Transport For London

Transport for London work in a very particular way for their prosecutions.

We deal with all Transport for London cases which tend to be-

Purchasing tickets shorter than your journey.
Purchasing only the start and end of a journey without a ticket covering the middle part of the journey.
Using a railcard with your ticket which you do not hold.
Having no ticket at all.
Misuse of a discount card such as freedom pass, child oyster or staff pass.
Tailgating.
Paying when challenged, meaning you purchase a ticket when you see an inspector.

The majority of our clients have offended a high number of occasions without being caught previously.

The Process

When you are stopped by an inspector from Transport for London, you will be told that you will be written to. They will take your name and address and check your identification documents.

You will receive a letter from them informing you that you have committed an offence and asking you to inform them of any circumstances they should take into account. Transport for London do prosecute all clients unless they give very good reasons to provide a warning which would prevent court proceedings. They are difficult to persuade but between 2021 and 2024 we had a 75% success rate. We have many years of carefully crafting responses to TFL to obtain warnings for our clients so they do not have convictions or court proceedings. We are well known to Transport for London having dealt with them for years and are familiar with best arguments.

If you are unsuccessful, you will receive a court summons known as a single justice procedure notice.

The single justice procedure notice itself will charge you with Byelaw 18 (1) of the Railway Byelaws made under Section 219 and Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, in accordance with the Railways Act 2000, in accordance with the Railways Act 2005, in that you entered a non-compulsory ticket area for the purpose of travelling with the Railway without having a valid ticket entitling you to travel. There is often a second charge stating that under Byelaw 18 (2) of the Railway Byelaws made under section 219 and section 20 of the Transport Act 2000, in accordance with the Railways Act 2005, in that you failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to so by an authorised person.

These offences are strict liability meaning intention is irrelevant. If you fail to have a valid ticket or hand it over when asked to do so, you are likely to be found guilty.

The consequences of being found guilty are that you can have a criminal record for one year after which it is spent. You can also be fined up to a £1,000. You would also need to pay Transport for London’s legal costs and any outstanding tickets. This often means being found guilty is more expensive than obtaining a warning which crucially avoids a criminal record.

Samir Moftah has dealt with fare evasion cases for over ten years and has settled over 1,000 fare evasion cases from May 2021 to June 2024 alone, let alone the many years of successful settlements for clients prior to this. We deal with Transport for London cases in very high volumes and have an excellent track record of helping our clients avoid a conviction. Samir is a Director and has been a qualified solicitor since 2010. You will deal with Samir only throughout your case and he will give your case his full attention.

Samir represents regulated professionals such as lawyers, doctors, those in finance jobs, accountants and for the Civil Service. Samir also represents clients who are students or who reside in the UK with a visa or are applying for citizenship. Samir is trusted to deliver and has an excellent track record of success and enjoys excellent relationships with all the train companies, prosecutors, fraud departments in the country. Samir has hundreds of 5 star reviews from past clients and enjoys helping clients to ease their stress, take control of their situation and ultimately resolve matters so that they never have to worry about a prosecution in the future.

Case Studies

CASE STUDY 1- Our client had a visa to work within England. He also worked within a profession which if convicted would have resulted in him being struck off. Through our submissions and careful construction of the evidence, we were able to persuade TFL to withdraw the prosecution of our client.

CASE STUDY 2- Our client had used a freedom pass for a number of times. Their career required international travel and as such a conviction would have been devastating. We were able to obtain evidence and construct persuasive submissions which resulted in TFL agreeing to withdraw the prosecution.

CASE STUDY 3- Our client had used a freedom pass several times. Our client instructed us to represent him at Court. We were able to make representations which persuaded the court to sentence him by way of a conditional discharge, meaning this was spent sooner.