Inspector asks where you're going?

geordie_taxi

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I'll say it slowly for you....

If you have a valid ticket you cannot be prosecuted.

I really like ur condescending style its so prevalent in ur posts

but the average joe public can and will make mistakes

take a journey from Birmingham Stn to London Terminals, u can have Anytime,Off Peak, Super Off Peak, Carnet Twelve, Saturday Travelcards then theres the route via London midland or via virgin trains or via chiltern trains or Advance tickets valid on a certain train at a certain time/date

bit of a minefield for a ill informed passenger especially if they buy online then if a grumpy hector thinks 'their at it' then it cud lead to a byelaw 18 offence

timbo58

!!!!!!.
Them and Us is alive and well on this thread.
!!!!!! Ticket staff are the same as you & me, a little courtesy goes a long way, why get stressed out about it.

Kernel_Sanders

Stigy wrote: »

Worth pointing out that Byelaws are still criminal offences, just no recorded conviction on the PNC upon successful prosecution.

But presumably still have to be declared if asked for on job or visa applications.

BTW, is 'Hector' CRS for 'Hector's House'? If so, I'm still none the wiser.

timbo58 wrote: »

!!!!!!.

Didn't know he had a middle name. It's not 'Hector' by any remote chance, is it?

Stigy

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

But presumably still have to be declared if asked for on job or visa applications.

Yes, theoretically. Although with no record on the PNC, I'd imagine there's no paper trail. If you are found out though, you'll have questions to answer no doubt.

Altarf wrote:

"out of court settlements" or bribe not to be prosecuted, it seems a thin line from the information provided in those forums.

I struggle to think of any other circumstance when a someone with the power to prosecute a crime will take cash not to proceed to court, *and* keep the cash for themselves.

"Mr Smith, you have been caught doing 35 in a 30, but would you like to pay £100 into the Police tea club and we will say no more about it".

Regarding settlements, it's an acceptable practice and amounts to no more than the reasonable costs incurred by the TOC in processing the matter. It's not a bribe or extortion or whatever, and the TOC doesn't profit and they'll be awarded the same costs at court when they win anyway (unless they're cheeky with their costs). The DVLA do it for all the time, asking for £30 within two weeks or £80 after, if neither offer is acceptaed, they'll see you in court. Also, TV Licencing act in this way too, which seems reasonable to me!

What I will advise is, if offering to settle out of court, even though you can do so right up you the court date, the costs incurred in summonsing someone to court and requesting witnesses to attend etc will bump up the settlement amount.

Stigy

Altarf wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to explain why this person with a valid ticket is being threatened with prosecution.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=79850

Because it isn't valid now it's been altered?:D

Joking aside, if the RPI believes an offence MIGHT have been committed, they are allowed to report the facts to their Prosecutions Department. It's for the court to decide whether any wrongdoing occurred, and if the defendant is genuinely not guilty, then they should plead Not Guilty, as this is their chance of appeal to all intents and purposes.

timbo58

To be fair IME a prosecutions manager will not take forward to court anything he believes is not a fairly watertight case.
Why would he? It would be a waste of his time and possibly make him/her look less than competent in front of a bench who may well be the regular magistrates at that court.

Just as importantly the TOC will IME judge the prosecution manager/department on his performance -s/he doesn't need duff cases to spoil this.

IME the RP department will look at each case -1st time offenders for relatively minor offences and those that are less than 100% guaranteed successful prosecutions in their considered opinion along with those that the inspector possibly believes have mitigating circumstances will be offered the chance of settling out of court.
IME 90%+ take this offer, if they don't then the cases are considered again as to how successful they are really likely to be and then either referred to court (around 90% of the remainder) or a 'no further action' decision is made.

geordie_taxi

Stigy wrote: »

Regarding settlements, it's an acceptable practice and amounts to no more than the reasonable costs incurred by the TOC in processing the matter. It's not a bribe or extortion or whatever, and the TOC doesn't profit and they'll be awarded the same costs at court when they win anyway (unless they're cheeky with their costs).

i fort the court awarded the train company the fare evaded and reasonable costs. any actual fine goes to the court. so those out of court settlements i c on the foamers forum seem a very lot more than just fare evaded + costs but then again every little helps with the shareholders profits/staff pay rises

Stigy wrote: »

The DVLA do it for all the time, asking for £30 within two weeks or £80 after, if neither offer is acceptaed, they'll see you in court. Also, TV Licencing act in this way too, which seems reasonable to me!

it is an establishment bribe. ie we have the law to back us so if u dont want a criminal record. pay us lots of money and well go away.

geordie_taxi

timbo58 wrote: »

To be fair IME a prosecutions manager will not take forward to court anything he believes is not a fairly watertight case.

hence why u only answer ur name and address as most prosecutions the evidence is provided by the revenue blokes mg11 statement ie the loaded questions asked. that r used to incriminate yourself.

timbo58 wrote: »

Why would he? It would be a waste of his time and possibly make him/her look less than competent in front of a bench who may well be the regular magistrates at that court.

Just as importantly the TOC will IME judge the prosecution manager/department on his performance -s/he doesn't need duff cases to spoil this.

also is the bad publicity angle. swt were made to look like a right bunch of flyby night barrack room lawyers by this incompetent mess

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9968430.Magistrate__in_despair__as_South_West_Trains_blunders_derail_nine_prosecutions/

Stigy

geordie_taxi wrote: »

i fort the court awarded the train company the fare evaded and reasonable costs. any actual fine goes to the court. so those out of court settlements i c on the foamers forum seem a very lot more than just fare evaded + costs but then again every little helps with the shareholders profits/staff pay rises

The fine goes to the government/court system, but the costs and compensation (fare avoided) go to the train company as these have been incurred by the company in bringing the case to court etc. These costs would be the same(ish) as those asked for as a settlement, although if they've summonsed witnesses etc, could be slightly higher. The fine is irrelevant as far as settlements go, as only the court issues these on a guilty verdict. It'll be 'cheaper' to settle for the defendant...unless they're clearly not guilty.

Altarf

Stigy wrote: »

Regarding settlements, it's an acceptable practice and amounts to no more than the reasonable costs incurred by the TOC in processing the matter. It's not a bribe or extortion or whatever, and the TOC doesn't profit and they'll be awarded the same costs at court when they win anyway (unless they're cheeky with their costs).

So if the train company will receive the same amount of money (in costs and compensation) when the person is convicted in court, what advantage is there to them in accepting a payment not to go to court? They may as well let every case go through and receive payment that way, as well as deterring others due to the increased number of public prosecutions, rather than secret deals.

Or is it they they will only take a bribe when they are not 100% sure of their case?