Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

[Darandio]

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.
​

What the hell does that have to do with anything posted here thus far?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Before you make a further fool of yourself in protesting innocence of an Offence which you are NOT being prosecuted for: please remember that "intention" is evidenced by a person's actions, "on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts". This clarification should not be 'news' to anyone studying Law - this interpretation was given by Lord Justice Moulton exactly a hundred years ago and still applies.
There is no expectation that we should be trying to look into the mind of a person to establish their 'intent'.

But as everyone else is repeating, "intent" is not a requirement of the Byelaw prosecution.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

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?

Just a RPSS letter threatening consequences for "intentional fare evasion".

I suspect I am caught up in an auto-send loop where letters are sent out without sufficeint thought.

It is possible they are in trouble on the By-law point because I was waved through by an inspector when boarding the train as I had made a point of telling him that my ticket did not operate the automatic barrier. However, RPSS are stating their case entirely on the intentional evasion of payment. At least that is what their letter states.

 

[Ferret]

Helmet, it's not that the contributors to this forum are biased - merely that we take at face value what you are saying and that we are responsible people who deal in facts and/or have knowledge of the relevant laws and how they are enforced. It would be irresponsible of us to merely go along with all you say knowing that you are heading for a serious fall, and say nothing to prevent the impending car crash!

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Before you make a further fool of yourself in protesting innocence of an Offence which you are NOT being prosecuted for: please remember that "intention" is evidenced by a person's actions, "on their words and behaviour, rather than on their thoughts". This clarification should not be 'news' to anyone studying Law - this interpretation was given by Lord Justice Moulton exactly a hundred years ago and still applies.
There is no expectation that we should be trying to look into the mind of a person to establish their 'intent'.

But as everyone else is repeating, "intent" is not a requirement of the Byelaw prosecution.

From their letter the prosecution is based on "Intentional Fare evasion."

This is why I am repeating the requirement of intent. The first threatening letter simply refers to Section 5.3a of the RRA 1889 or other current legislation. For a charge to be made it must specify what Statute is alleged to have been violated and they are relying on the RRA.

If the Rail Compnay was alleging a breachj of the by-law they would then have to overcome the defece which is afforded under 18 (3) (iii) which, as I have stated, may arise as an inspector glanced at my ticket when I produced it at the barrier having pointed out that the automatic barrier had rejected it --the Inspector simply waved me through. This would suggest to the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus that the inspector had authorised travel. Howver, the Rail Company are not saying this--they are relying on a charge of "intentional fare evasion" and this is why I have filed a complaint.

 

[bb21]

Just a RPSS letter threatening consequences for "intentional fare evasion".

I suspect I am caught up in an auto-send loop where letters are sent out without sufficeint thought.

It is possible they are in trouble on the By-law point because I was waved through by an inspector when boarding the train as I had made a point of telling him that my ticket did not operate the automatic barrier. However, RPSS are stating their case entirely on the intentional evasion of payment. At least that is what their letter states.

I think it is quite clear then in that case you are not being accused of fare evasion (yet). They are just setting out possible consequences and this might well be one of those letters sent out automatically. Until you receive your court papers stating that you are being prosecuted under the RoRA, it remains highly likely that you will be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaws, for which you have no defence whatsoever.

Yes, the gateline staff might have given you permission, but what for if so? You can't possibly prove that he gave you permission to not present a valid ticket when asked, so the rest of the arguments are null and void. You failed to show a valid ticket on request, and that is the end of the matter as far as the Byelaws are concerned.

The Railway is different to many other industries and is in a unique position legally. Railway legislations may be heavily stacked against the passengers in many respects (which is something you will find that many on this forum agree with you on), nevertheless as things stand, the facts of your case is clear. Whether you, or me, or any old Tom, Dick and Harry on this forum, think it is fair is irrelevant.

I would seriously urge you to proceed with caution.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Helmet, it's not that the contributors to this forum are biased - merely that we take at face value what you are saying and that we are responsible people who deal in facts and/or have knowledge of the relevant laws and how they are enforced. It would be irresponsible of us to merely go along with all you say knowing that you are heading for a serious fall, and say nothing to prevent the impending car crash!

It has been useful so my thanks to all.

I will press on as, so far, the Rail network are threating criminal proceedings for "intentional fare evasion." I can prove payment and thus no intent and that is really the end of it.

If they amend their allegations to include some other offence, strict liability or otherwise, I can deal with it if it arises.

On PRESENT evidence they are making an unjustifiable demand despite the evidence (RPSS have accepted in a letter that there was no intention to avoid payment). This is why A Section 21 offence under the Theft Act arises.

Again, if they were proceeding on a strict liability allegation they would have to explain why their threats are based on an intentional criminal offence.

Probably exhausted this now so will sign off and thanks to all again--I think most would agree some urgent reforms are necessary as PF state in their report:

http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/publications/ticket-to-ride-summary-report-may-2012#

 

[Dave1987]

Helmut Fleugzo please please come back to this thread once it has gone through the courts to let people know how it went (if it goes to court that is). Everyone on this forum is trying to offer solid advice to you and is just trying to say it how it is. If the CPS, Passenger Focus and your MP are involved I would certainly like to see how it pans out. It is nice to see the outcome of these cases. I really hope you dont get landed with a big legal bill for contesting this so vigorously as you are a fare paying passenger.

 

[Ferret]

It has been useful so my thanks to all.

Well I hope so!

Again, if they were proceeding on a strict liability allegation they would have to explain why their threats are based on an intentional criminal offence.

No, they will merely have to submit evidence to the Magistrate that you did not show a valid ticket when requested. Nothing more.

 

[bb21]

This is why I am repeating the requirement of intent. The first threatening letter simply refers to Section 5.3a of the RRA 1889 or other current legislation. For a charge to be made it must specify what Statute is alleged to have been violated and they are relying on the RRA.

This to me covers the Railway Byelaws, so it would seem that they have covered their own back.

Your courage must be admired challenging this threat of prosecution and I wish you luck in your endeavours. However I would urge you to take what people have said on here into serious consideration and please keep us informed of the outcome whichever way this matter proceeds.

 

[Ferret]

Helmut Fleugzo please please come back to this thread once it has gone through the courts to let people know how it went (if it goes to court that is). Everyone on this forum is trying to offer solid advice to you and is just trying to say it how it is. If the CPS, Passenger Focus and your MP are involved I would certainly like to see how it pans out. It is nice to see the outcome of these cases. I really hope you dont get landed with a big legal bill for contesting this so vigorously as you are a fare paying passenger.

We probably already know that the CPS will not be taking any further action! If they were to though, it'll be all over the newspapers so we shall find out!

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I think it is quite clear then in that case you are not being accused of fare evasion (yet). They are just setting out possible consequences and this might well be one of those letters sent out automatically. Until you receive your court papers stating that you are being prosecuted under the RoRA, it remains highly likely that you will be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaws, for which you have no defence whatsoever.

Yes, the gateline staff might have given you permission, but what for if so? You can't possibly prove that he gave you permission to not present a valid ticket when asked, so the rest of the arguments are null and void. You failed to show a valid ticket on request, and that is the end of the matter as far as the Byelaws are concerned.

The Railway is different to many other industries and is in a unique position legally. Railway legislations may be heavily stacked against the passengers in many respects (which is something you will find that many on this forum agree with you on), nevertheless as things stand, the facts of your case is clear. Whether you, or me, or any old Tom, Dick and Harry on this forum, think it is fair is irrelevant.

I would seriously urge you to proceed with caution.

18(3) iii. No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.
​

I appreciate your caution. I would argue that I relied on the gateline staff to approve of the ticket I was carrying because it failed to work the automatic barrier--this would be a question of fact for a Judge I believe. Was it sufficient that I believed it to be sufficient permission to travel? I certainly thought so. It would be a subjective question and one of evidence.

But...I am not dealing with the strict liability aspect only the charge of intentionally evading a fare.

 

[snail]

If the Rail Compnay was alleging a breachj of the by-law they would then have to overcome the defece which is afforded under 18 (3) (iii) which, as I have stated, may arise as an inspector glanced at my ticket when I produced it at the barrier having pointed out that the automatic barrier had rejected it --the Inspector simply waved me through.

Two observations here. You showed your reservation (presumably for the train you were boarding) and were waved through. The 'inspector' may have been in error for not asking to see the associated ticket; but if he didn't all that means is that you were not in breach of byelaw 18 at that point because you were not asked to produce a valid ticket [it sounds from your account that you volunteered the 'ticket' to the 'inspector']. Later, on the train, you were asked to produce your ticket and could not. That was the point at which the byelaw offence occurred.

If you had explicitly stated at the gateline that the coupons you presented were the only ones you in your possession that could support your argument. But you didn't so it does not.

 

[Fare-Cop]

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.
​

I would forget the drivel regarding rail bosses salaries and other irrelevances as they do not provide any grounds for defence if this were to proceed to prosecution.

Having been involved since the early days I think my recollection of the Portsmouth letters is pretty clear. The letters sent out by RPSS are a pretty standard format and with minor amendment have been in use since Penalty Fares were introduced in 1989.

The letter describes the detail of the journey and the TOCs claim, it sets out the total of fare and admin charge and gives 14 days to pay. As I recall, it goes on to advise that travelling without a valid ticket is an offence and that, if convicted of intending to avoid a fare (contrary S.5.3 RoRA 1889) the result can be a fine of up to £1000 and in the case of a second, or subsequent conviction, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months.

It does not say 'pay us the money or you will be fined £1000 or face 6 months in prison', which is what the original post suggests.

In practice, the TOC could choose to go straight to prosecution if the penalty isn't paid or successfully appealed at the end of 21 days, which is the period informed in print on the notice handed to the traveller, but RPSS don't because they work to an agreed process and they add their administration fee, which is claimed along with the penalty fare. They will normally send two 'reminder demands' before applying the process which is permitted by the Penalty Fares Rules 2002. (Railways Act 1993, Transport Act 2000)

A penalty fare notice that remains unpaid and not resolved may be cancelled by the company and the TOC may commence prosecution of the original alleged offence. The rules make specific provision for this.

If there were any realistic prospect of this process being ruled a matter of 'blackmail', I am absolutely certain that such a challenge would have been made in the almost a quarter of a century since it first became common practice, don't you?

It seems from your post, that you read the terms & conditions applicable to the tickets, but you made a concious decision not to abide by them.

The two-part ticket coupons had printed on them 'VALID ONLY WITH TICKET XXXXX' and 'VALID ONLY WITH RESERVATION COUPON XXXXX'

You failed to comply with this at the time of travel and therefore failed to tender a valid ticket when asked.

You have failed to take up the opportunity to deal with your mistake by accepting a civil remedy, which the TOC were never obliged to offer.

I'm not certain that they will run only with a Byelaw 18 offence although 18.2 does appear to have a reasonable chance of success. It isn't unknown for TOCs prosecutors to charge both offences and withdraw one at Court.

I understand your assertion that the evidence of 'fare paid' might equate to no evidence of intent, but at the time of travel you did not present any valid ticket.

Rail prosecutors will always argue that a ticket presented after the request was made and at a later date cannot be accepted, because the law is clear in stating that, to be accepted as valid the ticket must be shown at the time of travel and before the journey is completed. This is in order to ensure it is not a ticket that had been used by a third party.

Good luck

 

[Ferret]

I appreciate your caution. I would argue that I relied on the gateline staff to approve of the ticket I was carrying because it failed to work the automatic barrier--this would be a question of fact for a Judge I believe. Was it sufficient that I believed it to be sufficient permission to travel? I certainly thought so. It would be a subjective question and one of evidence.

But...I am not dealing with the strict liability aspect only the charge of intentionally evading a fare.

As you said though in a perceptive moment, doubtless you are receiving auto-generated letters at the moment while the railway company consider what offence to prosecute. I suspect RPSS do not have much to do with that - RPSS I imagine pass the matter back to the train company who then prosecute the offence themselves, and so it will be the rail company who in the end will choose whether it's the RoR Act offence covering intent (which we all say is a non-starter) or the Byelaw 18 offence which you are in our opinion, guilty of.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

This to me covers the Railway Byelaws, so it would seem that they have covered their own back.

Your courage must be admired challenging this threat of prosecution and I wish you luck in your endeavours. However I would urge you to take what people have said on here into serious consideration and please keep us informed of the outcome whichever way this matter proceeds.

Its not so much courage as outrage!

As they qualify their quotation of the relevant act with a charge that requires intent I think the vagueness would be construed in my favour. No charge can stick if it is a breachof "other legislation."

I will keep you all informed of progress. As of this hour, A senior officer of the Transport Police has been assigned to the case and he takes the view that there is enough evidence of a crime having been committed by the Rail Company to refer the matter to the CPS, albeit for an opinion. On the face of it, given the lack of criminal intent, all 4 ingredients under Section 21 (blackmail) are met. That does not, of course, mean that prosecution will necessarily follow but it does show that there is enough mileage for an investigation and possible shot accross the bow.

Again, the simple basis of my claim is that I paid and they are alleging I did not and are threating criminal prosecution when there is no evidence of an intent to evade payment and where theyhave admitted in writing that they accept no such evasion has taken place. They seem to have lost the plot somewhere after that letter and the jump to intentional evasion.

 

[yorkie]

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.

I disagree with this. I do accept some people will hold this view, but then there are people who hold the opposite view too. While regrettable, it is also unavoidable to some extent.

I think that, on the whole, we're actually fairly balanced on this forum, and am glad you have subsequently said..

It has been useful so my thanks to all.

... as that is the most important thing!

I guess you realise members have not been biased, and have explained that there is additional legislation you were unaware of, thus warning you of the dangers you face.

If anyone finds any post to be rude, misleading, or any other breach of our Forum Rules, we welcome reports (use the report button

located at the bottom left of each post). The forum staff team looks at every report received, and take action where appropriate.

While we do have some current and former rail staff on the team, and we all are passionate about rail travel, that does not mean that we agree with everything the Train Companies do.

Believe me, if you had been incorrectly charged, we would be offering to help you. Unfortunately the Penalty Fare that you were requested to pay, but have declined was, technically, correct. That does not necessarily mean we believe it is morally right, but let's not get into that.

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.
​

Network Rail are a rail infrastructure company, and have little in common with a Train Operating Company. Southern are a Train Operating Company.

Excessive Network Rail bonuses do appear to be an ongoing concern but they have no relevance here. It is better for you to stick to the facts and not get side-tracked. We are trying to help you to focus on what matters.

Just a RPSS letter threatening consequences for "intentional fare evasion".

RPSS say a lot of things, but all they are doing is acting on Southern's behalf at present, sending standard letters.

I suspect I am caught up in an auto-send loop where letters are sent out without sufficeint thought.

RPSS do not do much "thought", so you are right on that!

It is possible they are in trouble on the By-law point because I was waved through by an inspector when boarding the train as I had made a point of telling him that my ticket did not operate the automatic barrier. However, RPSS are stating their case entirely on the intentional evasion of payment. At least that is what their letter states.

It will not be RPSS who prosecute you. If you continue to refuse payment, RPSS will pass the case back to Southern. It will be staff at Southern who will then decide how to proceed.

I agree with you that IF Southern use the RoRA (which requires intent) then you have a good chance of winning the case. I very much doubt Southern will do this though, whatever RPSS are saying now!

HOWEVER it is likely that Southern would use the Railway Byelaw 18 to prosecute (which does NOT require intent and is what many members of this forum have been trying to warn you about), in which case your only possibility of success is that you showed the tickets to the barrier attendant and were given authorisation to travel. Whether there is much prospect of success with that, I honestly could not say, but you would only have a chance if you can get proper legal representation in court. If you can find a suitably experienced solicitor willing to take on the case, then it could be interesting. Please do let us know how you get on.

If you were asking me how I'd proceed, the answer is that I would pay up, as I personally would not want to take that risk.

On the plus side, a Byelaw 18 offence is not recordable.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Two observations here. You showed your reservation (presumably for the train you were boarding) and were waved through. The 'inspector' may have been in error for not asking to see the associated ticket; but if he didn't all that means is that you were not in breach of byelaw 18 at that point because you were not asked to produce a valid ticket [it sounds from your account that you volunteered the 'ticket' to the 'inspector']. Later, on the train, you were asked to produce your ticket and could not. That was the point at which the byelaw offence occurred.

If you had explicitly stated at the gateline that the coupons you presented were the only ones you in your possession that could support your argument. But you didn't so it does not.

I think it is arguable that the inspector at the barrier was reasonably relied upon by me to do his job--inspect. Waving me through after I pointed out that the ticklets failed to operate the barrier would suggest to a reasonable judge that the inspector failed in his duty and led me to believe I could travel with the tickets I did have in my possession. He gave, in effect, permission for me to travel and he was a person in authority.

It gets complicated. But this part is academic as the Rail Company have only indicated that they are proceeding with a prosecution based on intentional fare evasion.

 

[yorkie]

I think it is arguable that the inspector at the barrier was reasonably relied upon by me to do his job--inspect. Waving me through after I pointed out that the ticklets failed to operate the barrier would suggest to a reasonable judge that the inspector failed in his duty and led me to believe I could travel with the tickets I did have in my possession. He gave, in effect, permission for me to travel and he was a person in authority.

You've posted your post at the same time as mine, so I've already covered this, but just to add: you may wish to establish whether or not others have had success with this defence or not, before you proceed to use it. Will you be ensuring you are represented by an experienced solicitor?

It gets complicated. But this part is academic as the Rail Company have only indicated that they are proceeding with a prosecution based on intentional fare evasion.

Have they?

It was my understanding that you only have letters from RPSS, who are effectively a debt collection agency. I do not believe Southern (who are the Train Company whose decision it is whether or not to prosecute you) have yet decided what legislation to use.

What I would expect to happen is RPSS to pass the case to Southern, who may then write to you asking for your version of events, they would then look at all the available evidence and facts of the matter, and then make a decision what legislation to use to prosecute you under.

Your defence would be rather different, depending on what legislation is used.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I disagree with this. I do accept some people will hold this view, but then there are people who hold the opposite view too. While regrettable, it is also unavoidable.

I think that, on the whole, we're actually fairly balanced on this forum, and am glad you have subsequently said..

... as that is the most important thing!

I guess you realise members have not been biased, and have explained that there is additional legislation you were unaware of, thus warning you of the dangers you face.

If anyone finds any post to be rude, misleading, or any other breach of our Forum Rules, we welcome reports (use the report button

located at the bottom left of each post). The forum staff team looks at every report received, and take action where appropriate.

While we do have some current and former rail staff on the team, and we all are passionate about rail travel, that does not mean that we agree with everything the Train Companies do.....

Very helpful--thank you.

You are right that RPSS will hand this back to Southern as it is Southern that the Police have paid a visit to and one of their senior managers is apparently looking into the case.

 

[island]

Again, the simple basis of my claim is that I paid and they are alleging I did not and are threating criminal prosecution when there is no evidence of an intent to evade payment and where theyhave admitted in writing that they accept no such evasion has taken place. They seem to have lost the plot somewhere after that letter and the jump to intentional evasion.

For the last time, will you get it into your head that no intent is required to sustain a prosecution for the offence of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection?

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

You've posted your post at the same time as mine, so I've already covered this, but just to add: you may wish to establish whether or not others have had success with this defence or not, before you proceed to use it. Will you be ensuring you are represented by an experienced solicitor?


Have they?

It was my understanding that you only have letters from RPSS, who are effectively a debt collection agency. I do not believe Southern (who are the Train Company whose decision it is whether or not to prosecute you) have yet decided what legislation to use.

What I would expect to happen is RPSS to pass the case to Southern, who may then write to you asking for your version of events, they would then look at all the available evidence and facts of the matter, and then make a decision what legislation to use to prosecute you under.

Your defence would be rather different, depending on what legislation is used.

I will have to consider how to proceed if Southern let me know what legislation they will use. It gets sticky because RPSS are their agents and anything they pass on to me is binding on Southern. Thus, if they change their minds and rely on a completely different set of laws I could argue that they are not then entitled to enhanced penalties and/or costs. In other words, they should not threaten proceedings using the incorrect basis for the allegations.

They have two choices and the first one is to show intentional fare invasion which fails as I have proof of payment and I doubt they could establish any dishonesty. If they shift tack and go for the by-law breach of failing to produce a valid ticket I will show that their inspector gave me permission to travel with the ticket that were presented to him. It will be a question of fact as to whether I did show the ticket to a gate inspector but the liklihood is that I will be believed as the barriers at Brighton are all manned by inspectors--or were at the time I travelled.

I am not sure if I will instruct a solicitor as I have some knowledge of the law myself and it should be a simple case to argue.

 

[yorkie]

For the last time, will you get it into your head that no intent is required to sustain a prosecution for the offence of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection?

I think we've moved on from that now. The wording provided by RPSS should not be taken too literally as they are standard pieces of text, and not specific to the case in question.

I will have to consider how to proceed is Southern let me know what legislation they will use. It gets sticky because RPSS are their agents and anything they pass on to me is binding on Southern. Thus, if they change their minds and rely on a completely different set of laws I could argue that they are not then entitled to enhanced penalties and/or costs. In other words, they should not threaten proceedings using the incorrect basis for the allegations.

Hmm, well I will agree with you that RPSS say things that they shouldn't say, but whether or not you can successfully challenge this is, well, ambitious. All I can say is "good luck".

I am not sure if I will instruct a solicitor as I have some knowledge of the law myself and it should be a simple case to argue.

Representing yourself is very risky, I personally would not even consider it.

 

[6Gman]

I am not sure if I will instruct a solicitor as I have some knowledge of the law myself and it should be a simple case to argue.

I look forward to reading the Law Report on this one!

Please keep us informed Helmut.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

For the last time, will you get it into your head that no intent is required to sustain a prosecution for the offence of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection?

Quite--but so far they are proceeding on the basis of "intentional fare evasion" and in their statement of facts they said the fare was not paid for the journey. They are not referring in the notification of proceedings anything related to failing to hand over a ticket--they assume I did not pay the fare. And it is because I have proven that I did pay the fare the matter is disputed.

If they shift tack and rely on the strict liability offence then I must establish a defence based on permission given by the barrier inspector.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I am not sure if I will instruct a solicitor as I have some knowledge of the law myself and it should be a simple case to argue.

Oh dear.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Quite--but so far they are proceeding on the basis of "intentional fare evasion" and in their statement of facts they said the fare was not paid for the journey. They are not referring in the notification of proceedings anything related to failing to hand over a ticket--they assume I did not pay the fare. And it is because I have proven that I did pay the fare the matter is disputed.

If they shift tack and rely on the strict liability offence then I must establish a defence based on permission given by the barrier inspector.

Where have you confirmed that a 'Statement of Facts' been sent to you?

Unless we've missed something (and it might only be me), but my understanding from your post is that you have had one or more reminder letters about an unpaid Penalty Fare Notice from RPSS

Has a Summons actually already been issued?

If so, this will be accompanied by a 'Statement of Facts' and other documents, but my understanding is that you've only had letter/s from RPSS so far

You say that you have some understanding of the law, but I think you are definitely confused about process if this thread is anything to go by.

If you intend to continue your challenge, please seek qualified legal advice.


.

 

[Dave1987]

I think its this letter from RPSS with the generic wording about threating prosecution and a criminal record that has got you isnt it? Am I right in thinking that had they not stated about prosecution under RoRA, that you would have paid for the offence commited under the Byelaws? If this is the case then contacting Southern and asking to pay an appropriate amount under the Byelaw offence might save you a bit of time and money.

Does anyone else think this would be a good course of action and take the actions of the RPSS up as a seperate issue?

 

[EM2]

A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned that this is because of non-payment of the Penalty Fare, not the original fare. The PF was issued correctly, for the OP not producing a valid ticket.
Therefore, the possible prosecution for "intentional fare evasion" (in the words of the OP) is surely valid? A fare has been charged and the OP has refused to pay it.

 

[RPI]

A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned that this is because of non-payment of the Penalty Fare, not the original fare. The PF was issued correctly, for the OP not producing a valid ticket.
Therefore, the possible prosecution for "intentional fare evasion" (in the words of the OP) is surely valid? A fare has been charged and the OP has refused to pay it.

Yes i think you are right, isn't there case law to suggest that the fare is payable at the time of demand and not after? I believe a good prosecutor could get a 5.3 prosecution to stick in this case as at the time of inspection the OP failed to show a validticket so name and addres was taken as per 5.1 and the OP was technically billed for the fare that was due at the time which they have failed to pay, but, this could only really wash if the OP were billed for the standard single fare that was due at the time and not the PF so it gets complicated.