Summons for using a found freedom pass

[honeybee13]

That's what iambilly did, didn't he, OC?...

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

Yes HB, not a good idea

[lookinforinfo]

Section 5 (3) (a) If any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

That is what she is being accused of. Anyone who knows about Freedom passes will know that they are issued to Pensioners and people with certain disabilities. The OP did not even know that there was

a photograph of the guy the card belonged to. Had she known that no money had been paid for the card, that it belonged to a man and that she would have been spotted almost immediately [as she was]

since she is obviously not a Pensioner or infirm, I have no doubt that she would have not used the card. She hoped to find that there was sufficient credit on the card to pay for her journey so there was

no intention of attempting to travel without paying.

For if it had been , as she thought, a normal oyster card, had there been insufficient credit she would not have been able to get through the gate and would have used her own card, as she did subsequently

when she found out that she should not have used the Freedom pass.

 

She didn't know what a Freedom pass-why should she? She does not qualify for one. Who among us if they found a £5 note in the street would not have used it perhaps to buy a ticket or add it to our oyster

card? Very few people these days would hand it in to a Police station since who on earth would go to a Police station to ask if a fiver had been handed in especially as they may have a little idea where they lost it.

And what would be the difference between that scenario and using a normal oyster card that they had found.

 

And of course had the OP known that she was travelling on a Freedom pass, when challenged by the ticket collector, she could simply have explained that she had found the card and was intending to hand it in

at her destination and had used it by mistake as her own one was in the same compartment of her purse. They both looked the same and in her haste she used the wrong one. The fact that she didn't say that

would appear to me that she genuinely didn't know what a freedom pass was.

[Old-CodJA]

Section 5 (3) (a) If any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

That is what she is being accused of. Anyone who knows about Freedom passes will know that they are issued to Pensioners and people with certain disabilities. The OP did not even know that there was

a photograph of the guy the card belonged to. Had she known that no money had been paid for the card, that it belonged to a man and that she would have been spotted almost immediately [as she was]

since she is obviously not a Pensioner or infirm, I have no doubt that she would have not used the card. She hoped to find that there was sufficient credit on the card to pay for her journey so there was

no intention of attempting to travel without paying.

For if it had been , as she thought, a normal oyster card, had there been insufficient credit she would not have been able to get through the gate and would have used her own card, as she did subsequently

when she found out that she should not have used the Freedom pass.

 

She didn't know what a Freedom pass-why should she? She does not qualify for one. Who among us if they found a £5 note in the street would not have used it perhaps to buy a ticket or add it to our oyster

card? Very few people these days would hand it in to a Police station since who on earth would go to a Police station to ask if a fiver had been handed in especially as they may have a little idea where they lost it.

And what would be the difference between that scenario and using a normal oyster card that they had found.

 

And of course had the OP known that she was travelling on a Freedom pass, when challenged by the ticket collector, she could simply have explained that she had found the card and was intending to hand it in

at her destination and had used it by mistake as her own one was in the same compartment of her purse. They both looked the same and in her haste she used the wrong one. The fact that she didn't say that

would appear to me that she genuinely didn't know what a freedom pass was.

 

 

Taking your logic at face value, and knowing that a Freedom Pass looks nothing like a Pay-as-you-go Oyster card, perhaps you can also explain how the OP knew that it was a travel ticket without reading it?

 

Now, having read it and by doing so, discovered that it was a travel ticket, another question springs to mind.

 

Surely the OP would also have noticed that the printed information on it informs the reader that the found card was only valid for the person to whom it was issued and depicted on the photograph.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

duplicate

[lookinforinfo]

Perhaps because some people carry their Freedom pass in an oyster card holder?

[markl1987]

And people also carry everything from money, credit cards etc to photos of their children in oyster card holders . . . regardless you would open it after picking it up off the floor and see what it was. You wouldn't just pick up a plastic wallet and go try it on an oyster reader just incase it was an oyster card with credit on.

[BazzaS]

Section 5 (3) (a) If any person travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine.

 

That is what she is being accused of. Anyone who knows about Freedom passes will know that they are issued to Pensioners and people with certain disabilities. The OP did not even know that there was

a photograph of the guy the card belonged to. Had she known that no money had been paid for the card, that it belonged to a man and that she would have been spotted almost immediately [as she was]

since she is obviously not a Pensioner or infirm, I have no doubt that she would have not used the card. She hoped to find that there was sufficient credit on the card to pay for her journey so there was

no intention of attempting to travel without paying.

For if it had been , as she thought, a normal oyster card, had there been insufficient credit she would not have been able to get through the gate and would have used her own card, as she did subsequently

when she found out that she should not have used the Freedom pass.

 

She didn't know what a Freedom pass-why should she? She does not qualify for one. Who among us if they found a £5 note in the street would not have used it perhaps to buy a ticket or add it to our oyster

card? Very few people these days would hand it in to a Police station since who on earth would go to a Police station to ask if a fiver had been handed in especially as they may have a little idea where they lost it.

And what would be the difference between that scenario and using a normal oyster card that they had found.

 

And of course had the OP known that she was travelling on a Freedom pass, when challenged by the ticket collector, she could simply have explained that she had found the card and was intending to hand it in

at her destination and had used it by mistake as her own one was in the same compartment of her purse. They both looked the same and in her haste she used the wrong one. The fact that she didn't say that

would appear to me that she genuinely didn't know what a freedom pass was.

 

What excellent advice ..... If you want the court to pass it on to the CPS for a charge of theft. At least the OP can't go to prison (at least for a first offence) for fare dodging.

 

Advising her to admit taking the pass to use any value stored on it thinking its an Oyster pretty much demonstrates intent to permanently deprive misappropriated property .... S1 Theft Act 1968, up to 7 years imprisonment. Ace advice (not!)

 

If she was interviewed about or charged with Theft she'd be better saying she knew it was a Freedom Pass, that it had no stored value that she intended to use, and intended to use it that once and then hand it in ..... No intent to permanently deprive either stored value or the pass itself ......

Edited October 26, 2012 by BazzaS

[markl1987]

What excellent advice ..... If you want the court to pass it on to the CPS for a charge of theft. At least the OP can't go to prison (at least for a first offence) for fare dodging.

 

Advising her to admit taking the pass to use any value stored on it thinking its an Oyster pretty much demonstrates intent to permanently deprive misappropriated property .... S1 Theft Act 1968, up to 7 years imprisonment. Ace advice (not!)

 

Do that plus p*ss off the judge by bringing up the chancellor issue and it will be a great day in court, not the best bit of advice :/

Edited October 26, 2012 by markl1987

[lookinforinfo]

What excellent advice ..... If you want the court to pass it on to the CPS for a charge of theft. At least the OP can't go to prison (at least for a first offence) for fare dodging.

 

Advising her to admit taking the pass to use any value stored on it thinking its an Oyster pretty much demonstrates intent to permanently deprive misappropriated property .... S1 Theft Act 1968, up to 7 years imprisonment. Ace advice (not!)

 

If she was interviewed about or charged with Theft she'd be better saying she knew it was a Freedom Pass, that it had no stored value that she intended to use, and intended to use it that once and then hand it in ..... No intent to permanently deprive either stored value or the pass itself ......

 

I suggest you read my post again. Nowhere did I suggest the OP use the example as mitigation or as a defence. I was using it to prove a point.

 

Advising her to admit that she knew it was a Freedom pass should open her to being guilty under the Fraud Act section 11 "avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part."

As she is facing a fine for her offence as a first offender despite admitting she didn't know what the Freedom pass was, why should you expect that she would face a charge of theft if she said

[as she admitted on the day] that she thought it was an oyster card? . You seem to suggest that she lies to get out of a situation. Pathetic.

[honeybee13]

I suggest you read my post again. Nowhere did I suggest the OP use the example as mitigation or as a defence. I was using it to prove a point.

 

Advising her to admit that she knew it was a Freedom pass should open her to being guilty under the Fraud Act section 11 "avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part."

As she is facing a fine for her offence as a first offender despite admitting she didn't know what the Freedom pass was, why should you expect that she would face a charge of theft if she said

[as she admitted on the day] that she thought it was an oyster card? . You seem to suggest that she lies to get out of a situation. Pathetic.

 

Hello lookinforinfo.

 

I don't quite get the point of your post and hope you can enlighten us please.

 

My best, HB

[lookinforinfo]

Hello lookinforinfo.

 

I don't quite get the point of your post and hope you can enlighten us please.

 

My best, HB

 

 

I thought it was pretty self explanatory if you read post 35.

 

 

Is there anything particular you don't understand?

[Nystagmite]

Thinking it's oyster card isn't a defence, imo. Why would you use someones card when you have no idea what's on it?

[BazzaS]

I suggest you read my post again. Nowhere did I suggest the OP use the example as mitigation or as a defence. I was using it to prove a point.

 

Advising her to admit that she knew it was a Freedom pass should open her to being guilty under the Fraud Act section 11 "avoids or intends to avoid payment in full or in part."

As she is facing a fine for her offence as a first offender despite admitting she didn't know what the Freedom pass was, why should you expect that she would face a charge of theft if she said

[as she admitted on the day] that she thought it was an oyster card? . You seem to suggest that she lies to get out of a situation. Pathetic.

 

"Using it to prove a point" ..... What point was that, then?

 

In theory she MIGHT be open to a fraud prosecution by strict interpretation of statute, but I'll be guided by Old-Codja's comments on this from a previous thread where it was raised, where he said (bearing in mind his 30+ years of experience in this field) that he'd never seen the Fraud legislation used for simple Freedom Pass abuse ..... So you suggesting that she open herself up to a theft prosecution instead of a 5.3 RRA prosecution isn't wise, given that it is likely to be 5.3 RRA rather than Fraud for "I tried to use a Freedom Pass"

 

Other respondents seem confused by what your posts are suggesting.

 

I'm confused by your assertion that "You seem to suggest that she lies to get out of a situation. Pathetic" ...... I've only advised honesty, so where have I suggested she lie?

 

I did suggest that IF she were interviewed re : theft (for example: if she followed the advice you posted!) that she'd be better admitting to using a Freedom Pass : after all, based on what she posted, this is the truth ......

 

So, what exactly ARE you advising her? With all your back-pedalling and deflection : it's hard to know what you are advising.

 

I think you gave poor advice, and are now back-pedalling, while trying to deflect attention away from your poor advice.

Edited October 26, 2012 by BazzaS

[markl1987]

I thought it was pretty self explanatory if you read post 35.

 

 

Is there anything particular you don't understand?

 

I think its quite clear you are after an argument and have nothing really that helpful to offer. Perhaps if you feel that what is being offered as advise and comments is, as you say, pathetic then you should take no further part in this thread.

[Old-CodJA]

lookingforinfo, I think BazzaS and Mark1987 have summed up the issues with your posts very well here.

 

Firstly, ignorance of legislation is not a defence and secondly, in the Corbyn appeal case (1978), in the words of Lord Widgery & others in relation to Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act [1889] it was ruled that; 'There is no reason for importing into the section the adverb "permanently". It is clear on the facts that he did not intend to pay the proper fare.'

 

This is the case here. The OP found a Freedom Pass and showed intention to use it. Section 5 RRA opens with the phrase 'If any person travels, or attempts to travel....'

 

In the case of Browning & Floyd (1946) it was contended by the defendant that, having used his wife's season ticket, 'the correct fare had been paid'. In that case the Appeal Court ruled that 'Whilst the rail company might not have lost money, his (the defendants') fare had not been paid'

 

It is clear from the OPs own post that she attempted to travel using the found Freedom Pass. The Freedom Pass is not transferable. The fact that she might have been ignorant of that rule is not a defence, her fare had not been paid at the point she attempted to use the pass.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[honeybee13]

I thought it was pretty self explanatory if you read post 35.

 

 

Is there anything particular you don't understand?

 

Sorry about that, I've re-read it now.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

I think its quite clear you are after an argument and have nothing really that helpful to offer. Perhaps if you feel that what is being offered as advise and comments is, as you say, pathetic then you should take no further part in this thread.

 

I am sorry but I don't think it is quite clear at all that I am looking for an argument.

But if you had bothered to read the thread from the start, you would have seen that I was the first to respond to her problem. Now you may not agree with some, or any of the

points I made, but as far as I can see, no one else so far has made any suggestions or advice to help which I thought was the whole point of this forum.

 

If you want to throw people off a thread because you don't like what they say, then apply to become a moderator. I dare say that having looked at your comment on post 34 they may decide that

you could have worded that one it in a much better fashion. You could you use Honeybee13 as an example of how it should be do done.

 

We are getting a long way from helping the OP. Whether the advice given by any poster is correct or not, it seems to me that any response should be at the very least, not rude. As an example, I have

already read the next post [by the Old-Codja]which could be a model for anyone on how to respond to posts in a polite and explanatory manner. I agree that my response to bazzaS was not of

the same standard but some times we all fight fire with fire.

 

Alll this unneccessary sniping between posters is most unhelpful to the OP. Can I suggest that we get back to helping her.

[BazzaS]

I am sorry but I don't think it is quite clear at all that I am looking for an argument.

But if you had bothered to read the thread from the start, you would have seen that I was the first to respond to her problem. Now you may not agree with some, or any of the

points I made, but as far as I can see, no one else so far has made any suggestions or advice to help which I thought was the whole point of this forum.

 

If you want to throw people off a thread because you don't like what they say, then apply to become a moderator. I dare say that having looked at your comment on post 34 they may decide that

you could have worded that one it in a much better fashion. You could you use Honeybee13 as an example of how it should be do done.

 

We are getting a long way from helping the OP. Whether the advice given by any poster is correct or not, it seems to me that any response should be at the very least, not rude. As an example, I have

already read the next post [by the Old-Codja]which could be a model for anyone on how to respond to posts in a polite and explanatory manner. I agree that my response to bazzaS was not of

the same standard but some times we all fight fire with fire.

 

Alll this unneccessary sniping between posters is most unhelpful to the OP. Can I suggest that we get back to helping her.

 

Being first to respond speaks to timing, not validity ....

Suggestions or advice .... In summary the helpful advice she has had includes "tell us more as to why you can plead not guilty" & "sounds like you are guilty based on what you've said, so best to accept that or tell us why you aren't, and then mitigate the effects if you are guilty"

That might not be advice she wants to hear, nor advice you agree with, but it is advice!

 

"Fire with fire"? Better to fight fire with water. I still think your previous advice was poor, and have explained why ... That isn't the same as saying you as a person are bad or in some way 'poor' just because the advice was (IMO) poor.

 

You say you were making a point .... If it is (on reflection) still a valid point, why not make it, with your explanation as to its validity. I don't see any problem with robust debate (in the absence of impoliteness and name calling) : one can criticise the "logical argument" of someone without criticising the poster, and debating different "arguments" (would "logical positions" sound less combatative?) can help the OP form their own view. Debate can be healthy, even if the proponents disagree!

 

Getting back to helping the OP : if she has reasons to plead not guilty she might want to clarify these so we can help her mount a defence.

 

If (having reviewed this thread) she feels she was in fact guilty, she might want to plead guilty and prepare her best grounds for mitigation.

She may feel she doesn't want to attend court if she pleads guilty but there is some merit in attending and being seen to be contrite in person. Not attending isn't likely to make it less likely her family will find out (unless one of them sees her at court - but then, what are they doing there? If they work at the court, they may see her name regardless of if she attends)

[HelenKH]

Thanks everybody for your posts. My internet was disconnected last night and this morning and didn't have chance to read the posts/post anything.

 

Some people said that how is it possible that I didn't look inside the pass case! I glanced at it. The back of the card was facing me and was written Oyster; as I was in hurry I didn't read anything else on the card. People who have a freedom pass know what it says at the back. Now I have received the copy of the card with the court letter, I can see the word 'Not transferable' and if I had spent 1 minute looking at it, I wouldn't have used it. I am a taxpayer myself and I have no intention of using public money and if I find something that I might be able to find the owner I make sure I do my best.

 

Last year, I found a purse with over £75 cash plus credit card in it. I found the Italian girl through internet and gave everything back to her where I could keep the cash. Finding an Oyster card can be like finding some cash without any name on it. I think most of people take that cash and spend it on something.

 

The card I found looked different from my Oyster pay as you go but I have had three different Oyster cards so far. Did I need to think that card could be different type even if it looked a bit different?! I am not a thief! Some of you said that I shouldn't have used the card even if it was a normal card. When i lost my cards and I went to the ticket office to report them, the ticket guy told me "if they are gone they are gone. You can't do anything now." I admit that I tried the card which turned out to be freedom pass but at the same time I see that other people have used my cards without any problem. I am guilty of using somebody else's card but I wouldn't have stolen it or borrowed it from the card holder if I understood the of the card.

 

I haven't been rude to the immigrants. Have you ever lived in another country without any contacts? probably not! I am a computer programmer and don't need to socialize with people at work. I don't go to pubs or any other public places to chat with strangers. I live alone and in touch with my old friends through the internet only. It doesn't make any different how long I have been here. If I am not in touch with other people then where can I find out about Freedom passes? Other imigrants may have friends and families who have been here for 20-30 years which can be a shortcut to know the new country.

 

I don't really intend to go to the court but I want to make these points. They may not look logical to any of you but that is the reality of my life. In nutshell, I found a card and used it. Wrong action for using somebody else's card. But do I deserve this punishment? Going to the court for making a mistake for the first time? That is my point. I tried to explain this to TFL but they relate it to freedom pass. How can I write the mitigation letter to help me with reducing the fine and the criminal records? Does this end with a bad background (criminal record)? I don't know how that will affect the immigration status. Is it something like speed tickets or something worse? You won't be thrown away out of a country for speeding records, would you?

 

Any advice is much appreciated.

[BazzaS]

Thanks everybody for your posts. My internet was disconnected last night and this morning and didn't have chance to read the posts/post anything.

 

Some people said that how is it possible that I didn't look inside the pass case! I glanced at it. The back of the card was facing me and was written Oyster; as I was in hurry I didn't read anything else on the card. People who have a freedom pass know what it says at the back. Now I have received the copy of the card with the court letter, I can see the word 'Not transferable' and if I had spent 1 minute looking at it, I wouldn't have used it. I am a taxpayer myself and I have no intention of using public money and if I find something that I might be able to find the owner I make sure I do my best.

 

Last year, I found a purse with over £75 cash plus credit card in it. I found the Italian girl through internet and gave everything back to her where I could keep the cash. Finding an Oyster card can be like finding some cash without any name on it. I think most of people take that cash and spend it on something.

 

The card I found looked different from my Oyster pay as you go but I have had three different Oyster cards so far. Did I need to think that card could be different type even if it looked a bit different?! I am not a thief! Some of you said that I shouldn't have used the card even if it was a normal card. When i lost my cards and I went to the ticket office to report them, the ticket guy told me "if they are gone they are gone. You can't do anything now." I admit that I tried the card which turned out to be freedom pass but at the same time I see that other people have used my cards without any problem. I am guilty of using somebody else's card but I wouldn't have stolen it or borrowed it from the card holder if I understood the of the card.

 

I haven't been rude to the immigrants. Have you ever lived in another country without any contacts? probably not! I am a computer programmer and don't need to socialize with people at work. I don't go to pubs or any other public places to chat with strangers. I live alone and in touch with my old friends through the internet only. It doesn't make any different how long I have been here. If I am not in touch with other people then where can I find out about Freedom passes? Other imigrants may have friends and families who have been here for 20-30 years which can be a shortcut to know the new country.

 

I don't really intend to go to the court but I want to make these points. They may not look logical to any of you but that is the reality of my life. In nutshell, I found a card and used it. Wrong action for using somebody else's card. But do I deserve this punishment? Going to the court for making a mistake for the first time? That is my point. I tried to explain this to TFL but they relate it to freedom pass. How can I write the mitigation letter to help me with reducing the fine and the criminal records? Does this end with a bad background (criminal record)? I don't know how that will affect the immigration status. Is it something like speed tickets or something worse? You won't be thrown away out of a country for speeding records, would you?

 

Any advice is much appreciated.

 

If a PAYG Oyster is registered, then the credit on it can be protected in case of loss, and it could have been returned . Mind you that is irrelevant to the fact that if it were a PAYG Oyster, it is still not your money to spend. However, it wasn't a PAYG : but it would have been (IMO) wrong to use either a found PAYG or Freedom Pass. Both cards belong to TfL : they are only loaned to the end user (for a deposit in the case of the PAYG card)

 

You say you aren't a thief .... But were you not willing to use any stored value if it had been a PAYG Oyster? Whose money do you think you would have been spending?

 

You may find it hard to persuade TfL not to prosecute. If they do, and a conviction under S 5.3 RRA follows, this would lead to a criminal record which would show on an "Enhanced CRB" or equivalent. What is your current immigration status? Are you a citizen or entitled to citizenship? Indefinite leave to remain?

 

This wouldn't be "non-recorded" like a FPN 'speeding ticket' if found guilty of S 5.3 RRA. It would be declarable as a conviction

Edited October 27, 2012 by BazzaS

[Old-CodJA]

I'm going to try to stick with what is important now. You can argue ifs, buts & maybes until the cows come home, but what is done is done.

 

You are being charged with attempting to avoid a fare by using a Freedom Pass to which you were not entitled. Having done it and been caught doing so, you cannot undo it.

 

 

I don't really intend to go to the court but I want to make these points. They may not look logical to any of you but that is the reality of my life. In nutshell, I found a card and used it. Wrong action for using somebody else's card. But do I deserve this punishment? Going to the court for making a mistake for the first time? That is my point. I tried to explain this to TFL but they relate it to freedom pass. How can I write the mitigation letter to help me with reducing the fine and the criminal records? Does this end with a bad background (criminal record)? I don't know how that will affect the immigration status. Is it something like speed tickets or something worse? You won't be thrown away out of a country for speeding records, would you? .

 

Everyone has a right to their opinions and from a little bit of experience of dealing with these matters and presenting in Court, I'll share mine for what it's worth.

 

This case is Summonsed to Court and you say that you do not intend to attend. Please do not think that you can write to say 'I plead guilty' and then not expect a criminal conviction. If you plead guilty the Magistrates will record a conviction, that means a criminal record.

 

As I have previously explained, if you write and say 'I'm guilty', but send a letter saying 'I didn't know it was wrong and I didn't intend to do it' The Magistrates will not be able to accept the plea and you will end up either facing another Court hearing in person where your plea will be entered as 'not guilty' and a trial will ensue at a later date, or you will have to repeat your 'Guilty' plea and retract the assertion that you did not intend to avoid the fare.

 

Unless TfL agree to an out of Court disposal, the only chance that you have of avoiding a criminal conviction is to plead 'Not Guilty', attend for trial and convince the Court that you did not intend to avoid the fare by using someone else's Freedom Pass.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[HelenKH]

Thanks both,

 

"You say you aren't a thief .... But were you not willing to use any stored value if it had been a PAYG Oyster? Whose money do you think you would have been spending?"

 

As I have told you before, I had lost 2 Oyster cards before. When I find one, then I feel that is my money that I have lost. If you lose £20 one day and find £10 another day, what would you do? I agree, I used the card which wasn't mine but I didn't know the card was a freedom pass that could take me to the court or anything like this. and I believe the first time offence shouldn't take me to the court. But what can I do?

[HelenKH]

"What is your current immigration status? Are you a citizen or entitled to citizenship? Indefinite leave to remain?"

 

It is a work visa with Indefinite leave to remain. is this true that all records will be removed after 5-6 years?

 

What shall I write to help my situation. I have been honest in what I wrote but it seems that doesn't help!

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks both,

 

"You say you aren't a thief .... But were you not willing to use any stored value if it had been a PAYG Oyster? Whose money do you think you would have been spending?"

 

As I have told you before, I had lost 2 Oyster cards before. When I find one, then I feel that is my money that I have lost.

 

Again, I'll express just my opinion, but that line of thinking is completely wrong.

 

It's a very old saying, but 'Two wrongs do not make a right'

 

To suggest that it is OK to steal by finding just because you have previously lost something is not the sort of attitude that is going to please the Magistrates

 

Whilst there is a criminal record this is not the kind of conviction that need be particularly damaging to a career unless the terms of your employment require an entirely clear enhanced CRB check