Fare dodging to court within 2 weeks (West Briton article)

[whole diary]

[LiskeardRich]

Just reading my local West Briton and within the court sections a number of people in court for fare evasion.
What caught my eye was how quick from offence to court.
Offences that happened on 15th April in court on 23rd April. This surprised me how quickly it went through the courts as I believed it to be a longer process to get a hearing date submit paper work etc.

http://www.westbriton.co.uk/COURT-LISTINGS-appeared-Truro-magistrates-April/story-26379733-detail/story.html


It doesn't surprise me to see lots of Cornwall prosecutions. i use the train 10-12 days a month for return journeys to work when I don't need the car, plus some leisure journeys and I seem to be encountering revenue protection nearly every day over the last couple of months, having never recalled seeing revenue in the last 3 years. In fact rarely having my ticket checked in that time.

[ChrisB]

Possible if they are pleading guilty to the charge.

[JayMac]

The dates are the hearing dates/date of conviction, not the date of the offence. Some entries show that offences were committed in October and November 2014.

It's apparent that FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s prosecutor has bundled a whole slew of cases together to be heard the same day, April 15th. Quite common to do so as it keeps costs down. All the prosecution have to be sure they do is lay the cases before the court within six months of the date of the offence.

[TaplowGreen]

...........I believe it also worked out cheaper this way and a considerable saving was also made by obtaining a "group fare" for those convicted to be transported to Australia in one batch.........they will spend the next 7 years "Building a Greater Western Australia"

[thetrout]

Oh... wow...

I recognise some of those names from my dubious secondary school years.
For all the wrong reasons... Karma is a wonderful, wonderful thing...

...Even if it does take 10 years!

[jester]

Cripes! Some hefty fines.......

To be fair, the revenue guys have only been opperational here in Cornwall in the
lat 3/4 years to my knowledge,
This shows they are valuable and paying their way i suppose!

[bobm]

In the sense that they are acting as a deterrent, yes but only the compensation goes to FGW^▸ (First Great Western). The fines go the state.

[Brucey]

In the sense that they are acting as a deterrent, yes but only the compensation goes to FGW^▸ (First Great Western). The fines go the state.

Hence why "fixed penalties" are becoming popular (e.g. http://www.northernrail.org/travel/fines-and-penalties).  My understanding is this ^80 penalty has absolutely no legal standing as a penalty.  Rather, it is an out of court settlement.  In fact, I am surprised it can legally be called a "fixed penalty" as these are quite specific things defined in law.

[thetrout]

Interesting read that Brucey. I have some issues with it though.

2. Formal warning

We have taken the more lenient step of issuing you with a warning. You may also be requested to pay an outstanding fare and an administrative charge of ^30.

Well a ^30 "Administrative Charge" is in itself a penalty, so how can it enforceable if you are just being warned. It also says "may" be charged. So if I may play devils advocate, it won't be charged if it gets referred to prosecution? You cannot warn someone and then charge them for the privilege... That is a contradiction.

If I ever found myself in this situation, I wouldn't pay an "Administrative Charge" for a warning. You cannot have it both ways.

The website then goes on to say:

Following the date of the letter any further occurrence or your failure to respond to this letter will result in the matter being referred for prosecution.

Proof of posting is NOT proof of receipt. Letters get lost all the time in the postal system. Why would one need to respond to a warning anyway? So if you don't respond to the letter then you will get the case referred to prosecution? So if again I may play controversially and ask "What defines a response?" signing for a recorded delivery letter? a grovelling apology? a sob story? Or just an "OK"

4. Failure to purchase
You have travelled from a station where ticket purchasing facilities were available and functional at the start of your journey. You have 21 days in which to pay the outstanding fare (only) shown on the notice.

No mention of a administrative charge here? Simply pay the fare due and case closed? Seems very reasonable to me if you owe the fare in question.

6. Penalty parking notice
This notice carries a ^50 penalty to be paid within 14 days following its issue. Failure to make payment in the specified timescale may result in you incurring an increase in the penalty and an administration fee. Failure to respond will result in the registered owner's details being requested from the DVLA^▸ (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency).

Again, what is it with this "may result" nonsense?! Now looking at this it appears that Northern are using their own Parking Enforcement teams rather than a Private Parking Company...

Failure to pay the Penalty after notification will result in the matter being referred for prosecution.

So they're using the Byelaws then?

Oh and look at this............



Loving that 0844 number!

[LiskeardRich]

The website then goes on to say:

Following the date of the letter any further occurrence or your failure to respond to this letter will result in the matter being referred for prosecution.

Proof of posting is NOT proof of receipt. Letters get lost all the time in the postal system.

Although this is true, in the finance industry at least proof of postage is satisfactory proof a company has acted correctly should a client complain to the ombudsman about not receiving a letter.

[JayMac]

Proof of posting can be deemed as proof of receipt if there is legislation requiring documents be sent by post.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

May not be applicable in the instance thetrout highlights but there isn't a blanket 'proof of post is not proof of receipt' rule.