Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

[Dave1987]

I have got the link to the By-laws to work and this is what they say:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

QUOTE:
The Byelaws are there to help everyone to travel easily and safely. This can be only achieved if all users take time to consider their actions and observe the Byelaws.

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.​

The question that arises is whether having proof of having purchased a ticket is sufficient to avoid a penalty being issued by reason of a technical breach of S18. Further, are the by-laws intended to cover situations where a valid ticket was purchased but not all parts were available at the time of the inspection? That is, is the by-law intended to prosecute honest passengers who did not have all of the parts of their ticket or is it to cover situations where people do not produce a ticket because they do not have a ticket to produce?

I could argue that I was entitled to travel because I had paid for the journey in advance. An interesting point arises here as I did try to get through the barrtier with the ticket I had with me but it wqould not let me pass. I did not know why the barrier was blocked and went through the manned barrier showing the inspector the tickets I had with me and saying that the barrier did not work for me. The Inspector glanced at the ticket and waved me through. 18 (3) (iii) may arise??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Do you work for a Rail Company?

My case is simply that the Rail Network ought not pursue people they know have paid the correct fare and due to an honest mistake lost or forgot parts of a ticket which they produced later as proof of payment. The parts of the ticket I did have with me were clear in showing I had paid and was on the correct train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Do you work for a Rail Company?

My case is simply that the Rail Network ought not pursue people they know have paid the correct fare and due to an honest mistake lost or forgot parts of a ticket which they produced later as proof of payment. The parts of the ticket I did have with me were clear in showing I had paid and was on the correct train.

I agree that people who evade payment should be penalised as should all dishonest acts. The key word here is "dishonest."

Yes but like someone else has pointed out, what is to say that a friend of yours didnt have the other 2 parts and was using the same line of I didnt realise I needed both parts so both were travelling on same ticket. Im not saying that you were doing this but that is what might happen. If you read a lot of the threads on this forum you will see the penalty fare system is used for people who have made an honest mistake. As others have pointed out you did not have a valid ticket when asked for one by the guard so a Byelaw offence has been commited. If you had paid the PF then that would have been that. It sounds like you might be in for a heafty legal bill now. Im sure tjat the TOC's legal dept have people who know railway law very very well.

 

[Ferret]

I agree that people who evade payment should be penalised as should all dishonest acts. The key word here is "dishonest."

The problem with that is how do rail staff know who is dishonest? Take it from me that some people do give friends the seat reservation, keep the ticket for themselves and both travel. Not exactly a smart way to faredodge, but it happens!

Questioning what byelaw 18 is intended for may not be of assistance; the salient fact is that you were in breach of it and may well be prosecuted for it! That's the harsh reality of the situation you are in. The subsequent conduct of RPSS is a separate issue, and one I'll be interested in the outcome of.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

OK, short summary. Your research has been rather deficient I am afraid.

Of course you can commit a crime without intent. Hundreds of people are done for speeding every day, for example. You've been told by a number of people that there is a law besides the Regulation of Railways Act, which requires no intent, and sticking your fingers in your ears when told same doesn't change the fact.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations relate to contracts. You are being asked for a penalty fare or prosecuted under secondary legislation, which is not a contract. Therefore, the said regulations do not apply.

Here's the relevant part of byelaw 18 for you:


Threatening to prosecute someone for an offence they appear to have committed is not blackmail, and if it were up to me (which thankfully it isn't) you'd be charged with wasting police time as well if you pursued it.

You badly need to wind your neck in and start paying up if you want to avoid a trip to court.

The purchase of a ticket for travel is a contract--you pay and the rail company allow you to travel.

The introduction of criminal sanctions for fare evasion is accepted and cannot be argued against.

However, if the fare has been paid and a simple mistake has been corrected that should be an end to the matter.

 

[bb21]

I am still struggling to figure out exactly what it is that you showed when checked on-train and what you failed to show.

What type of ticket was it? Could you possibly elaborate as to what was printed on the ticket under "Ticket Type"? What did you actually show? The ticket(s) without the reservation(s) or the reservation(s) without the ticket(s)?

Not having the 2 counterparts is the issue and as no loss has been sustained by the Rail Company they are not entitled to a penalty. The Rail Company are satisfied that I did pay so that is no longer an issue.

Incorrect. A penalty fare is charged for mistakes. It is not an accusation of fare evasion. See Question 15.

I do not see how an unenforceable penalty can become a criminal offense unless the Rail Company can establish that I intended to travel without paying.This cannot be established.

As many people have pointed out to you, a Byelaw prosecution does not require "intent" to be proven.

Here is what the Crown Prosecution Service say:

Fare Evasion

...

But you were not being accused of fare evasion by virtue of the Penalty Fare.

However, in my case I did produce part of a valid ticket and produced the missing parts subsequently. I did not lose the other parts but simply misread the terms printed on the tickets as only 2 said they needed to be available for inspection. A clear mistake without dishonest intent.

The Railway Byelaws require that a valid ticket is shown on request. If you cannot do that then you are in breach of the Byelaws. Being able to show it afterwards is of no use.

If you hold an "Advance" ticket, it is not valid without the reservation(s) and it is clearly stated as so on the ticket itself.

The mischief of the rail regulations is to penalise people who do not pay or get on the wrong train. I paid and travelled on the correct train.

But you still committed a criminal offence by failing to show a valid ticket on demand, technically.

I seriously suggest that you take some time to research previous threads in this forum. It should provide you with clarification on a lot of your seeming misconceptions.

 

[455driver]

Section 18.1 is very clear-

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

The ticket you handed over was not valid without the other part, clear section 18.1 breach, the railway does not have to prove anything as it is a strict liability offence (did you hand over a valid ticket for travel? No you did not) ergo you are guilty.

Good luck with your (frankly very blinkered) approach to the rules, them stating you will get taken to court etc is not blackmail, extortion or anything else it is a simple fact and is meant as a warning not a threat, I am sure you will have a hefty bill at the end of it, but at least you will have had your 5 minutes of fame, even if you are paying for it for months or even years after.

 

[Ferret]

The purchase of a ticket for travel is a contract--you pay and the rail company allow you to travel.

The introduction of criminal sanctions for fare evasion is accepted and cannot be argued against.

However, if the fare has been paid and a simple mistake has been corrected that should be an end to the matter.

In an ideal world, yes. But we don't live in an ideal world, and it's impossible to be sure who is honest, and who is dishonest. Ultimately, by not having the tickets upon your person when you travelled, you were both in breach of your contract *and* breach of byelaw 18. Simple mistake I'm sure, but the harsh fact remains.

You have a choice in my opinion; go to Court and almost certainly be found guilty, or pay as requested.

 

[455driver]

However, if the fare has been paid and a simple mistake has been corrected that should be an end to the matter.

Which is accomplished by you handing over a valid ticket when asked!

You did not do this.

 

[maniacmartin]

Could Helmut Fleugzo please answer my earlier question as to which coupons exactly were presented and which were left at home?

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

The problem with that is how do rail staff know who is dishonest? Take it from me that some people do give friends the seat reservation, keep the ticket for themselves and both travel. Not exactly a smart way to faredodge, but it happens!

Questioning what byelaw 18 is intended for may not be of assistance; the salient fact is that you were in breach of it and may well be prosecuted for it! That's the harsh reality of the situation you are in. The subsequent conduct of RPSS is a separate issue, and one I'll be interested in the outcome of.

I agree that the rail staff have to be wary of dishonest travellers. It would be a question for a judge to decide if I was truthful in saying I left 2 parts at home. The inspector believed me and stated so when agreeing not to fine me on the spot. He said it is a frequent mistake and that many passengers fall into the trap. I also sent all 4 parts to RPSS to show that I still had them in my possession and that they have not been used for someone elses' journey.

What is odd is that the charge they are levelling against me is not paying the fare for the journey and that it still has not been paid.

Because I have proven that I have paid the threat to prosecute becomes questionable as a menace and a violation of S21 of the Theft Act 1968.

Its complicated.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The TOC have not committed blackmail (you need to read the case law as well as the act).

The byelaw 18 offence is not failure to purchase a ticket, but failure to show a valid ticket when asked. It is perfectly possible to have paid for the correct ticket but still be guilty of byelaw 18 if you cannot present it when asked.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Could Helmut Fleugzo please answer my earlier question as to which coupons exactly were presented and which were left at home?

There were a total of 5 coupons issued by the ticket machine.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX", Retain for Inspection. These are the two I carried with me--one for Brighton-Victoria and the other Victoria-Brighton.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATIONS", Issued as 2 coupons.

The 5th coupon was marked "COLLECTION RECEIPT."

I decided that the only 2 that were necessary for me to carry on the jounrey were the 2 marked "Retain for Inspection" and that the other 2 were part of the reservation but not necessary for travel. My mistake and as the INspector said--one many people make.

 

[bb21]

The inspector believed me and stated so when agreeing not to fine me on the spot. He said it is a frequent mistake and that many passengers fall into the trap.

Sounds like he said it so that you don't kick off there and then.

I also sent all 4 parts to RPSS to show that I still had them in my possession and that they have not been used for someone elses' journey.

A coupon unmarked does not prove that it has not been used.

What is odd is that the charge they are levelling against me is not paying the fare for the journey and that it still has not been paid.

Do you know which legislation you are being prosecuted under?

Because I have proven that I have paid the threat to prosecute becomes questionable as a menace and a violation of S21 of the Theft Act 1968.

Irrelevant. You failed to hand over a valid ticket when requested and therefore have committed a criminal offence.

There were a total of 5 coupons issued by the ticket machine.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX", Retain for Inspection. These are the two I carried with me--one for Brighton-Victoria and the other Victoria-Brighton.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATIONS", Issued as 2 coupons.

The 5th coupon was marked "COLLECTION RECEIPT."

I decided that the only 2 that were necessary for me to carry on the jounrey were the 2 marked "Retain for Inspection" and that the other 2 were part of the reservation but not necessary for travel. My mistake and as the INspector said--one many people make.

You didn't even show a ticket. You showed two reservation coupons.

I think you will struggle to win this one tbh.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Which is accomplished by you handing over a valid ticket when asked!

You did not do this.

I handed the ticket over subsequently which corrected the mistake.

I am saying that there is no evidence of dishonesty which is what the prosecution is supposed to be about.

The matter is complicated by the inspector at the barrier glancing at the tickets I did have with me and waving me through--I took this as a validation of my tickets as I had no idea at that point that I was travelling in breach of any by laws. 18 (3) (iii) of the Bylaws does seem to provide a defence in such circumstances. At Brighton it is not possible to get through the barrier without A. using the auto barrier or B. being wvaed through by a live inpsector who looks at your tickets before passing you through.

 

[455driver]

Go for it then if you think you are right, you obviously wont listen to reason.

18(3) doesnt matter as it is not a (1)+(2)+(3) scenario is it, you must comply with ALL parts of the byelaw, you did not comply with 18(1) and are guilty as such, it is as simple as that!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I must also agree that that old newspaper article is unreliable.

This isn't the first time (and won't be the last) that someone detected of a relatively minor ticketing irregularity and receiving a claim, becomes an instant enthusiast for the application of some innappropriate legislation or to discredit the foundation of the claim. Understandably, perhaps, but not with much foundation.

In this thread, I cannot agree for a moment that a counter-claim of blackmail or theft has the merest prospect of success.
Railway Byelaw 18 is successfully prosecuted regularly and the evidential basis erquired is simply that the ticket which comprises the relevant coupons for the journey (the ourney which is the subject of the claim), were not shown when requested. A receipt is not the ticket. The relevant parts of the ticket are evidence of the existence of a Contract. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract legislation does not assist in clarifying the simple requirement to produce that evidence of the contract on request while being conveyed or on Railway premises.

My case is simply that the Rail Network ought not pursue people they know have paid the correct fare and due to an honest mistake lost or forgot parts of a ticket which they produced later as proof of payment. The parts of the ticket I did have with me were clear in showing I had paid and was on the correct train.

It is a perfectly reasonable opinion that a Company ought not to pursue people who have paid and lost their ticket. However, if they didn't, then there would, I'm sure, immediately be thousands of people every day handing their tickets to each other and offering to show a receipt instead.

I must say that the rules that are applied are really quite simple (buy a ticket, then keep the ticket for inspection when requested) and most of the alternatives that have been suggested bring their own, more challenging problems.

I fail to see a resolution to this incident being achieved soon if Helmut Fleugzo wants to challenge the authority of the Railway Operator at that level. It could become quite expensive quite quickly (or embarassing and expensive if attempting the challenge as a litigant-in-person).

Go for it then if you think you are right, you obviously wont listen to reason.

And please let us know how you get on (though we know what the outcome will be, already).

 

[Ferret]

I handed the ticket over subsequently which corrected the mistake.

But alas this does not satisfy the requirements under Byelaw 18!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

18(3) doesnt matter as it is not a (1)+(2)+(3) scenario is it, you must comply with ALL parts of the byelaw, you did not comply with 18(1) and are guilty as such, it is as simple as that!

18(3) is relevant in that it provides a defence to the offence created in 18(1). However, none of the defences in 18(3), arguably, are useful here.

 

[Wath Yard]

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX", Retain for Inspection. These are the two I carried with me--one for Brighton-Victoria and the other Victoria-Brighton.

...

I decided that the only 2 that were necessary for me to carry on the jounrey were the 2 marked "Retain for Inspection" and that the other 2 were part of the reservation but not necessary for travel. My mistake and as the INspector said--one many people make.

If you inspected the tickets and one said "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX" how can any rational person come to the conclusion that you don't need to carry ticket xxxxx?

You didn't have on you, or show ticket xxxxx therefore it is pretty obvious that you did not have a valid ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be a question for a judge to decide if I was truthful in saying I left 2 parts at home.

No, it would not.

You seem to misunderstand that you can be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaws. These are strict liability and there is no further question to ask other than:

"Did you present a valid ticket when asked to do so?"

The answer is no - you did not, and I am afraid you are guilty whether you or I like it or not.

 

[455driver]

I handed the ticket over subsequently which corrected the mistake.

I am saying that there is no evidence of dishonesty which is what the prosecution is supposed to be about.

The matter is complicated by the inspector at the barrier glancing at the tickets I did have with me and waving me through--I took this as a validation of my tickets as I had no idea at that point that I was travelling in breach of any by laws. 18 (3) (iii) of the Bylaws does seem to provide a defence in such circumstances. At Brighton it is not possible to get through the barrier without A. using the auto barrier or B. being wvaed through by a live inpsector who looks at your tickets before passing you through.

It is YOUR responsibility to travel with a valid ticket, you did not (and so breached 18(1)) and handing the other parts over after the event is irrelevant, the offence was committed at the time of travelling (if you were doing 90mph down the motorway but had slowed to 65mph when the police caught up with you, by what you are saying, you are not guilty of speeding when clearly you are), 18(3) doeas not "provide a defence" a defence because 18(1) is a strict liability offence of travelling without a valid ticket, end of.

My last post on here because the OP cant/wont "get it" at all, wasting electrons I am afraid.

If the OP could come back and let us know how much the fine and costs are it would be much appreciated.

 

[transportphoto]

There were a total of 5 coupons issued by the ticket machine.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX", Retain for Inspection. These are the two I carried with me--one for Brighton-Victoria and the other Victoria-Brighton.

I think this says it all to be honest, 'VALID ONLY WITH TICKET..' doesn't that make it pretty obvious that it is only valid when presented with a travel ticket. I would say that 99 out of 100 people who use advance tickets manage this, those who don't either have something to hide or don't understand English. I think your thinking is completely illogical to be honest and I don't think you're going to win this, as other people say, they haven't blackmailed you at all, nor have you been accused of fare evasion.

TP

 

[W230]

I reported RPSS to the Police and I am informed that the matter is being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate the Rail Company for a possible violation of Section 21.

Er no. That won't be happening.

To my knowledge, a case has never been run where the Rail Compnay is in the dock for blackmail and attempting to obtain money by deception. If, as seems likely, penalties are illegal in the absense of any liquidated loss, some major changes will be coming soon. Passenger Focus have a record of hundreds of similar cases (http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/publications/ticket-to-ride-summary-report-may-2012#) and they are helping me with my case as is my MP who suggests involving the Justice Department, especially if the CPS consider a crime or serial crimes may have been committed..

You are joking here right? CPS will not be looking at any file relating to this!

You don't happen to be a Freeman on the Land do you?

 

[AlterEgo]

I am saying that there is no evidence of dishonesty which is what the prosecution is supposed to be about.

No, it is not. There are plenty of offences you can commit which do not involve dishonesty or any kind of "moral turpitude" as the Americans would have it.

Speeding, and failing to hand over a valid ticket when requested by an authorised person are just two of these offences. You have broken the law, I'm sorry.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Sounds like he said it so that you don't kick off there and then.



A coupon unmarked does not prove that it has not been used.



Do you know which legislation you are being prosecuted under?



Irrelevant. You failed to hand over a valid ticket when requested and therefore have committed a criminal offence.



You didn't even show a ticket. You showed two reservation coupons.

I think you will struggle to win this one tbh.

Section 5.3.a of the Regulations of Railway Act 1889 as Amended by the Transport Act 1962, The British Railways Acts Section 35 (5), 1965, and Section 18 1977.

They go on to state that "intentional fare evasion is a criminal matter...."

Their case does seem to be based on intentional fare evasion which cannot be proved as I have receipts and proof I took the journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

Section 5.3.a of the Regulations of Railway Act 1889 as Amended by the Transport Act 1962, The British Railways Acts Section 35 (5), 1965, and Section 18 1977.

They go on to state that "intentional fare evasion is a criminal matter...."

Their case does seem to be based on intentional fare evasion which cannot be proved as I have receipts and proof I took the journey.

You are NOT being prosecuted under these laws. You are not being accused of fare evasion.

You are accused of failing to hand over a valid ticket.

 

[Ferret]

If you inspected the tickets and one said "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX" how can any rational person come to the conclusion that you don't need to carry ticket xxxxx?

You didn't have on you, or show ticket xxxxx therefore it is pretty obvious that you did not have a valid ticket.

I was going to say something similar in a previous post. I find it incredible that the OP made a conscious decision to discard the pieces of paper he'd been sent! They weren't sent out for the sheer hell of it!

Furthermore, I also omitted to respond to the OP's assumption that the magistrate will be interested in whether the OP made an honest mistake and therefore believes the OP's account. Alas, the Magistrate can only concern himself or herself with the evidence and facts of the matter at hand - in this case whether you failed to show a valid ticket for travel when asked. You evidently did not, and so the Magistrate will have no option but to find you guilty of the byelaw 18 offence.

Can the OP confirm whether proper legal advice has been sought on this matter?

 

[island]

There were a total of 5 coupons issued by the ticket machine.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX", Retain for Inspection. These are the two I carried with me--one for Brighton-Victoria and the other Victoria-Brighton.

Two tickets were marked "VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATIONS", Issued as 2 coupons.

The 5th coupon was marked "COLLECTION RECEIPT."

I decided that the only 2 that were necessary for me to carry on the jounrey were the 2 marked "Retain for Inspection" and that the other 2 were part of the reservation but not necessary for travel. My mistake and as the INspector said--one many people make.

So, you had some coupons that said "valid only with ticket XXXXX", and didn't have ticket XXXXX. Therefore, they weren't valid.

Can you please stop banging on about the Regulation of Railways Act; we are agreed that you have not committed an offence under that Act, but you are suspected of an entirely different offence under the Railway Byelaws.

 

[bb21]

Section 5.3.a of the Regulations of Railway Act 1889 as Amended by the Transport Act 1962, The British Railways Acts Section 35 (5), 1965, and Section 18 1977.

They go on to state that "intentional fare evasion is a criminal matter...."

Their case does seem to be based on intentional fare evasion which cannot be proved as I have receipts and proof I took the journey.

Have you already received court papers stating that this is what you are being prosecuted under?

Or is this just a letter from RPSS (or Southern) warning of the consequences?

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I think this says it all to be honest, 'VALID ONLY WITH TICKET..' doesn't that make it pretty obvious that it is only valid when presented with a travel ticket. I would say that 99 out of 100 people who use advance tickets manage this, those who don't either have something to hide or don't understand English. I think your thinking is completely illogical to be honest and I don't think you're going to win this, as other people say, they haven't blackmailed you at all, nor have you been accused of fare evasion.

TP

The allegation is stated as "Intentional fare evasion." (Section 5.3.a RRA 1889/Transport Act 1962, BRA Section 35 (5) 1965, and Sexction 18 1977).

As there is no evidence of intentional fare evasion their claim fails.

If they know there is no evidence of intentional fare evasion and attempt to extract money with threats of criminal prosecution falls within S 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

The "bias" on this forum does seem to lean in favour of the Railways and their methods even when dealing with passengers who can prove they paid but made an honest mistake. Quite a sad state of affairs and zero acknowledgment of the concept of "customer service." Little wonder Passenger Focus have received hundreds of complaints.

This is what the Rail companies seem to be about:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ary-bonuses-700-000-leaked-memo-suggests.html

Network Rail executives may be given 125% salary bonuses of up to £700,000, leaked memo reveals
The news will infuriate commuters and train travellers facing huge hikes in rail fares for an 'inadequate service', in which trains are often overcrowded and more than 40 per cent do not arrive on time.
​

 

[bb21]

The "bias" on this forum does seem to lean in favour of the Railways and their methods even when dealing with passengers who can prove they paid but made an honest mistake. Quite a sad state of affairs and zero acknowledgment of the concept of "customer service." Little wonder Passenger Focus have received hundreds of complaints.

We do not need to do "Customer Service".

You are here for advice. Do you want us all to nod and agree with you however wrong you might be, or do you want facts?

This is what the Rail companies seem to be about:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ary-bonuses-700-000-leaked-memo-suggests.html

Network Rail executives may be given 125% salary bonuses of up to £700,000, leaked memo reveals
The news will infuriate commuters and train travellers facing huge hikes in rail fares for an 'inadequate service', in which trains are often overcrowded and more than 40 per cent do not arrive on time.
​

And you quote the pinnacle of impartial journalism that is the Daily Mail? :roll: