"Baloo" wrote in message
...

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

sinp

The Inspector does not *have* to accept an penalty under *any*
circumstances. If he suspects fare evasion he may report the individual,
as
he has done here. To do so, he *must* caution the person and tell them
they
are being reported and for what offence. The fact a penalty fare was
offered immediately is not eveidence of regular fare evasion, as suggested
by some of those posting here, and would not be deemed so by the court.

The fact that a summons has been issued just with the six months cut off
period set out in the magistrates court act is typical of these *private*
prosecutions. The departments who put the cases together are generally
less
than competent, and rely on individuals pleading guilty.

The offence in question is a criminal one. There are 2 options here.

1. Plead gulity by post, outlining the circumstances you describe as
mitigation. A fine will be the result, plus costs, probably £50. You WILL
NOT recieve a criminal record.

2. Plead not guilty, attend court and cross examine the inspector as to
his
procedure at the time of reporting (caution etc as above), and challenge
the
fact that you *intended* to avoid your fare. After all you where in
possession of a ticket, just not validated, not allready used or out of
date. The magistrate will take into consideration how you come across
when
giving evidence, and also how the inspector does. IME a properly prepared
defence case will wipe the floor with most rail/bus ticket inspectors.

regards

Baloo



Thanks. We're going to see a solicitor on Tuesday because we've arrived at
your position 2, having started off at 1. The prosecution is being bought by
TfL/London Bus Services, & *not* the CPS, which may make a difference - it's
a private, not a criminal, prosecution. This apparently may reduce the
burden of proof of intent.

In part, we are wondering if they are likely to withdraw if it looks as if
she is going to fight it.

Thanks to everyone who helped - it's got our minds clearer over the holiday
while we couldn't go straight to a solicitor.
--
Evan

remove certain words in address to email

Barry Salter wrote in
:

On Sun, 2 May 2004 19:17:46 +0100, "SJCWHUK"
wrote:

It all depends on whether you are permitted to enter the bus via any
door if you have a ticket that requires marking by the driver.

If you have a Saver ticket you *must* enter by the front door. The same
also applies if you have an Oystercard and there aren't readers by the
other doors, even if you have a Travelcard.

HTH,

Barry


Since when have Oystercard travelcard holders had to use the front door to
get their travelcard checked on a bendibus? If so, isn't it time somebody
told them!

David

In article , Nick Cooper
writes

And clearly that guard was exercising his power of discretion
sensibly, unlike - it seems - the bus ticket inspector in the original
incident.

I agree but I could prove that the PTT was broken and that the office
which was normally manned wasn't on this occasion. If he (or a RPI) had
tried to hit me for a penalty fare etc then I would have fought it in
court.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 2 May 2004 10:25:01 +0200, "tim"
wrote:


"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 11:30:42 +0000 (UTC), "evan"
wrote:

Looking at what the summons says, the *inspector* has left something
that
may be significant out of his statement - that she accepted she'd made
a
mistake & offered to pay the penalty fare. He said "it doesn't work
like
that" (exact words as far as she can remember).

So, basically you're saying that she offered to pay a penalty fare on
the spot and this was refused by the inspector, but that the latter
has omitted this detail from his statement?

I find this all most strange. Am I alone here in believing that this
'offer' does not help the defense, but the prosecution. An immediate
offer to pay the PF is the expected action of the habitual evader who
has just been checked for the first time. A 'genuine' forgetful person
is expected to make a long play of how they 'forgot'.

How do you get that? If I was in the position of, say, getting on a
bus with a buggered Oyster reader the day after I'd forgotten my TC
expired, and part-way through the journey a ticket inspector getting
on and checking it with a hand-held, my first reaction would be to put
my hands up, admit an error on my part, and cough up the penalty fare.

1) if the card reader is broken, why is this your fault?
2) using an expired TC is a bit different from having no ticket at all.

An person making an honest mistake is not always going to stand (or
sit) there whinging/arguing, because that rarely achieves anything.

No, but they normally do.

An immediate offer to pay the PF is possibly why the GF is in the
situation she is currently in. It makes no sense to me that the
inspector should leave this bit off the form as IMHO it helps him
immensely (unless, of course this form is not expected to contain
the 'prosecution details', as I've never seen one I've no idea what
info they contain).

You seem to have formed an opnion

which opinion is this?

and are trying to fit the known facts around it.

which facts.

Have you considered that it may just be that the
GF's immediate offer to pay the penalty fare and the inspector's
refusal of that actually counts very much in her favour,

In the sense that it is a possibiliy, I have considered it.
In the sense that I do not believe it be be in the poster's
interest then I haven't. I really believe that you will find
this action is not the usual action of the first time forgetful
person and *is* the usual action of the habitual ticketless
traveller. And the Inspectors (and the mags) know this

and not his,
hence he has "forgotten" that detail?

Forgetting material detail does not ever work in the
inspector's favour

tim


--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Please let us know what happens, and good luck!

In message , Richard J.
writes
I don't understand why this wasn't dealt with by imposing a £10 penalty
fare.
Yes I thought I was alone in this thread at being surprised that it
wasn't dealt with in this way. In fact I thought that imposing a £10
penalty was the automatic way to deal with such cases.

I can only assume that they've had a lot of fare evasion on that
route, and wanted a few prosecutions as a deterrent.
That makes sense, I suppose, especially since the "honesty" policy of
not checking every ticket/pass now being adopted is so "foreign" to the
average UK passenger. Certainly up here on Midland Metro the fare
evasion before the introduction of conductors appeared to reach dizzying
proportions, if the number of people caught when they *did* do check was
anything to go by.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

I think it is a terrible waste of time and money and serves no real purpose.
People make mistakes, I have before and I think any londoner that uses
transport every single day will sympathise with this particular traveller.
They will look back at the time they thought their tc was valid and it
wasn't. It happens to people every single day and it seems that the only
difference between getting away with it and being prosecuted comes down to
luck and the discretion of the revenue protection officer. Why prosecute
people? I would have thought that the criminal justice system should only be
brought in where the person caught has be caught a number of times? If LT
want to recoup money why not simply employ more revenue protection officers,
I am sure they'll pay for themselves in the long run.


--
============
David Varnham

Sponsor me running the Windsor Half Marathon in September he
http://www.justgiving.co.uk/varnham
All sponsorship money goes to Mind.


"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
news
In message , Richard J.
writes
I don't understand why this wasn't dealt with by imposing a £10 penalty
fare.
Yes I thought I was alone in this thread at being surprised that it
wasn't dealt with in this way. In fact I thought that imposing a £10
penalty was the automatic way to deal with such cases.

I can only assume that they've had a lot of fare evasion on that
route, and wanted a few prosecutions as a deterrent.
That makes sense, I suppose, especially since the "honesty" policy of
not checking every ticket/pass now being adopted is so "foreign" to the
average UK passenger. Certainly up here on Midland Metro the fare
evasion before the introduction of conductors appeared to reach dizzying
proportions, if the number of people caught when they *did* do check was
anything to go by.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

There are all types of evasion and without going right into this particular
case there is a lot of evasion on the tubes and buses.

The current estimate (this is only what I heard) is around £45 million a
year.

Ascertaining the difference between a genuine mistake and deliberate
avoidance is tricky but that is why we have the protection of the
Magistrates Court who can make the ultimate decision. Many countries on the
continent have a penalty system like parking fines or speed cameras. You
can end up with a spot fine of around £100.

Steve

"David Varnham" wrote in message
...
I think it is a terrible waste of time and money and serves no real
purpose.
People make mistakes, I have before and I think any londoner that uses
transport every single day will sympathise with this particular traveller.
They will look back at the time they thought their tc was valid and it
wasn't. It happens to people every single day and it seems that the only
difference between getting away with it and being prosecuted comes down to
luck and the discretion of the revenue protection officer. Why prosecute
people? I would have thought that the criminal justice system should only
be
brought in where the person caught has be caught a number of times? If LT
want to recoup money why not simply employ more revenue protection
officers,
I am sure they'll pay for themselves in the long run.


--
============
David Varnham

Sponsor me running the Windsor Half Marathon in September he
http://www.justgiving.co.uk/varnham
All sponsorship money goes to Mind.


"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
news
In message , Richard J.
writes
I don't understand why this wasn't dealt with by imposing a £10 penalty

fare.
Yes I thought I was alone in this thread at being surprised that it
wasn't dealt with in this way. In fact I thought that imposing a £10
penalty was the automatic way to deal with such cases.

I can only assume that they've had a lot of fare evasion on that
route, and wanted a few prosecutions as a deterrent.
That makes sense, I suppose, especially since the "honesty" policy of
not checking every ticket/pass now being adopted is so "foreign" to the
average UK passenger. Certainly up here on Midland Metro the fare
evasion before the introduction of conductors appeared to reach dizzying
proportions, if the number of people caught when they *did* do check was
anything to go by.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Then bring in higher penalties. I am sure it would recoup more money AND
provide a greater disincentive for those not simply being forgetful. Then
they pay rather than incurring the expense of prsecututing someone who
really shouldn't be before a court. I don't know how much a magistrates
court costs to mount but I would imagine that it is inefficient in terms of
net gain to LT.

And what deterrent effect can it have, it's not like it's a high profile
murder case. The person convicted will probably take the morning off work
and never mention it again. Granted, they will probably never do it again
but it will have xero affect on others...

David

--
============
David Varnham

Sponsor me running the Windsor Half Marathon in September he
http://www.justgiving.co.uk/varnham
All sponsorship money goes to Mind.
"SJCWHUK" wrote in message
news:cRAmc.4829$7S2.1456@newsfe1-win...
There are all types of evasion and without going right into this
particular
case there is a lot of evasion on the tubes and buses.

The current estimate (this is only what I heard) is around £45 million a
year.

Ascertaining the difference between a genuine mistake and deliberate
avoidance is tricky but that is why we have the protection of the
Magistrates Court who can make the ultimate decision. Many countries on
the
continent have a penalty system like parking fines or speed cameras. You
can end up with a spot fine of around £100.

Steve

"David Varnham" wrote in message
...
I think it is a terrible waste of time and money and serves no real
purpose.
People make mistakes, I have before and I think any londoner that uses
transport every single day will sympathise with this particular
traveller.
They will look back at the time they thought their tc was valid and it
wasn't. It happens to people every single day and it seems that the
only
difference between getting away with it and being prosecuted comes down
to
luck and the discretion of the revenue protection officer. Why
prosecute
people? I would have thought that the criminal justice system should
only
be
brought in where the person caught has be caught a number of times? If
LT
want to recoup money why not simply employ more revenue protection
officers,
I am sure they'll pay for themselves in the long run.


--
============
David Varnham

Sponsor me running the Windsor Half Marathon in September he
http://www.justgiving.co.uk/varnham
All sponsorship money goes to Mind.


"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
news
In message , Richard
J.
writes
I don't understand why this wasn't dealt with by imposing a £10
penalty

fare.
Yes I thought I was alone in this thread at being surprised that it
wasn't dealt with in this way. In fact I thought that imposing a £10
penalty was the automatic way to deal with such cases.

I can only assume that they've had a lot of fare evasion on that
route, and wanted a few prosecutions as a deterrent.
That makes sense, I suppose, especially since the "honesty" policy of
not checking every ticket/pass now being adopted is so "foreign" to
the
average UK passenger. Certainly up here on Midland Metro the fare
evasion before the introduction of conductors appeared to reach
dizzying
proportions, if the number of people caught when they *did* do check
was
anything to go by.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Wed, 5 May 2004 at 16:01:52, Ian Jelf
wrote:

I can only assume that they've had a lot of fare evasion on that
route, and wanted a few prosecutions as a deterrent.
That makes sense, I suppose, especially since the "honesty" policy of
not checking every ticket/pass now being adopted is so "foreign" to the
average UK passenger. Certainly up here on Midland Metro the fare
evasion before the introduction of conductors appeared to reach dizzying
proportions, if the number of people caught when they *did* do check was
anything to go by.

Years ago (about 1972, I think), when they first abolished the
"tricoteuses" on the Paris Metro - the people, usually women, who would
clip a hole in your tickets as you passed through - they replaced them
with a system whereby you introduced your ticket into an automatic
machine which just printed a stamp on it, and then the gates would open
to let you through.

Within six months, they were replacing it by the magnetic-strip system
familiar to us today! They hadn't realised, unlike the punters, that
you could use the same ticket over and over and over and over
again.......
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004