Fare Evasion Solicitors - Avoid a Prosecution

Many people are surprised to learn that travelling without a valid ticket is a criminal offence. Receiving an investigation letter or notice of prosecution from a train company can therefore be extremely worrying, particularly if a criminal conviction could affect your career, professional registration or immigration status.

Train companies increasingly examine passengers’ previous ticket purchases and journey histories. What begins with a single invalid ticket can therefore develop into allegations involving repeated journeys. A genuine mistake or misunderstanding can still lead to an investigation, while the consequences of prosecution may be far more serious than the financial penalty itself.

It is important to know that a prosecution and criminal conviction can often be avoided through an out-of-court settlement. Our fare evasion solicitors can contact the relevant prosecution team, prepare detailed representations and provide supporting evidence explaining why your case should be resolved without court proceedings. We can intervene before you receive an investigation letter, after you have responded yourself or once proceedings have been issued.

Our fare evasion team represents clients throughout England and Wales and is led by Nathan Seymour-Hyde, a Partner recognised as a Recommended Lawyer by the Legal 500. We believe he is the only solicitor in England and Wales specifically recommended for fare evasion defence.

0333 240 7373 | [email protected]

What counts as fare evasion?

If you are unable to show a valid ticket covering all or part of your journey, you may be accused of fare evasion. This includes travelling without paying the correct fare, whether deliberately or inadvertently. It is sometimes described as ‘fare dodging’, or by the method used, such as ‘short-ticketing’ or ‘tailgating’.

Fare evasion is commonly prosecuted in one of two ways:

Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 applies to intentionally travelling without having paid the fare. Companies such as Avanti West Coast, Transport for Wales through Transport Investigations Limited, and Southeastern commonly prosecute under this legislation.

Railway Byelaws 17 and 18 concern entering a compulsory ticket area or boarding a train without a valid ticket. These offences do not require proof of an intention to avoid payment, although specified exceptions apply. TfL, Govia Thameslink Railway, West Midlands Trains and Greater Anglia commonly prosecute under the byelaws.

You may be prosecuted for:

• using another person’s ticket or pass, including a Zip Oyster photocard, Student Oyster photocard, Freedom Pass or 60+ Oyster card;
• travelling on a ticket that does not cover the full journey (short-ticketing, sandwich-ticketing or doughnutting);
• boarding a train without first purchasing a ticket;
• applying a Railcard discount to which you are not entitled;
• travelling on the wrong ticket type, such as a child ticket or 16–17 Saver ticket;
• editing or altering a ticket or Railcard; or
• making false Delay Repay claims.

What Happens if You’re Accused of Fare Evasion?

If you are suspected of fare evasion, the train company, TfL or its prosecution agent will usually write asking you to confirm your details and respond to the allegation. This may be called a verification letter, investigation letter or, in the case of Govia Thameslink Railway, a Notice of Intended Prosecution.

You may also receive a letter unexpectedly after suspicious patterns are identified in your ticket purchases, journey history or Delay Repay claims.

The letter normally gives you an opportunity to explain what happened, provide mitigation and ask for the matter to be resolved without court proceedings. You should avoid submitting a rushed response before taking advice. What you say can affect whether you are prosecuted or offered an out-of-court settlement.

Can Fare Evasion Be Settled Out of Court?

Yes. We have many years’ experience in dealing with the various train companies and have an excellent track record of settling matters out of court. We can make an out of court settlement offer on your behalf. This includes drafting powerful and persuasive arguments to convince the company not to prosecute you.

We also have direct lines of communication with the relevant train prosecutors, which can greatly speed up the process, ensuring your matter is resolved as quickly as possible.

Recent Case Studies

Sandwich tickets: Our client was travelling home on a ‘sandwich ticket’ which did not cover the full journey. There were no barriers at his destination station, so the ticket inspector was immediately suspicious of the explanation given that it was a simple mistake. Our client had written to Transport Investigations Limited (acting as agents for Transport for Wales) to ask them not to prosecute but they responded that they were pressing ahead with the court case, which was only one week away by the time that Reeds were instructed. We submitted representations and the matter was settled out of court.

TFL bylaw offence: Our client was a medical student, who used his sibling’s 11-16 Zip Card to travel on the London Underground with a 50% discount. TFL wrote to him to verify his details, which would normally lead to a prosecution. Reeds were instructed to write representations to avoid a criminal conviction. We submitted a detailed letter with more than 10 accompanying documents and TFL agreed to issue a Warning Letter instead of a prosecution.

Reused tickets and false details: Our client had travelled by train over an 8-month period, reusing tickets multiple times. When challenged by the inspector, he panicked and provided false details, which is itself a separate byelaw offence. We carefully addressed these issues on his behalf and successfully negotiated an out of court settlement.

Delay repay false claims and interview request: Our client was contacted by a train company, accusing him of making fraudulent claims through the Delay Repay scheme. He was also invited to attend a voluntary interview under caution. Reeds Solicitors intervened on his behalf, resulting in the interview being cancelled while written representations were submitted instead. The matter was ultimately settled out of court.