Leading lawyers for fare evasion seeking to avoid a criminal conviction
Over the years we have dealt with a vast number of clients who have been prosecuted for relatively minor offences but for whom the consequences of a conviction are enormous. We regularly act for professionals and have many years experience of representing doctors, medical professionals, other lawyers, teachers, FCA regulated professionals, and high net worth individuals.
Often defendants attend court assuming that they must enter a guilty plea and then deal with the potentially far reaching consequences. They may feel that they have to plead guilty quite simply because they are guilty. Even when there appears to be evidence of guilt, it may be possible to argue against prosecution and ask for a view to be taken on the basis of public interest grounds.
Transport For London (TFL) has an aggressive prosecution policy when it comes to fare evasion. At Olliers we regularly see cases of clients being summoned to court over unpaid fares for very low amounts. The most common cases involving fare evasion involve the use of another person’s Oyster Card to obtain the benefit of reduced or free travel. Other examples include travelling on a ticket which does not cover the entire journey, not tapping in or simply being without a valid ticket for the journey.
Detailed and sympathetic representations should be considered by TFL and other rail authorities in all situations where the defence make such representations. They can make the difference between a conviction, perhaps for a minor offence, but with unintended yet life altering consequences and no conviction at all.
At Olliers we’ve a proven track record of defending fare evasion allegations. We’re often instructed by people who may not dispute that they’ve committed the offence but stand to face disastrous consequences if they’re convicted. This includes people in regulated professions such as solicitors, doctors and finance professionals. The strict liability nature of fare evasion offences means they’re notoriously difficult to defend at trial, so we take a different approach. We seek to head off a prosecution at an early stage by submitting detailed representations to the rail provider that the matter should not proceed to court. We’re often successful in persuading the rail provider that a prosecution is not in the public interest and that the matter should instead be dealt with by a warning and a financial settlement. If you’ve received an initial letter from a rail provider or a court summons contact Olliers today and our specialist team will be able to provide you with the advice that you need.
What is fare evasion?
A person might be accused of travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare if they:
- Did not purchase a ticket and subsequently travel without a ticket;
- Intentionally avoid a ticket inspector;
- Travel on a ticket issued to another person such as a student Oyster Card, Freedom Pass or other type of discounted travel card;
- Intentionally travel further than the ticket allows them to;
- Deliberately pass through ticket barriers without paying; or
- Travel in a first-class carriage, when only purchasing a standard ticket.
What happens if you’re accused of fare evasion?
Transport for London and other rail authorities usually write to an individual suspected of fare evasion, asking them to respond to the allegation. They will then consider whether to prosecute. If they do decide to prosecute, you should receive a summons or postal requisition in the post, providing a date when the matter will be heard at court. Often these cases are dealt with by way of Single Justice Procedure (SJP). The documentation will ask whether a person intends to plead guilty or not guilty and will usually provide an option to enter your plea by post.
In some cases where longer term fare evasion is alleged, for example using a Freedom Pass over an extended period of time, Transport for London may seek to conduct a voluntary interview under caution. We always advise seeking legal representation for such interview and Olliers are able to attend such interview with you.
Which fare providers do Olliers have experience in dealing with?
- Transport for London (Docklands Light Railway, Tube, London Overground)
- Transport Investigations Limited (acting as agents for Chiltern Railways, Avanti West Coast and Transport for Wales)
- Chiltern Railways
- Govia Thameslink Railway
- South Western Railway
- Southeastern
- Northern Rail
- Southern
Will I obtain a criminal record for fare evasion?
If you are charged with evading a TfL fare, it is a “strict liability” offence. That means your intention makes no difference, for example, if you say you made a mistake and you intended to pay. If you plead guilty or are found guilty it will result in a criminal record.
TfL prosecutes under railway bye-laws. Convictions under bye-laws are not recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) and so will not normally show up on a standard DBS Check. However, they may still show on an enhanced disclosure.
If you were travelling on a non-TfL rail service, you are likely to be prosecuted under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. To successfully prosecute, the rail company will need to prove that you intended to avoid paying the fare. So, if you have a ticket for at least part of your journey or offered to pay the fare when you were stopped, it would help your case. However, some rail companies do prosecute under railway bye-laws.
A criminal conviction can negatively impact on employment opportunities, particularly for those in regulated sectors or with professional regulators and can impact visa applications to some countries.
How can Olliers Solicitors help me?
Olliers have significant experience of representing those accused of fare evasion. We have a high level of success in disposing of such cases by way of out of court settlements and thus avoiding a criminal record for our clients.
We can assist with the following:
- Consideration of documentation and advice
- Representations to TFL/other fare authorities to settle out of court and thus avoid prosecution
- Attending an interview under caution
- Dealing with a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) , summons or postal requisition to attend court
Fees
We are usually able to agree a fixed fee for this type of work to cover drafting representations to the relevant fare authority and will be able to provide an accurate quotation for your case if you contact us.
Olliers do not undertake such work on a legally aided basis and can only be instructed on a privately funded basis.
Testimonials
- “Big thank you to Ruth and Team at Olliers! Fantastic service from them. Ruth was confident, knowledgeable but most importantly very compassionate to the sensitive problems we had. I would have no problem recommending Ruth to anyone. Thank you Ruth for all your help, I sincerely mean that!”
- “Thank you so much. I turned to Olliers when I was very worried about how to proceed. The team was fantastic and suggested a course of action which was implemented very quickly. The case was resolved in a very short space of time with a fantastic outcome. I am delighted with the outcome and wholeheartedly recommend Olliers. Thank you again.”
Recent Cases
2024 – An NHS doctor received a letter informing her she was being investigated for an offence on the TfL network. She was alleged to have used her brothers student pass for discounted travel. Representations were submitted arguing a prosecution was disproportionate when considering the potential negative impacts on the doctor and wider society. TfL agreed to dispose of the matter by way of a warning letter.
2024 – A neuro-divergent University student stopped attempting to board a bus using an under 16’s pass on the TfL network. Representations were submitted suggesting a prosecution was not in the public interest due to the students reduced culpability and the isolated nature of the offending. TfL agreed a prosecution was not in the public interest and issued a warning letter.
2023 – A Legal Director at a Solicitors firm was summonsed by Northern Rail for fare evasion, failing to provide his details and using abusive language. Representations were submitted on the grounds there was no realistic prospect of conviction for the non fare evasion matters and that the fare evasion prosecution was not in the public interest. Northern Rail agreed to an out of court settlement covering their legal costs and the value of the fare avoided.
- Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) v K 2023 – Social work student summonsed to court in relation to failing to upload Young Person’s railway after being stopped by revenue protection officer travelling without the same. Representations submitted to GTR and case subsequently withdrawn by the rail provider on the grounds it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution.
- Northern Rail v H 2023 – Trainee Solicitor convicted of fare evasion offence without his knowledge after his details were provided by a person stopped without a ticket. Conviction set aside after Statutory Declaration was heard at court. Representations submitted to the rail provider with evidence that demonstrated the client did not undertake the journey alleged. Case withdrawn by the rail provider who agreed there was no realistic prospect of conviction.
- TfL v D 2023 – Professional athlete summonsed after being stopped by a Revenue Protection officer having used an Elite Athlete’s pass that they were no longer entitled to. Detailed and sympathetic representations submitted setting out the clients personal mitigation. Case discontinued by the prosecution.
- TfL v J 2023 – Commercial solicitor summonsed to appear after failing to purchase a ticket before boarding a train. Offence specific and personal mitigation submitted to the rail provider setting out that a prosecution was not in the public interest. Case withdrawn by the prosecutor.
- TfL v S 2023 – Finance professional summonsed to appear for using a Freedom Pass she was not entitled to on multiple occasions. Representations and supporting evidence submitted to the rail provided. Prosecution initially refused to discontinue the case. Further representations were submitted that resulted in the prosecution agreeing a prosecution was not in the public interest and withdrawing proceedings.
- Chiltern Railway v R 2023 – Undergraduate Student summonsed to court after failing to purchase the correct ticket on two occasions. Successful representations persuaded the prosecution that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the defendant.
- 2022 – A client was stopped by a Govia Thameslink ticket inspector after accidentally travelling on a train further than his ticket allowed. He was summonsed to court. A criminal conviction would have had disastrous consequences for him and his wife. This is because the couple were unable to conceive a child and so they were in the process of adopting through the International Adoption Centre. A conviction would have caused serious difficulties in this. Representations were submitted to Govia Thameslink explaining how the consequences of a prosecution would be disproportionate to the harm that the clients offending had caused. After considering our representations the rail provider discontinued the case.
- 2022 – A law student stopped by a TfL ticket inspector for using his younger sisters (childrens 11-15) Oystercard whilst travelling to his part time job. Subsequent investigation by TfL discovered that the pass had been used for similar journeys on a number of occasions. The client was summonsed to court and sent his own letter apologising and asking not to be prosecuted and this was rejected. Following this he instructed Olliers. We submitted a letter of comprehensive representations and were able to convince TfL it was not in the public interest to prosecute him.
- 2022 – Financial Analyst intern travelled by rail further than her ticket allowed her to do so. She was stopped by a South Eastern ticket inspector who discovered her underpayment and she was subsequently summonsed to court. Olliers were able to head off the prosecution by submitting a detailed and persuasive correspondence to the rail provider, convincing them that the matter could be resolved by the payment of the value of the avoided fare plus any legal expenses.
- 2021 – Client convicted of fare evasion in her absence after summons sent to an old address. Submission of a statutory declaration to the court and representations to the rail authority resulted in the case being re-opened by the court and withdrawn by the rail authority. Case was settled out of court by payment of legal costs to the rail authority.
- 2021 – Representations submitted on behalf of a finance professional followed by a PACE interview resulted in case involving a multiple incidents of fare evasion being settled out of court by payment of costs and value of fares avoided.
- 2020 – Representations against prosecution made to TFL following receipt by our medical professional client of a Single Justice Procedure Notice. TFL discontinued case following consideration of representations drafted by Olliers and client avoided court and a criminal conviction.
- 2020– Representations made to rail authority that the matter should be disposed of by way of out of court settlement. Successful outcome meaning client avoided court and a criminal conviction.
Some frequently asked questions
Don’t panic but do act promptly. Contact a solicitor experienced in fare evasion (like Olliers) immediately: Early legal advice is crucial. Olliers’ team can assess your situation and advise on the best way to proceed. In many cases, we can intervene before the case is listed at court – for example, by contacting the rail company or Transport for London to make representations on your behalf. Acting quickly allows time for us to negotiate or prepare a strong case, potentially avoiding a court appearance altogether. Keep all related documents and evidence: If you have any correspondence (for example, an initial warning letter from the transport authority) or receipts/tickets, gather them for your solicitor. These can be important in building your case or demonstrating that the incident was a one-off mistake.
Early action is key. By contacting Olliers promptly, you give us the best chance to explore alternatives to prosecution – we may be able to persuade the prosecuting authority to withdraw the case or offer a warning instead of pushing forward to conviction.
Yes. Fare evasion is usually prosecuted as a strict liability offence, which means that even if you didn’t intend to dodge the fare, you can still be found legally guilty. Many people are shocked to learn this – for example, failing to tap your Oyster card, travelling in the wrong zone by accident,or using the wrong ticket can all lead to a prosecution, even if it was an honest oversight. The law doesn’t always require the prosecution to prove you meant to evade paying; it’s enough that the fare wasn’t paid or the correct ticket wasn’t used.
However, the circumstances do matter in practice. Don’t be discouraged if you made a genuine mistake. While the technical offence might be made out, Olliers can often argue that a prosecution is not in the public interest for a one-time or accidental incident.
In many cases, especially where there was an honest misunderstanding or another mitigating factor (for example, a medical issue or personal emergency), we can present a compelling explanation to the rail company or court. Prosecutors do have discretion – if we show that you had no intent and highlight your good character, they may agree to drop the case or settle it out of court instead of pushing for a conviction
In short, mistakes happen, and the authorities know this. Our job is to humanise your situation and explain the context. We’ve been successful in preventing charges from proceeding in cases of genuine error. So yes, you can technically be prosecuted for even a mistake – but with professional representation, that outcome can often be avoided.
A fare evasion conviction may sound minor, but it can carry serious consequences:
Criminal Record: You will have a criminal conviction recorded against you. This record can show up on background checks and must be disclosed in many circumstances. For instance, certain employers (especially in regulated professions) and professional bodies may ask about convictions. Even though fare evasion is a low-level offence, it is still a criminal offence – meaning your career or professional standing could be affected. We’ve seen convictions cause issues for people in fields like law, finance, education, healthcare, and security where integrity is crucial
Fines and Costs: The penalty is usually a fine. For a first-time fare evasion through the courts, fines can range up to £1000 depending on the circumstances, though the actual amount will vary. You may also be ordered to pay court costs and a victim surcharge. An early guilty plea typically reduces the fine by one-third, but any conviction will still hit your finances.
Impact on Future Travel and Immigration: Some countries treat criminal convictions seriously. A conviction for dishonesty (which fare evasion can be categorised as) might complicate visa applications or travel to countries like the USA. Likewise, if you ever apply for certain licenses or clearances, a record for fare evasion could raise questions.
Personal and Professional Repercussions: Aside from the official penalties, consider the personal impact. If you work in an industry that requires trust (finance, legal, etc.), you might face disciplinary action or difficulty in future job applications. If you’re a student or hold a professional title, a conviction might need to be reported to universities or regulatory bodies. It can be embarrassing and stressful to explain a conviction to employers or agencies.
Overall, while no one goes to jail for a first-time fare evasion the knock-on effects can be significant and long-lasting. That’s why we emphasise trying to avoid a conviction if at all possible. With skilled legal help, the aim is to spare you these consequences by preventing a conviction from occurring.
Yes – in many cases, it is possible to avoid a conviction and criminal record for fare evasion, especially if you handle the situation proactively. Olliers Solicitors specialise in fare evasion matters with the goal of keeping our clients’ records clean whenever possible. Once you bring your case to us, we move quickly to engage with the prosecuting authority (be it Transport for London or a train operating company). We often prepare detailed, sympathetic representations on your behalf – essentially, a letter or communication that tells your side of the story, provides context and urges the matter be dealt with informally rather than in court.
We highlight any mitigating factors (for example, your good character, an explanation of how the incident occurred, apologies and payment of any fare due) and often reference why a prosecution isn’t necessary or fair in your case.
Our track record in fare evasion cases is that a huge number are resolved out of court. This might mean the rail company agrees to withdraw the prosecution if you pay a modest administrative penalty and the outstanding fare or simply issues a formal warning. In many instances, our clients never have to attend court at all – the case is concluded with a letter of warning or a settlement, resulting in no conviction, no criminal record. We have a high success rate with this approach because we know exactly what information these companies look for and how to persuade them.
It’s worth noting that most of our clients do end up avoiding a criminal record. Our firm’s approach is very much focused on prevention – stopping a prosecution in its tracks. Olliers has significant experience and a proven strategy for fare evasion matters and we’re proud that we’ve saved many people from the stigma and consequences of a conviction. When you consult us, we will give an honest appraisal of how likely it is in your case, and then we’ll do everything we can to achieve that outcome.
Olliers has handled numerous fare evasion cases with excellent outcomes including many challenging situations. Here are a few examples of past cases and their resolutions to give you an idea of our experience:
- NHS doctor accused of using a sibling’s student travel pass – Result: case resolved with a warning letter, no prosecution. We demonstrated it was a one-off misunderstanding and not deliberate dishonesty.
- Neurodivergent student caught using an under-16 pass – Result: prosecution dropped by the rail company – We provided medical/contextual evidence and the authority agreed that a court case wasn’t appropriate.)
- Solicitor wrongly convicted after someone else provided that solicitor’s details when caught – Result: the wrongful conviction was set aside (overturned). (We took on the case and proved our client had been a victim of identity misuse, clearing their name.)
- Finance professional using a relative’s Freedom Pass (free senior citizen travel card) – Result: prosecution withdrawn after our further representations. Prosecutor agreed to an out-of-court disposal in light of the client’s circumstances and remorse.
These examples illustrate that no case is hopeless. Whether it’s averting a prosecution before it happens or overturning an unjust outcome, we have the know-how to achieve the best result. Olliers brings not only legal expertise but also a compassionate understanding of how a fare evasion allegation can happen to anyone. Our priority is to protect your future by resolving these matters in the most favourable way possible – ideally keeping your record clear, as we did in the cases above.
Contact our Fare Evasion Lawyers
Please contact our new enquiry team to discuss your case and how Olliers can assist you by completing the form below, emailing info@olliers.com or telephoning 020 38836790 (London) or 0161 8341515 (Manchester).
Complete the form below and we will contact you
Manchester
Head Office
- 0161 8341515
- info@olliers.com
- Fourth Floor, 44 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 5GP