Christmas Ruined by TFL - Fare Evasion Allegation

Sammiec0108

Hi all,

Sorry for the depressing nature of this post but i received a letter through from TFL this morning which has really upset me, and on Xmas eve, its got me really angry and also apprehensive about what to do!

On Tuesday 22nd, I was accused of fare evasion on a bus in greater London - 320 metrobus route (double decker). My oyster card has been playing up for the last couple of days but i thought nothing of it, i use the same bus every day, to the station and back and never had a problem, the oyster card had funds on it etc. I went to scan my oyster card on the bus reader in the morning and it failed (card communication failure) a couple of times, then my balance flashed up, quickly followed by another red light and card communication failiure. I asked the driver if my payment had gone through and he said yes and waved me on the bus.

Towards the end of my journey an inspector got on and my oyster wouldnt scan, he took it out of the holder (for the first time in 2 years) and there was a tiny crack at the top of the card, he then split it and showed me the antenna at the top of the card which was now broken in half, courtesy of him excentuating the crack.

Anyway i explained that the driver had said it has been pressed on the reader and that it was OK, however the inspector issued me a ticket (not offered the option of paying a fine). I have now recieved this letter from TFL asking for a written response and that anything i do write can be used as evidence.

Having read some horror stories online i am very worried about firstly what to write back to them and secondly how to stop this esculating into a court case and a possible criminal record.

Something i should add is that i have got and paid the fare on this route every day for the past 2.5 years without a problem and also this route is serviced by a double decker bus in which you have to pass the driver to get on the bus, both he and I were convinced the oyster had worked.

A bit worried about if the fare had registered or not i checked my balance online on the oyster website, it read as £8.10 i.e.: not gone through, however i checked it again this morning on reciept of the letter from TFL and my balance has now decreased to £7.10 i.e.: the same balance i saw on the screen on the bus reader when the card said it was successfully scanned.

Any advice would really be appreciated about what i should do or how i should respond, i know i cant do anything now over the Xmas period, but some information to put my mind at rest so i can enjoy my Christmas holiday would be very much appreciated

Best

Sammiec0108

hothothot_3

Im more familiar with fare evasion on the railways, however the general gist of the situation is that it is only a criminal offence if it can be shown that you intended to evade the fare. Usually the line of questioning is - do you have the means to pay? - will you pay for the fare? - what is your name and address?

Failure to comply with these 3 conditions is general rule of thumb enough to escalate the situation to becoming a criminal issue, and they have the power to detain you until the police arrive.

A Penalty Fare is similar in nature to a parking ticket and is no big deal as it does not result in a criminal record or cost somebody their job because of a moment of foolishness.

Sammiec0108

Just an update, i phoned oyster help line and they confirmed to me that the payment was indeed made on the bus, they are sending me email confirmation within the next 48hours. Why wasnt this checked by TFL before they sent out this horrible letter. Is there an issue because my card wasnt able to be read by the inspector or is this now irrelevant because my oyster card evidently worked when i entered the bus and therefore i have paid the fare?

Livingthedream

hothothot wrote: »

and they have the power to detain you until the police arrive.

I always wondered about this, but what gives them the right to detain you, if they physically restrain you isn't that assault?

leosayer

This makes me mad. All it would have taken is a simple check of the Oyster logs, instead of doing this they effectively accuse you of theft.

Remember they do have to prove you are guilty of evading the fare, which they clearly can't do if:
a) the inspector couldn't read you card to see if you had paid or not
b) their own system has a record of you paying the fare

You haven't dodged the fare so you have nothing to worry about except the stupidity of TFL. Personally, I would phone them up and give the person that sent the letter an ear-bashing. However the best advice is to send them a letter by recorded delivery stating that you did pay the fare and suggest they check their logs.

I would also recommend getting TFL to email you a copy of their logs for your own peace of mind, the oyster people are happy to do this. Do this ASAP.

hothothot_3

Livingthedream wrote: »

I always wondered about this, but what gives them the right to detain you, if they physically restrain you isn't that assault?

Most of the powers for Railway Inspectors come from the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

S5
(2) If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1061371&ActiveTextDocId=1061378&filesize=21583

The most important power to detain arises from not giving a Railways Inspector your name and address.

However, another 'catch all' power to arrest would be Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, this would be valid as fare evasion is (under the circumstances given) a criminal offence, so this additional power of arrest would be available to the companies staff.

Livingthedream

hothothot wrote: »

Most of the powers for Railway Inspectors come from the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

S5
(2) If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1061371&ActiveTextDocId=1061378&filesize=21583

The most important power to detain arises from not giving a Railways Inspector your name and address.

However, another 'catch all' power to arrest would be Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, this would be valid as fare evasion is (under the circumstances given) a criminal offence, so this additional power of arrest would be available to the companies staff.

Thanx for that Hothothot, an interesting read and the quote 'may detain' instead of 'has the right to detain' implies to me that a railways inspector, who has no police training, who physically touches/detains me is therefore guilty of assault?

Also I'm I right in thinking after the introduction of the PACE act 1984 only the Police had the powers to arrest.

This is my opinion and I could be wrong

Zanzibar

Wow, 1889 act there. Nice one.

However "to give his name and address,"

So women are exempt then....

hothothot_3

Police officers cannot issue penalty fares, so if I was guilty I would just accept the PF from the Railway Inspector rather than force their hand to use their powers to detain you and contact BTP who just love fare evaders.

Intent must be proven so the suspect is cautioned under PACE and questioned although the suspect has the right to refuse to answer questions and to leave once particulars have been given (as in any process case).

You are correct that there is a power to detain, but nothing to suggest a power to use force to detain. Which is where the powers under the CLA 1967 could be used as a last resort, pending police arrival.

Revenue Inspectors are PACE trained and will ask for a person's particulars when they suspect an offence has taken place..
These particulars are verified by any ID the passenger may have on him and internally through a voters check.
They will then caution a suspect under PACE. The caution is exactly the same as for police officers.
The Revenue Inspector has not arrested anybody so caution comes into place where the suspected fare evader is informed that they are not under arrest or obliged to remain. They are asked if they understand the caution.
Everything is recorded in the Revenue Inspectors notebook.
If the passenger chooses to leave at that point, then he / she is free to do so but the majority stay and answer questions which are recorded in the notebook in Q + A format.
At the end of the questioning, the Revenue Inspector sticks rigidly to PACE and reads through the notes with the passenger who is invited to sign them.
The passenger is informed that the facts will be reported and that they may be prosecuted.
They are asked the silly question which is a pet hate of mine "do you understand?" They were asked that after the caution so it seems stupid to ask it again but PACE says you have to.
There is no need to tape record the interview and a suspected fare evader does not need to sign the notebook if he does not want to.
The Revenue Inspector later inputs all the relevant information onto a database which generates a set of case papers. The Revenue Inspector also completes an MG11 witness statement which he signs. Because Revenue Inspectors are not police officers the MG11 must be counter signed but they just sign each other's statements. There is nothing to say that it has to be an actual police officer who countersigns MG11s.
Any tickets or travel documents are retained as evidence.
If it goes to court the suspect may plead guilty by letter or request a trial by magistrates.
Many train companies prefer an out of court settlement to avoid costly trials but they will still prosecute if they feel the need to.
London Underground only have one grade of Inspector who is fully trained in PACE.
The train companies have different grades, some of whom are not PACE trained and are just there to sell tickets or issue Penalty Fares.
If a fare evader attempts to run away without giving details, then a Railway Official has a power of detention under Sec 5(3)© Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
This is known as the 3 fails:
1. Fails to show a valid ticket
2. Fails to give name and address
3. Fails to pay for their journey.

If any of the three conditions is not met then the power of detention is not present but a police officer (BTP or otherwise) has additional powers.
The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is well known to British Transport Police but not to other police forces.

Intent must be proven on the railway / underground unlike on the buses which is covered by different regulations where intent is not necessary. Bus Inspectors don't need intent.

Sorry for long post

Livingthedream

Zanzibar wrote: »

Wow, 1889 act there. Nice one.

However "to give his name and address,"

So women are exempt then....

Wow, must remember to pack my Dolly Parton wig and false boobs next time I travel by train :rotfl:

hothothot_3

Zanzibar wrote: »

Wow, 1889 act there. Nice one.

However "to give his name and address,"

So women are exempt then....

Unfortunatly not

Under the Interpretation Act 1850 they specifically address the way that all future legislation is to be interpreted. In there is where 'he' can be substituted to mean also for 'she'.

nice try tho