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

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/
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"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, 5:14 pm, 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?


Absolutely nothing.

I utterly deny the appropriateness of penalty fares in any
circumstances, but that's another thread ...

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.

On 19 Feb, 18:35, Paul Corfield 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.

I can see it could possibly be an accident (your s.o. has freedom
pass, and you picked up the wrong wallet by mistake, and you didn't
look at the card (I assume it has a photo on)) -- this is especially
reasonable if you otherwise have a travelcard anyway! You should
hopefully get off with an informal warning if this was the case.

Certainly my fiancee and myself have unintentionally swapped oysters a
couple of times, and while they are unregistered, they could easilly
be registered and one have a travelcard while the other doesnt.

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.

And its great news that TFL crack down on this kind of thing. It's
like the blue-badge abuse, it's a system designed to help the less
fortunate -- abusing it is worse than normal fare evasion in my book.
Aside from the fine/prison, I think offenders should be banned from
public transport for a few years.

One also wonders about the source of the freedom pass. Was it stolen
and the old dear just hadn't realised, or are they willing
collaberators in a crime? Would this person be investigated?

"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