Last week my GP sent in a letter that confirmed everything I had said i.e. my medical condition in my response to the intention to prosecute letter. I have just heard back from them saying that, due to the circumstances, they will not be taking any further action. Am extremely pleased to be able to put the whole thing behind me. Thanks very much to all of you for your help and advice, it is much appreciated. Thanks.

So the same would apply then if someone was having a heart attack...?

I know, it was farcical...

By the way, the first class compartment was very small, and the inspector could hardly move as he was writing me up, for the standard class passengers standing in first class!

I suppose about 5 out of 10 seats were taken, of which 3 of them had standard class tickets and had their details taken (Inc me). There were about 4 or 5 standard class people standing in first class after a while because of the overcrowding in standard class. The inspector gave them permission when they asked, as he was writing my details.... You couldn't make it up, could you!

Thanks for that, yes it seems clear. I'm hoping though that it won't come to that though, and that they ll use common sense. I have replied to their intent to prosecute notice explaining (in detail!) the mitigating circumstances. Have also spoken to my GP and, knowing my medical circumstances and history, he's very supportive of my cause and happy to get involved if they don't see reason. Surely reason will prevail? Who knows, let's see... Cheers.

Thanks guys, am going to write the letter of explaination this afternoon. Not sure about the letter to the md though as I don't think he ll give a damn anyway. I must admit that I didn't notice the warning signs about prosecution/imprisonment etc on the front of the first class compartment on the morning in question but I have noticed them on other trains since. Anyway, I'm hoping that my mitigating circumstances will lead to a common sense settlement, rather than going to court. Thanks guys and I'll keep you informed when I hear back. I may also call them later in the week, but think I should let the letter explain the circumstances first. Cheers.

Thank you stigy for your re-assurance. I hope you're right. I will certainly let you all know what happens. Thank you again for your time, you've been of great help.

Sounds like I would still have to declare it then, so I'm still stuffed. Thanks for your time and help though guys, much appreciated. I ll write back and explain the mitigating circumstances and plead for them to settle out of court. I doubt it will do any good, but I've got to try. This seems so unfair, I pay 4 and a half grand a year (for years) and they prosecute me for a being in the wrong place on a packed-out train - meaning I'll lose my job and any future jobs in the same line of work. Anyway, I ll let you know how I get on. By the way, should I follow the letter with a phonecall as well or just leave it to the letter? Cheers.

So what does the "not recordable" that SRPO mentioned mean then? I was kind of hoping that meant what it sounds like!

Thanks guys. So when applying for a job, when asked about ever being charged with a criminal offence would I have to say yes? If so is that not the same as having a criminal record? By the way stigy thanks for clarifying what you meant, and you are correct, I've never been in this situation before. Cheers.

Thanks. So can I clarify - if in the worst Case they do take me to court on the charge I mentioned - it won't give me a criminal record? Can I ask what u meant about not telling you something? Cheers.

Can you please explain how breaking a byelaw alters the possible consequences as far as prosecution/court/criminal record? Cheers.

The charge on the intention to prosecute sheet states "19(1) Occupy a reserved seat, berth or train without an appropriate ticket" Is that the correct charge for sitting in first class with standard ticket? Or have they got that wrong as well? Can you give me any glimmer of hope that it might not go to court? Is that generally the exception or the rule with FCC?

Thanks Wriggler7, so I should reply to the "intention to prosecute" letter correcting the inaccuracies and giving the mitigating circumstances? And should I follow it up with a phonecall or wait until I hear back? What do you think will happen by the way? Do they always take it to court (as they say in their letter)?