£48 fine for 'Fare Evasion' - Advice?

cubegame

Send them a cheque for £7.90 stating that this is full payment for the £8.10 fare and the £40 admin fee but that it is sadly subject to your admin fee of £40.20.

They'll probably cash it.

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

Make sure you tell them all the info ie no caution and no Unpaid fare notice.

For info, although I'm sure you're probably aware nonetheless, one doesn't have to be cautioned to be reported for an offence.

Sounds like the OP was reported for an alleged offence as he couldn;t pay his fare. Some/most companies issue a letter and charge reasonable admin fees as way of final warning for first offences, which is what this sounds like. The RPI should have advised exactly what he was intending to do (ie; Report the facts of the matter as he believed offences might have been committed).

If two cards were tried and both declined, depending on the exact circumstances surrounding this case, there's arguably enough evidence there to secure a 5(3)a prosecution under the 1889 Act. If not, then there's Byelaw 18(1). The former is the more serious of the two offences and carried the maximum penalty of £1,000 and/or 3-months in clink. Realistically it'll be the average week's salary in a fine (£350) costs (around £100 usually) and compo (ticket cost)...not forgetting Victim surcharge of £15. Magistrates like early guilty pleas and may reduce their fines accordingly, but costs etc remain the same. Also your means dictate the fine amount. You wont be going to prison though, don't worry. Also, it's a recordable offence on the PNC, whereas a Byelaw isn't.

The fine for a Byelaw is typically half of that of the former RRA 1889 conviction, means etc dependant. Costs etc will be the same. Max penalty is £1,000 fine, although again, unless very wealthy, that'll never happen!

In the grand scheme of things, £48 seems reasonable.

If it did go to court, the OP would see a copy of the RPI's report (MG11 form)

Owain_Moneysaver

It's not a fine, it's an admin fee.

Incidentally the First ScotRail admin fee (note part of the First Group) is only £10 in similar circumstances.

The National Conditions of Carriage make no mention (outside of a penalty fare area) of an admin charge if you do not have a ticket or buy a ticket on the train, but the Conditions do say, for damaged/altered tickets:

23. You may have to pay a reasonable administrative charge (not exceeding £10) for the replacement.

Note 3 to Clause 26 (Refunds) also says:

you may have to pay a reasonable administrative charge (not exceeding £10).

Therefore I think you have good grounds for refusing to pay some or all of the £40 admin charge as it is not reasonable and is not provided for in the NCOC.

Stigy

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

It's not a fine, it's an admin fee.

Incidentally the First ScotRail admin fee (note part of the First Group) is only £10 in similar circumstances.

The National Conditions of Carriage make no mention (outside of a penalty fare area) of an admin charge if you do not have a ticket or buy a ticket on the train, but the Conditions do say, for damaged/altered tickets:



Note 3 to Clause 26 (Refunds) also says:



Therefore I think you have good grounds for refusing to pay some or all of the £40 admin charge as it is not reasonable and is not provided for in the NCOC.

You're getting confused by an admin charge made in order to replace a lost or damaged season ticket or similar, which tends to be around the £10 mark, and what's commonly known as an administrative penalty, which this is, or seems to be, which is a way of avoiding taking a matter to the Magistrates' Court. This admin fee is for the TOC's costs incurred, and to be honest, £40 is on the cheap side! It acts as a final warning for first offences and won't happen a second time. If it's ignored, or refused to be accepted, then they'll issue a summons for court.

Owain_Moneysaver

Stigy wrote: »

You're getting confused by an admin charge made in order to replace a lost or damaged season ticket or similar, which tends to be around the £10 mark, and what's commonly known as an administrative penalty, which this is, or seems to be, which is a way of avoiding taking a matter to the Magistrates' Court.

No I'm not.

Scotrail's charge in the same circumstances - retrospective payment for a fare following a report of Irregular Travel - is £10.

There are no grounds for any admin charge in the NCoC and repeated indications that a reasonable admin charge would not be more than £10.

A £40 admin charge is completely arbitrary.

vax2002

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

A £40 admin charge is completely arbitrary.

This was explained to the OP in detail and the process of "put up or shut up" court threats explained, the OP rebuffed the advice on how to overturn the charge, by stating they will not do court, instead choosing to use the appeals system, which will be the same as the parking charge appeal system.
So whilst you are 100% correct this is arbitrary the OP is not interested in pursuing that line .
There is very little other advice that can be tendered to someone in this mind frame other than carry some cash next time...

DWatts

Stigy wrote: »

If two cards were tried and both declined, depending on the exact circumstances surrounding this case, there's arguably enough evidence there to secure a 5(3)a prosecution under the 1889 Act. If not, then there's Byelaw 18(1).

Byelaw 18(1) would not apply to me, given 18(3):

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:

(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or
validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where,
he began his journey;

There are no ticket facilities at the station I boarded from, therefore that Byelaw wouldn't apply. As for the 1889 act, I don't know what would be considered intent to avoid fare. I would've though presenting two valid means of payment would be enough to show intent to pay the fare.

Livingthedream

Dwatts, I'll take you back to your first post;

Failure to pay may result in legal action being taken to recover the debt.

At the moment all that's been stated by First Great Western is a threatening letter for £48. You can still appeal the £40 admin fees on the grounds of what has been stated on this forum and the CAG forum.

Only if you lose the appeal and after another set payment timeline has expired they will process with court action.

My advice pay the £8 you owe and you do owe it, there's no avoiding that payment. Then [STRIKE]tell them to poke[/STRIKE] appeal the admin fee on the grounds you stated.

They will write back accepting or declining this before they even think of court action. Then if they decline it and your so worried about court action just pay it then.

Livingthedream

vax2002 wrote: »

instead choosing to use the appeals system, which will be the same as the parking charge appeal system.

Unlike a parking charge appeal system which is a joke and normally means that the Parking company has a fish well and truly hooked. The Railway appeals system has to follow procedures and if the procedure gives a discrepancy then the appeal must be upheld, because there's higher appeals authorities and they don't take kindly to having they time wasted by things that should have been sorted out at a lower level.

Hence to Stigy's early comment about 'the caution' yes they don't need to give it but it dotes the 'i' and crosses the 't' and makes a case stronger to succeed in court.

vax2002 wrote: »

There is very little other advice that can be tendered to someone in this mind frame other than carry some cash next time...

For some people court is a scary place and will fold without a fight than rightfully defend themselves there.

yorkie2

Strider590 wrote: »

Sounds like somebody gets a Christmas bonus if they meet their fine target's.

Pointless post and untrue for 3 reasons:
1) It's not a fine;
2) FGW guards do not have targets; and
3) FGW guards do not get commission on unpaid fare notices. (They only get commission on fares they actually collect)