Letter from Debt collection team at Northern rail. Advice needed Please

[Wapper01]

Hi Thanks for any advice in advance.

I have received a debt collection letter, which says at a minimum I shall have to pay 150 pounds and find this very unfair given the circumstances, just wanted advice before I send a letter to them and what I should include.
I travel to work most mornings on the train I buy a return ticket from Cross Gates to Leeds. Which was £3. I bought a return but when I got to work I sorted my travel expenses out and put the return with it instead of the outward ticket. When I went back I assumed I had the right one, I went through the Barrier with what I thought was the right ticket. I boarded the train and showed the Conductor my ticket which he rightly said wasn't eligible. I was sadly around 90 pence short for the ticket I had already once bought that day and the machine he had didn't accept my card although I had enough in my bank. I had to fill out a form and the standard debt collection letter came through the post yesterday 15/01.

 

[142094]

Leeds barriers now retain the OUT ticket where Leeds is the destination, so did you actually put that ticket through the barrier, or show it to a member of barrier staff?

The barrier should also have rejected the ticket on the way back in (No passback), so as above, did you show the ticket to the barrier staff?

 

[Wapper01]

Yes I showed it twice, its quicker in rush hour. I think I have the Return ticket, or atleast have it scanned on to the computer if that would make any difference.

 

[142094]

That's cleared it up - unfortunately for you if you'd have tried to put the ticket through the barrier on your way from Leeds to Cross Gates, the barrier would have rejected the ticket and you possibly wouldn't have been in this situation.

If possible can you post exactly what the letter says, but remove any personal information first?

 

[telstarbox]

When did the incident take place, and are you sure this is the first correspondence you've had about it?

 

[Wapper01]

Yes happily.
On October the 24th 2012 you were spoken to by an authorised member of staff with regard to an incident of; the non-payment of a rail fare whilst making a train journey from Leeds to Cross Gates. Before the company proceeds further with its investigations in respect of this manner, we would like to give you the opportunity of responding with your explanation concerning it. Please complete the form and add comments on reverse

As you will appreciate, this is a serious incident; therefore it is imperative that you do not hesitate in contacting the unit as soon as possible to ascertain the full facts in this matter. Failure to respond to this resonable request or provide a satisfactory explanation with regard to this incident will result in legal action been taken (*Regulations of railway acy and railway byelaws apply) I must inform you that if legal proceedings be invoked the addition to any fines inposed by the court there will be a 150 pound contribution to court costs. Offences of this nature are recordable and should you be convicted you will recieve a criminal record.

*Railways and tramways, regulation of railways act 1889 shall be laible on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 £1000 on the standard scale. Or in discretion of the court imprisonment from a term no longer than 3 months
Railway Byelaws offences Shall be liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 £1000 on the standard scale
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The letter was the first contact I have had from them. On the train from Leeds to Cross Gates

 

[IanXC]

I must inform you that if legal proceedings be invoked the addition to any fines inposed by the court there will be a 150 pound contribution to court costs.

My emphasis, others more knowledgable than I will be along before long, but I would expect Northern would accept an out of court settlement for less than this, if this is the first time you have been in such a situation.

 

[Deerfold]

Do be aware this does not seem to be from a debt collection unit, but from the prosecutions department of Northern rail. The £150 it refers to is not a debt currently due but a contribution to their costs which would be due if the matter reaches court - this would be in addition to any fine. Obviously you want to avoid this if possible and I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable to do that.

 

[Wapper01]

Yes sorry my mistake, it is the Debt recovery and Prosecutions unit, so more than likely the prosecutions unit. Thanks

 

[island]

Northern has been known to accept £80 plus the fare avoided to have matters taken no further, if you have not come to their attention before.

 

[Hellfire]

There is a lot of bluff in this letter so sit down and take a deep breath before responding to them.

Firstly, from your statement on this forum this does seem to have been a genuine mistake. If it ever goes to court, and you give the same explanation, I'm sure the court would take the same view.

The suggestion by Northern that you would have to pay a £150 contribution to their costs is meaningless. Courts set costs and can refuse costs if they believe the situation warrants it.

I think you would be well advised to get the return ticket back from your company's expenses department. That is the evidence that you had no intention of evading the fare. Send a letter to Northern with photocopies of the two tickets and explain the situation. That will show that you cannot be taken to court for non-payment as is suggested in the letter, only for failing to produce a valid ticket on demand. Don't offer to pay anything at this stage.

If your explanation is correct then they cannot prosecute you for fare avoidance providing you have both tickets.

See what their response is.

If they were to take you to court over this, I think the magistrates would take a very dim view of them if you produced evidence that you had paid the fare.

Northern have been criticised before for their oppressive attitude to this sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong. Genuine fare dodgers deserve all they get but, on the face of it, this seems to be a genuine mistake. My belief is they won't push it to court it will cost them a lot of money.

 

[142094]

Send a letter back setting out the reasons for why you were using the incorrect ticket, and explain that it was a simple mistake and that you are willing to pay for the costs incurred by Northern, and the price of the Leeds - Cross Gates ticket. £80 generally seems to be what Northern look for.

 

[Hellfire]

Why should he pay Northern £80? He had bought a ticket, if his statement on the forum is correct so Northern's costs so far extend to writing him a letter.

His first stage is to send them the explanation they have asked for with supporting evidence. It's up to them whether they want to pursue it.

He certainly should not be offering them money.

 

[Flamingo]

There is a lot of bluff in this letter so sit down and take a deep breath before responding to them.

Firstly, from your statement on this forum this does seem to have been a genuine mistake. If it ever goes to court, and you give the same explanation, I'm sure the court would take the same view.

The suggestion by Northern that you would have to pay a £150 contribution to their costs is meaningless. Courts set costs and can refuse costs if they believe the situation warrants it.

I think you would be well advised to get the return ticket back from your company's expenses department. That is the evidence that you had no intention of evading the fare. Send a letter to Northern with photocopies of the two tickets and explain the situation. That will show that you cannot be taken to court for non-payment as is suggested in the letter, only for failing to produce a valid ticket on demand. Don't offer to pay anything at this stage.

If your explanation is correct then they cannot prosecute you for fare avoidance providing you have both tickets.

See what their response is.

If they were to take you to court over this, I think the magistrates would take a very dim view of them if you produced evidence that you had paid the fare.

Northern have been criticised before for their oppressive attitude to this sort of thing.

Don't get me wrong. Genuine fare dodgers deserve all they get but, on the face of it, this seems to be a genuine mistake. My belief is they won't push it to court it will cost them a lot of money.

A bylaw 18 offence covers an "honest mistake", when it does go to court. If one can't produce a valid ticket at the time of being asked, one is guilty, QED. No if's or but's.

 

[142094]

Why should he pay Northern £80? He had bought a ticket, if his statement on the forum is correct so Northern's costs so far extend to writing him a letter.

Because the OP did not have the correct ticket when asked by an authorised officer for it?

Also the costs will include administration (i.e. someone sitting at a desk), not just the price of a stamp and envelope.

 

[Hellfire]

I appreciate he did not have the correct ticket. But if you read the OPs letter from Northern it clearly states that they are accusing him of non-payment of the rail fare. If he has his return portion he can prove that allegation is not correct.

In any situation like this, whether it be allegations of illegal parking, or non-payment of fare, it is up to the accuser, in this case Northern, to prove their case in court.

Let them make the running. Send them the evidence I suggested and see what their reply is. Don't offer them money up front.

 

[island]

Why should he pay Northern £80? He had bought a ticket, if his statement on the forum is correct so Northern's costs so far extend to writing him a letter.

His first stage is to send them the explanation they have asked for with supporting evidence. It's up to them whether they want to pursue it.

He certainly should not be offering them money.

The offence is failing to hand over a valid ticket when requested, not failure to have purchased a valid ticket.

 

[Hellfire]

A bylaw 18 offence covers an "honest mistake", when it does go to court. If one can't produce a valid ticket at the time of being asked, one is guilty, QED. No if's or but's.

One may be guilty of not producing a valid ticket but one may not be guilty of evading the fare. And that is the accusation in the letter

 

[SussexMan]

One may be guilty of not producing a valid ticket but one may not be guilty of evading the fare. And that is the accusation in the letter

The letter said:

with regard to an incident of; the non-payment of a rail fare whilst making a train journey from Leeds to Cross Gates

I see where you are coming from but you could also read it that the OP was unable to produce a valid ticket at the time and there was "non-payment" of the fare on the train. Why the card didn't work I don't know.

I was sadly around 90 pence short for the ticket I had already once bought that day and the machine he had didn't accept my card although I had enough in my bank.

 

[Hellfire]

That's another interesting fact. He offered to pay by card but, for some reason, the guard's machine would not accept it.

I would make sure that goes into the letter to Northern as well.

I would be willing to bet that if he lays all these facts before them, with the supporting evidence of the ticket, they will drop it.

Their case would be seriously undermined if they took it to court and the magistrates might well throw it out.

 

[455driver]

Hellfire, I take it that your posts are your personal opinion and you have no formal training in ticketing, am I close?

What the OP needs is facts not opinions and he failed to hand over a valid ticket when asked, the fact he had the "out" part of the ticket is irrelevant because anyone could be using it.

May I suggest that you read through some of the older threads or even section 18 of the NRCoC (that will probably send you to sleep though ) which will clear up a lot of your misconceptions (and prevent the same ground being raked over again).

Edit-

So the OP goes to court because it was an "honest mistake"

Question 1- Were you asked to produce a valid ticket for your journey?
Answer- Yes
Question 2- Did you produce (hand over) for inspection a valid ticket?
Answer- No.

Guilty as charged, the reasons for the non production of the ticket are irrelevant as it is strict liability.

 

[Flamingo]

One may be guilty of not producing a valid ticket but one may not be guilty of evading the fare. And that is the accusation in the letter

What's in the letter is irrelevant, it's what's on the summons to the court that matters.

 

[Hellfire]

But the various suggestions on this forum that he offer them £80 are just jumping the gun.

You don't need to be an expert in ticketing to know that it is up to the accuser, in this case Northern Rail, to make all the running. They have accused the OP of evading a fare and asked for him to provide an explanation. That's all he has to do.

He then has to sit tight and see what Northern do and make a decision based on their response.

And no, I don't have specific experience in ticketing but I do have some background in the law regarding this sort of thing. Obviously I can only take the OPs statement as to the facts at face value. If what he states is correct he is definitely not a fare evader.

 

[Flamingo]

But the various suggestions on this forum that he offer them £80 are just jumping the gun.

You don't need to be an expert in ticketing to know that it is up to the accuser, in this case Northern Rail, to make all the running. They have accused the OP of evading a fare and asked for him to provide an explanation. That's all he has to do.

He then has to sit tight and see what Northern do and make a decision based on their response.

And no, I don't have specific experience in ticketing but I do have some background in the law regarding this sort of thing. Obviously I can only take the OPs statement as to the facts at face value. If what he states is correct he is definitely not a fare evader.

Read bylaw 18, it is the Railway equivalent of Catch 22.

If you can not show a valid ticket when asked you are guilty. That's it. Full stop end of story. The railway do not have to make any running, they only need a name and address to send the summons to.

If you do not know the Railway Bylaws, or have any training in ticketing, might I respectfully suggest you stop offering advice on things you don't know about, it's only confusing the OP.

 

[Hellfire]

Obviously it is up to the OP to decide the best course of action. However, I really hope he will be able to keep us updated with progress.

I've just been going through many of the other threads on this sort of subject and it is quite frustrating when people come onto these forums with these sorts of problems and we never know how many of them end up.

 

[Wiggaz]

I am a lawyer, but am not an expert on railway ticketing offences so do not usually post on these threads. However, this thread is as much about tactics, where I am more qualified to comment.

I read the letter the OP has received in much the same way as Hellfire does. I also agree with those posters that have said that the OP is guilty of the byelaw 18 offence and nothing I say below changes that. The position regarding other possible offences is less clear to me, but I'm not sure whether that matters at the moment.

If I've understood the OP's posts correctly, he was given an opportunity to buy a ticket on board the train, but the transaction failed because the guard's machine didn't work. Had it been, then a ticket would have been sold and the matter would have presumably gone no further.

That, to me, is critical and there may therefore be merit in the OP responding to Northern's letter by trying to demonstrate that, without being explicitly critical, it was Northern's fault that no fare was taken after the guard had offered an opportunity to pay. This would include a full explanation of what had become of the return portion of the ticket and demonstrating that it hadn't/couldn't have been used. I would also produce evidence that I had enough money in my bank account to cover the extra fare, and I would also enclose a cheque with my response to pay the fare there and then. I know that all this is technically irrelevant to the byelaw 18offence, but the aim is to prevent a prosecution before it starts and ostensibly irrelevant information may help in that respect, particularly if the reason for some or all of the problem can be laid at Northern's door.

I don't agree with everything Hellfire has posted, but where I do have sympathy with him is that it seems unnecessary to offer an out of court settlement at this stage, when Northern have not accused the OP of anything specific - they appear to be still investigating. For what it's worth, I think it would be absurd for Northern to prosecute given what we are told happened on board the train - whether or not the OP is technically guilty of an offence and provided that the additional fare is paid - and I would make great play of that fact if they tried to do so. Others may think differently.

All that said, if the above approach didn't work and Northern indicated that they were going to prosecute in any event, then I would re-consider making an out of court offer of settlement at that stage.

It is right that the OP is made aware that he has committed an offence and that should inform the OP's decision of how to respond to Northern's letter, but that does not necessarily mean that he has to cough to that offence or offer an apology in respect of it when he has not yet been accused of committing it.

 

[island]

It depends on whether the card offered was a card normally accepted by TOCs, and not, say, a Visa Electron.

 

[Wiggaz]

It depends on whether the card offered was a card normally accepted by TOCs, and not, say, a Visa Electron.

I read the OP's post the other way, but that possibility did occur to me. I agree that's important but it wouldn't change my fundamental approach.

 

[reb0118]

If I've understood the OP's posts correctly, he was given an opportunity to buy a ticket on board the train, but the transaction failed because the guard's machine didn't work. Had it been, then a ticket would have been sold and the matter would have presumably gone no further.

We can not be sure that the machine was at fault. All the machine does is verify the PIN. How the card is programmed via the chip will determine whether the transaction is authorised or declined. This can depend on the relationship between the passenger and their bank or can just be a random check imposed on any card transaction. Regardless of the reason for the declination the onus is on the passenger to either have a ticket where facilities exist or to have the means to pay when asked if not.

Whereas I do have sympathy with passengers who genuinely do not know that their cards are Authorise All Transactions, the sad fact is many now know that their cards will decline and use that reason to avoid any "attempt to avoid paying" charge.

.......it was Northern's fault that no fare was taken.......

See above, we can not be sure. I do not think that having your card declined is a good defence.

With regard to the rest of your post you do raise many valid points. My advice is wait & see what Northern send out to you through the post.

 

[island]

Whereas I do have sympathy with passengers who genuinely do not know that their cards are Authorise All Transactions, the sad fact is many now know that their cards will decline and use that reason to avoid any "attempt to avoid paying" charge.

Indeed. And it has come to my attention that another bank, the Halifax, has now started issuing "authorise all transactions" cards to some customers.