solicitor I believe

If you could I would really appreciate that. But i would have thought cost orders are a possibility? I did also find: 8.2 Where a settlement is reached or a Part 36 offer accepted in a case which has not been allocated but would, if allocated, have been suitable for allocation to the small claims track, rule 46.13 enables the court to allow only small claims track costs in accordance with rule 27.14. This power is not exercisable if the costs are to be paid on the indemnity basis.

Long story, agreed some money before court action and ended up putting in a claim as money was not paid. Once claim was put in, some money was received from the defendant and I decided to withdraw the claim as if a settlement had been reached. The claim was for a few hundred pounds. The defendant sent acknowledgement of service less than a week ago, requesting 28 days, defending the full amount. What does this mean for costs? After withdrawing it I panicked, but rule 27.14 refers to 46.11 and 46.13: "46.13(3) Where the court is assessing costs on the standard basis of a claim which concluded without being allocated to a track, it may restrict those costs to costs that would have been allowed on the track to which the claim would have been allocated if allocation had taken place." What is the next step? If the defendant requests costs (how do they do this) what should I do? Are they even likely to?

Yes, a criminal "record" in some sense. Its a very minor offence. Somewhere there will have been a record created. However, im virtually certain that it would not show up on a CRB report. The reason for this is CRB reports show what is on the Police National Computer and your daughter's conviction will not have been listed as its non-recordable. In the end, the best thing to do would probably have been plead guilty anyway - for the byelaw prosecution they dont exactly have to show or prove much to secure the conviction.

If it was prosecuted under bylaws (that is, a strict liability offence like you say), it would have been a non-recordable offence. This isnt too far removed from a parking ticket. Whilst a prosecution is a prosecution, I dont beleive there would have been a criminal record (or any Police National Computer entry made). I would not imagine this needs to be declared when applying for most jobs (there are probably a few exceptions, such as lawyers, accountants though) Oyster card records would really only be useful if they were trying to prosecute the recordable offence of intent to avoid payment/making off without payment etc. I've been "caught out" myself, where a TfL inspector tried to issue me with a Penalty fare when I had a valid travelcard, covering my entire journey, but had not "touched in". Now that really is the biggest of all rip-offs. Only in the UK could you be issued with a penalty fare for having a valid ticket, where you paid the correct fare, covering your whole journey and all zones you travel through. I read the conditions of carriage, the bylaws and the greater london authority act, I actually concluded that inspector had probably misrepresented both fact and law and committed the general offence of fraud by false representation (see Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006). So there you go, ticket inspectors can be prosecuted if you gather enough evidence. Plus a successful prosecution would likely see hefty fines and jail time too. Later on, I discovered that TfL actively carry out individual journey tracking of Oyster card data. What they do is look for "unstarted" and "unfinished" journeys under the guise of prevention of ticketing fraud (there are PLENTY of valid reasons for not touching in, where there are no oyster readers, overcrowding etc). They simply do this to generate extra revenue through the abuse of the penalty fares system. My advice is simple - DONT USE OYSTER

That is a totally GENIUS letter, and I would love to see what Lloyds' response is!

Actually, AFAIK penalty fares can only be issued on-the-spot by a person authorised to do so. They cannot be issued retrospectively after the event. Penalty fares are a disputed civil liability or debt, and are to be recovered through the civil courts (not the criminal courts). This is why penalty fares have never been challenged in the courts. Also, its a "one or the other", in order to prevent double liability. If you pay a Penalty fare, and are then later prosecuted you are no longer liable to pay the penalty and would be due an immediate refund of said penalty. My point was that, although technically an strict liability offence had likely been committed under bylaws for which no intent has to be proven, the poster should defend any prosecution under Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (as amended). In this case, an out-of-court settlement would likely be able to be reached for maybe £50 to £150 in order to cover case processing and/or court costs up to that point.

For the benefit of others who might read this thread..... you do not have to speak to ticket inspectors or answer any of their questions (unless they ask for your name and address). If you feel as though you want to speak, then state you are unable to make any comment. It is an offence to provide a false name and address when asked, or no name and address, but you are under no obligation to provide ID, you do not have to show who you are or that the address you have given is correct. Do not swear or be abusive. The simpliest solution is to pay the fare, but politely decline to pay any penalty there and then. Give your name and address if asked, but NEVER SIGN ANYTHING. If you can, say nothing, and just walk away. If you feel the situation getting out of hand, say nothing, and just walk away.

You signed a statement admitting your guilt? I wouldnt know what to suggest in that case, and would recommend you see speak to a solicitor as soon as possible to get some advice. There is a difference between not having a valid ticket, and intending to evade the fare.

i'm not a lawyer, so i'm posting for information and entertainment purposes only. do not assume anything i have said is correct.

Then you never intended to evade the fare.... i'm guessing the only reason you travelled without a ticket was that you were unable to buy a Travelcard on Oyster at the National Rail station, yet you had intended to buy one all along when you got to your destination. You should make a subject access request and get the information stored on your Oyster card. Thats not to say you havent comitted an offence under bylaws.... but if they try and prosecute you for fare evasion under Regulation of Railways Act 1889, you must see a solicitor. I fail to see how they could prove you had intended to evade the fare. I'm guessing SWT may write to you and ask for your explanation of events, or you may just get a summons.

Hang on, this Oyster card which had "expired".... did this contain a travel card which had expired the day before? and, had this still been valid on the day would this ticket have covered the whole of the journey you had not paid for (ie would it have had enough zones) ?

Did he ask you to pay the fare? If so, did you pay it? Why do they have clear evidence you tried to avoid paying? Did you just forget to re-new your ticket? Usually its unlikely that you would be prosecuted for trying to avoid payment, as they would have to prove that was your intention. In order to protect yourself somewhat, I would recommend you make a subject access request for the whole 8-weeks of travel history that TfL hold on you (assuming your Oyster card is registered). You could use this as evidence as part of your defence in court if it ever got that far. You may still have some strict liability under railway bylaws which state you must have a valid ticket. In this case, it would unlikely be in the public interest (and their benefit) for them to prosecute you. If they decided to prosecute under railway bylaws get a solicitor and settle out-of court... as you could make it more worthwhile for them by compensating them directly as an alternative to going to court.

Penalty fares are meant to discourage and prevent fare evasion. They are not there to milk the customer for even more money on top of their valid ticket. The lesson in my case was not that incompetence exisits in the system. It was that, as I had assumed from the start, Oyster card is never to be trusted. The information held about you, based on personal experience, will only ever be used to track your movements and tried to be used against you where ever possible. Its more about increasing the money-making-machine bottom line, than about improved journey planning. If improved journey planning were true, I wouldnt have an elbow in my face ever morning when i go to work, as trains would be provided where they are needed. The solution is simple, buy travel cards on paper only. It costs the same. Available from main line stations. Avoids any incidents. Will prevent big brother from tracking you, and from making mistakes (which let me assue you, it will, on both points)

Actually, I have encountered a situation where a penalty fare would come under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I think these situations are rare though. Penalty fares are usually covered by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992, not the bye-laws. A ticket inspector tried to issue me with a penalty fare for not "touching in" with my Oyster card which contained a valid period Travelcard. He claimed I was liable to pay a penalty fare, I disputed any liability and did not believe any "offence" had been committed as I had a valid ticket covering my entire journey. Actually, I think he was referring to the conditions of carriage which state you need to touch-in and touch-out. (on a side note, not that it matters but at the time Oyster card had told me I was not required to do so). Conditions of carriage are, correct me if i'm wrong, a civil contract. The bye-laws do state that a ticket whose conditions require it to be "validated" would not be a valid ticket unless its validated - however the conditions of carriage actually stated that a Oyster card containing a period travelcard which is available and valid at the time of travel is a valid ticket (which would not require "validation", that is contain a record of the start of your journey, unlike the pay-as-you-go system). I concluded after the incident that as Schedule 17 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 did not allow the issuing of a penalty fare in my case, that the ticket inspector was likely to have known this, and that he was in fact trying to obtain money by way of deception. Not to mention carrying out individual journey and movement tracking with oyster card data specifically for issuing a fine (aka unlawful processing of personal data under the first data protection principle). I think the trend is, like this situation here, going to be towards issuing penalties for whatever these rail companies can get away with - even if its against the laws which govern how they are to be issued in the first place. I reckon rail companies are today issuing penalties for "rule breaking" - breaches in the civil contracts and conditions which they themselves have written, claiming these to be some sort of criminal offences, even if the conditions themselves are unfair and restrict consumer rights under Sale of Goods etc. Only in the UK could you be issued with a penalty for carrying a completely valid ticket, at the discretion of a ticket inspector of course! I now ask for staff id of any ticket inspector who approaches me and note name, record any conversations on my phone which would allow bringing about of private prosecutions where necessary.