Suddenly got terrifying legal letters re: train penalty fare!

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Contains_Mild_Peril wrote: »

I don't understand how they arrived at that figure? The hypothetical £60 would be "prosecution costs" which would only apply if the case went to court, and the original "fare avoided" is £53.00. I'm not sure how it works (we don't have penalty fares here in Scotland) but the letter should clarify exactly what you're being charged for.

Go on then, it is correct, a hypothetical figure. It is their offer to settle out of court though.


Of course, OP can go to court, could end up with a criminal record, and a fine of £1,000

Cornucopia

Offer to settle? It's a scam!

The £60 is entirely hypothetical and should not be paid on principle.

It's an unattractive feature of MSE/the Internet that when someone genuinely if possibly naively wants to stand up against something that they believe is unfair gets shouted down and abused like this.

The smart response in the OP's situation is to pay the £53. The principled response is to challenge them in Court (being prepared for the possibility of losing and having to pay much more than £53).

Is there anything more to say?

For anyone who has an issue with the potential failings of the Railcard system then let the Rail companies fix it. Make it so that the card (or some code number derived from it) has to be presented at the point of purchase of any tickets. There's way too much of this "we could have stopped this problem using a more sensible approach, but we chose not to and now wish to criminalise someone" on the part of big companies.

timbstoke

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Go on then, it is correct, a hypothetical figure. It is their offer to settle out of court though.

The point is, the "prosecution costs" don't exist yet - they haven't prosecuted him, and the letter clearly states that £60 is what they will ask the court to award in prosecution costs if the case goes that far - i.e. the full amount of costs. Adding £60 in costs at this stage is therefore clearly entirely disproportionate, and OP would be perfectly within his rights (or would have been, a month ago) to say "Here's your £53, prosecution costs are not relevant so will not be paid." A better approach might be "Here's £58 for the original debt and the proportion of your costs so far"

If it then went to court, his defence would be that he has paid, and has evidence of doing so. That would be a point of fact, and the court would be unlikely to make an award of costs, because the original case shouldn't have made it that far.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Correct, the £60 is hypothetical. It is their offer to settle out of court, and this, plus the penalty fare is less than the level three standard fine. OP can of course ignore this, and they have stated they are. We await their campaign to hit my Facebook.

But to high horse, get a criminal record, and a fine of up to £1,000 on top, which would you do?

wiogs

Glasseye wrote: »

Hello! Thanks for your input.

I appreciate you trying to help, but you seem to have very wrongly assumed that I intentionally travelled without my Network Railcard. Why have you assumed that?

I thought I had it with me (99% of the time, I do)

Regarding "fare evasion" I PAID the price I was supposed to. The only thing I did wrong is surely failing to check that I had my railcard...

Just a thought - Why do thousands of websites/services (such as Spotify) allow you to enter you discount details (eg. NUS card number) once, then give you a discounted price forever? Imagine Spotify asked you to show your NUS card ever time you played a song! How is this different? It would be totally effortless for every train company to check (via the web - without any human work) that you have indeed purchased the relevant discount railcard.
My opinion is that they choose not to, in order to make money.

Unless you guys can convince me otherwise very soon, I'll be resisting payment and making a campaign out of this which I intend to go national.
I'll spend the best part of a month getting people involved because it's not fair, and I don't care about rules as much as I care about what's fair. That's how I work, not sure about you?

If you think I'm missing something, please let me know! I'm still open to changing my perspective.

I too look forward to this campaign and all the publicity it will achieve.

I think it is fair that someone who breaks/chooses to ignore the rules is punished. Perfectly fair and reasonable.

Exactly what has happened to you.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP will now interrupt for the hard of reading.

OP, a fare dodger, October 21st, last, jumped a barrier and did not have the correct ticket and travelcard for their journey from London to Brighton. On being caught, handed a notice, detailing appeals procedure etc., they gave out their name and mother address. They then buried they head in sands on Brighton front until a recent visit to their mother. OP's mother, being a kindly soul, handed OP some letters that had come for him over the intervening weeks, including a nice letter from the Train Company, saying that they were considering taking OP to court and here is our offer to settle this matter now. OP then appeared on this internet site, and wanted advice.

Some advice given here in was not to OP's liking, and being of a character of esteem and having many friends on Facebook, has taken leave of this, to pursue an social media campaign against this ridiculous penalty fare, and intended hypothetical proscution costs.

At this time, my Facebook account, while having many people pass on sheep like moments such as changing their wall or photo, has yet to bear witness to this campaign!

I understand that the appeal had to be made within 21 days, and this expired on 11th November last!

Cornucopia

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

BoP will now interrupt for the hard of reading.

OP, a fare dodger, October 21st, last, jumped a barrier...

Did he say he did that? Must have missed it.

To be fair, I think we all understand the scenario. The only questions are the OP's ultimate culpability (whether it would be defendable in Court) and whether the imposition of "Prosecution Costs" for a prosecution that has not happened yet is acceptable.

Unfortunately the previous story of the Banker fare evader who was able to settle out of court with the rail company because he had the means to do so simply demonstrates that this is not about justice, but about money.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Cornucopia wrote: »

To be fair, I think we all understand the scenario. The only questions are the OP's ultimate culpability (whether it would be defendable in Court) and whether the imposition of "Prosecution Costs" for a prosecution that has not happened yet is acceptable.

The choice is with OP. I get the feeling that OP is going to ignore the letter in the hope it fades away. Ignorant in blissful harmony of some Buck of Face campaign. They had the chance to appeal until 11th November 2014.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Unfortunately the previous story of the Banker fare evader who was able to settle out of court with the rail company because he had the means to do so simply demonstrates that this is not about justice, but about money.

Yes, the fare dodging banker did settle out of court, but the campaign to find out where and who they were led ultimately to the loss of his job, due to the credibility of their status.

mgdavid

Hilarious; another princess with an attitude who thinks the world should revolve around them, and that rules are for other people.
Please keep us updated!

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

mgdavid wrote: »

Please keep us updated!

Just checked my Buck of Face, nope, no campaign there!