TfL Fare Evasion Solicitor — London Underground & Elizabeth Line

Transport for London has an active prosecution policy for fare evasion across the London Underground, Elizabeth line, London Overground, DLR, Trams, and bus network. Unlike most National Rail operators, TfL prosecutes under railway byelaws (specifically Byelaw 18(1) and 17(1)) rather than section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

The critical difference is that byelaw offences do not require the prosecution to prove intent. TfL does not need to show that you intended to avoid paying — only that you did not pay. This is described as a strict liability offence.

A conviction under TfL’s byelaws is generally not recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC) in the same way as a conviction under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. As a result, a byelaw conviction will not normally appear on a basic DBS check. However, it may appear on an enhanced DBS check in certain circumstances, depending on the nature of the role applied for and the specific offence.

This is different from National Rail operators who prosecute under section 5, where a conviction does appear on the PNC and on a basic DBS check. David advises on the specific DBS implications for each client’s circumstances.

Common situations on the TfL network include: using another person’s 60+ Oyster card, Freedom Pass, or Zip card; failing to tap in or out at barriers; travelling beyond a zone covered by a pay-as-you-go cap; using a student Oyster card without entitlement; not purchasing a ticket before boarding on services where facilities were available; and failing to produce a valid ticket when asked by revenue protection staff.

TfL may write to you inviting a response before issuing a summons, or may issue a summons or Single Justice Procedure Notice directly. In some cases involving longer-term misuse, TfL may conduct a voluntary interview under caution. David advises on the appropriate response at each stage.

Even where TfL has a clear case, it retains discretion not to prosecute where representations demonstrate that prosecution is not in the public interest. David drafts representations to TfL addressing the specific circumstances of the allegation, personal mitigation, and the proportionality of prosecution given the consequences for the individual.

TfL’s prosecution team considers representations both before and after a summons is issued. David advises on the realistic prospects of success in each case.