I was caught using someone elses freedom pass instead of my own oyster on London Underground. My details were taken but I wasn't given an on the spot fine. I was told that I could be cautioned or prosecuted. How long does it take before I hear from them? In what cases are people more likely to be prosecuted as opposed to being cautioned? Do they look for CCTV evidence and use the history of travel on the freedom pass as evidence against you? I've also read that you could go to prison and have a criminal record, how likely is this? What happens if you're taken to court? I don't know what to do, I'm absolutely terrfied of what could happen to me. Any answers or advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

On Feb 19, 3:39 pm, Michelle
wrote:
I was caught using someone elses freedom pass instead of my own oyster
on London Underground. My details were taken but I wasn't given an on
the spot fine. I was told that I could be cautioned or prosecuted.
How long does it take before I hear from them? In what cases are
people more likely to be prosecuted as opposed to being cautioned? Do
they look for CCTV evidence and use the history of travel on the
freedom pass as evidence against you? I've also read that you could go
to prison and have a criminal record, how likely is this? What happens
if you're taken to court? I don't know what to do, I'm absolutely
terrfied of what could happen to me. Any answers or advice would be
appreciated. Thanks.



I can't answer all the questions about prosecution, although I would
guess that a caution was likely if you admit to everything and it's a
first offence, but to clarify one point, by "on the spot fine" I take
it that you mean a penalty fare.

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).

MIG wrote:

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).

Pardon my ignorance, but when is a penalty fare appropriate if not for
suspected fare evasion?
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

"David of Broadway" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).

Pardon my ignorance, but when is a penalty fare appropriate if not for
suspected fare evasion?

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could not
realistically be taken to court for theft. A penalty fare is offered to
someone travelling without an appropriate ticket only in a defined penalty
fare area.

Someone who attempts to defraud the railway by presenting someone elses
pass, or a fake ticket, or by doing a runner - is clearly intending not to
pay, therefore would be likely to face a prosecution.

Paul

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"David of Broadway" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).

Pardon my ignorance, but when is a penalty fare appropriate if not for
suspected fare evasion?

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level
of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could
not
realistically be taken to court for theft.

That is incorrect analysis.

Offering to pay when challenged can easily be proof of guilt.
A genuine reason for not having a ticket is required for there
to be no chance of a prosecution and offering to pay when
challenged suggest that the passenger knows that they
didn't have an appropriate excuse.

tim

On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, "tim....." wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message

...







"David of Broadway" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).

Pardon my ignorance, but when is a penalty fare appropriate if not for
suspected fare evasion?

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level
of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could
not
realistically be taken to court for theft.

That is incorrect analysis.

Offering to pay when challenged can easily be proof of guilt.
A genuine reason for not having a ticket is required for there
to be no chance of a prosecution and offering to pay when
challenged suggest that the passenger knows that they
didn't have an appropriate excuse.

tim


I don't know; given that the only way that they are legal is because
they are claimed to be a standard fare that you pay if you don't get a
ticket before getting on the train, it's conceivable that someone in a
hurry could fully intend to pay the higher penalty fare on the train
rather than queue at the ticket office.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level
of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could
not
realistically be taken to court for theft.

That is incorrect analysis.

Offering to pay when challenged can easily be proof of guilt.
A genuine reason for not having a ticket is required for there
to be no chance of a prosecution and offering to pay when
challenged suggest that the passenger knows that they
didn't have an appropriate excuse.


It may have been mistaken re the Theft Act, but here is a section of the
DfT's background reasoning:

A penalty fares system was first developed in the late 1980s by the Network
SouthEast sector of British Rail (BR), as a way to protect revenue in its
particular circumstances. As well as reducing the expense of inspecting
tickets at ticket barriers, BR also wanted to reduce the number of cases
that were referred to the courts. Before penalty fares were introduced, the
only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute
them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This was time-consuming,
costly and often ineffective. For a prosecution to be successful, it had to
be proved that the passenger intended to avoid paying. This was often
difficult as most passengers without tickets were willing to pay if they
were challenged, but did not pay if they were not challenged.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legis...policya?page=2

Paul

On 19 Feb, 19:00, "tim....." wrote:
Offering to pay when challenged can easily be proof of guilt.
A genuine reason for not having a ticket is required for there
to be no chance of a prosecution and offering to pay when
challenged suggest that the passenger knows that they
didn't have an appropriate excuse.

When I lived in Tunbridge Wells I normally bought a day return (£16
with YP) to London. One day I only bought a single as I planned to be
working past 11PM and get a taxi home. As it turns out I didn't work
that late, so when I arrived after a 12 hour shift at unbarriered
Waterloo East from Southwark station, I completely forgot to buy a
ticket (~£7.50).

When the guard came into the carrage after London Bridge I looked in
my wallet and realised I didn't have one! I explained and apologised,
and with the fact I still had a lot of old tickets so he could see it
was a one-off meant I even got my YP discount (and a warning)!

So I offered to pay, but wasn't guilty of deliberate fare evasion (IME
that line is well-staffed anyway, it was rare for my ticket not to be
checekd, even on the non-stop fast trains in the morning from High
Brooms to Cannon Street (completely barriered)

It's annoying as two singles is actually cheaper than a return, but
the risk of forgetting (and the hastle of buying when you do remember)
doesn't make it worthwhile.

Paul Scott wrote:
"David of Broadway" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

A penalty fare is not a fine, and it should not be issued in a case
where fare evasion is suspected. It seems that the staff concerned
acted correctly and did not issue one in this case, because there was
suspicion of fare evasion.

It would have been wrong to issue penalty fare if fare evasion was
suspected, because it would make systematic evasion worthwhile (free
travel and the occasional £20 when caught).
Pardon my ignorance, but when is a penalty fare appropriate if not for
suspected fare evasion?

IANAL but... The penalty fare scheme was brought in because in UK, fare
evasion is prosecuted under the theft act, which requires a certain level of
proof of intent, therefore anyone offering to pay when challenged could not
realistically be taken to court for theft. A penalty fare is offered to
someone travelling without an appropriate ticket only in a defined penalty
fare area.

Ah. So if I'm understanding correctly, fare evasion is a technical
term; without the proper intent, it isn't fare evasion.

The penalty fare, being merely a type of fare, is paid by people who
might have evaded the fare in the nontechnical sense but can't be
legally charged with fare evasion.

Am I close?
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:26:00 -0500, David of Broadway
wrote:

Ah. So if I'm understanding correctly, fare evasion is a technical
term; without the proper intent, it isn't fare evasion.

The penalty fare, being merely a type of fare, is paid by people who
might have evaded the fare in the nontechnical sense but can't be
legally charged with fare evasion.

Am I close?

That's how I understand it.

The penalty fare is known in some places[1] as the "standard fare",
perhaps to stress the "fare" nature, rather than the implications of a
fine.

[1] e.g. (from personal experience - of travelling, not of paying it!)
Manchester Metrolink and (certainly previously, not sure if it still
exists as such) buses in the Manchester area.