Help - Notice of intention to prosecute

[34D]

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.

And hopefully the daily mail would hammer home that trains from Cambridge to Kings Cross used to say "west anglia great northern" on the side. Which contains the words GRT and ANG.

I'm sure folk on here can provide suitable pictures.

 

[yorkie]

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

I have sent the OP a PM offering my assistance.

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

It would take a lot of time to do a good job of that (and to ensure both threads made sense). Can I request though that if anyone is concerned about a thread going off-topic, use the report button (

) and we'll split the thread if it's appropriate to do so (and if our time permits - much more chance of this if it's reported early on).

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.

I totally agree.

The current rules & byelaws are stacked hugely in favour of the TOCs, and criminalise honest mistakes.

Only a couple of days ago I witnessed passengers be threatened with BTP and removal from the train, because the guard believed the through trains rule did not exist, as he had not read the NRCoC, he asserted only the shortest and quickest route was valid. I suspect such encounters happen somewhere in the UK on a daily basis, but most go unreported. Of course, this accounts for only a very tiny percentage of overall interactions between staff and passengers, but it should be 0.

 

[Ferret]

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.

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.

You're missing a point here. From a business point of view, do you think FCC can afford to let this one go? If the case is well publicised, it will in effect be a green light to use GA Only tickets on FCC trains without any risk of comeback, with the passenger just able to claim 'honest mistake'.

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

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?!

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

But then you've suggested taking a course of action which may make Court Action more likely.

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

Well, my best guess is that it would. We can only go on past examples, including what happened to the chap who was in technical breach of condition 19.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Just to pick up on something here - is it true that TVMs are not subject to the rules on impartial selling of tickets?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The current rules & byelaws are stacked hugely in favour of the TOCs, and criminalise honest mistakes.

I think part of the problem as well is when passengers dig their heels in having made an honest mistake. Now, my natural reaction to having made an honest mistake is to want to rectify it, but *some* customers will then decide 'it's not my fault, I'm not putting it right'. This then backs the train company into a corner. As you observed Yorkie - the PF rules allowed a PF to be issued in these circumstances, and maybe that's something that should be looked at, but once that PF was refused, what other options do FCC have? Do nothing and lose the fare owed or go down the only other avenue left? I suppose they could just have written to the OP with a utility company style 'final demand' for the PF, with the threat of a Byelaw 18 Prosecution if it was not paid, but that's about their only alternative I think!

 

[yorkie]

Let's say the fare was route: Tottenham Hale, they'd be entitled to an alternate route excess to the appropriate fare, in this case a zero excess. The revenue issues would remain unchanged (but also of no concern to the passenger) but, simply due to the rule on TOC specific tickets being unnecessarily harsh compared to the rule on geographical routed tickets, the passenger is not entitled to a zero excess and is treated as holding no ticket whatsoever.

I'd absolutely love it if we could get a test case, but it is up to the person concerned how they wish to proceed as there is no way I could predict which way it would go.

 

[Ferret]

Let's say the fare was route: Tottenham Hale, they'd be entitled to an alternate route excess to the appropriate fare, in this case a zero excess. The revenue issues would remain unchanged (but also of no concern to the passenger) but, simply due to the rule on TOC specific tickets being unnecessarily harsh compared to the rule on geographical routed tickets, the passenger is not entitled to a zero excess and is treated as holding no ticket whatsoever.

I'd absolutely love it if we could get a test case, but it is up to the person concerned how they wish to proceed as there is no way I could predict which way it would go.

Sorry Yorkie - a test case here would find in favour of the TOC. The TOC-specific fares are the problem - maybe lobbying ATOC is the best way of resolving the issue.

 

[island]

TVMs are not required to be impartial, nor are TOC staff "helping" customers at TVMs (cough GTW cough).

 

[jon0844]

For a byelaw 18, there could only be one outcome in court. That's why FCC shouldn't be using it as a replacement to PFs.

In this case a PF was refused, so it's a bit different - but that's not always the situation.

 

[snail]

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.

Another useless response. If the taxi belongs to a different TOC* to the one prepaid then they receive no money for your journey. Do you really think they would be ok with that and let you off without paying them as well?

* Taxi Operating Company

One thing this thread has demonstrated is that there are quite enough people on here that don't understand how certain parts of the railway operate and prefer to inject their own uninformed opinion whatever is said to the contrary.

 

[Ferret]

TVMs are not required to be impartial, nor are TOC staff "helping" customers at TVMs (cough GTW cough).

This is an anomaly that should be rectified for a start! Especially if my favourite man gets his way and shuts all the ticket offices!!!

 

[island]

Which one?

 

[yorkie]

Another useless response. If the taxi belongs to a different TOC* to the one prepaid then they receive no money for your journey. Do you really think they would be ok with that and let you off without paying them as well?

* Taxi Operating Company

One thing this thread has demonstrated is that there are quite enough people on here that don't understand how certain parts of the railway operate and prefer to inject their own uninformed opinion whatever is said to the contrary.

If there was an RSP for taxis, and inter-available ticketing, with a Ticketing & Settlement Agreement for taxis, then the same rules could apply

 

[andykn]

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?

No, but they wouldn't prosecute for the offence of not having a valid ticket.

Because they can't.

Too many instances like this in the DM and the railways might not be able to either, having to prove intent to defraud instead.

I'm not saying FCC should ignore the loss of revenue, but to use their almost uniquely privileged position in law to do so should be used wisely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're missing a point here. From a business point of view, do you think FCC can afford to let this one go? If the case is well publicised, it will in effect be a green light to use GA Only tickets on FCC trains without any risk of comeback, with the passenger just able to claim 'honest mistake'.

Yes, because huge numbers of the travelling public are just desperate to spend 2 quid more than they need to on a train journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another useless response. If the taxi belongs to a different TOC* to the one prepaid then they receive no money for your journey. Do you really think they would be ok with that and let you off without paying them as well?

* Taxi Operating Company

One thing this thread has demonstrated is that there are quite enough people on here that don't understand how certain parts of the railway operate and prefer to inject their own uninformed opinion whatever is said to the contrary.

You're ignoring my point. The taxi firm is entitled to the fare but can't prosecute.

If the railways are perceived to be abusing their privileged position they may lose it.

I don't think anyone has said FCC aren't entitled to their fare. We mostly accept that they are legally entitled to prosecute. But that can change with public opinion because "there are quite enough people...that don't understand how certain parts of the railway operate"

 

[snail]

You're ignoring my point. The taxi firm is entitled to the fare but can't prosecute.

They would be fully entitled to pursue the debt as a civil offence. Ok, it's not as easy as on the railways but it's also unlikely to happen as most taxi journeys are not paid in advance.

Perhaps that's what the railways should do: Issue some kind of boarding pass on the train and collect the appropriate fare at the destination?

 

[andykn]

They would be fully entitled to pursue the debt as a civil offence. Ok, it's not as easy as on the railways but it's also unlikely to happen as most taxi journeys are not paid in advance.

But in a civil case they can only sue for their reasonable costs. Not get the court to extract a fine. And I suspect they could only do that if the passenger refused to pay the fare both at the time and subsequently.

Perhaps that's what the railways should do: Issue some kind of boarding pass on the train and collect the appropriate fare at the destination?

Or just stick to the current system but, when it is very clear no intent to defraud exists, only collect the lost revenue due.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

This is an anomaly that should be rectified for a start! Especially if my favourite man gets his way and shuts all the ticket offices!!!

TVMs can only be impartial to a certain degree, unlike ticket offices where someone is (usually) trained to use the machine, to ask the right questions and to know the options available.

I wonder what the percentage of people who come to grief, because of routing issues, that have bought their tickets from a ticket office actually is.

 

[34D]

Sorry Yorkie - a test case here would find in favour of the TOC. The TOC-specific fares are the problem - maybe lobbying ATOC is the best way of resolving the issue.

I think we need to be clear what we mean by 'case' or 'test case' here.

If the TOC attempts a prosecution in the magistrates court then they may well win (though this is not a foregone conclusion).

If the TOC commences a civil claim (in the small claims court) for monies owed, or if the OP commences an action against FCC and GA then the outcome is a lot less clearer.

Finally, for a case and its outcome to be seen as a 'test case' that is to say nbe binding on lower judges in the future, there needs to be both a first instance hearing and then an appeal (simplified explanation).

But in a civil case they can only sue for their reasonable costs. Not get the court to extract a fine. And I suspect they could only do that if the passenger refused to pay the fare both at the time and subsequently.

Quite, and what they can claim as their 'costs' is limited indeed in the small claims court.

 

[Ferret]

TVMs can only be impartial to a certain degree, unlike ticket offices where someone is (usually) trained to use the machine, to ask the right questions and to know the options available.

I wonder what the percentage of people who come to grief, because of routing issues, that have bought their tickets from a ticket office actually is.

Yes, but what they shouldn't do is put their own TOC-specific tickets right at the very top of the pile, forcing people to scroll down to reach the inter-available tickets.:roll:

That depends on the ticket office staff. One of my colleagues found an elderly lady this week who'd been given an SVR and then a travel itinerary telling her to get a peak train. I won't name the guilty ticket office, but it was dealt with by TIR. The poor lady was almost relieved of a significant excess thanks to their breathtaking incompetence. Still, I'd imagine that TVMs are the cause of far more grief than incompetent ticket office staff.

 

[kieron]

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.

Have there been any cases of TOCs doing this? I suspect it would cost FCC more to fight and win this case than it would to drop it now, so a confidential settlement would still be the best outcome for them financially.

I would agree that sudjules should not expect a newspaper article to make his situation any better, though.

the PF rules allowed a PF to be issued in these circumstances, and maybe that's something that should be looked at, but once that PF was refused, what other options do FCC have?

Has sudjules told you that he refused to pay the penalty fare? My understanding from his statements here is that he said he could not afford to pay it. As it would have been reasonable for someone in that position to have no money available, the obvious option would have been to have asked what he could afford at that time.

The ticket inspector didn't do this, and didn't explain what he or she was doing clearly enough for the customer to understand it.

The other FCC employees involved had few options, though.

 

[Ferret]

Have there been any cases of TOCs doing this? I suspect it would cost FCC more to fight and win this case than it would to drop it now, so a confidential settlement would still be the best outcome for them financially.

Remember that when the TOC wins, an order of costs is also made. In effect, if you get prosecuted under Byelaw 18, you end up paying for yourself to be prosecuted!!!

Has sudjules told you that he refused to pay the penalty fare? My understanding from his statements here is that he said he could not afford to pay it. As it would have been reasonable for someone in that position to have no money available, the obvious option would have been to have asked what he could afford at that time.

The ticket inspector didn't do this, and didn't explain what he or she was doing clearly enough for the customer to understand it.

The other FCC employees involved had few options, though.

This is what I was getting at when I enquired about nil-paid PFs. Of course, as far as the RPI is concerned, refusing to pay because you have no money to do so is still refusing to pay, however we look at it!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Have there been any cases of TOCs doing this? . . . . .

I'm not sure how similar other Claims would have to be in order to be similar enough be included in your question, but I can assure you that there are several thousand successful Prosecutions for ticketless travel in the UK each year. The majority are not professionally defended, if at all.

 

[kieron]

Remember that when the TOC wins, an order of costs is also made. In effect, if you get prosecuted under Byelaw 18, you end up paying for yourself to be prosecuted!!!

I doubt you'll pay for the time it took the ticket inspector to find you, though. While you would certainly pay a lot, First's shareholders won't see much of it. By contrast, out of court settlements are free money.

This is what I was getting at when I enquired about nil-paid PFs. Of course, as far as the RPI is concerned, refusing to pay because you have no money to do so is still refusing to pay, however we look at it!

I don't know how a RPI may view the rules, but FCC's Penalty Fare Scheme (I don't know if there's an authoritative version hidden away somewhere) states that the customer would be allowed to make a part payment in such a case.

I'm not sure how similar other Claims would have to be in order to be similar enough be included in your question,

That's not what I was asking about. Do you know of the outcomes of any cases where the media were involved before the legal case was resolved?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Yes, but what they shouldn't do is put their own TOC-specific tickets right at the very top of the pile, forcing people to scroll down to reach the inter-available tickets.:roll:....

That does depend what is asked for though. Impartiality (on the railway) is offering the cheapest ticket for the journey being made, unless a specific request is made.

I suppose there are ways of making them 'more impartial', but you have to remember that people aren't trained how to use them and by putting the more expensive tickets at the top, the TOCs could be seen as charging higher fares than the journey requires and then there will be more of a backlash!

....That depends on the ticket office staff.....

Well, yes, and I did make mention of 'usually', however staff do make mistakes from time to time, that is part of being human.

 

[222007]

Has sudjules told you that he refused to pay the penalty fare? My understanding from his statements here is that he said he could not afford to pay it.

As i understood it he did have funds for what he was going to do that day therefore did have means to pay. By not doing so could potentially end up with paying substantially more.

 

[kieron]

As i understood it he did have funds for what he was going to do that day therefore did have means to pay. By not doing so could potentially end up with paying substantially more.

I doubt that the ticket inspector ever asked sudjules to demonstrate how much money he had available immediately.

I don't know why the inspector started to issue a penalty fare, but abandoned the process part-way through. If there wasn't a good reason for it, it may be worth mentioning to FCC.

 

[MikeWh]

Has sudjules told you that he refused.....

Woaaaah!

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the OP is a male? Nothing in the thread so far has confirmed their gender, so I think we should be using terms like "OP" and "they".

 

[RJ]

I have to be honest here, why has nobody picked up on the fact that the TVM at Cambridge would have clearly stated that the ticket being purchased would have been valid on "Greater Anglia Trains only." Everyone seems to be focusing on what was printed on the ticket, as if the customer was not made aware of what they were buying prior to handing their money over.

Ticket inspectors threatening prosecution in order to get someone to cough up a Penalty Fare is a form of coerecion. Why are people on here supportive of this? Either people want to do the right thing (accept the Penalty Fare) or they don't. People want to talk about moral justice on the part of the TOC, but what about the passenger? The severity of the punishment should not have a bearing on whether or not a person wants to do the right thing. "Honest mistakes," particularly the one in this case are often caused by carelessness and absent mindedness. Whose fault is that and who should have to pay? With the amount of people out there turning their nose up at Penalty Fares, it's a small wonder FCC are taking a harsher stance towards them. They're simply educating the travelling public that fares should be paid because rail travel should be paid for, not because of a calculated risk as to whether or not failing to obtain a valid ticket will be punished harshly enough.


Furthermore, there is the usual mix of people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about putting their 2p worth in. I've seen people talking about juries in magistrates court and judges going against the word of the law without a good reason, the common customer vs staff debacles and advice to take FCC on, with some shockingly feeble defences being offered. There have been few decent posts in this thread which I fear have been lost in the half dozen pages of drivel!

 

[RPI]

They don't have to, except with vulnerable passengers.

Under the PF rules the passenger does not have to pay the PF on the spot, it can be paid within 21 days, all that is payable at the time is cost of the full single fare which should be taken off the amount of the PF, the balance is then payable within 21 days. it seems that FCC are being a bit naughty by only offering full paid PF's or MG11. Of course, the Inspector does not even have to offer a PF and can report for prosecution straight away if they so wish.

 

[jon0844]

When I got my PF I was made to pay double the single fare, which I did.. then appealed and won. I would have been livid if I'd been suddenly referred to court because I didn't want to pay the full £20.

In any case, there is another issue here and that's the fact a super off peak ticket was cheapest and should have been sold by the TVM if it was a weekend.

It took FCC well over six months to add super off peak tickets to its TVMs when it introduced them, meaning you were stuffed if the ticket office was shut on a Sunday. The gateline staff wouldn't sell them either, so it was buy a super off peak from one place or the higher off peak one from a TVM (or a member of staff willing to sell one).

If a super off-peak WAS available, it should have been the only ticket available, no? Or is it okay to sell more restricted tickets for more money? I guess we already saw before that TVMs don't have to be impartial or offer the best deal, which is one reason to not want TVMs becoming the only way to buy a ticket.

Apologies if anything I've said is wrong, as I'm merely going by what has been said on here. I don't know if the super off peak is any permitted (as against FCC only).

 

[andykn]

The severity of the punishment should not have a bearing on whether or not a person wants to do the right thing. "Honest mistakes," particularly the one in this case are often caused by carelessness and absent mindedness.

Are you sure? Surely premeditation is a factor in sentencing?

Whose fault is that and who should have to pay? With the amount of people out there turning their nose up at Penalty Fares, it's a small wonder FCC are taking a harsher stance towards them. They're simply educating the travelling public that fares should be paid because rail travel should be paid for, not because of a calculated risk as to whether or not failing to obtain a valid ticket will be punished harshly enough.

But in this case rail travel had been paid for, just not with the correct operator.

 

[jon0844]

I think it's fair to say that if FCC goes after a Byelaw 18 offence, they'll win. That's why it's a very dangerous law that is potentially open to abuse, as I can't see why FCC doesn't just use this for every single person. If they're settling out of court, no magistrate will get upset about things not being dealt with another way (such as a PF) and FCC can make quite a bit of money.

This case seems to have had the offer of a PF at the start, which was refused, but if it was refused simply because someone didn't want to pay in full - that's concerning.

I know we can only go by what we read from the 'victims' but think of all the potential abuse.

At the moment, if I lost my season ticket. I would expect a penalty fare, then the chance to get a refund and pay an admin fee to get a replacement. One replacement per year, then I'm stuffed. Now, why not just do me for byelaw 18 and make me settle out of court for £200-300? Then let me get a replacement season with a £10 fee.

Or I just lose a single ticket, but have a receipt. A receipt isn't valid for travel but proves there's no intent - I just lost it (maybe my wallet too). Again, why show any discretion? Another £200-300 to keep it out of court please; kerching.

In both cases, I failed to present a valid ticket (or ANY ticket) and the circumstances don't matter.

Or another example; outdoor TVM that is badly covered. When wet, the touchscreen doesn't work but that isn't a fault that can be detected and sent to control to confirm it is out of order. AFAIK there's no way it can be checked on the basis that it may not have been used for hours (making it quite likely it was not working even if it appeared to be working as far as the machine itself thought). No chance of claiming there weren't facilities available as the TVM shows as working - so another £200-300 will do nicely...

Might as well get rid of PFs. I accept that £20 is too low for fare evaders (compared to £40/£80 with TfL) but PFs were never meant to be used for fare evaders. They, as Yorkie regularly says, there for people who make innocent mistakes. And now it seems FCC isn't considering them good enough if there's any possible chance of seeking an out of court settlement instead.