Using someone else's ticket

[Phoebica]

OK so I've read the many threads on here about this but every situation is difference so I was hoping someone would give me some advice regarding my current situation.

 

Basically, this is what happened. I know this sounds ignorant but I really didn't know that I couldn't lend my boyfriend my season ticket. I used to live further into London so used Oyster all the time - which you can transfer. For some reason I just assumed the same could be said of Travel cards, after all I'm paying thousands a year for it. I don't use it every day yet I'm still paying for it every day so why shouldn't my boyfriend be allowed to use it for one day?

 

I admit that had I had any common sense or thought about it rather than assuming then I would have realised that of course he couldn't use it - that's the point of the picture card. But what's done is done now.

 

A week or so ago he was going to meet his mates in London so he used my ticket. This is First Capital Connect by the way. An inspector come along, and upon showing her the ticket she snatched it off him and said he was bing charged. Her English wasn't great so it wasn't made clear what exactly he was being charged with. He kept asking her questions but she ignored them all. He asked for the ticket back but she said no. The wallet also had my oyster card in and my picture card but she refused to give any of them back. He then rang me because he was confused. I asked him if i could speak to her, I heard him ask her then she shouted back 'no, she is idiot for giving ticket.' He managed to get oyster back after going on at her that the oyster wasn't related to the ticket but she refused to give any more information and was quite frankly very rude. I could hear her on the phone saying we were stupid.

 

She then claimed she'd contact me about getting my ticket back. My boyfriend said "You don't have her details." She was like "We know everything about criminals." She then put a call through to I don't know who and said that I wasn't registered as living with him, my boyfriend insisted we did but she called him a liar. So God knows where my ticket will be sent to. I'm also unable to purchase anything more than a daily because she wouldn't return the photocard. I find the way she spoke to him/us absolutely apalling and we have put in a complaint.

 

That doesn't mean I'm trying to dodge the punishment. I'm not at all, although we wern't aware we were breaking the law we accept that we did. My main worry is that we will get criminal records - we both have quite high-flying careers. Me in accountancy, he is a journalist for a national publication. We're prepared to pay a fine but I'm incredibly scared that it will ruin our future. Does anyone know if this is likely to result in a ciminal record?

 

The situation is incredibly frustrating in the sense that people who point blank refuse to buy a ticket only get charged £20 on the few occassions they're caught. Yet people like me and my boyfriend who spend thousands on public transport every year and contribute a lot in taxes are treated like criminals. Neither of us have ever done anything wrong in our lives.

[Grotesque]

Hi! An unfortunate situation.

 

Equally unfortunate though is the legal-truth of the old adage 'ignorance is no defence'; this is not an accusation of ignorance per se, but as you know, your season ticket is valid only with supporting documentation- i.e, the photocard. As this has your photo on it, you are deemed to be aware that only you can use it. Otherwise, why issue a photocard at all? As with 'Oyster' cards- PAYG loaded-cards have no photo and therefore are transferable (although Oyster cards loaded with season tickets do have photos on them and therefore are not transferable and therefore would result in the same situation you described!).

 

First things first- you can't (shouldn't!) do anything until (if!) FCC prosecutions write to you or the passenger.

 

On that note, we could assess the pros and cons better if we had the details from the passenger about what was said on the train- whether he was cautioned, what details got taken down, what exactly was said (by him as well as the staff member), etc.

I personally would probably hold-off from complaining about the staff's behaviour until you get this resolved, as it could change the company's perspective on how to respond to any mitigation you may eventually present. Just my personal opinion though.

 

Good luck!

[Wriggler7]

Firstly, all you need to do to buy another weekly or longer ticket is to get another picture. You can make an application for a duplicate season, but expect an invite to be interviewed by a person who speaks English, possibly starting with the well known phrase 'you do not have to say anything..........'.

 

Bad behaviour is never aceptable, and you might, once the dust has settled, consider making a formal complaint. I would have a candid chat first with 'the boyfriend', just in case by the time the inspector called you an idiot he had already exercised some fruity vocabulary on finding a reluctance to return your ticket.

[Wriggler7]

Incidentally, the first thing to hold in mind is that transferring a season ticket is a 'crime'. It is perhaps harsh to be treated 'like a criminal' by a ticket inspector, but now what you are hoping to do is to avoid being treated like a criminal by a collection of Magistrates.

 

All the rail staff that contribute to this site have been called many things, and I don't suppose it will bother them if you feel like a rant, but your communication with FCC prosecutions office needs to be a shade 'demure'.

[Phoebica]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not trying to put down rail staff. I've witnessed them being abused by passengers many times, they obviously have a hard job. This is the only run-in with them that I've faced as I always buy a ticket. My boyfriend insists that he was not offensive to her. He admits raising his voice when she wouldn't hand over the Oyster card, but that's it. I don't think that excuses her calling customers idiots though. The thing about train companies is they know they can't lose customers - if you have to get to work then you have to use them, simple as that - this woman sounds like one of the few who take advantage of that fact and talk to customers how they want to.

 

But as I said before, she is not a priority. My only priority is avoiding having a criminal record. If we manage to settle the incident before it goes to court does that mean our criminal records will be clear? Also, when we get the letter and reply, is it worth mentioning our jobs - I work at a big accountancy firm, and he works at a national newspaper - we both have access to top lawyers which we plan to take advantage of once we get the letter and know what we're dealing with.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to the forum.

 

I understand that you're upset, but I wonder whether making the point about your jobs is likely to help or hinder your position. You would be inviting the comment that two people in responsible jobs should be better informed, or maybe they would want to make an example of you. I'm sure the guys will advise.

 

On your plan to use top lawyers, Wriggler7 who is in the profession has commented on this before. You could find that you're paying top dollar to fund someone's learning curve. Hopefully, Wriggler will be along later to advise you what you could do if you end up needing legal advice.

 

My best, HB

[Grotesque]

If we manage to settle the incident before it goes to court does that mean our criminal records will be clear?

 

Yes, although FCC keep records; in case it ever happens again (they cynically believe that it's not always the first time!!!); but if it doesn't go to Court, it doesn't get recorded (and een if it does it may not, but that's a separate matter).

 

we both have access to top lawyers which we plan to take advantage of once we get the letter and know what we're dealing with.

 

As has been said elsewhere (I said something along these lines about half an hour ago on another thread, and others here have said far better), I would personally avoid so-called 'top-lawyers'; status within the Inns of Court is not worth half as much as local knowledge and experience. If I was going to instruct Messrs. Carter-Ruck or Richards-Butler, my first question (having already had to pay a consultancy fee, perhaps) would be how much experience of the Regulation of the Railway Act 1889 have they got?

Better to use a local solicitor to the court, who will know the Magistrates / Prosecutors well on a professional basis, and deals with similar cases every day.

 

See, this is not one of those areas of law with many grey areas, and the court will not not be particularly concerned with the language etc of the staff member (as it is an internal Railway [disciplinary] matter), and will be far more concerned with the fact that it is an ABSOLUTE offence to transfer a ticket (which you did), and also an ABSOLUTE offence to present a ticket without entitlement (which the passenger did). Not much room for argument on these two points.

 

Anyway sorry if this sounds harsh, but better to be realistic and plan your campaign accordingly eh!

Good luck again.

 

G.

 

On edit: Spot on, HB, of course!

[honeybee13]

Grotesque. Thank you for the lawyer comments. Our posts must have crossed.

 

HB x

[Phoebica]

Thanks for your advice, I see your point. We're hoping that we won't need legal advice but we're aware that it might come to that and are really worried - we absolutely cannot get a criminal record, our jobs would be at a major risk if we were convicted. All I care about is avoiding that.

[honeybee13]

I'm sure you'll have more advice as and when more of the guys are liberated from their day jobs. Try not to worry too much at this stage, there's plenty of time.

 

My best, HB

Edited March 21, 2011 by honeybee13
typo.

[Wriggler7]

If you happen to have lunch at the same table as a top lawyer, bend his ear for as long as he doesn't charge. However, a top lawyer employed by a newspaper will know very little of rail fare evasion, or even 'Magistrates Courts'. He might ask his secretary to write a letter, which may well tend to threaten the ego of the prosecutor, so let us look at the 'law'.

 

Rail fares have to be paid to the railway, there as a case in 1919 or thereabouts (Old Codja will probably remind us which one) in which it was decided that the prosecution do not have to show that you knew that you couldn't transfer a ticket, merely that you did.

 

It might be possible, with clever argument, to get the question and answers taken out of evidence if the Inspector did not follow PACE, but at the end of the day, the 'real evidence' of the ticket will carry the day for the prosecution.

 

{Just think it through, 'Inspector, when you started your shift, did you have a season ticket issued to miss x?' 'No.' Where did you get it from?' 'Mr Y', job done.}

 

So what you need to achieve is for 'prosecution' to see an easy route to 'winning' the case that does not involve you going to Court. The bad news is that the choice is their's. They might be a trifle deaf.

 

When you get their first letter, I would suggest a reply expressing remorse for this lapse of good behaviour, offer to pay all reasonable costs and the avoided fare. I might suggest enclosing a cheque for whatever the fare was plus £150.00 to cover 'costs'. That makes it easier for them to accept your offer than to turn it down. One receipt instead of lots of paperwork.

 

It will not always work. If you or 'boyfriend' have a history with them of 'bunking fares', or if his 'banter' with the inspector was excessive, or racist, or more tha the Inspector is prepared to tolerate, they will send you back your cheque, and list the case as soon as possible.

[Wriggler7]

Whatever you do at this stage, avoid threats. The common one used is 'We will go to the papers.' My local company guy will stifle a yawn and say 'We could do with the coverage.'

 

The other classic is 'we are professional people, we are not criminals'. Well, Shipman was a doctor, so was Crippen. Your 'professions' do have a bearing, in as much as you have an income, and therefore the ability to deal with any 'requests' for money.

 

If things do go the wrong way for you, and you choose to invest some of your money with a solicitor, use an ordinary high street firm that deals with 'criminal defence'. It will not be the first time that such a practitioner will 'bump into' the prosecutor from the railway and test to see if there is room to manoevre.

[Phoebica]

Neither of us have been caught bunking the train before. I buy a monthly travelcard at the beginning of every month.My boyfriend usually does too but hasn't had one lately due to being in a different location for the last couple of weeks, but they'll see from our records that other than these last 2 weeks we both always have a ticket.

 

Are costs really £150? Obviously we'll pay whatever but it still grates at me that there are people getting away with murder yet we're treated like this for doing nothing wrong. I know it's a 'crime' but it's only a crime because they say so - when you think about it, lending the person you share everything with your travelcard is pretty innocent behaviour. He even gave me the money for the card as I was a bit cash-strapped! Sod's law.

[Phoebica]

With regard to your comment about threats, I wouldn't dream of it. My boyfriend did suggest telling them where he works and saying that he is happy to publish an article about how he was spoken to/treated by the ticket inspector on the train but I very swiftly warned him off it. I'm very aware that the ball is in their court and that we don't have a leg to stand on unfortunately. Perhaps when the situation is resolved we may make a formal complaint - because despite everything, she was still in he wrong to call me an 'idiot.'

[honeybee13]

Hello again. I expect Wriggler will come back with a reasoned argument about whether the penalties are 'fair' or not, if he can bear to type it again.

 

Is it worth £150 to avoid a criminal record and both keep your jobs? I don't know what local criminal lawyers cost, but I don't suppose £150 buys very long. And with your top lawyer contacts, probably a few minutes.

 

My best, HB

[Wriggler7]

One last side swipe at Lawyers: Very few ever get to grips with a rail fare evasion case. The last time I spoke with my greatest mentor prior to his sad and premature passing, he was just chatting to the local railway prosecutor. One of his regular clients was being 'done' for bunking a fare. Was he represented by one of the best maulers in local Courts? Not a chance, the offence doesn't qualify for legal aid, few defendants want to pay fees.

 

However, the court procedures for dealing with fare evasion are the same as any 'minor' offence. The 'points to prove' are easy to find, as is the 'case law'.

 

Statistically, I understand that fewer than 1 case (of fare evasion) in 1,000 is defended by a lawyer. As such, it is likely that the prosecutor will know more about proving the case than any solicitor will about defending one.

[Old-CodJA]

Having read through this thread I am certain that none of us ever seek to defend bad behaviour by rail staff or anyone else for that matter. I think Wriggler7's point about asking your boyfiend whether or not he had maybe 'reacted' a little too, was well worth clearing up and if he feels that he was badly treated then he should make a formal complaint, though that in itself will not alter the material facts of the alleged offence..

 

I don't think there is great value in suggesting this isn't likely to go anywhere although I know that is what you will be hoping for, but it is your boyfriend that is most likely to be prosecuted in this instance. Unless when questioned, he stated that you had given him the ticket in the knowledge that he was going to use it to avoid paying, there isn't any strong likelihood that they will attempt to take action against you.

 

So far as any allegation of an offence is concerned, the railway company might not actually have lost anything, but ignorance of any rule is not a defence. In the case of a passenger using another person's season ticket, the rail company might not have lost any money, but that passenger has not paid his or her fare and the offence is therefore committed ( Browning, 1946 )

 

That said, as we have suggested many times in other threads, the best thing your boyfiend can do is to wait until he gets a letter from FCC and then reply with an apology in respect of use of your ticket.

 

Just as Wriggler7 says, stressing the 'importance' of your jobs and vague 'threats' in respect of lawyers, is unlikely to sway any seasoned prosecutor. Your advice to your boyfriend was absolutely right of course, in my experience journalists of varying status have frequently threatened to publish when they have been detected in these situations and in almost every case, that attitude has hardened the resolve of the TOC to see the matter through.

 

Transferred seasons are seen as a serious form of fare evasion by the TOCs. Whatever your views of the ethics of the matter, I suggest FCC are more likely to see this as fare evasion rather than the strict liability Byelaw offence of transferred ticket.

 

It is always worth trying to convince the TOC that it is in their best interest to allow your boyfiend to apologise and hope that they will allow an administrative settlement, but I suggest waiting untill he gets the letter from FCC and then he will know exactly who is dealing with the matter and what the specific allegation is.

 

.

[Phoebica]

Hi again everyone. Just an update on the situation. We recieved a letter wthin a few days of the incident and my boyfriend replied to it as advised on here saying he was sorry etc. We didn't hear anything for ages but he has now recieved another letter, it was only about 2 lines long, saying that they've taken his response into consideration but still intend to go forward with the case. What is our position now? How do we go about trying to settle out of court? My boyfriend really doesn't care about having a big fine, he'll pay the full £1000 if he has to but he desperately wants to avoid the criminal record. Is it worth contacting them via phone or letter again offering them money? Or is a court appearance definite now? He hasn't yet recieved any kind of summons.

[Wriggler7]

Before a summons, trying to settle is always 'worth a go'.

 

I doubt if a fine would reach the maximum, but you rightly identify that 'a conviction' is something to avoid if possible. Unless you use a solicitor who already has a good relationship with the prosecutor, I often feel that phone calls acheive little. They can get 'lost', but, if you can work out who you need to speak with, they have the advantage of being immediate.

 

I am a believer in the power of the pen. Old fashioned perhaps, but letters do get attached to files, they do get read. The points to make relate to showing a willingness to settle by meeting all reasonable costs of the action so far, previous good character, and the effect that a case could have. Do not forget the promise to never be found defaulting in fares in future.

 

Another trick that sometimes, but not always, works is to turn up at the station where the prosecution office is. Unless your boyfriend is a complete toe rag, in which case, not a good idea. Sometimes, a personal and decent approach, with the ability to make immediate payment, will cause the prosecutor to take an easy solution.

 

The problem sometimes is that a senior person in their 'food chain' may have already made a decision that all offences of this type, or this particular case 'will be' prosecuted. Season ticket offences do worry railways, it threatens their most efficient revenue stream, and they sometimes will be a bit hard nosed with it. But worth trying.

[Old-CodJA]

I endorse all that Wriggler7 has said, but when your BF writes, in referring to perceived effect that a criminal conviction might have on his future employment, he should be sure not to state what that employment is. Your OP makes clear that he is a journalist with a national newspaper.

 

Referring to that again in the letter raises the thought that there may be the implied threat regarding potential for publicity and in my experience that can certainly be counter-productive for someone trying to encourage the rail company to settle out of Court. Read the case of 'Dr Joad' a celebrity of 60 years ago and see what his habit of avoiding rail fares cost him. (Probably easiest to 'wiki' Dr Joad for a summary)

 

Effectively, your BF will be trying to appeal to the TOC prosecutor's better nature and flagging up his willingness and ability to pay any agreement in full and immediately.

 

I well remember a good few years ago now, one well-heeled professional who reminded me that he 'carried more daily spending money than I earned in a month'.

 

Unfortunately it didn't help in his case because my 'guvnor' in those days wouldn't let me take a settlement, saying "No, they're just the beggars we are looking for, suits that can pay the fare without thinking about it, but never do and are arrogant enough to believe they can always buy themselves out of trouble."

 

The offender engaged a city slick who wrote a couple of letters that threatened dire consequences for BR if we were to proceed to waste Court time in summonsing his client. They received suitable replies, a Summons was duly issued & served and Mr X entered a guilty plea, presumably on his expensive advisor's say so.

 

All of that might well have been saved (and a lot of his money too), if he had shown a little humility early on.

 

Stress the lack of previous misdemeanours and undertake not to travel without a valid ticke. Express remorse and ask if the matter might be resolved without troubling the Court.

 

Good luck

Edited May 15, 2011 by Old-CodJA

[Wriggler7]

Proves that you can teach old dogs new tricks. I had never heard of Dr Joad. Wiki certainly gives an insight into him.

 

Reading between those lines, I guess folk had various grudges against him prior to getting caught fare dodging. As my Granddad was one of the millions that fought in Flanders, along with all 6 of his brothers, I don't think I would have rushed to defend him.

 

Hopefully, the OPs boyfriend has not engendered that level of dislike!

 

The point is that the 'offence' is easy to prove, the prosecutor is likely to have already prosecuted or settled such cases many times, he will neither be intimidated nor bothered by the 'status' of the alleged offender, but he might be moved if it appears that the consequences of prosecution for this individual are out of proportion to the offence. Being 'human', the prosecutor might accept the best result with the least effort.

 

Each railway company will have it's own current priorities, for example, one near me is currently more interested in 'anti social' offences, but a few years ago, their emphasis was very much on 'season ticket' cases.

 

Good luck.

[Phoebica]

Thanks for yet more advice. He wrote another letter yesterday saying how sorry he was again and offering to pay all costs incurred so far. As advised he didn't mention what he does for a living. Hopefully they'llbe willing to settle. I'll keep you updated - I noticed a lot of people come on here for advice but not many come back and let people know what happened.

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks for that, it will be interesting to learn the outcome

 

Good luck

[Phoebica]

Hi, I thought I'd come back and let everyone know the outcome in case there are others in a similar position. So as I said in my previous post the first letter was rejected. Fortunately when my boyfriend replied yet again stating that he would appreciate if the matter could be settled out of court the reply was more promising. He was asked to call them to discuss matters. He did that and was told they would be willing to settle, so he made an offer and was told that he coudln't make the offer over the phone (Strange considering a woman on here was able to do that). So he had to write yet another letter making an offer. In the meantime though a court summons had turned up for 3 weeks times so obviously we were eager to get it sorted by then, FCC didn't seem in much of a rush to sort anything out though, but after a few more phone calls and yet another letter they agreed to settle on £250 less than 1 week before the court date. So finally, a weight off our minds.

 

I'd imagine that if he had gone to court he would have had to pay a whole lot more. The court summons asks you to list your salary and all your outgoings as well as your savings, is this their way of charging more to the people who work hard and can save while those who have no job, no savings and can't control their money get away with it?! (Yes I know some people are unemployed by no fault of their own but there are people out there who are lazy by choice) Hmmm well anyway it's over now, I can stop thinking about it. Thank you for al your help.

[honeybee13]

....and thank you for letting us know the outcome. Only a minute ago, I typed a reply to someone here saying that not enough people let us know what happens.

 

I don't fully understand the income part myself, but please don't be bitter and twisted over it; you have the opportunity to move on. Maybe someone will be along with their thoughts on how fines work later. I know Wriggler and Old-codja understand that sort of thing and maybe others do too.

 

My best, HB