? on behalf of my son..!

[moving on..]

My 18 year old son has received a letter from first capital connect prosecutions Dept. asking him to confirm that he is the name and address given to a member of railway staff back in May. It then asks that before they proceed with the investigation they afford him the opportunity of responding and giving an explanation. about the said incident..within 7 days. Mys son who does not remember much about the said 'incident' thinks that he was travelling ,with a valid ticket..(looked at by an inspector en route), and was advised by the inspector the oyster and ticket were valid for his whole journey, but when he disembarked apparently it was not. im not sure what he should expect..a fine or court?....Should I ask them to explain the incident more fully before my son replies?..He is confused and I am worried..... I avoid public transport like the plague!! now I know why...!

 

kind regards

moving on...........(by foot..!!)

[Esio Trot]

Sounds like they are fishing, rather than having anything specific. I would be tempted to write a nebulous letter to them (but leave it a couple of weeks)

 

"My son is away at present, and he has asked me to look after his affairs until his return, hence why I am responding on his behalf.

 

"I have discussed this matter with my son, and he says that he has no recollection of this incident at all.

 

"May I ask that you provide further details, plus any identifying information you might have that will help us assist you further."

 

Or even better:

 

"Thank you for your letter dated ... addressed to ......

 

"I am writing to tell you that he is away at present. I am due to speak to him by telephone before the end of this month and I will raise the matter with him then."

 

You could then write back mid-August along the lines above asking for their assistance.

 

In a nutshell, you need to make full use of time. On the assumption that they are fishing, they will need to see and interview your son to give substance to any potential misdemeanour he might allegedly have done. Then with six months of the offence they must lay an information before the magistrates court. If you make full use of time, then it is likely that they will be outside the six-month rule anyway (getting on for a couple of months has gone already!).

Edited July 10, 2008 by Esio Trot
Noticed that Spellcheck had changed a word to demeanour, which then didn't make much sense.

[Guest forgottenone]

Definitely. By not directly referring they are as mentioned above fishing. Likely something may have occured same journey as your son, they don't have enough evidence ... possibly someone else was responsible ... But my best guess would be pure and simple human error on THEIR behalf. They need to explain fully their actions. Seems to me a case of covering the backside of the inspector who eroneously allowed your son to travel. So, if it was good enough for the inspector, why not the company? Ergo, questions need to be asked as the person above me has touched upon.

 

Conversely, they need to be investigating their OWN staff ... not your son. Shifting the blame is an age old tale with these companies. If their inspector was incorrect, they should carry the can not come after you in this attrocious manner.

 

Age old tale of a bus or train inspector ... Had an altercation myself once with some train conductor along these lines ... suffice to say how he spoke, treated me - as not a regular traveller, but visitor to the area so not used to routes, broken down signs on the platform, the usual incorrect info given out over the tannoy ... so was really confusing which train to get on, except it was going in the direction I wanted as displayed AND to my connecting station at Newton Abbot - in front of other passengers I found not only disturbing but deeply humiliating. Being treated like a criminal when it wasn't my fault I do take umbrage with as would any other person. Apart from that I'd paid my ticket fare.

 

Ended up in Exeter ... along with another passenger who was local but even she got on thinking it was going to Newton Abbot for exact same reasons I did. Fed up with my treatment, how I was made to feel ... made a few phone calls to the train company ... along with the other person we went to the station master ... they were immensely helpful, even phoned ahead instructing the connecting train of my problem so they wouldn't put me through the same thing again when I got on. Usually, I would have let it go not complained but I was so angry with how they treated me, I made the stand. Got results. However, had the ticket collector on the Plymouth to Paddington Train simply just listened rather than made judgements ie I was a fare dodger ... that all could have been avoided. Pity they employ such people.

 

Having read your son's case ... seems inspectors haven't changed since my schooldays.

 

Anyway, hope you get somewhere with this.

[moving on..]

Thank you so much for your very informative replies...

Esio Trot, cloudlike, hazy and vague come naturally to me..!! (it would appear that my son has inherited these tendancies also...)..nevertheless unfair of First capital Connect.

 

Thank you so very much....

 

kind regards

[buzby]

Do remember that an inspector can certainly confirm the ticket is valid for the journey being made at that time, but on exiting a station the ticket can magically be invald (out of area, invalid route) etc etc. Certainly never volunteer any info, just be as helpful as you ca!