'Hedge fund manager in ^42,550 train fare dodge' - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Either way for a 50 mile trip each way, we are looking at around 50p a mile, which is extortionate in my view.
The government want people out of cars onto public transport, yet the cost is uncompetitive,how can public transport be more expensive than a single person driving.

Sadly this is fairly standard during the peak in the South East.  E.g. Havant to London is 47p per mile for an anytime single.

You are absolutely right about the cost of driving.  It doesn't seem right that a more fuel efficient form of transport is actually costing the end user more to run.

The poverty stricken south east are obviously thought to be in need of subsidised fares paid for by the hugely wealthy south west. If you want a fare that is extortionate then an anytime single from Swindon is ^60.50 that's 78.5 pence per mile!

[ChrisB]

Yep - Fares into London from north of the Thames (incl GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)) are more pence per mile than those on the south side - go figure!

[Rhydgaled]

Either way for a 50 mile trip each way, we are looking at around 50p a mile, which is extortionate in my view.
The government want people out of cars onto public transport, yet the cost is uncompetitive,how can public transport be more expensive than a single person driving.

Sadly this is fairly standard during the peak in the South East.  E.g. Havant to London is 47p per mile for an anytime single.

You are absolutely right about the cost of driving.  It doesn't seem right that a more fuel efficient form of transport is actually costing the end user more to run.

Despite what they say, the main parties (Lab and Con, not sure about the Lib Dems) sadly don't actually seem to care about getting people out of cars onto public transport. You only have to look at all the bypass and extra lane schemes which would provide for and promote increased car use to realise that.

Going back to the railways, it isn't just about price though. Rail fares into London may be extortionate, but in London rail is still competitive against the car for reasons other than price. In many other areas though more needs to be done to ensure that the car becomes uncompetitive compared to the rail offering (whether on price or other factors).

[LiskeardRich]

Southeastern state that all fare evaders have an opportunity to settle out of court. Therefore regardless of the amount involved treating equally comes to the front. I'm assuming there would be no way they'd get such a figure taking it to court, as they couldn't proof beyond reasonable doubt that he had been evading for 5 years, but an assumption based on the end of his previous ticket.

They probably should be thanking him for highlighting a flaw in their revenue protection, and I'd have a guess many more will get found doing the same thing.

[ellendune]

Southeastern state that all fare evaders have an opportunity to settle out of court. Therefore regardless of the amount involved treating equally comes to the front. I'm assuming there would be no way they'd get such a figure taking it to court, as they couldn't proof beyond reasonable doubt that he had been evading for 5 years, but an assumption based on the end of his previous ticket.

They probably should be thanking him for highlighting a flaw in their revenue protection, and I'd have a guess many more will get found doing the same thing.

Yes but the flaw is that only a very rich person has the odd £42k to hand to settle the matter.  Therefore rich people get off and poor people end up in court!

Surely the answer is that the court should be empowered to require the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to receive compensation.  That appears to be the reason SE chose to settle out of court - that way they got the cash not HM Treasury!

[Cynthia]

You are absolutely right about the cost of driving.  It doesn't seem right that a more fuel efficient form of transport is actually costing the end user more to run.

Despite what they say, the main parties (Lab and Con, not sure about the Lib Dems) sadly don't actually seem to care about getting people out of cars onto public transport. You only have to look at all the bypass and extra lane schemes which would provide for and promote increased car use to realise that.


[/quote]

Further announcements from the IPCC yesterday, featured on the news should provide further proof (if any were still needed) that the politicians really need to increase the amount of action taken to reduce carbon emissions if we are to avoid further climatic disasters.  Yet, as this quote  above shows, most parties still obviously consider it political suicide to even try to get us out of our cars and onto public transport.  Why does the treasury not subsidise public transport, to the extent other nations do???  It would be a start. 

[JayMac]

I've got a hedge fund.

I'm saving up for a man to come and prune and pollard the one at the foot of the front garden.

[LiskeardRich]

Southeastern state that all fare evaders have an opportunity to settle out of court. Therefore regardless of the amount involved treating equally comes to the front. I'm assuming there would be no way they'd get such a figure taking it to court, as they couldn't proof beyond reasonable doubt that he had been evading for 5 years, but an assumption based on the end of his previous ticket.

They probably should be thanking him for highlighting a flaw in their revenue protection, and I'd have a guess many more will get found doing the same thing.

Yes but the flaw is that only a very rich person has the odd ^42k to hand to settle the matter.  Therefore rich people get off and poor people end up in court!

Surely the answer is that the court should be empowered to require the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) to receive compensation.  That appears to be the reason SE chose to settle out of court - that way they got the cash not HM Treasury!

But in court he would have been fined nowhere near ^40k, as the court can only impose a percentage of weekly income. The TOC only had hard evidence of one occasion and maximum fine impossible by the court of ^1000, so Southeastern knew it was in their best interest to accept the settlement. The maximum fine imposable by a magistrate court is either ^5000 or 500% of weekly income whichever is lower. I see it unlikely to have ever made crown court.

[Southern Stag]

It potentially could have reached the Crown Court, if Southeastern had sufficient evidence to prosecute him for fraud for the whole 5 year period. In reality Southeastern probably only had enough evidence to prosecute him for one of the two specific railway offences, and it's unlikely it have been for the whole 5 year period.

[SDS]

Firstly any type of deliberate fare evasion is unacceptable.

The mags court would only have been able to fine the guy up to a level 3 fine for each 'proven' offence. Now the way I read it, the only offence which could be proven under RRA1889 would be the day he got stopped. The rest would be circumstantial and not beyond reasonable doubt. Now SarfEastern prob could have dug out CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele-Vision) and trawled through the 14 days buffer and then claimed the guy did the same thing, but again this would have been circumstantial.

Digging through the OysterCard records maybe would have dug up an interesting history of ^7.20 exit charges, but again the guy could have claimed on each occasion, oh sorry forgot to touch in at XYZ.  Cant prove otherwise.

The real reason the guy paid up I reckon, is because they didn't want the suspicion hanging over them. In the big city world even unproven allegations can break a career.

[Chris from Nailsea]

The real reason the guy paid up I reckon, is because they didn't want the suspicion hanging over them. In the big city world even unproven allegations can break a career.

... so why did (s)he even try it on in the first place? 

[John R]

I'm sure a case could have been constructed if they had wanted to.

Did he work at X for that time? Fairly easy to substantiate.
Did he live at Y for that time? Again, relatively easy. (If he didn't where did he stay, and how could he prove it.)
He clearly didn't drive all the way, as the Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) touch outs prove that.
What evidence could be produce to prove how he did travel from home to work (and thus disprove the accused's view).
If need be, mobile phone evidence could be used to prove that his journey took him along train lines, not roads.
Did he send emails, make calls in the hour before arriving at work.

Yes, it may have cost more to prove, but the message would have been much better, and may in the long run have raised more revenue by discouraging fare dodgers. Instead the message is that if you get caught you can pay it back and get away with it.

[LiskeardRich]

Firstly any type of deliberate fare evasion is unacceptable.

The mags court would only have been able to fine the guy up to a level 3 fine for each 'proven' offence. Now the way I read it, the only offence which could be proven under RRA1889 would be the day he got stopped. The rest would be circumstantial and not beyond reasonable doubt. Now SarfEastern prob could have dug out CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele-Vision) and trawled through the 14 days buffer and then claimed the guy did the same thing, but again this would have been circumstantial.

Digging through the OysterCard records maybe would have dug up an interesting history of ^7.20 exit charges, but again the guy could have claimed on each occasion, oh sorry forgot to touch in at XYZ.  Cant prove otherwise.

The real reason the guy paid up I reckon, is because they didn't want the suspicion hanging over them. In the big city world even unproven allegations can break a career.

Am I right in believing a level 3 fine is 300% of weekly income?

[ChrisB]

Innocent until *proven* guilty - each day that will apply.

The accused can remain silent & doesn't need to *prove* anything - just *disprove* only where *proof* has been supplied "beyond reasonable doubt".

And the magistrate would impose one fine, regardless of the number of days *proven*.

[Southern Stag]

Although nowadays if the accused chooses to remain silent the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference from that silence. It wouldn't be enough evidence to convict by itself but it adds to the weight of the evidence as a whole.