Cautioned on First Capital Connect plz help

[Old-CodJA]

Could you clarify what you mean by a 'little more to it'?

 

Yes, I said it is unusual for an Oyster card to be retained and if it was, then it seems that the inspector felt there was good reason to retain it. There is nothing in what you have posted that indicates that was the case and therefore I would want to know what made the inspector consider it necessary.

 

It's a pity this wasn't offered or explained to me as I would have adopted this approach. In fact, she did ask me if I had the means to pay the fine to which I responded, "yes, but I want to appeal the fine". This would have been the appropriate point for her to clarify the appeals process but, alas, she did not.

 

I'm rather surprised by that answer because your original post states that you were given the opportunity of accepting a penalty fare, but you refused to accept it saying you were only prepared to pay the single fare. You could have insisted the inspector issued the penalty fare and paid only the single fare as part payment on it, but having refused the penalty notice, the inspector only had the option of a report left. I really am sorry if this sounds uncharitable, but as a traveller who has decades of experience in using a season ticket I am genuinely surprised that you are not a bit more familiar with the rules. The penalty fares system has been in place since 1989.

 

My response to her question indicates the credit on my Oystercard. Her assumption that I was avoiding the fare was countered to a degree by the fact that I had sufficient funds on my card.

 

Your answer does not answer her question.

 

The question that you were asked was 'Do you have a ticket?'

 

A form of credit that might be used to pay a fare is NOT a ticket.

 

It is not necessary to prove intent to avoid a fare in order to prove an offence. The breach of Byelaw is 'fail to show a valid ticket'.

 

I'm not saying that this is a wholly justified report for prosecution, but if you refused to pay or accept a penalty notice, you left the inspector no other choice but to put in a report.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[teleh]

Post retracted

Edited July 30, 2011 by teleh

[SRPO]

Hi mc661,

 

What is likely to happen in a situation where the traveller has a genuine need to travel but no funds due to misfortune. Traveller was advised by 'locals' to buy a permit to travel with whatever money they had and could settle the fare and any penalty for at the end of the journey. When they presented the PTT at King's Cross they were cautioned. Surprisingly, they were not given a penalty fare to pay, just informed that they would receive a prosecution letter.

 

From your experience are they likely to prosecute over such a matter or will a reply offering to pay any costs/penalties generally suffice? Is it better to call the prosecutions department or just reply to the letter?

 

Thanks in adv.

 

Another scenario for you to consider, you are extremely hungry but have no money.

You go into a restaurant & order a meal, when presented with the bill you say you have no money but would like them to send you a bill through the post.

What do you think would happen?.

[Old-CodJA]

At commencement of any journey the intending traveller MUST have and be able to show either a valid ticket for their whole intended journey, or if facilities to buy one were not available, MUST have acceptable means to pay the whole fare for that intended journey when asked

 

Any person who has neither a valid ticket for their intended journey, nor the acceptable means to pay the whole fare due on demand, has no right to board any train.

 

When the Penalty Fares legislation first came into force in 1989 it was immediately recognised that unscrupulous travellers might attempt to use the Permit to Travel in order to avoid prosecution, but where such an attempt has been identified, this has never succeeded in avoiding action. The traveller who has obtained a PTT must also have the means with which to pay the remainder of the full fare on demand at the time of the journey.

 

Yes, this is very likely to result in prosecution and the evidence of the PTT and lack of means to pay the remaining fare makes this relatively easy to process. The traveller knew that a fare was due and knew that he didn't have the means to pay that fare, but made the journey anyway. The fare is due at the time of travel and not later.

 

It is always best to reply in writing. That way there is no doubt about what has been said.

 

If over 18 years of age, the traveller who has been reported (or his / her legal representative) should write promptly once the letter is received from the rail company. Quite often mum or dad will write and make all sorts of comments about what the inspector said, make claims of incorrect action, or will state what the travellers' intention was, none of which can be accepted as first hand evidence unless they were actually present and involved first hand in the incident themselves. Whilst well-intentioned, frequently this will be counter-productive. The traveller might get help to write in reply, but should always respond personally.

 

A sincere apology, assurance that it will never happen again and explanation that this was not premeditated intent and an offer to meet all the reasonable costs and fares incurred might get a favourable response, but there are no guarantees.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[foofighterfan]

Hi Old-Codja,

 

Finally got my Notice of intention to prosecute. It states that the offence is 'Failing to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection'.

I suppose this was the case as I hadn't touched in and validated the start of my journey even though I had the funds on my Oystercard.

 

What's my best approach now? Do I phone them or just write before the deadline of August 5th?

While I still don't feel at fault for what was a genuine error, I recognise that I must bear the responsiblity.

 

I've read elsewhere in the forum that an offer of the fine plus reasonable admin costs is sometimes recieved well. Do you feel that would my best approach? and what are reasonable admin costs?

 

Many thanks for your help.

[Old-CodJA]

Well they have charged you with the strict liability, breach of Byelaw

 

I suggest that you can try offering the fare and their reasonable admin costs and ask if they will allow you to make this payment in order to maintain your good name and to save the inconvenience of a court hearing for all parties

 

If they proceed to court action and successfully prosecute, they will ask the Magistrates to order you to pay the fare and their costs, which are likely to be between £120 and £150. You might like to base an offer on that knowledgeThey don't have to accept it, but it is your best course of action now in my opinion.

[foofighterfan]

Thanks for the quick reply.

Should I phone them or write?

[Old-CodJA]

In my opinion it is always best to write and given that you say you are required to respond by 05th August, I would send your letter by recorded delivery.

 

You might then ring on 04th or 05th to check that your letter has been received and has been brought to the attention of their prosecution manager.

[foofighterfan]

Thought you'd like to know the outcome of my case.

I wrote a letter laying out the facts and explained that it was a genuine mistake and wouldn't happaen again. I offered to pay the original fare plus reasonable expenses.

 

I recieved a letter asking me to call and discuss the matter, which ended up costing me £42.80 to settle the matter out of court.

 

Not as painful as I had feared but still double the penalty fare I should have paid in the first instance.

[honeybee13]

Hello again, good result and thank you for letting us know. I'm pleased the guys on the forum were able to help you.

 

Take it easy in the future .

 

My best, HB