Help - Notice of intention to prosecute

[talltim]

I've not seen GA's TVMs, but if they are anything like Virgin's, they'll make it clear that the tickets are only for use on trains operated by Greater Anglia.

Is there anyone on the forum who can give a better understanding of what GA's TVMs actually do say for these type of ticket? While some people will always try it on, it sounds, by the two recent threads, that they aren't clear enough. They could also be accused of not selling impartially, as they are selling customers a more expensive and restrictive ticket. Its conjecture, but if people are picking the more expensive one, it sounds like the cheaper one is not being clearly offered

 

[BestWestern]

For crying out loud, are you capable of reading what is written?! As far as FCC are concerned, the OP has paid nothing. That's the whole problem. Can I respectfully suggest that unless you have anything sensible to add, you refrain from adding any more guff to this thread? The OP came here for advice on how to deal with this unfortunate situation, not to be a part of some agenda that you and one or two others have. You really would do well to remember that.

I think you would do equally well to remember that open forums are there for discussion. The OP has had a great deal of advice, what we are now having is commonly known as conversation. If you find the content of the thread disagreeable you can always refrain from viewing it.

There are times when individuals may wish to do something other than comply with unfair rulings simply because that is what is expected of them. There are instances where people may wish to hear varying views and thoughts on their predicament, rather than just be told "tough luck" by those within this forum who seem to feel that the public should 'do their homework' before travelling, rather than be free to arrive with the expectation that the experience may actually be straightforward, and that train operators might actually be customer friendly :roll:

 

[Ferret]

I think you would do equally well to remember that open forums are there for discussion. The OP has had a great deal of advice, what we are now having is commonly known as conversation. If you find the content of the thread disagreeable you can always refrain from viewing it.

There are times when individuals may wish to do something other than comply with unfair rulings simply because that is what is expected of them. There are instances where people may wish to hear varying views and thoughts on their predicament, rather than just be told "tough luck" by those within this forum who seem to feel that the public should 'do their homework' before travelling, rather than be free to arrive with the expectation that the experience may actually be straighforward and that train operators might actually be customer friendly :roll:

In which case, create a discussion thread to do just that. People come here for advice - some are referred here from other fora like Money Saving Expert. I and a few others give up our time free of charge to help people such as the OP who come on here looking for assistance. I have no problem with doing that - I do it because I have knowledge which may be of use. What I then object to is having to argue and argue and argue with people who then post the same old things about how unfair it all is, ad nauseum, in every single thread such as this. It's getting tedious. And some of what is posted runs a real risk of getting an OP into more trouble. So, I will not 'wind in my neck' as you put it - I do not want to have my time and advice wasted because somebody who doesn't understand the issues at hand properly wants to chip in. I'm sorry to be so forthright on this, but it really is important - to me at any rate - that this forum offers consistent and accurate advice. We can discuss among ourselves the rights and wrongs of the processes at our leisure - when I might just keep my neck wound in

Best wishes to you,

Ferret

 

[34D]

For crying out loud, are you capable of reading what is written?! As far as FCC are concerned, the OP has paid nothing.

Are we 100% sure that FCC receive none of the revenue from the ticket in question under ORCATS? It may seem obvious, but I would never assume anything.

 

[Ferret]

Are we 100% sure that FCC receive none of the revenue from the ticket in question under ORCATS? It may seem obvious, but I would never assume anything.

For a ticket marked Greater Anglia Trains only? No ORCATS entitlement to FCC for any revenue there I'm afraid.

 

[jon0844]

Why doesn't FCC offer its own tickets then? Could it price match the GA price and still leave a more expensive any permitted ticket?

FCC would presumably make more money from a cheaper ticket that it keeps all the money from, than an any permitted that it shares?

 

[Ferret]

Why doesn't FCC offer its own tickets then? Could it price match the GA price and still leave a more expensive any permitted ticket?

FCC would presumably make more money from a cheaper ticket that it keeps all the money from, than an any permitted that it shares?

There's a rule stating that if you are the lead operator on a flow, then you can't have your own TOC-specific tickets. I assume that FCC are the lead operator for Cambridge-London, and Anglia have less services.

 

[yorkie]

A few points:

• In general a TOC that is the lead operator (FCC in this case) cannot set a walk-up TOC-specific fare, as ferret says.
• TOC-specific fares such as this will not go into ORCATS and it is of no concern to the customer anyway
• Revenue does not determine validity so that discussion doesn't actually have any relevance to the OP
• The passenger did not hold a valid ticket for the journey made (and any claim to the contrary is false) however it seems inappropriate to me that a Penalty Fare is issued in such a case. Sadly though, the rules do appear to permit this.
• Had the passenger been using a ticket that was for the wrong geographical route, an excess would be applicable. It appears to be an anomaly that is unfair to passengers that a TOC specific restriction is treated so much more harshly
• Many passengers are unfamiliar with TVMs and require help using them to avoid buying the wrong ticket (either too expensive or not with the required validity - or even both).

sudjules - For this case, I am happy to proof read any letter(s) that you wish to send (e.g. to FCC, Passenger Focus, your MP, etc). Please send me a PM if so.

 

[soil]

Why would the Daily Mail be interested? The salient point is that the OP did not have a valid ticket for the journey being made.

He had a ticket from 'Cambridge to London', and he paid more than he needed to and they are trying to prosecute him? And all based on the cryptic 'GRT ANG ONLY' on the ticket. It's absolutely absurd and ridiculous and is just the kind of thing the Daily Mail will lap up. 'Punishing an honest fare-paying passenger for not having a degree in rail ticketing.'

Recent DM rail stories:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-ticket-police-act-like-cowboy-clampers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-select-buy-tickets-rail-watchdog-warns.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arched-family-train-showed-wrong-tickets.html
http://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2...-tape-that-is-choking-the-train-industry.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mplete-simple-round-trip-Leeds-Leicester.html

TBH if I were in this situation I would be quite tempted to turn the tables and 'make an example' out of FCC. It's ridiculous.

 

[OuterDistant]

What I wouldn't give to see FCC trying to explain this to Judge Judy!

 

[jon0844]

Seems to me that there's no chance of any consistency on this either.

The RPI on a Cambridge to King's Cross train could do any number of things;

a) Take pity and, if the train isn't that busy and is non-stop to London, just give a friendly warning and then move on. No harm done if that person isn't preventing others from travelling. Yes, FCC is out of pocket but it's not as if RPIs don't turn a blind eye to more serious fare evasion at times (like a group of kids that took over first class) and FCC has no problem telling staff not to endanger themselves for revenue.

I bet this might be more likely to happen if the victim ticks the right boxes, e.g. flirts with the RPI or is of a certain age.

b) Issue a penalty fare, which in this case would be double the single fare. Allow the person to keep their ticket and get a refund for the mistake made, not withdraw it when it has a value. Yes, it costs the person more in the end, but there's no real harm done and the person knows for next time - like a warning for a first offence (if you can even call it an offence).

FCC has been more than satisfactorily recompensed, especially as there was clearly NO intended fraud - unless people make a habit of paying over the odds to travel on a train.

c) Report the person for a byelaw offence, which is the catch-all and easiest of all now it seems. Before going to court, contact the person (perhaps by phone so it's not recorded) and invite an offer to be made that can keep it away from court.

I am not sure if you can also have;

d) Sell a single ticket at standard price - as I'm not sure if RPIs can sell tickets in such circumstances.

The poor person on the train has no way of knowing what the outcome will be, which in itself is something the newspapers would likely be interested in - if only to hear from FCC what the policy is, and why it can vary depending on who you meet. FCC might argue they have discretion, but there's more to it than that in my opinion.

 

[Ferret]

What I wouldn't give to see FCC trying to explain this to Judge Judy!

Another unhelpful post. But of course, FCC won't be explaining it. The prosecutor will though, and do it quite successfully.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He had a ticket from 'Cambridge to London', and he paid more than he needed to and they are trying to prosecute him? And all based on the cryptic 'GRT ANG ONLY' on the ticket. It's absolutely absurd and ridiculous and is just the kind of thing the Daily Mail will lap up. 'Punishing an honest fare-paying passenger for not having a degree in rail ticketing.'

Recent DM rail stories:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-ticket-police-act-like-cowboy-clampers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-select-buy-tickets-rail-watchdog-warns.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...arched-family-train-showed-wrong-tickets.html
http://travelblog.dailymail.co.uk/2...-tape-that-is-choking-the-train-industry.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mplete-simple-round-trip-Leeds-Leicester.html

TBH if I were in this situation I would be quite tempted to turn the tables and 'make an example' out of FCC. It's ridiculous.

You've not read what went before have you?


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A few points:

• In general a TOC that is the lead operator (FCC in this case) cannot set a walk-up TOC-specific fare, as ferret says.
• TOC-specific fares such as this will not go into ORCATS and it is of no concern to the customer anyway
• Revenue does not determine validity so that discussion doesn't actually have any relevance to the OP
• The passenger did not hold a valid ticket for the journey made (and any claim to the contrary is false) however it seems inappropriate to me that a Penalty Fare is issued in such a case. Sadly though, the rules do appear to permit this.
• Had the passenger been using a ticket that was for the wrong geographical route, an excess would be applicable. It appears to be an anomaly that is unfair to passengers that a TOC specific restriction is treated so much more harshly
• Many passengers are unfamiliar with TVMs and require help using them to avoid buying the wrong ticket (either too expensive or not with the required validity - or even both).

sudjules - For this case, I am happy to proof read any letter(s) that you wish to send (e.g. to FCC, Passenger Focus, your MP, etc). Please send me a PM if so.

I agree with almost all of this. The only reason I mentioned revenue is to explain why FCC are pursuing the matter. Alas this thread is now descending into a rant at FCC who for the umpteenth time *are the wronged party* in all this. Is it possible to split this thread so that people who wish to complain about the system can vent their spleens, and so that that the OP can find the important points on how to resolve this matter without having to wade through page after page of guff?

 

[soil]

Another unhelpful post. But of course, FCC won't be explaining it. The prosecutor will though, and do it quite successfully.

I take it you have case reports on this?

You've not read what went before have you?

I've read it all, thanks. And previous FCC threads.

Honestly I'd be quite p***ed off with this. It wouldn't happen to me since I understand enough at this point to avoid this kind of error, but I can see it happening to my wife, she doesn't understand the TVMs and I'm sure she's not alone, I wonder what proportion of the general population would manage to buy the CORRECT ticket in this situation. You've got Anytime, Anytime GRT ANG ONLY and Super Off Peak. And those are just the single tickets.

Just to add to the Daily Mail angle, the OP here spent more than the cost of a Return ticket even.

Alas this thread is now descending into a rant at FCC who for the umpteenth time *are the wronged party* in all this.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Ferret]

I don't have case reports, but my colleagues do from prosecuting those who declined to pay when confronted with VT only tickets.

And no, it isn't a matter of (my) opinion, it's indisputable fact, which you'd know if you'd read the rest of the thread.

Do you know what - I'm pretty p'd off too. The OP has come here for help, I'm keen to assist in avoiding him/her being prosecuted over what seems to be an honest mistake, and all I've had for my trouble is arguments with you and others. All that needs to happen is for the OP to negotiate a settlement with FCC who are owed the money for the fare. It shouldn't cost 200 quid or more in this instance unlike some of the threads where there has been blatant intent to avoid the fare, and then the OP is free to seek redress from Greater Anglia who actually sold the offending ticket. I'm sure many of us will be happy to help here too.

 

[soil]

I don't have case reports, but my colleagues do from prosecuting those who declined to pay when confronted with VT only tickets.

I imagine the point of sale process is different.

And no, it isn't a matter of (my) opinion, it's indisputable fact, which you'd know if you'd read the rest of the thread.

I already told you I read the thread. It's certainly not indisputable, the OP has been wronged in greater degree at this point IMO.

Do you know what - I'm pretty p'd off too. The OP has come here for help, I'm keen to assist in avoiding him/her being prosecuted over what seems to be an honest mistake, and all I've had for my trouble is arguments with you and others.

You don't have to argue. This is a discussion forum, not a legal website. Nobody is under any kind of obligation here, certainly not you or I. The OP, yes, but beyond that no.

All that needs to happen is for the OP to negotiate a settlement with FCC who are owed the money for the fare. It shouldn't cost 200 quid or more in this instance unlike some of the threads where there has been blatant intent to avoid the fare, and then the OP is free to seek redress from Greater Anglia who actually sold the offending ticket. I'm sure many of us will be happy to help here too.

That's an option certainly.

As I said contacting the media would be more effective than arguing this in court, and it would be damaging to FCC's public image.

You said

"Why would the Daily Mail be interested? The salient point is that the OP did not have a valid ticket for the journey being made. The OP travelled with FCC, but did not hold a ticket entitling travel with that company. The sum that the OP has paid (to Greater Anglia) is totally irrelevant. "

which is a ridiculous statement, considering your references to 'McNumpty' etc., failing to understand the wider perception of the industry/rail ticketing. The fact is that the nuances of revenue going to one TOC rather than another aren't of any interest to anyone beyond a narrow circle of rail nerds, whereas being prosecuted for having bought a more expensive ticket to London than needed is a general pulic interest story.

Clearly such stories ARE of interest to the media, and to politicians, with the likes of McNulty probably not agreeing with the concept of separate TOCs in the first place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They could also be accused of not selling impartially, as they are selling customers a more expensive and restrictive ticket. Its conjecture, but if people are picking the more expensive one, it sounds like the cheaper one is not being clearly offered

Good point.

3rd June was a Sunday.

The Super-Off Peak single has the following restrictions

" Travel is permitted on any train at any time on Saturday, Sunday & Bank Holidays."

The available tickets (prices before discount) are:

Anytime Any Permitted Single £21.20
Anytime Greater Anglia Only Single £19
Super Off-Peak Any Permitted Single £15.90

Therefore the machine should have just sold the Super-off-peak single without offering any choice.

It's clearly incredibly confusing, since 'Super Off-Peak' is meaningless unless you are a rail nerd, likewise, plainly 'GRT ANG TRNSONLY'. I wonder what proportion of the country have even heard of Greater Anglia Trains, let alone would understand what that means.

 

[Daz28]

I don't have case reports, but my colleagues do from prosecuting those who declined to pay when confronted with VT only tickets.

Do we have any evidence of a successful prosecution where the passenger has paid more than the valid fare?

I would hope (but cannot expect) that a magistrate would look very leniently upon a prosecution under such circumstances. It is clearly not in the public interest to penalise the passenger in such circumstances.

 

[Ferret]

I imagine the point of sale process is different.

It isn't. Exactly the same - TVMs. The problem with TVMs is that whoever operates them put their TOC specific tickets at the top. It's wrong wrong wrong, and it needs stopping. And maybe the media is appropriate for this.

I already told you I read the thread. It's certainly not indisputable, the OP has been wronged in greater degree at this point IMO.

Why? The OP has not been convicted as yet, and nor will the OP be if I get my way.

You don't have to argue. This is a discussion forum, not a legal website. Nobody is under any kind of obligation here, certainly not you or I. The OP, yes, but beyond that no.

Is it not right to help people if you can? Remember what I said earlier - I'm on here because I have relevant experience. I spend much of my professional life protecting revenue, it's part of my job. That gives me a huge swathe of knowledge, which can be used on this forum.

I said contacting the media would be more effective than arguing this in court, and it would be damaging to FCC's public image.

Look, if it goes to Court, the OP will lose, and there will be no damage to FCC's reputation. Legally, they are in the right. Going to the press at this stage could just make them dig their heels in to make a point. FCC are not in the wrong here - you can argue to the contrary until you are blue in the face - it does not matter one jot.

You said

"Why would the Daily Mail be interested? The salient point is that the OP did not have a valid ticket for the journey being made. The OP travelled with FCC, but did not hold a ticket entitling travel with that company. The sum that the OP has paid (to Greater Anglia) is totally irrelevant. "

which is a ridiculous statement, considering your references to 'McNumpty' etc., failing to understand the wider perception of the industry/rail ticketing. The fact is that the nuances of revenue going to one TOC rather than another aren't of any interest to anyone beyond a narrow circle of rail nerds, whereas being prosecuted for having bought a more expensive ticket to London than needed is a general pulic interest story.

Clearly such stories ARE of interest to the media, and to politicians, with the likes of McNulty probably not agreeing with the concept of separate TOCs in the first place.

The media have their own agenda - to sell newspapers. I've not made any ridiculous statement - I've merely told you and the rest of the forum exactly how it is. Now, you're entitled to disagree, but it makes no difference to the situation that the OP finds themself in. Remember, Byelaw 18 is law, and is well used law. It does not concern itself with intent. Would you like the OP to martyr themself on this, and be convicted and fined, just because your opinion is that it's all wrong?

Look, I've placed on record that I think a prosecution here is unnecessary. I'm determined that it should be avoided, but that will only happen if the OP pays the fare to FCC. I'm really sorry if that cold hard truth offends you, but that's the reality. Dealing with TVMs is a separate matter. It would make my job far easier if they were dealt with believe me, and maybe with political help, this could well happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do we have any evidence of a successful prosecution where the passenger has paid more than the valid fare?

I would hope (but cannot expect) that a magistrate would look very leniently upon a prosecution under such circumstances. It is clearly not in the public interest to penalise the passenger in such circumstances.

As I've said previously, the key point is that the OP paid Greater Anglia a sum of money to travel on their service. The OP did not hold a valid ticket for travel on FCC. As far as FCC and the Court will be concerned, the fare owing is the SDS for travel on FCC. The amount paid to GA has no relevance to the matter at hand. As far as the legalities go, the OP has paid *nothing*.

 

[island]

To help with the TVM issue there is a nice sticker on SET TVMs at London Bridge and some other stations explaining the limitations of FCC ONLY tickets.

 

[andykn]

FCC should maybe look beyond their immediate desire to punish those who inadvertently lose them revenue. If I get into the wrong taxi having pre booked and pre paid one that's not an offence. Too much adverse publicity in the DM and the TOC's might end up having to prove intent to defraud every time.

 

[Ferret]

FCC should maybe look beyond their immediate desire to punish those who inadvertently lose them revenue. If I get into the wrong taxi having pre booked and pre paid one that's not an offence. Too much adverse publicity in the DM and the TOC's might end up having to prove intent to defraud every time.

So should they turn a blind eye to everyone who uses a GA ticket on their services every time? What other business would do that?! Would Easyjet allow you to use a Ryanair ticket to travel on their Airbus?

 

[exile]

So should they turn a blind eye to everyone who uses a GA ticket on their services every time? What other business would do that?! Would Easyjet allow you to use a Ryanair ticket to travel on their Airbus?

They would check your ticket before boarding though. There would be no question of Easyjet actually prosecuting you in this situation unless they suspected fraud of some kind.

BTW - if FCC have lost out by someone using an invalid ticket - would anyone care to estimate the actually marginal cost of carrying one passenger? £1 perhaps in extra fuel?

 

[Ferret]

They would check your ticket before boarding though. There would be no question of Easyjet actually prosecuting you in this situation unless they suspected fraud of some kind.

BTW - if FCC have lost out by someone using an invalid ticket - would anyone care to estimate the actually marginal cost of carrying one passenger? £1 perhaps in extra fuel?

To the last point - fook knows!

To the first point - as FCC don't have that option, they have to do *something*. Now, in the first instance, in my opinion that should be to sell an SDS. Alas my opinion counts for nothing on this score. They went with the PF as their first option, which I agree with Yorkie is harsh. That was declined by the OP. So - what options are left? Byelaw 18 - which is what they've done. Now, this doesn't change my view that prosecution is OTT - and it can still be avoided.

 

[IanXC]

BTW - if FCC have lost out by someone using an invalid ticket - would anyone care to estimate the actually marginal cost of carrying one passenger? £1 perhaps in extra fuel?

I suppose there could also be a tiny reduction in cost due increased weight improving traction. On a train not approaching capacity I'd say the marginal cost of another passenger is close to zero. Of course if we include the time the RPI spent dealing with the passenger the cost will already be substantial!

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Airline tickets have Ryanair etc in large letters etc on their ticket.TVM's issue a stock railway ticket.
Unlike Ferret, Yorkie, DaveNewcastle etc I am not an expert in this matter.
One thing I would try would be seek advice from Trading Standards, whether your ticket was mis-sold etc. Probably worth a phone call.

 

[lyndhurst25]

I don't think there's any evidence of a script. Obviously they would have guidance during training, but some RPIs are very keen to just issue a PF by effectively tricking someone into accepting one 'Just take the PF and you have 28 days to appeal it', which usually means someone will accept the PF to speed things up - without ever questioning if a PF is actually appropriate (and in some cases, although not this one, 'legal').

In many cases, it's already clear that an appeal would never succeed as the acceptance of the PF would make an appeal impossible. But the RPI just wants to issue one, and can make it quite clear that you either argue and wait ages - or accept a PF and get going in minutes.

Still, I must say that in this case a PF was offered and refused - so it's not a case of FCC just going straight for the court action. However, they have roving fraud teams that don't issue PFs at all. Meet one of those, and it's going to be a totally different story.

Are you saying that once you accept a PF then it can't be appealed or just that an appeal is less likely to succeed? If the former is true then you are placed in an awful dilemma if you suspect that the PF may be invalid: take the PF and loose your money even if the PF is dubious, or refuse the PF and risk Byelaw 18 prosecution.

Wouldn't the best course of action for a passenger issued with a PF always be to offer the minimum permissible payment (the price of a single ticket)? That way you can avoid Byelaw 18 prosecution and still have the option to appeal when the bill comes through for the balance?

Right ho! Easy counter to that - they wouldn't have to even consider byelaw 18 if people bought tickets that were valid for travel.

I'm sure that you're not really that harsh in real life! People make honest mistakes because they don't understand the system / can't read and write English / are simply human. In such cases I'd say that immediately escalating a simple "you need to buy a new ticket" issue such as the OP's, to a PF and on to a Byelaw 18 prosecution is an abuse of power. In the OP's case it seems that the implication of refusing the PF (i.e. automatic referral for prosecution) wasn't made understood: the OP seemed to think that all what was happening was that a bill for the PF would be sent in the post.

Byelaw 18 gives the railway significant legal powers that other businesses don't enjoy and IMHO should only be used against deliberate fare-dodgers, rather than the catch-all of "people traveling without a valid ticket". The implications of "refusing" a PF should be made clear when it is offered - not doing so amounts to something akin to entrapment.

 

[Ferret]

I'm sure that you're not really that harsh in real life! People make honest mistakes because they don't understand the system / can't read and write English / are simply human. In such cases I'd say that immediately escalating a simple "you need to buy a new ticket" issue such as the OP's, to a PF and on to a Byelaw 18 prosecution is an abuse of power. In the OP's case it seems that the implication of refusing the PF (i.e. automatic referral for prosecution) wasn't made understood: the OP seemed to think that all what was happening was that a bill for the PF would be sent in the post.

Byelaw 18 gives the railway significant legal powers that other businesses don't enjoy and IMHO should only be used against deliberate fare-dodgers, rather than the catch-all of "people traveling without a valid ticket". The implications of "refusing" a PF should be made clear when it is offered - not doing so amounts to something akin to entrapment.

Maybe that statement was a little over-harsh, and you're right - I try and judge matters on their individual merits. I've let something go today which I'm sure others think I should've got the rulebook out for, but I'm comfortable with the decision I made.

The thing with byelaw 18 is that it is a catch all. It is often used where intent is suspected, indeed obvious, but cannot necessarily be proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by the law. In this case, it is being used to make sure that revenue is protected, even though there was plainly no intent to avoid the fare. if truth be told, I suspect even FCC don't want this case to be prosecuted, but they will do so if backed into a corner to protect their revenue.

 

[soil]

Look, if it goes to Court, the OP will lose, and there will be no damage to FCC's reputation.

That's likely unless the OP would spend a lot of money on lawyers. Like I said, the court of public opinion is more effective anyway.

Going to the press at this stage could just make them dig their heels in to make a point.

What point is that? That the C in FCC is short for something else?

I don't doubt that the GRT ANG ticket was not valid on FCC, but that doesn't mean that FCC would, faced with public ridicule, press ahead with a prosection.

FCC are not in the wrong here - you can argue to the contrary until you are blue in the face - it does not matter one jot.

You can argue likewise. There are many kinds of 'wrong'.

The media have their own agenda - to sell newspapers. I've not made any ridiculous statement

Yes you did, you said 'Why would the Daily Mail be interested', which is a ridiculous statement. Of course they would be.

I've merely told you and the rest of the forum exactly how it is. Now, you're entitled to disagree, but it makes no difference to the situation that the OP finds themself in. Remember, Byelaw 18 is law, and is well used law. It does not concern itself with intent. Would you like the OP to martyr themself on this, and be convicted and fined, just because your opinion is that it's all wrong?

I've said that the OP should not go to court.

Look, I've placed on record that I think a prosecution here is unnecessary. I'm determined that it should be avoided, but that will only happen if the OP pays the fare to FCC.

That's not clear. We don't know what FCC want at this point. Whether payment of fare would satisfy them is unclear.

 

[BestWestern]

I and a few others give up our time free of charge to help people such as the OP who come on here looking for assistance. I have no problem with doing that - I do it because I have knowledge which may be of use. What I then object to is having to argue and argue and argue with people who then post the same old things about how unfair it all is, ad nauseum, in every single thread such as this. It's getting tedious. And some of what is posted runs a real risk of getting an OP into more trouble. So, I will not 'wind in my neck' as you put it - I do not want to have my time and advice wasted because somebody who doesn't understand the issues at hand properly wants to chip in. I'm sorry to be so forthright on this, but it really is important - to me at any rate - that this forum offers consistent and accurate advice. We can discuss among ourselves the rights and wrongs of the processes at our leisure - when I might just keep my neck wound in

Best wishes to you,

Ferret

I do not wish to perpetuate a slightly silly ding dong between the pair of us, and I respect your willingness to share your knowledge with others in need. I would have to say though, that if it causes issues of whatever sort when others 'chip in' as you put it, then perhaps using a PM would be better in such situations? You cannot place a post in an open forum thread and then complain that it generates discussion! Maybe we should have a handful of 'authorised/official advisers' who can give their advice privately, leaving the original thread open for those who wish to comment. A serious suggestion that, is it worth looking into? You don't have to argue with anybody of course, none of us do, bur we often chose to reply to the posts of other members, in the same way that those members have chosen to submit their posts. I can assure you that I do fully 'understand the issues at hand', I merely am willing to take a view other than 'tough luck'! Previous post edited almost immediately after submission to remove the rather unnecessary bit about winding in necks, apologies for that

I would be most interested - as I would imagine will most of us - to hear how this pans out, perhaps the OP might be kind enough to keep us informed?

Best wishes to you also,

BW

 

[reb0118]

Byelaw 18 gives the railway significant legal powers that other businesses don't enjoy

Most other transport operators check revenue prior to boarding. In the main the railways do not (I know barrier schemes are on the increase however) - think how long it would take for 100's of passengers to shuffle through one door showing/purchasing tickets whilst boarding? Dwell times would increase significantly to make services unviable. As it is not feasible to check every one beforehand then strong measures have to be taken to discourage ticketless travel - Bye Law 18 is one of them.

On the Continent, which many hold up as a paragon of virtue, the honour system is used for a lot of systems, however there are much stronger penalties for ticketless travel and defaulting passengers details have to be secured against official identification cards

and IMHO should only be used against deliberate fare-dodgers, rather than the catch-all of "people traveling without a valid ticket". The implications of "refusing" a PF should be made clear when it is offered - not doing so amounts to something akin to entrapment.

Define a deliberate fare - dodger? Many people in the bigger commuter areas used to "travel by chance" especially in only going a few stops. These people would pay if challenged - the "fine" being the fare due. This was no deterent so other means had to be brought in - one one them being penalty fares.

In this case we have hard facts and I agree with Ferret that legally FCC are the wronged party as the OP had no contract to travel with them. I would state that I think the offer of a penalty fare in this case was harsh (the OP was NOT a fare dodger), however it was possibly unwise to refuse it?

Morally I think the outcome should be OP pays the appropriate fare that would have been due prior to travel to FCC but receives a full refund of the GA ONLY ticket (i.e. no admin charge) from GA.

In most cases if you are on my train with an "Not My TOC Only" ticket I will offer the solution of purchasing the cheapest available ticket for travel on my train with the suggestion to put the incorrect ticket in for a refund. (The most the passenger loses then is the admin fee). If it is possible, remember in a lot of cases a return is only slightly more expensive than a single, I will sell a return if the passenger feels that they may have a chance to use the incorrect ticket within the next month, on the correct TOC though, hence saving the admin fee (pax only out of pocket by a few quid)

 

[eastdyke]

Some observations from afar.

I really do hope that the OP is able to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread.

There should be a new thread branched from this to discuss clearer ticketing.

A big step, most issues at this level are not potentially criminal in this day and age, there should be a change in the law / byelaws and a suitably powerful ombudsman instituted.

The next generation of TVM's should have increased functionality to include audio advisory of the restrictions imposed by the selected ticket before the final commitment to purchase.

Best to all.