Being prosecuted for using my husband's annual season ticket

[jacey14]

Hi all,

 

I'm a housewife and mother of twin 2 year old children and plead for some advice from the experts in this forum!

 

I travelled into London for the first time since the children were born recently and was a total idiot. Since my husband was staying at home looking after the children I borrowed his ticket wallet so I could use his pre-pay Oyster card when i got to London. I believe (and please correct if this is wrong) that there isn't a problem with using someone else's Oyster for just purchasing single tube tickets (there's no season ticket or anything other than cash on it). The idiotic part is that when trying to get into London, since the FCC train was pulling into the station when I was trying to buy a ticket I ran to get on it rather than finishing queueing and getting on the next train.

 

While I was on the train a ticket inspector came round and the next idiotic thing I did was to produce my husband's ticket rather than just say that I didn't have one. From that point on things got worse, I was cautioned and as I'm a very sensitive person I completely panicked and was on the verge of having a panic attack - it was SO awful, I've done anything like this before and felt like a total criminal. I told the inspector that I had picked up the wrong ticket when I left the house at which point he checked and verified that I didn't have a season ticket of my own. At that point he confiscated my husband's season ticket and photocard and I was asked to sign a form that contained my inaccurate explanation. In fear and panic I signed rather than trying to correct anything and was told to expect a letter of prosecution.

 

I've just received the notice of intention to prosecute from FCC. They state that they intend to take the matter to magistrates court and that I have to reply to their letter within 7 days detailing what happened from my point of view. They list the details of the alleged offence as:

 

"18(2) failing to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection"

 

I have a few questions about how best to respond to this as I've never been in a position like this before and am very scared about what could happen to me:

 

1) From reading other threads I'm surprised that they've charged me under 18(2) which doesn't reflect fare evasion - is this true, and should I therefore respond purely admitting, apologising, and offering to reimburse for not having a valid ticket rather than referencing showing my husband's ticket?

 

2) My husband hasn't yet applied for a replacement season ticket, should he hold off doing this until my issue is resolved? Presumably he'll have to apply at some point to get it back or will it just be returned automatically?

 

I've seen other threads with sample letters of reply, but I would really appreciate any help since I haven't been charged with what I was expecting and so am unsure how to proceed. I also don't have long to reply, so would be really grateful for any swift responses.

 

Many thanks and apologies for the length of my post, I'm just so worried about it all and the thought of getting a criminal record (I'm intending to become a teaching assistant and fear this will be impossible if the prosecution goes ahead).

[dx100uk]

no 1

 

dont pad your letters out with if's/buts/or excuses

just state the actual facts

and offer to pay all that is necessary

 

dx

[Grotesque]

Hi JC14

 

First things first, DX pretty much sums it up. Don't 'bulls**t' them when the letter comes. Believe it or not, Railway prosecutors ARE human- and more to the point, experienced- and know who are out to 'fare dodge' and who's not, on the whole. As Douglas Adams might have said : DON'T PANIC!

 

18.2 states: 'A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.'; Now more information would be useful at this point, but am I right to assume that whilst on an FCC service outside of Zone 6 you showed an Inspector a PAYG Oyster? If you were still outside of London with this Oyster, then although you have 'hand[ed] over' your ticket, any PAYG Oyster is NOT valid until it has been 'touched-in'; i.e, validated. Which obvioisly you can''t do except in one or two specific places (Grays, Watford etc, but not on the FCC line?).

 

This is not particularly relevant to be honest because 18.1 would probably have done for them as well ('no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.').

 

If you were outside of London, then the validity of the Oyster card is non-existent; within the zones, PAYG is a transferable ticket, as long as there's no season/ discounted ticket also loaded on.

 

Do not avoid or attempt to avoid telling them anything they do not know already; i.e your husbands ticket.

 

When you say: 'I told the inspector that I had picked up the wrong ticket when I left the house at which point he checked and verified that I didn't have a season ticket of my own.', does that mean you told them you had a season ticket? Or just a day ticket left at home?

If the former then you have effectively claimed to have a ticket and am NOW UNABLE TO PRODUCE IT in mitigation- you lied to the Railway company in their eyes. This is ironically the thing that is likely to urge them to prosecute, and may well have been the single factor which determined that the Inspector cautioned you rather than issue a penalty fare.

 

As to your husband's ticket: exactly what was/ is it? -you say it is a PAYG Oyster but also that he has to re-apply for a 'Season ticket'? What exactly did you show? More info required JC14.

 

Good luck. As you say, you haven't a lot of time, but we all work shift-work here so there's generally someone about.

 

All the best.

 

G.

[Wriggler7]

What is done is done, now the issue is damage limitation.

 

No reason why 'husband shouldn't apply for duplicate season ticket. He would need to be a bit honest, and explain on his application that the ticket was withdrawn by an Inspector. FCC may invite him for an interview. But it gets the ball rolling towards him getting back to 'normal' travel without paying daily fares. They may 'interview under caution', as they will want to check whether he 'aided and abbetted' the offence or if you took the ticket without his knowledge.

 

They will be trying to assess whether this is a 'one off' aberration or part of a pattern of season ticket abuse. Your post makes it clear that this is a 'one off'. My instinct is that if you tell 'the truth', a lot of the 'excitement' will dissolve.

 

Remorse shown at an early stage will also reduce their desires to prosecute. (I think) Hopefully, FCC will end up being content to 'settle out of Court', which will probably involve an administrative fee of some sort. Meantime, relax a bit.

 

The 'worst' is not that extreme. In the grand scheme of things, this is not the heaviest bit of crime that was ever committed, you, and your husband are not Bonnie & Clyde, and will not be treated like Fred West & his missus. I often say to people, worry, but not too much.

 

Keep us posted on how this progresses.

[Grotesque]

Of course W7, it's not a 'hanging offence' (unlike, Fred West was -in his own opinion!)

 

Think the issue of the ticket is still relevant though- would assist our efforts in mitigation.

[Stigy]

I don't really have much to add, just that it's best not to worry.

 

I suggest you contact FCC at your earliest convenience, preferably through the post. Just explain that you are deeply sorry for your actions, and that this was your first offence. Also offer to pay all reasonable admin costs in order not to go to court. FCC aren't obliged to accept, but if the refuse, at least you can't say you haven't tried! I don't honestly think FCC believe you intended to defraud the railway, otherwise the charge would be different, as you said. That might be because the RPI didn't ask you enough questions under caution, or didn't ask you the relevant questions to ascertain your intentions. Of course, he might have asked about your intentions, and you might have answered honestly, and that alone could have been enough for the lesser offence.

 

Good luck and don't panic!

[jacey14]

Hi,

 

Thanks for the quick replies! To answer the questions that have been asked:

 

- my husbands season ticket is an annual FCC paper ticket, he has nothing loaded on his oyster other than cash. His railcard wallet contained both his season ticket and his oyster, but I was presenting the paper ticket and the inspector only confiscated the season ticket/photocard and returned the oyster.

- I stated that I had a ticket at home and didn't specify what type, but given the inspector checked via my name he musts have assumed that I meant a season ticket.

 

From what everyone's said above it sounds like I should keep that background to a minimum and state that I showed my husband's season ticket when under pressure and that it was a terrible error of judgement that has never happened before and will never be repeated. Just a couple of other questions about the letter:

 

1) Should I state why I had my husband's ticket in the first place (that I intended to use his oyster prepay when in London) to show I didn't set out intending to use his FCC season ticket? Or should I just say that under pressure I presented his ticket as I hadn't purchased one of my own?

 

2) Before I had the children I worked in London for 2 years and always held FCC monthly season tickets - should I state this to help show that this was a one-off?

 

Many thanks, I really appreciate all your comments and attempts to lesson the worry!

[Old-CodJA]

From reading your original post and the charge that FCC are suggesting, they are not actually referring to your husband's season and may not be considering charging you with 'intent to avoid a fare' so it is best not to encourage them to do so.

 

You should take the good advice offered so far and write prompftly, apologising for your uncharacteristic action and offering to make recompense to FCC for the fare and all of their resonable costs incurred as a result of your actions.

 

The charge that the letter refers to is a strict liability matter, a breach of byelaw in that you are required to hand over a ticket that is valid for your journey when asked to do and you failed to comply with that request.

 

You should say that you showed your husbands season entirely without premeditated intent and had the ticket holder with you only because you were intending to legitimately use the PAYG Oyster that was in there with it once you arrived in London.

 

Good Luck

Edited November 23, 2010 by Old-CodJA

[jacey14]

Hi,

 

Thought I would write back giving an update on where we are at and to ask a few further questions.

 

My husband did get his season ticket back and all day tickets refunded without interview.

 

However, I have received a court summons and a court date for a months time with an estimate of £110 for court costs and cost of purchasing the ticket. They are charging me with being unable to present a valid ticket for travel on the train service and have given me 3 options: guilty and absent; guilty and present; and not guilty.

 

Are there any options to prevent me actually going to court now I have received the letter?

 

And also will my outcome be lessened if I attend - I am so, so worried and stressed out by the thought of going to court that I am wondering whether I could write pleading guilty and say that I will be absent?

 

Any thought would be really appreciated and again thanks for your help so far.

[Stigy]

Hi,

 

Thought I would write back giving an update on where we are at and to ask a few further questions.

 

My husband did get his season ticket back and all day tickets refunded without interview.

 

However, I have received a court summons and a court date for a months time with an estimate of £110 for court costs and cost of purchasing the ticket. They are charging me with being unable to present a valid ticket for travel on the train service and have given me 3 options: guilty and absent; guilty and present; and not guilty.

 

Are there any options to prevent me actually going to court now I have received the letter?

 

And also will my outcome be lessened if I attend - I am so, so worried and stressed out by the thought of going to court that I am wondering whether I could write pleading guilty and say that I will be absent?

 

Any thought would be really appreciated and again thanks for your help so far.

If you haven't already done so, your only option of keeping the matter out of court is for you to write back to them and offer to pay all reasonable admin costs in order to stay out of court. I suggest you are also very apologetic, and say that you'll never do it again etc etc etc.They're by no means obliged to accept your offer, but there's no harm in trying!

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, Stigy is spot on.

 

There isn't an option of not having the case heard by a Court unless you can convince the prosecution (rail company) that it is in their best interest to discontinue their action.

 

If all went as your original post, there is a chance that they will take the opportunity to close the case down by accepting a sensible offer. None of us like any more work than is necessary.

 

I suggest that you might write explaining that your action was an uncharacteristic moment of stupidity, which you very much regret and that you don't know why you claimed to have left a ticket at home, but under pressure and flustered, you acted irrationally.

 

Ask them if they will allow you to pay all of the reasonable costs that they have incurred and the unpaid fare in full immediately, offering a full apology and an undertaking never to travel without a valid rail ticket in future.

 

Good luck.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[dx100uk]

so you didn't sent the grovel letter recommended on the 23rrd nov then?

 

should have done it then

 

dx

[jacey14]

Sorry, yes, a very apologetic letter was also sent.

[dx100uk]

so they never replied to it?

well time to offer what they are going to court for before it gets that far then.

 

grovel letter time again me thinks.

 

though i'd wait for oc or wrig or spro to confirm if its worth a try again

 

dx

[Old-CodJA]

It's always worth a try and if the worst comes to the worst, you can always attend Court and try to talk to the prosecutor.

 

If that fails, you can always stand up in Court having entered a guilty plea and if you have proof of posting, or a copy of the letter with you, when the Bench ask the inevitable question 'What have you got to say about this Mrs X?'

 

Then you could say something like: I am very sorry, I know it was wrong, I do accept that and apologise to the Court and the rail company. When the rail company wrote to me, I explained and apologised and offered to pay all the costs that they had incurred, but they didn't reply to my letter so I have come here as instructed to take the punishment that you see fit and will not travel without a valid rail ticket again.

 

That should attract the maximum reduction on the fine from the Magistrates, especially if that particular prosecutor has rubbed them up the wrong way earlier in the day.

 

It may be too late to get a settlement, but if you accept guilt it is never too late to say 'sorry'.

 

.

.

 

.

[Wriggler7]

You have told us a lot, did you tell the railway? Was it made clear to them that this was a first journey by train after the birth of you children?

 

The prosecutor needs an image of how this will look in Court. Villains should look like villains, a scar across their cheek and at least one cauliflower ear. No Magistrate in the land will mind sentencing 'Bill the burglar', but how comfortable are they when the defendant is a young mum with babies crying for food as she is dragged away to Holloway? I may be exagerating, and most housing benefit fiddlers are young mums, so don't overdo the attempted claim for sympathy.

 

It is never too late to try to settle, write again, and if that does not bear fruit, as written above, attend, chat with the prosecutor. He will already have a picture of the 'evidence'. If there are features that compel that the case 'goes before the Bench', you will not 'move him'. What he does not have, perhaps, is a 'picture' of you. His employer will be happy if he walks away from Court with the same amount of money as he would get from costs awarded and the fare. As long as there is no suggestion of 'staff assualt', the Inspector who reported the matter will not be that fussed.

 

From your previous posts, we gather that you are not a regular offender. That point alone should cause the prosecutor to think, albeit briefly, about whether he wants to damage your 'good character'.

[Wriggler7]

If you (or any other reader) does go to Court with the intention and hope of getting the prosecutor to settle outside of Court, you do need to understand that he will only be interested if it is 'easy'.

 

If you say 'I will pay', please make sure that you have cash with you. If he says 'so you are happy to give me £125.00 (or whatever)', and you say 'yes of course', he will (metaphorically) hold out his hand. If you then say 'next month when my benefits arrive, can I pay you 2 shillings a week until Christmas 2020', he will consider the effort that will be required at his office to collect and monitor payment. Turning on his well polished heel, he will go before the Bench and present the case.

 

Many times have I sat at the back of a Court and heard people say 'I offered to pay' and then follow the statement with 'but I ain't got no money'.

 

Old Codja will laugh, I am still owed £20.00 by a defendant for whom I poked my nose in, pro bono. Having beaten the prosecutor to accept that a fare dodging case should have been a penalty fare, and how silly he would look prosecuting the matter, he said 'OK, I will settle for £20.00." 'D' said something Like 'cor blimey guv, you are a true gent, trubble is, I ain't got a pot' Having leaned on 'professional friendship' and used all of my charm and vague threats to get the prosecutor to that point, there was only one thing to do.

[Old-CodJA]

You're right Wriggler7, I did laugh, but then I remembered a duty who 'poked his nose in pro bono' at a certain 'Home Counties' Court and wondered.....I laughed a bit more at the thought..

 

You're absolutely right with the other comment though, we don't often see the individual until we meet at Court, only the protestations of innocence on paper and just occasionally, meeting, discussing and finding common ground can be enough to save a conviction and resolve a case satisfactorily.

 

Blimey...I'd better shut up before I get prosecutors a good name!!

[Wriggler7]

As Old Codja will well know, there are a few 'defenders' who also keep their hand in with a bit of contract prosecuting:oops:

 

A good prosecutor will always think like a good 'defender', and vice versa. A prosecutor who cannot see the potential defence, or mitigation, will suffer one day, as such, when a 'defendant' appeals to the prosecutors better nature, it will never fall on deaf ears. The problem with being an 'agent' is that 'instructions' have to be followed, whereas all the 'railway' prosecutors I have met hold 'authority' to walk away from a case on their own say so at Court if they 'choose'.

[jacey14]

Thanks all - really appreciated and thank you for spending time in replying.

 

I have sent final grovel letter to FCC and will keep fingers crossed that I don't get to court....

 

Will keep you posted.

[jacey14]

I wrote a final grovelling letter to FCC a day after the last post and then today I received a letter from a manager asking to contact him. So I called straight back and I had a surreal conversation where he asked me what I was prepared to offer to settle out of court. The figures spoken about in the court summons letter were £110 costs and £18 for unpaid ticket - but the onus was very much on me to come up with a figure - so got my card out there and offered an arbitrary but round number of £200. Don't know if this was reasonable or not but he took the money pretty quickly without having to seek any authority and I am free to carry on my life in peace! No court, thank goodness.

 

Thanks for the advice on sending a letter at this late stage as I was pretty close to accepting going court, but this letter and payment seemed to do the trick. Am intrigued to know what exactly got me off this - but maybe need to count my luck and of course I couldn't have done it without your help - so eternally grateful.

[Stigy]

I wrote a final grovelling letter to FCC a day after the last post and then today I received a letter from a manager asking to contact him. So I called straight back and I had a surreal conversation where he asked me what I was prepared to offer to settle out of court. The figures spoken about in the court summons letter were £110 costs and £18 for unpaid ticket - but the onus was very much on me to come up with a figure - so got my card out there and offered an arbitrary but round number of £200. Don't know if this was reasonable or not but he took the money pretty quickly without having to seek any authority and I am free to carry on my life in peace! No court, thank goodness.

 

Thanks for the advice on sending a letter at this late stage as I was pretty close to accepting going court, but this letter and payment seemed to do the trick. Am intrigued to know what exactly got me off this - but maybe need to count my luck and of course I couldn't have done it without your help - so eternally grateful.

£170 to £200 is about what TOCs tend to settle for.

 

Glad you got it sorted!

[dx100uk]

brill

 

knew you'ed get there

 

dx

[Old-CodJA]

I'm glad you are 'satisfied' with the outcome and I am sure I can answer your question 'Am intrigued to know exactly what got me off this'

 

It is for the alleged offender to ask for an opportunity to settle 'out of court' if that's what they want to do. We've said before, the rail company can refuse.

 

In this case, if they had proceeded to Court, it is likely that you would have been convicted and the most that FCC could have got out of it was £110.00 plus the fare. Now I don't know where you travelled from but given they don't operate farther north than Peterborough, the total would not exceed £150.00

 

You offered him £50.00 more than the absolute maximum that he could have got for the company by proceeding, BUT this has to be read in the knowledge of the savings that you made for yourself.

 

No conviction, No fine imposed, No victim surcharge, No solicitor's bill and a lesson learned.

 

Well done.

[whizzbang]

Am i correct in thinking one can only be prosecuted if the ticket inspector 'cautions' you and reads you your rites etc?