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.

On 19 Feb, 19:15, "MIG" wrote:
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.

Indeed, and it's often advertised at that. When I lived in Twyford and
was in a rush to get in, missing the train mean't losing out on more
than tha £12 extra the ticket cost. Advetrs clearly state that if you
don't have a ticket, you will be charged a £20 fare. That implies a
choice, like the "only SOS and SOR on long distance trains when
there's ticket purchasing facilities available"

Either the adverts are misleading, or a penalty fare must always be
accepted, if anything proving fare evasion is harder -- travelling to
an unmanned station from a manned station, you may decide to follow
the advert's offer, and buy (for £20) on the train. If there's noone
to buy from on the train, and no ticket facilities at the other end,
what can you do?

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:39:02 +0000, Michelle
wrote:


I was caught using someone elses freedom pass instead of my own oyster
on London Underground.

Which was a rather stupid thing to do if you don't mind me saying.

My details were taken but I wasn't given an on
the spot fine. I was told that I could be cautioned or prosecuted.

Yes - because the use of someone's freedom pass is not something that is
accidental or unintentioned. Penalty fares do not apply in these cases.
Misuse of a freedom pass is a serious issue in terms of fare evasion.

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.

If you were given details as to the procedure or who is handling the
case then I would call them. Failing that contact the customer services
centre - details on the LU bit of the TfL website. I don't know how
prosecutions use the Oyster card journey data in support of a case but
needless to say the information will be available in the system.

No one here can give you a detailed explanation about your particular
case as we not party to the details. Ring customer services to get an
update - this may not be immediate as they will need to track down the
particular case but this is your best way of obtaining more info.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/contacts/


Perhaps someone who's familiar with the law can clarify what the
penalties are - if found guilty by a court then a person would
obviously end up with a criminal record and most likely a fine in
addition to paying some courts costs, but I'd have thought it would
take a pretty serious offence to end up with a custodial sentence for
fare evasion (for example ticket forgery).

On 19 Feb 2007 11:58:47 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

Perhaps someone who's familiar with the law can clarify what the
penalties are - if found guilty by a court then a person would
obviously end up with a criminal record and most likely a fine in
addition to paying some courts costs, but I'd have thought it would
take a pretty serious offence to end up with a custodial sentence for
fare evasion (for example ticket forgery).

It is entirely dependent upon the legislation that forms the basis of
prosecution. There are various choices from what I can recall but I do
know that the approach to prosecution changed a few years ago. As said
in another post there is also the possibility (and again we don't know
the facts) that other offences *may* have been committed.

As a LU employee I think I need to shut up now as it really is not
appropriate for me to comment further on what may become a prosecution.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

David of Broadway wrote:
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?

Only time I ever paid one was when I forgot my pass had expired - I
started from the DLR so no gate - of course I could not get out. I went
to the desk as soon as I realised my card was out-of-date. Given I tried
the card and only then did I know it had expired then it was hardly
evasion. I even forgot to argue that as I had only travelled on the DLR
I should have had a £5 penalty not a £10 one (it was some time ago).

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
oups.com...
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)

You offered to pay after you had claimed your excuse.

This is not the same as offering to pay as soon as the guard
challenges you.

tim

Michelle wrote in
:


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.


With all due respect, Michelle, this is the wrong place to ask. A lot of
people work for TFL and will have absolutely no interest in helping you at
all.

To be honest, I'm not brimming over with sympathy either, so all I am going
to say is that you are going to find a better reaction on somewhere like
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/

Although be warned, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met, Brian
Paddick, is a regular :-))

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:36:37 -0600, "Tristán White"
wrote:

Michelle wrote in
:


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.


With all due respect, Michelle, this is the wrong place to ask. A lot of
people work for TFL and will have absolutely no interest in helping you at
all.

And what sort of answer is that? Only people who are familiar with the
detail of the case can actually provide useful help. I have pointed the
poster towards getting that help.

For people to wildly speculate about all sorts of outcomes will do the
poster no good whatsoever.

To be honest, I'm not brimming over with sympathy either, so all I am going
to say is that you are going to find a better reaction on somewhere like
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/

Really? that's full of revenue control officials and prosecution
department members is it?

Although be warned, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met, Brian
Paddick, is a regular :-))

I can't imagine he'd care one way or the other. Transport revenue
prosecutions are not the concern of the Met Police.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

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.