Using Someone Else’s Monthly Travelcard on TfL — Defence Guide
Using Someone Else’s Monthly Travelcard on TfL — Defence Guide
TfL Monthly Travelcard Misuse | Criminal Defence
Using someone else’s monthly travelcard on TfL is prosecuted as fare evasion. The 10-day response window is shorter than most people realise.
A monthly travelcard is issued to a named holder for their own use. Using a friend\’s, partner\’s, or colleague\’s travelcard — even with their permission, even for one journey — is a breach of TfL\’s conditions and grounds for prosecution under Railway Byelaw 18 or Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. TfL\’s letter typically gives 10 days to respond. That window is the point at which out-of-court settlement is most achievable.
Confidential consultation: 07534 193797
Using someone else’s monthly travelcard sits at the intersection of two distinct legal frameworks. TfL\’s Byelaw 18 makes it a strict liability offence to travel without a valid ticket — and a travelcard issued to another person is not valid for your journey. Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 adds a dishonesty element for cases involving deliberate intent to avoid payment. Which charge applies, and how seriously TfL pursues it, depends on the number of journeys, the circumstances, and whether the investigation team considers the use to have been deliberate or opportunistic.
This page explains the specific legal position for monthly travelcard misuse, the three most common fact patterns, how TfL investigates and prosecutes, and the practical steps to take before the response window closes.
In this guide:
The Legal Framework — Byelaw 18 vs Section 5(3)
Monthly travelcards on TfL are zone-based season tickets. They entitle the named holder to unlimited travel within specified zones for the calendar month of issue. TfL\’s conditions are explicit that the travelcard is personal to the holder and non-transferable.
Byelaw 18 — strict liability: Under Railway Byelaw 18 of the Railway Byelaws 2005, a person commits an offence by travelling on a railway without a valid ticket. A monthly travelcard issued to another person is not a valid ticket for the user\’s own journey. This is a strict liability offence — TfL does not need to prove intent. The maximum fine under Byelaw 18 is £1,000.
Section 5(3) RoRA 1889 — dishonesty: Where TfL considers the use to have been deliberate — particularly where multiple journeys are detected — the charge is escalated to Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This requires proof of intent to avoid payment, applying the Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 dishonesty test. A Section 5(3) conviction is a recordable dishonesty offence — it appears on DBS checks and must be disclosed to professional regulators and the Home Office.
The critical distinction: a single opportunistic journey where the defendant used a colleague\’s card left behind in the office is more likely to attract Byelaw 18. Five or six deliberate journeys on a friend\’s card while they were abroad — as in the Rail Forum case we have seen — is more likely to attract Section 5(3). The charge determines the career consequences, not just the financial penalty.
The Three Common Fact Patterns
Pattern 1 — Friend left travelcard behind
A friend, flatmate, or colleague left their monthly travelcard at your address. You used it for one or a small number of journeys without asking. Typically detected when TfL cross-references the travelcard usage against the registered holder\’s travel patterns, or at a revenue protection officer inspection.
Prosecution risk: Medium — Byelaw 18 most likely for single journey; Section 5(3) if repeated
Pattern 2 — Friend\’s card used while they were away
A friend or partner went abroad or was otherwise not using their monthly travelcard. They gave you permission to use it while they were away. You used it multiple times — in the Rail Forum case cited above, five or six times before being stopped at South Kensington.
Prosecution risk: High — Section 5(3) likely given deliberate repeated use
Pattern 3 — Partner\’s travelcard used regularly
Used a partner\’s or spouse\’s monthly travelcard on an ongoing basis — a domestic arrangement where the couple shared a single travelcard between them. Detected through pattern analysis showing the card being used at times inconsistent with the registered holder\’s working pattern.
Prosecution risk: Very high — sustained deliberate misuse, multiple journey evidence
How TfL Investigates Travelcard Misuse
TfL\’s revenue protection capability has significantly expanded following the 2025 BBC documentary. Monthly travelcard misuse is now detected through three principal methods:
CCTV cross-referencing: when a travelcard is flagged as potentially misused, TfL reviews CCTV footage from the station where the card routinely taps in. If the person shown on CCTV does not match the registered holder\’s photo on the card, the case is referred for investigation.
Journey pattern analysis: monthly travelcards produce a complete journey history. TfL\’s analytics platform identifies cards used at times inconsistent with the registered holder\’s known pattern, used simultaneously at two locations, or used by someone whose physical description (height, build, clothing patterns captured on CCTV) does not match the card holder.
Revenue protection officer inspection: the most common detection method. An RPO stops a passenger, asks to see their ticket, and identifies that the name on the travelcard does not match the passenger\’s identity documents. The passenger is taken aside, details are taken, and a letter follows within 4-8 weeks.
The letter — TfL\’s Verification Letter or Notice of Investigation — is the critical document. In most travelcard misuse cases the letter gives 10 days to respond. This is shorter than the 21-day window on National Rail SJPN cases.
The 10-Day Response Window — What to Do
The 10-day window is the point at which out-of-court settlement is most achievable. Once it closes, TfL\’s prosecution team makes a charging decision. After charge, the procedural options narrow considerably.
The response should not be a simple apology or a request to pay a fine. TfL\’s investigation team is assessing whether to prosecute. The response needs to address the specific grounds on which prosecution would not be in the public interest, citing the Code for Crown Prosecutors Full Code Test. A letter that says “I am sorry, I did not realise it was wrong” does not engage the legal test. A formally drafted representation that addresses the evidential and public interest limbs, presents mitigation, and offers a structured settlement gives the investigation team the justification it needs to resolve the matter without prosecution.
⚠️ If you have received TfL\’s Verification Letter
Do not respond until you have taken legal advice. Admissions made in an unadvised response are part of the prosecution file. The response window is short — call today: 07534 193797
Realistic Prospects for Out-of-Court Settlement
TfL\’s published position — confirmed in its April 2024 FOI response — is that penalty fares are issued “in lieu of conducting a criminal investigation… in circumstances where the offender is considered not to have deliberately set out to avoid the fare and it is their first offence.” Monthly travelcard misuse is treated as deliberate by default, which means penalty fares are not typically offered. Out-of-court settlement requires formal representations to TfL\’s prosecution team rather than the automated penalty fare system.
The realistic prospects depend on the fact pattern:
| Fact pattern | Settlement likelihood | Key argument |
|---|---|---|
| Single journey, first offence, good character | Good | Public interest disproportionality; minimal loss |
| Multiple journeys, first offence, professional consequences | Moderate | Career consequences; immediate cooperation; offer of full recovery |
| Sustained use, repeated journeys | Difficult but not impossible | Full financial recovery offered; exceptional mitigation required |
Frequently Asked Questions
My friend gave me permission to use their monthly travelcard. Is that a defence?
No. The travelcard is issued by TfL to the named holder under terms that prohibit transfer. The cardholder\’s permission to lend the card does not override TfL\’s conditions. The relevant representation is to TfL, not between you and your friend. You were travelling on a travelcard not issued to you — that is the offence regardless of the internal arrangement between you and the card holder.
I only used it once. Will TfL really prosecute?
For a single journey by a first-time offender of good character, prosecution is less likely if the Verification Letter is responded to properly and a settlement is offered. The difficulty is that “only once” is difficult to verify — TfL has the journey history from the card and will know how many times the card was used during the period in question. If TfL\’s records show five journeys and you claim one, that inconsistency damages your credibility in the response.
What happens if I ignore the Verification Letter?
TfL will proceed to prosecution. Ignoring the letter removes the out-of-court settlement option and results in either an SJPN (Single Justice Procedure Notice) or a court summons. Either route produces a public court record. Responding within the 10-day window keeps the settlement option open.
Can TfL prosecute me for my friend\’s travelcard if they are not prosecuting my friend?
Yes. The offence is committed by the person using the card without authority — not by the cardholder who lent it (though the cardholder may face separate action for breach of TfL\’s terms). The prosecution is against you for travelling on an invalid ticket, not against your friend for lending it.
Will this affect my DBS check?
A Byelaw 18 conviction has limited DBS impact and may not appear on Basic checks. A Section 5(3) conviction is a recordable dishonesty offence and will appear on Standard and Enhanced checks. It must be disclosed to professional regulators. Out-of-court settlement produces no conviction and no DBS obligation.
How is using a monthly travelcard different from using an Oyster card?
The legal framework is the same. The practical difference is evidence quality. A monthly travelcard has a named holder on the physical card and is linked to a registered account — identification is straightforward. An Oyster card is also linked to an account but can be unregistered, making identification less immediate. TfL\’s investigation process for travelcard misuse is typically faster because the evidential package is cleaner.
Further Reading
- Fare Evasion Solicitors — Main Guide
- TfL Fare Evasion Defence
- Using Someone Else\’s Oyster Card
- Using Someone Else\’s Freedom Pass
- Using a Partner\’s Oyster Card
- Responding to a TfL Verification Letter
- Fare Evasion and DBS Check Impact
External Resources
- Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889
- Code for Crown Prosecutors
- TfL Travelcard Options and Conditions
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.
