Using Someone Else’s Freedom Pass: Penalties and Help

Using Someone Else’s Freedom Pass: Penalties and Help

Transport for London · Freedom Pass · Criminal Defence · Updated June 2026

Using someone else’s Freedom Pass on TfL: the three prosecution routes, why this matters more than standard fare evasion, and what the 10-day deadline actually means.

The Freedom Pass is not an ordinary ticket. It is a social benefit — funded by London councils and issued personally to eligible residents aged 60 and over, or to disabled Londoners who qualify. Using it without entitlement is treated by TfL as fraud, not as a ticketing error. The prosecution consequences, the charges available, and the defence options are materially different from any other kind of fare evasion.

Received a Verification Letter from TfL? The response deadline is typically 10 days. Call Shella Makwana before you write a word: 07534 193797

1. Why Freedom Pass cases are treated differently

Three structural features separate Freedom Pass misuse from standard Oyster card cases.

The financial value is the full fare, not a differential. A standard Oyster misuse case involves a partial underpayment — using the wrong ticket, underpaying by a zone. A Freedom Pass provides completely free travel. Every journey made on a borrowed pass represents the entire fare as a loss to TfL and to the London councils that fund the scheme. In a case involving multiple journeys over weeks or months, that cumulative value can be substantial — and magistrates are informed of it.

The pass carries a photograph. Freedom Passes include a photograph of the registered holder. A Revenue Protection Officer who stops a passenger and sees a visible mismatch between the cardholder’s photograph and the person presenting the pass has unambiguous photographic evidence of misuse — a stronger evidentiary foundation than most other fare evasion scenarios. The photograph also supports the Section 5(3) dishonesty argument: if you could see the photograph was not yours, TfL will argue you knew the pass was not yours.

TfL has three prosecution routes, not two. Standard fare evasion involves a choice between Byelaw 18 (strict liability) and Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (dishonesty). For Freedom Pass cases, there is a third route: Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 — fraud by false representation. TfL uses the Fraud Act in cases involving deceased holders’ passes, sustained deliberate misuse, or cases where the defendant affirmatively represented themselves as the entitled cardholder. The Fraud Act carries materially more serious consequences than either of the other routes.

2. The three prosecution routes in plain terms

Railway Byelaw 17(1) — strict liability. No proof of intent required. The offence is complete when you travel using a pass issued to another person. Not recordable on the Police National Computer. Generally does not appear on Basic or Standard DBS checks, though it can appear on Enhanced checks at the Chief Constable’s discretion. This is the charge for cases where the circumstances suggest accidental or opportunistic use rather than deliberate fraud.

Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 — dishonesty. TfL must prove you intended to avoid payment. A recordable dishonesty offence on the Police National Computer. Appears on Standard and Enhanced DBS checks for up to 11 years. Triggers mandatory disclosure to the FCA, GMC, SRA, NMC, GDC, Bar Standards Board, and other professional regulatory bodies. Creates immigration consequences under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules for visa holders and those applying for ILR or British citizenship. This is the charge in the majority of Freedom Pass misuse cases where TfL considers the use to have been deliberate.

Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 — fraud by false representation. Used for the most serious cases: deceased holders’ passes used after death, sustained deliberate misuse over months, or cases where the defendant actively misrepresented themselves as the entitled cardholder. Triable either way — it can go to the Crown Court as well as the Magistrates’ Court. Maximum sentence on indictment: ten years’ imprisonment. In practice, first-offence Freedom Pass cases under the Fraud Act result in fines and costs at the Magistrates’ Court rather than custody, but the collateral consequences — DBS, regulatory, immigration — are the most severe of the three routes.

3. The Verification Letter — what it is and what to do

The Verification Letter arrives from TfL’s Investigations, Appeals and Prosecutions team, usually 2-8 weeks after the incident. It is not a fine. It is TfL’s formal invitation for your account of the incident before a charging decision is made. The response deadline is typically 10 days.

The letter matters for three reasons. First, anything said in the response becomes part of the prosecution file if the case proceeds — a poorly drafted response containing admissions that were not made at inspection, or language that implies prior knowledge of the misuse, can move TfL from Byelaw 17(1) to Section 5(3) based on the content of your own letter. Second, the Verification Letter stage is the point at which TfL has the discretion to issue a Formal Warning rather than proceed to prosecution — and that discretion is far more readily exercised where the response is formally drafted, engages with the legal test, and presents compelling mitigation. Third, missing the deadline removes this option entirely and moves the case directly to the charging decision without your input.

A Formal Warning from TfL is the optimal outcome in most first-offence Freedom Pass cases. It is an internal administrative record — not a criminal conviction, not a PNC entry, and not visible on any DBS check. For regulated professionals, it produces no mandatory disclosure obligation. For visa holders, it produces no immigration consequence. It is, in effect, the matter being resolved without entering the criminal justice system at all.

A response that simply apologises — “I am sorry, I was in a rush, I did not realise it was wrong” — is a full written admission of the offence without engaging the legal argument for a warning. TfL’s Prosecutions team has seen thousands of these. They are not persuasive. The response needs to do three things: address the evidential basis, present the mitigation specifically relevant to the Code for Crown Prosecutors public interest test, and propose a resolution that TfL can formally accept.

4. The common scenarios — honest assessment

Used a parent’s pass with their permission, once. The most common scenario. Permission does not create a legal entitlement — the pass is non-transferable regardless of the cardholder’s wishes. The permission is, however, relevant to culpability and to the public interest argument. A first-offence single-journey case with parental consent, by a person of good character with no prior record, produces a strong Formal Warning argument at the Verification stage.

Used a parent’s or spouse’s pass multiple times before being detected. Multiple journeys are treated as evidence of a pattern of deliberate misuse. Section 5(3) is the near-certain charge. Settlement requires full financial restitution of every journey plus costs, and a compelling professional impact argument. The quality of the Formal Warning argument depends on how the misuse is framed — the difference between “this was a persistent pattern of fraud” and “this was a period of misuse during a documented personal crisis” is significant, and the evidence package needs to support the latter if that is the truth.

Accidentally used a parent’s pass — own card also in possession. The strongest position. If your own valid Oyster or contactless card was also in your possession, the subjective dishonesty limb of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 is genuinely arguable — you had no financial motive to use a pass that was not yours. Journey history from your own card, bank records, and evidence that both cards were kept together provide the factual foundation for a compelling public interest argument.

Used a deceased parent’s pass after their death. Freedom Passes are cancelled automatically on the holder’s death, but the cancellation depends on notification to the issuing council. Until notification is made, the pass continues to work at barriers — the card itself gives no visible indication that it has become invalid. Bereaved family members who use the pass in the period between the death and formal notification frequently do so without realising the card is void. The bereavement context, combined with the absence of any financial dishonesty (the pass would have been free travel for the holder anyway), produces a strong Formal Warning argument. See our Senior Railcard bereavement guidance for the parallel analysis.

Found a pass and used it. The most serious scenario. Using a found pass rather than handing it to station staff or the police engages both theft by finding under the Theft Act 1968 and fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006. Do not draft a Verification Letter response in this scenario without legal advice. Every word of the response matters.

5. How TfL detects Freedom Pass misuse

TfL’s detection capability has expanded significantly since the 2025 enforcement expansion documented in the BBC’s fare evasion reporting. Freedom Pass misuse is detected through three principal mechanisms.

At-barrier inspection. The most immediate route. A Revenue Protection Officer identifies a mismatch between the pass photograph and the person presenting it, or requests the PIN associated with the pass and the defendant cannot provide it. This typically produces an immediate interview under caution at the station.

Journey pattern analysis. Every Freedom Pass generates a complete gate-tap history linked to the registered cardholder’s account. TfL’s investigation team identifies patterns inconsistent with the registered holder — consistent use at times or stations that do not match the holder’s known travel, or passes used simultaneously at two locations. This method produces the largest volume of cases, often months after the misuse, when the defendant assumes the matter has been forgotten.

Registered holder complaint or notification of death. Where the cardholder reports journeys they did not make, or where a death is registered and the relevant council notifies TfL, an investigation begins. In the death scenario, TfL’s records show continued use after the date of death — that combination of a deceased holder and continued gate-tap activity triggers an immediate investigation into who was using the card.

6. The Brohiri ruling and what it means for your defence

The January 2026 ruling in Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v Charles Brohiri at Westminster Magistrates’ Court confirmed that non-lawyer TfL employees have lawful authority under Criminal Procedure Rules 46.1(2) to commence SJPN proceedings. Technical challenges to the validity of proceedings based on who issued the paperwork are no longer viable.

The practical consequence for Freedom Pass defendants is that the defence must be substantive. The argument is not about the procedure used to bring the case — it is about the evidence of intent and the public interest in proceeding. That is exactly what a properly constructed Verification Letter response addresses: the Ivey subjective dishonesty question, the Code for Crown Prosecutors proportionality test, and the specific consequences of a conviction for this defendant.

7. What happens if you do not respond

TfL’s Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy (November 2025) is explicit: non-response is treated as having no valid explanation and escalates to prosecution. The next document you receive will be a Single Justice Procedure Notice — a formal criminal charge processed by a single magistrate in a closed session. If you do not respond to that within 21 days, or if you click the guilty option on the online portal without understanding the consequences, a criminal conviction is recorded on your permanent record.

Non-response also closes the Formal Warning option permanently. TfL does not revisit charging decisions after the SJPN stage in cases where the defendant failed to engage at the Verification stage. The 10-day response window is the only realistic opportunity to influence the charge.

8. Case studies

Names and identifying details changed for confidentiality.

The junior barrister. Used her mother’s Freedom Pass on two occasions while her own contactless card was being replaced following fraud on her account. TfL issued a Verification Letter alleging Section 5(3). A dishonesty conviction would have been reported to the Bar Standards Board and would have affected her pupillage application. We submitted evidence of her own card’s fraud report, the bank’s replacement card timeline, and specific representations on the BSB’s character assessment framework. TfL issued a Formal Warning. Pupillage application proceeded.

The skilled worker visa holder. Used his father-in-law’s Freedom Pass on five occasions while visiting from abroad. Caught at inspection at London Bridge. TfL alleged Section 5(3). A conviction would have been assessed under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules at his upcoming ILR application. We assembled a full account of his visa history, the family context, a restitution offer for all five journeys, and formal representations on the disproportionate immigration consequences of proceeding. TfL settled out of court. ILR application approved six months later.

The recently bereaved daughter. Used her late mother’s Freedom Pass on three occasions in the six weeks following her mother’s death. The pass had continued to work at barriers because the cancellation notification had not yet been made to the issuing council. We provided the death certificate, demonstrated that the pass itself gave no visible indication of invalidity, and argued the public interest case for a Formal Warning on the basis that any criminal outcome would compound the harm to a person already dealing with significant personal loss. TfL issued a Formal Warning.

The NHS nurse. Used her husband’s standard Oyster by mistake — she had left her own at home. The pass was not a concessionary card, which made the Byelaw 17(1) route the more likely charge. We submitted evidence of her own registered card’s journey history showing consistent prior use, confirmation that both cards were kept together, and NMC good character evidence. TfL accepted a Formal Warning.

The City analyst. Multiple journeys detected through TfL’s journey-pattern analysis over a six-week period — he had been using his partner’s 60+ Oyster regularly. Section 5(3) was the charge. We provided full restitution of every journey, bank statements confirming his own income (removing any financial motive argument), character references from two colleagues, and a specific submission on the FCA Fit and Proper consequences of a dishonesty conviction. TfL agreed to an out-of-court settlement. No prosecution. FCA authorisation maintained.

9. Frequently asked questions

Is using someone else’s Freedom Pass more serious than using someone else’s Oyster card?

Yes, for the structural reasons set out above. The full-fare value of every journey, the photograph evidence of knowing misuse, and the availability of the Fraud Act 2006 route all make Freedom Pass cases more serious in TfL’s enforcement framework than standard Oyster misuse. TfL is more likely to pursue Section 5(3) in Freedom Pass cases than in Oyster cases where the evidence of deliberate intent is less clear-cut.

Can TfL cancel my parent’s Freedom Pass because I used it?

Yes. TfL’s conditions allow for cancellation of a Freedom Pass where misuse is established — regardless of whether the registered cardholder authorised the use. A well-managed Verification Letter response can sometimes preserve the registered cardholder’s pass, because TfL’s investigation is directed at the person who used it rather than the cardholder. Where the cardholder themselves facilitated the misuse, cancellation is more likely.

What is a TfL Formal Warning and does it appear on a DBS check?

A TfL Formal Warning is an internal administrative outcome stored on TfL’s enforcement database, typically for 12 months. It is not a criminal conviction. It does not create a Police National Computer entry. It does not appear on any level of DBS check — Basic, Standard, or Enhanced. It does not trigger mandatory disclosure obligations to professional regulatory bodies. It is the best realistic outcome in a first-offence Freedom Pass case.

I already responded to TfL myself and admitted the misuse. Have I damaged my case?

Possibly, but not necessarily fatally. An admission in the Verification Letter response is one piece of evidence. The public interest argument — your character, the consequences of a conviction for your career or visa, the isolated nature of the incident — can still produce a Formal Warning or settlement even where an admission has been made. Contact us before TfL makes its charging decision, which typically takes 2-4 weeks after the Verification Letter response deadline.

Will using someone else’s Freedom Pass affect my visa or ILR application?

A Section 5(3) or Fraud Act conviction creates a serious suitability concern under Part 9 of the Immigration Rules and affects the Good Character requirement for ILR and British citizenship applications. A Formal Warning or out-of-court settlement produces no conviction and therefore no immigration disclosure obligation. For full detail see our Fare Evasion and UK Visa guide.

I pleaded guilty on the SJP portal. Is it too late?

It is significantly harder once a guilty plea is recorded, but not without remedy in every case. Under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, it may be possible to apply to reopen the case where the conviction was unjust or where you did not understand the consequences of the guilty plea. Contact us immediately — before any sentence is finalised.

What does a total resolution cost?

Our legal fees for Verification Letter representation and settlement or warning negotiation in a Freedom Pass case: £360-£1,500 depending on the number of journeys and complexity. TfL’s settlement figure (where applicable): the full value of the journeys made on the pass plus administrative costs, typically £250-£700 for first-offence cases. Total range: £610-£2,200. Compare this to the lifetime career cost of a Section 5(3) dishonesty conviction — for a regulated professional, that cost is orders of magnitude higher.

Call Shella Makwana before the 10-day deadline: 07534 193797 — confidential, no obligation, 4-hour response.

Further reading

• Fare Evasion Solicitors — Main Guide
• TfL Fare Evasion Defence
• Using Someone Else’s Oyster Card
• Using a Partner’s 60+ Oyster Card
• Using Someone Else’s Senior Railcard — Bereavement Cases
• Fare Evasion and DBS Check Impact
• Fare Evasion and UK Visa / Immigration Impact
• SJPN Fare Evasion Guide — 21 Days to Act

External resources

• TfL Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy (November 2025)
• Section 2 Fraud Act 2006
• Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889
• Code for Crown Prosecutors
• Freedom Pass — London Councils

---

Written and approved by Shella Makwana, Criminal Defence Solicitor | 25+ years’ experience | SRA Regulated (No: 651072) | Makwana Solicitors Limited, Devonshire House, 582 Honeypot Lane, Stanmore, HA7 1JS | Page last updated June 2026

Notice: Informational Content Disclaimer

The content provided on this website, including articles, blog posts, and other informational materials, is intended for general informational purposes only. It is not intended as, and should not be considered, legal advice.

Visitors to this website should be aware that the information presented here is not a substitute for seeking legal advice from a qualified solicitor or legal professional. Each individual's legal situation is unique, and the information provided may not be applicable to specific circumstances.

If you require legal advice or have specific legal questions, we encourage you to contact us directly. Our experienced team of solicitors is here to assist you with your legal needs and provide tailored advice to address your concerns.

Please be advised that any communication through this website, including the use of contact forms or email, does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this website. To establish a solicitor-client relationship and discuss your legal matters in detail, please contact us for a consultation.

We strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, but we make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information contained on this website. We shall not be liable for any reliance placed on the information provided herein.

Thank you for visiting our website. We look forward to the opportunity to assist you with your legal needs.