Good idea It is a fact that more focussed revenue protection exercises are becoming very much more common in many areas and we can best help those who may consider travelling without valid tickets by encouraging them always to use the facilities that are provided to get one before travelling and to thoroughly investigate the savings that can be made legitimately, particularly by using weekly or season tickets where practical and buying in advance wherever possible.

As someone who has been directly involved in processing this kind of work for many years, I would be very pleased to see your clear evidence that, in relation to revenue staff "there are a lot, if not all, who deliberately chase targets" and your further clear evidence that such targets exist. Where deliberate fare evasion is concerned only the words & actions of an alleged offender that are recorded in evidence of the offence, along with any hard evidence such as an invalid ticket, can be relied upon to prove the case. I am firmly of the belief that we can all best help those who come to these forums seeking assistance if we stick to hard facts and evidence and avoid making unfounded allegations for the sake of it. In many areas right across the national network a tightening of revenue protection activity through more thorough ticket checking and enforcement of long-standing rules is very evident. This is partly in response to identifying evidence of increasing opportunistic fare evasion on some routes and partly a drive to improve re-education about the intending passenger's responsibilities when travelling, as well as making sure that TOCs improve availability of clear, accurate information and ticket purchase opportunities for the public before travelling. I believe that in part, this has been an inevitable consequence of various recent reports, including that by TF earlier in the year highlighting the need to improve consistency in all areas across the system.

Would you rather that firstclassx were to tell lies? Maybe not what the OP, you, or Conniff would prefer to see posted, but in respect of those two routes in particular it is very true nonetheless. Certain revenue at risk 'hot-spots' are being targeted and that includes observing the habits of regular travellers. Those two routes are not the only ones and I'm sure that we can all best help users by reminding them of the rules in force too

That's entirely a matter for the rail company prosecution team and whilst it is possible that they could agree, the fact that you will have come to their notice as someone who has had a previous incident and warning disposed of by administration process, it does diminish your chances of success considerably.

Do not send anything until you have received a letter from the rail company If and when that happens you will have a unique reference number allocated to your case From the information that you have now provided it seems likely that prosecution will ensue and that you may face two charges, both contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) 1. That having not previously paid your fare you did travel without a valid ticket and did offer a fare for a shorter journey than that actually made with intent to avoid a fare contrary to Section 5 (3)(a) of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) 2. That having not previously paid your fare you did travel without a valid ticket and when asked for your name and address did give false details to an officer of the railway company contrary to Section 5 (3)© of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) Wait until you actually receive a letter and then come back to the forum and tell us exactly what it says

You say you received a "tiny passenger notice slip which has no contact details except a postal address" which suggests to me you may have been issued a Penalty Fare Notice (PFN). Such a slip is printed on the bottom of a PFN. If so, this will have a printed number on it and the address details that you refer to. Write to that address quoting the reference number and enquire as to the status of that case. If you did not receive a PFN, but the slip that you received is simply confirmation that you were reported, then once again, you should write to the address on the slip enclosing a copy of the letter that you say you "wasted no time in writing" and again, enquire what is happening to this case. If you have been successfully prosecuted whilst out of the country this will have been a criminal matter and you will have been sent a notice of fine etc. through the post and usually within about 10 days of the hearing by the Magistrates Court and you should contact that Court immediately. If you did not arrange forwarding your letters by Royal Mail or by a new occupant this may prove a little more difficult for you, but the rail company and the Court office will have a clear record of what happened and the Court enforcement team will undoubtedly catch up with you at any new address in due course. It really is in your best interest to contact the rail company as quickly as possible

Sure was, is popular and very much admired in some parts of the industry still today.

duplication deleted

And owns a few historic trains now???

Andy, I understand that you are looking at this from the 'outside' and some of us do see things from within the industry so there will always be some differences, but I think it is necessary to identify where misunderstandings can result in an OP being given 'advice' that might not be at all helpful. Yes, it might be worth the OP contacting Transport Focus ( formerly Passenger Focus ) assuming, as you say, that the OP is being entirely truthful. I have contact with TF from time to time and I am sure that they will not mind me pointing out that they have no decision making authority, but can prove an effective lobbying voice on occasion. Secondly, the National Railway Byelaws are hardly best described as 'somewhat archaic' legislation since they were last reviewed and updated by government as recently as 2005. I suggested that the most likely legislation under which this could be prosecuted, IF the TOC pursue this, is an Act of Parliament dating from some 125 years ago, but this was not concerned with the profits of the railway companies, rather the safe operation of trains and almost as an aside, covered the intention of a minority of people not to pay fares. The main features of this legislation being widely recognised as having stood the tests of time over a great many appeals and challenges. The fundamental reasons for such legislation lasting so long is because it is good law. I suggest that the TOC may not prosecute, but if they decide that there is an evidentially strong case to do so, Transport Focus will not be able to prevent that. It is also important to remember that Transport Focus have repeatedly stated that they support firm action, including prosecuting cases of deliberate avoidance of fare. The key thing is that the longer the OP allows this to drag on, the more likely prosecution becomes. ,

The fact is that if the TOC proceed to prosecution the OP will need to provide evidence to show that a sign was in place stating that the office had closed, because it seems that the TOC must believe that they have evidence to say it was open, or that there was an alternative pre-purchase facility provided. That being the case, a Byelaw 18.1 (2005) charge would succeed. (Byelaw 17 is irrelevant in this case.) If the TOC are suggesting that the OP boarded without ticket and failed to pay the fare due when asked, they might pursue a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare' contrary S.5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889), citing the Appeal Court judgment in Corbyn (1978) I'm not familiar with the specific detail in the case of Santander debit card accounts, but the very small print in the T&Cs that are given to the holder at the time of issue of such cards will probably include reference to any restrictions. We have seen holders of some types of Debit cards attempt to claim that they 'hadn't been told of a restriction' only to find that the prosecutor produces a copy. If the notice that the OP was issued was a Unpaid Fare Notice (UFN), these normally allow the traveller to pay the standard single ( fare without penalty ) within 21 days, or appeal liability in writing. I agree with firstclassx, it is probably best that the Op pays the claim and takes up a further dispute in writing.

As HB has said, you will receive a letter from the TOC asking for your version of events. You should reply promptly & truthfully, signing and dating your letter and get it back to them as soon after receipt of theirs as possible. The TOC may be persuaded to allow an out of Court settlement, but that will be very much dependant upon your reply and how you deal with your offending. Be contrite & apologetic, offering to meet all the reasonably incurred costs and unpaid fares that arise from your actions As for likely course of action by the TOC, it is most likely that this will be reported as an attempt to avoid payment of the fare due contrary to Section 5(3) of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) The TOC will likely issue a Summons for the matter to be heard by a Magistrates Court.

Because your brother is a juvenile it is your parents who should reply, because the letter requests their explanation The explanation must be entirely truthful to stand any chance of minimising the damaging impact of the incident. The letter must be signed by the parent writing it and it will help if it is countersigned by your brother. If the card was taken without his knowledge he should say so, it is your action in taking and using it that has created the situation that you now have to deal with. If he loaned it to you, he should say so, but be careful how this is worded as HB has already said. Being untruthful in these cases almost always gets found out The fact is as others have said, although you qualify for the concession, unless you have a valid Oyster of your own with you at the time of travel, you must pay the fare. You should be entirely truthful and apologetic too and both you and your parents may ask if the matter can be dealt with by you paying all of the reasonably incurred costs that arise as a result of TfL having to deal with this. You should also give an undertaking never to travel without a valid ticket in future and apologise for your actions.

I agree entirely, it is wrong to infer that TfL will never prosecute an 18 year old adult for fare evasion. In common with other public transport providers, the company has a policy of not prosecuting under 18s wherever possible and this is the relevant extract from the TfL policy document: 5. Young Offenders 5.1 TfL will not normally prosecute any person under the age of 18 on the day of the relevant offence. This is in line with the Home Office guidelines of diverting youths away where possible, from the criminal justice system. However where the offence is of a serious nature, TfL may prosecute or in appropriate cases refer such an offence to the Police. 　 TfL considers the following offences to be of a serious nature: a) Assaults on staff or other Public Order offences b) Criminal damage to TfL property c) Forgery and counterfeiting of TfL travel tickets and passes d) Illegal production or sale of TfL travel tickets and passes e) Repeat offences of any nature or offences committed after a previous warning. f) Breach of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order. g) Any other offence(s) where it is in the public interest to prosecute. 5.2 TfL will consider all offences objectively in deciding whether or not to prosecute. Youth offenders will be prosecuted in accordance with the TfL prosecution criteria contained in this policy after taking all surrounding factors into consideration including necessary Home Office guidelines. 5.3 Where TfL has established proper restorative process liaisons with local Youth Offending Teams (YOT) centres, youth offenders may be diverted accordingly. TfL will participate in the YOT scheme aimed at preventing future youth offences. Repeat young offenders will be prosecuted in accordance with this policy and the Home Office Final Warning Scheme. 5.4 Young passengers in receipt of free travel from TfL will be subject to the agreed Behaviour Code associated with the free travel scheme. A breach of the Behaviour Code could lead to enforcement action taken against the holder of the free travel pass ranging from temporary to a permanent withdrawal of the card depending on severity. For full details of the Behaviour Code and consequences of breach, please refer to the TfL website at www.tfl.gov.uk 　 TFL Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy TfL Unclassified Issued Date: 18 August 2014 This supersedes any previous policy MAYOR OF LONDON In my opinion this piece above is definitely the best advice that you have been given

If that is factually the case it is probably worth challenging the charge in open Court on that basis

Deleted duplicate post

I agree to some extent that emotive language doesn't necessarily add anything, but I am a little unclear about what the OP expects from posting To some extent I think it is inescapable that people will be judgmental in reading the original post in this thread, and whilst that is not the reason for any of us being here, neither are any of us doing the best for any OP by suggesting unrealistic expectations of the outcome. Reading the post again, I see that the only question that the OP actually asks is "I am just wondering what may happen now?" The OP has, by own admission, committed several anti-social offences that are captured by Byelaws, each of which may see a fine of up to £1000 on conviction. The offensive language used and the behaviour displayed by the OPs own admission is very likely to ensure that the prosecutors office will deal with these matters robustly in an effort to re-educate and deter similar anti-social actions by others and that is exactly why such legislation is in place

If it was Acton Town where you started your journey the offence is correctly identified TfL Byelaw 17.1 states that 'no person shall enter a compulsory ticket area without having with him a valid ticket' The point at which you entered the system will show on the record of 'touch-in'. Where you were stopped is simply the point at which the offence was detected and where you still did not have a valid ticket because you were using an oyster identified as valid only for the sole use of your girlfriend. This is a strict liability Byelaw offence and as such non-recordable (no criminal record), and as others have said unlikely to cause you any great employment problem, unless you work in a notifiable occupation, when it would be best declared.

The important point being that the OP should be dealing with this through a solicitor, who should be querying with the Police whether or not action is being pursued against the 'seller' and if not, why not. Selling by an unauthorised person, or obtaining a ticket from an unauthorised source are both offences that should be pursued and if the OPs story is wholly accurate, there would appear to be no reason why that is not the case There seem to be a number of inconsistencies in this one

The best chance you have of reducing the impact for you in this case now is to give a full statement identifying the person who offered and sold you the faked ticket.

I'd agree with that summary. The Magistrates may be persuaded to keep this in the Magistrates Court if we are talking loss at a lower level and it is definitely in the OPs interest to keep it in the lower Court if possible.

Look at the costs application that they have said they will make if successful with prosecution, that plus the fares plus something to compensate South Eastern will give you a basis for starting point Send the letter by signed for post and check the delivery tracker the following day before ringing

The letter seems fine because it is in your own words. You might consider amending the phrase in your last sentence to say something like: "I hope that South Eastern and the prosecution manager will be kind enough to allow me to make full recompense for my action and to protect my good name for the sake of my family. I shall certainly never travel without a valid ticket again."

I understand how you may be feeling, but you should not make exorbitant offers to the prosecutor, that can sometimes be counter-productive. The maximum fine will not be applied by a Court in a case of a first offence, but I understand that your primary aim is to avoid the Court hearing and to avoid the criminal conviction which is likely in this case. You can try calling, but in my experience may not get to speak to him although that should not stop you from trying. You may get to speak to someone who has delegated responsibility to deal with this. You could try writing a letter addressed directly to him and forget about anything other than a sincere apology to the company & staff involved as you did previously. Say that you are hoping that they will accept your offer to immediately pay all of their reasonably incurred costs and any fares compensation if the company will be kind enough to allow an administrative disposal. When writing, concentrate on the likely effect of conviction for your future employment. You can state that you have a family of 4 youngsters all under 10 years and that working in a notifiable employment for NHS, that you have been advised that conviction will be very likely to have a disproportionately damaging effect for your future. Get that letter sent by 'signed for' delivery straight away. Failing that, you should consult a solicitor who is known at the Court and who specialises in criminal law matters. Your letter might include a note to the effect that, because of your employment you will be seeking legal representation, but this should not be written in a 'threatening' manner. ( It may be a 'slip' and I hope it is, but twice using the words 'persecution office' instead of 'prosecution office' suggests a mind-set that might not be helping you.)

Aah! Sorry, half asleep this morning, I'd missed it. This is a more serious case than I'd noted. Definitely seek advice of a solicitor specialising in criminal law and preferably one known to the Court where this matter is likely to be heard. This will be what's known as an 'either / or' matter meaning that you can elect for trial at a Crown Court. This is a serious matter and you need proper representation.