Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail

[Fare-Cop]

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?

It might well be a successful approach and Southern might be minded to instruct RPSS to close the file on that basis if an application sticks to facts and doesnt concentrate on trying to prove that they have somehow acted illegaly.

As a separate matter, I really don't see the issue of challenging the legality of RPSS letters getting far.

There are a host of other offices and the TOCs themselves sending similar 'warning' letters. None state a specific threat.

Most if not all outline what the maximum penalty if successfully prosecuted might be. The Courts have been fully aware of this since day 1 of this process.

Police frequently investigate matters reported to them by individuals who may have a misunderstanding. The CPS will only consider action if they are presented with a strong case.

Most times the Police will decide there is no cause for action and I get the feeling that is what will happen here.

I may be wrong, we'll see.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

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.

Complicated indeed.
Section 5 of the RRA provides as follows:
(3)If any person— .
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

Intent is necssary.

I agree that I only had part of a valid ticket but this is not enough to show I intended to evade paying the fare but only a mistake in not carrying all of the parts to the ticket.

The statement of facts forms the basis of RPSS claim and it only refers to "not having paid the fare." It does not say anythihng about not paying a penalty (perhaps they know that penalty charges are not enforceable in a civil dispute which thew claim becomes if they allege a debt).

 

[Ferret]

The thing with RRA prosecutions is that they require evidence of intent. This automatically makes it harder to secure a convictions - and when a train company will probably be held liable for Court costs should they lose, they don't like to take that risk unnecessarily. This is where Byelaw 18 proves useful to train companies - all that's necessary is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the 'miscreant' failed to show a valid ticket on demand. I stand by my belief that it's very unlikely that the OP will face a prosecution under s5 of the RRA for this very reason.

 

[jkdd77]

Complicated indeed.
Section 5 of the RRA provides as follows:
(3)If any person— .
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

I tend to tentatively agree that you are not guilty of the s.5(3)(a) offence, since a required element of the offence is that the offender had not "previously paid his fare" and it seems that you can show that you did pay your fare prior to travel. A subsequent failure to pay the fare again does not alter that.

However, you are guilty of the 'strict liability' byelaw offence, and if they prosecute under this legislation you will almost certainly be convicted.

For this reason, I would suggest that it would be prudent to seek a settlement.

 

[wijit]

I do not have time to go through this entire thread, and so apologise if this has been covered.
You did not produce a valid ticket. the ticket should say something along the lines of "valid only with reservation..." along with the reservation number. This in implied terms is stating that one bit of paper does not constitute a ticket. You MUST have all parts for any to be valid.
Next, they are not guilty of blackmail at all. They are warning you of the possible consequences, only a court can actually tell you what punishment you may receive.
What they are accusing you of right now may not be what you actually get charged with, if anything. In criminal law, people are often charged with one offence until further investigation, only to be finally charged with a different (usually lesser) offence which gives a better chance of successful prosecution.
All of this, and the previous, said. You do remain guilty (from your own information) of failing to provide for inspection a valid ticket. Representing yourself as others have said, is risky to say the least, but I would suggest it's a good route for you in particular because it will cost you less if/when your challenge fails. You need to know this area of law extremely well, and not rely on a little advice and a small knowledge.
Good luck all the same. Keep this thread up to date with your progress please.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

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.


.

The Statment of Facts is set out in RPSS letter. No summonse-only an indication that legal proceedings have been commenced to answerthe facts set out in their letter. It reads like an indictment and states as the basis for the claim that I did not pay the FARE due. It then goes on to say that INTENTIONAL fare evasion is a criiminal matter.

I agree with their statement that intentional fare evasion is indeed criminal but I disagree with their assertion that did not pay the FARE.

If they change the Statement of Facts to bring other charges then the matter will have to be reviewed but on present evidence their case is DIW. And as it is misconceived it falls into Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Getting the law wrong might avail a private citizen but a corporate entity has no reasonable excuse as knowledge of the law is often imputed regardless of intent.

I have a few old contacts in the legal profession who I will run this by just in case I have missed something. I was "in the game" many years ago but mostly dealing with civil matters although I do admit to having served for a few years as a prosecuting barrister for the Yard--but never any rail cases. It was my long dormant knowledge of the Theft Act that triggered this and it does seem that the CID Inspector on the case agrees with my reasoning such that he is running it past a senior CPS colleague. The case stands or falls on what RPSS have stated to date as the offence of Blackmail is committed the moment a threatening letter is posted. Subsequent amendment is not a defence so a re-wording of the statement of facts will not help them.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I suspect that you hadn't fully understood either of my previous 2 posts on this thread for your benefit, so it may be sterile in trying again, but . . .

Complicated indeed.
Section 5 of the RRA provides as follows:
(3)If any person— .
(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

Intent is necssary.

I agree that I only had part of a valid ticket but this is not enough . . . .

First, I hope you understood my explanation that in Law, the word "intent" doesn't carry its everyday meaning.

Second, I see that you've cited fragments of legislation in several of your posts (which most of us on here are going to be very familar with anyway). Are you equally aware of the Case Law that informs the Prosecutors and the Defence in Railway ticketing matters? There are nearly a thousand Judgements to clarify the legislation that could apply to a ticketing dispute, and I do hope you are aquainted with them before embarking on a challenge. I assure you that any Prosecutor, if you ever get that far, will have them all at their fingertips. And will know exactly how they help to advance their argument. Railway ticketing Law has been described as 'a somewhat intricate amalgam of Civil Contract Law, Statute Law, certain Railway Regulations, Conditions and Byelaws'. But it has all been tested on Appeal many many times.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I tend to tentatively agree that you are not guilty of the s.5(3)(a) offence, since a required element of the offence is that the offender had not "previously paid his fare" and it seems that you can show that you did pay your fare prior to travel. A subsequent failure to pay the fare again does not alter that.

However, you are guilty of the 'strict liability' byelaw offence, and if they prosecute under this legislation you will almost certainly be convicted.

For this reason, I would suggest that it would be prudent to seek a settlement.

If they chnage the statement of facts to refer to a strict liability offense I may offer settlement if thmannedey withdraw their claim--even then they will have difficulty as Section 18 (3) (iii) provides a defence if a person in authority authorised travel. As previously stated, I attempted to use the automatic barrier and my ticket was rejected (obvious why in hindsight). I then proceeded to the manned barrier and showed an inspector my ticket stating that it was rejected by the automatic barrier. The inspector glanced at the ticket and simply waved me through.

Was the inpsector acting with ostensible authority when he waved me through? I think he was. Is that not the purpose of the defence under Section 18 (3) (iii). I believe the answer is emphatically yes otherwise why else was it legislated for? In traffic cases it is always a defence to show that you were authorised to to drive in accordance with a police officers instructions. E.g. an officer mistakenly directs you to turn left and you receive a ticket at the other end for going down a one-way street which was the left hand turn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I tend to tentatively agree that you are not guilty of the s.5(3)(a) offence, since a required element of the offence is that the offender had not "previously paid his fare" and it seems that you can show that you did pay your fare prior to travel. A subsequent failure to pay the fare again does not alter that.

However, you are guilty of the 'strict liability' byelaw offence, and if they prosecute under this legislation you will almost certainly be convicted.

For this reason, I would suggest that it would be prudent to seek a settlement.

This is, in a nutshell, my case. The Rail Company must deal with the strict liability issue with Section 18 (3) (iii) in mind--the waving through by a ticket inspector who glanced at my ticket after I told him that the automatic barrier would not let me pass. Howver, as matters stand the statement of facts restricts itself to intentional fare evasion which cannot succeed as the fare was paid and no loss was suffered by the Rail Company.

 

[Dave1987]

If they chnage the statement of facts to refer to a strict liability offense I may offer settlement if they withdraw their claim--even then they will have difficulty as Section 18 (3) (iii) provides a defence is a person in authority authorised travel. As previously stated, I attempted to use the automatic barrier and my ticket was rejected (obvious why in hindsight). I then proceeded to the barrier and showed an inspector my ticket stating that it was rejected by the automatic barrier. The inspector glanced at the ticket and simply waved me through.

Was the inpsector acting with ostensible authority when he waved me through? I think he was. Is that not the purpose of the defence under Section 18 (3) (iii). I believe the answer is emphatically yes otherwise why else was it legislated for? In traffic cases it is always a defence to show that you were authorised to to drive in accordance with a police officers instructions. E.g. an officer mistakenly directs you to turn left and you receive a ticket at the other end for going down a one-way street which was the left hand turn.

Using the argument that the barrier staff authorised you to travel without both parts isn't a very good argument I don't think unless he/she specifically said it is ok to travel on just the reservation. It is still your responsibility to make sure you have a valid ticket for travel before you board the train.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

The thing with RRA prosecutions is that they require evidence of intent. This automatically makes it harder to secure a convictions - and when a train company will probably be held liable for Court costs should they lose, they don't like to take that risk unnecessarily. This is where Byelaw 18 proves useful to train companies - all that's necessary is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the 'miscreant' failed to show a valid ticket on demand. I stand by my belief that it's very unlikely that the OP will face a prosecution under s5 of the RRA for this very reason.

I think most are agreed that there is no case to answer for intentional fare evasion.

However, this is the only basis of their claim and because there is no reasonabale justification for threatening a criminal prosecution based on intentional fare evasion the Section 21 Theft Act Offence arises.

The Section 18 offence is also risky as I did have 2 parts of the ticket which showed that I paid for the journey and that these parts were accepted by the barrier inspector who waved me through after glancing at them. I had no idea at the time that I needed all 4 parts and I think Section 18 (3) (iii) applies. If they Rail Compnay seek to rely on strict liability, the court will apply strict evidential rules and if it can be shown that a form of authorisation to board the train was given their claim would fail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Using the argument that the barrier staff authorised you to travel without both parts isn't a very good argument I don't think unless he/she specifically said it is ok to travel on just the reservation. It is still your responsibility to make sure you have a valid ticket for travel before you board the train.

It has its risks. A jury or judge would have to decide what "authority " means and was I acting reasonably when I proceeded to board the train after receiving whatever degree of authority was given. In the circumstances, I relied on the barrier inspector to advise me as to why my ticket was refused at the automatic barrier. His glancing at the ticket and waving me through led me to believe nothing was wrong with the tickets and that I had authority to board.

The whole case really smells of injustice and it is really vexatious given my evidence that I paid the fare. What are they trying to gain? Is it to punish for honest mistakes? Is it profiteering because they know they can rely on a Statute that has the potential of penalising a passenger who has already paid the correct fare? All public policy points that I hope will be dealt with. ATOC are quoted in the press as agreeing to review their attitude toward honest mistakes but it may be a long time coming as it seems passengers are easy pickins for heavy handed threrats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do not have time to go through this entire thread, and so apologise if this has been covered.
You did not produce a valid ticket. the ticket should say something along the lines of "valid only with reservation..." along with the reservation number. This in implied terms is stating that one bit of paper does not constitute a ticket. You MUST have all parts for any to be valid.
Next, they are not guilty of blackmail at all. They are warning you of the possible consequences, only a court can actually tell you what punishment you may receive.
What they are accusing you of right now may not be what you actually get charged with, if anything. In criminal law, people are often charged with one offence until further investigation, only to be finally charged with a different (usually lesser) offence which gives a better chance of successful prosecution.
All of this, and the previous, said. You do remain guilty (from your own information) of failing to provide for inspection a valid ticket. Representing yourself as others have said, is risky to say the least, but I would suggest it's a good route for you in particular because it will cost you less if/when your challenge fails. You need to know this area of law extremely well, and not rely on a little advice and a small knowledge.
Good luck all the same. Keep this thread up to date with your progress please.

That I made a mistake in not carrying all 4 parts of the ticket is not in issue.

Blackmail is committed as soon as a threat is issued. A future intent to do something is the same as a present intent. The threat is not related to a decision a court may or may not reach but the threat to refer the matter to the criminal justice system. A conviction will only lie if a judge found that the threat was unreasonable and that a menace was the right way to proceed. On present evidence a conviction under Section 5.3.a. is not possible as it relies upon a passenger not having paid a fare.

I think we have narrowed this down to a hypotheical statement of fact that is not yet in existence, the Section 18 offence which is obviously intended to catch the honest passenger who makes a mistake such as in my case. The defence is based on 18 (3) (iii) and whether the barrier inspector authiorised travel by waving me through in very specific circumstances where I had attempted to go through ther automatic barrier but was prevented form doing so. This was reported to the inspector at the manned barrier and it was then that, arguably, authority to travel was ostensibly given despite not having all of the tickets in my possession.

But would a Magistrate wish to convict in such a borderline and doubtful case??? Is it not the mischief of the Act to stop fare evasion? How would a jury view this? Not favourably in my view given my underlying honesty in having paid the fare.

 

[Dave1987]

Sorry but the "heavy handed" approach to honest mistakes is needed to ensure people don't deliberately play the system and then claim an honest mistake. For example if you had of given the other two tickets to one of your friends and you both claimed an innocent mistake. Then 2 people could fraudulently travel on one ticket and both claim it was an honest mistake, obviously sitting in separate places. See why the railway has to punish things like this? Because otherwise the system would be played constantly by dishonest people.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Sorry but the "heavy handed" approach to honest mistakes is needed to ensure people don't deliberately play the system and then claim an honest mistake. For example if you had of given the other two tickets to one of your friends and you both claimed an innocent mistake. Then 2 people could fraudulently travel on one ticket and both claim it was an honest mistake, obviously sitting in separate places. See why the railway has to punish things like this? Because otherwise the system would be played constantly by dishonest people.

I agree that some people do try to play the system. But equally some passengers make honest mistakes and a system that utilises fear and initimidation without any discretion will eventually be taken to task. Room for discretion should always be allowed and especially in cases like my own where a ticket was paid for.

I can adduce evidence that the two missing parts of the ticket were left at my home when I travelled as they were seen by a member of my household and placed in my desk. This is a question of fact for a jury and for them to decide if truthful or not. But it seems that such a defence is irrelevant if they proceed with the Strict liability claim when the only deefence is under 18 (3) (iii).

 

[fergusjbend]

Helmut, I most earnestly advise you not to persist with this obsessive grievance which can only do you harm. It is overwhelmingly likely that you will loose your case. It would be far better to swallow the perceived injustice and reach an agreement with the TOC, pay a penalty fare and move on.

 

[Clip]

This thread is comedy gold, yet again brought on by a fairly inaccruate Evening Standard news report.

If the OP isnt willing to listen to the most knowledgeable people on here with regards to both ticketing and the prosecution side then I dont see why people are entering the discussion anymore. Its quite obvious that the OP has it in mind that they have been wronged and are making false accusations of blackmail. The OP does not understand what is being told of them so is going to do their own thing anyway.

Was handsome reading though.

 

[yorkie]

And on that note, I think it may be best to lock it for now, but it will of course be re-opened as soon as we have any further developments.

I look forward to reading what happens next but I do not look forward to reading another 100+ posts going round and round in circles

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

The Mods let me know that the other thread is locked so this may get merged.

Just to let everyone know that, following representations by a Detective Inspector from the transport police to Southern Rail (who had referred the matter to the CPS for their view), their prosecution against me has been dropped. No reasons, no details given other than mention of 18 (1) that was not the basis of the charge mentioned by RPSS.

It seems that the mistake the TOC made was in bringing a charge of fare evasion (RRA 5.3.a) in the face of evidence that the fare had been paid and no evasion could have possibly been proven. They should have proceeded under 18 (1) which is simple failure to have the right ticket when asked to produce it. Reliance was on the more serious offence and this is why I raised the issue of a Section 21 Theft Act 1968 offence.

I am hoping that the ATOC agreement, as published in the press, to review cases of honest mistake (such as only carrying 2 parts of a 4 part ticket) will lead to greater fairness and justice. It would have been so easy for the TOC to have applied a discretion in my case where they knew I had paid the proper fare. Had they not been able to hide behind a strict liability get out the case would have been thrown out by a Judge and costs awarded to the defendant.

What needs to happen from here is that the goverment should, in the light of hundreds of complaints filed with Passenger Focus (and possibly the Office of the Rail Regulator) to allow a defense if a passenger can prove they paid for the journey subsequently. There is no loss to the TOC.

Better to let 10 guilty men go free than hang one innocent man. The TOCs need to unerstand that "customer service" is important and allowance should be made for honest mistakes that do not lead to courtrs, fines and threats of imprisonment. The balance is too far in favour of the company and not enough for the consumer.

The TOC said my case had been reviewed by an independent appeals process and my research demonstrated that this company is a subsidiary of the TOC with common office and a shared director. Not good.

Passenger focus need to have "teeth" to bring cases against the TOC as if they were a policing body along the lines of OFT or the ORR. That woyld keep balance as many consumers do not have the benefit of legal training or ability to go up against big business.

The end result was good and I suppose, for me, that is what I wanted.

 

[455driver]

You simply cannot/ will not grasp the fact that bye-law 18 is for occasions when people have made an honest mistake!

In this case the only thing the TOCs did wrong was to use the RoRa when it was clearly a bye-law 18 offence you had commited.

What you are proposing is that everyone travels for free but when they are caught they would simply buy a ticket and everything would be fine, I see a little flaw in your idea.

You were lucky, you think you were right, we agree to disagree (until you are caught again) and this thread falls out of sight.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

You simply cannot/ will not grasp the fact that bye-law 18 is for occasions when people have made an honest mistake!

In this case the only thing the TOCs did wrong was to use the RoRa when it was clearly a bye-law 18 offence you had commited.

What you are proposing is that everyone travels for free but when they are caught they would simply buy a ticket and everything would be fine, I see a little flaw in your idea.

You were lucky, you think you were right, we agree to disagree (until you are caught again) and this thread falls out of sight.

I think you have missed the point. I purchased my ticket in advance.

I am talking about justice and not the technical strict liability that arises under 18 (1).

Justice demands that the innocent not be persecuted. If a passenger pays, justice demands that they not be asked to pay again. Justice demands that honest mistakes not be criminalised.

18 (1) may well be the law but you know what the law sometimes is (an ass).

You say "until caught again." That attaitude presupposes a criminal intent. This is just the sort of attitude that has lead to PF being sent hundreds of complaints. Attitudes by rail people are too hardened and presume everyone who does something wrong is out to cheat the TOC. The idea of customer service is non-existent. People pay the TOCs wages and do not deserve to be treated like criminals--unless they are criminals.

I am not certain, but this may need to be looked at in the light of EU law and strict liability can sometimes be a breach of human rights. It is not a mistake to break the speed limit (it takes a deliberate act) but it may be a mistake to leave behind 2 parts of a ticket. What if a passenger was pickpocketed and relieved of their tickets and an inpsector comes along and asks for them? What does Justice demand? What about the passenger who sits down and the ticket fall out of his pocket and someone else picks them up believing them to be lost? Any number of reasons could arise that should not lead to a passenger being penalised if they can prove they paid.

Bottom line--the law needs to be reviewed so that honest mistakes not leading to any loss by the TOC will not be the subject of the criminal law.

I have no idea what the CPS and the CID discussed but I think they shared my view on honest mistakes.

 

[bb21]

You simply cannot/ will not grasp the fact that bye-law 18 is for occasions when people have made an honest mistake!

I am sorry but the Railway Byelaws are definitely not for people who have made an innocent mistake. Penalty fares are for innocent mistakes. ATOC are very clear on this point, and there is no denying that the Byelaws are currently being "abused" by some TOCs as an easy "catch all" for all cases.

I do though agree that the OP is lucky on this occasion. The reason the TOC backed off is something we will never know. Maybe they simply decided that it would not be cost-effective to pursue the case.

 

[455driver]

YOU WERE NOT INNOCENT! :roll:

You failed to show (on demand) a valid ticket for your journey, this is a bye-law 18(2) offence, simply as that.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

YOU WERE NOT INNOCENT! :roll:

You failed to show (on demand) a valid ticket for your journey, this is a bye-law 18(2) offence, simply as that.

Under English law a person IS innocent until proven guilty. This case was never tried and I would have taken them to task under 18 (iii) having asked the barrier inspector why it did not work on the auto-barrier.

It is open to question whether the by-laws are subject to consumer legislation and EU law on unfair terms in a contract. If someone did run the TOCs to trial a Judge might find against them and that would entail the TOCs refunding millions in fines and penalties.

Rickard Colbey, the barrister who wrote in the national press, believes the TOCs fear an adverse judgment and will usually drop cases if they think there is a risk of an adverse judgment.

My case was dropped and that was a JUST decision. I would like to see justice extended to all passengers (honest ones that is).

This case has touched some raw nerves which leads me to believe most on here are either Rail employees or are inately pro authoritarianism! I demand justice and believe some laws offend justice and need to be reviewed as in this case.

Here is an article that is pushing for harsh punishment against TOCs (!):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/928...forced-to-pay-huge-fines-watchdog-claims.html

.../Any form of privatised justice like this must be administered according to clear guidelines, be accountable, give passengers a fair hearing and not assume everyone is guilty,” Mr Smith added.

He said that passengers should not face the threat of prosecution unless there was clear evidence of intent to defraud..../

 

[455driver]

I am sorry but the Railway Byelaws are definitely not for people who have made an innocent mistake. Penalty fares are for innocent mistakes. ATOC are very clear on this point, and there is no denying that the Byelaws are currently being "abused" by some TOCs as an easy "catch all" for all cases.

I do though agree that the OP is lucky on this occasion. The reason the TOC backed off is something we will never know. Maybe they simply decided that it would not be cost-effective to pursue the case.

Bye-laws are for innocent mistakes, whether TOCs are abusing them is for another thread, you stating they are not is inaccurate in the extreme!
ATOC are the ones (supposedly) writing and administering the rules, if they are not happy about it then they should sort out the problems, that is what they are there for!

So the guilty party "gets away" with it because it is cheaper! Brilliant.

 

[AlterEgo]

It seems that the mistake the TOC made was in bringing a charge of fare evasion (RRA 5.3.a) in the face of evidence that the fare had been paid and no evasion could have possibly been proven. They should have proceeded under 18 (1) which is simple failure to have the right ticket when asked to produce it.

I agree. There is no evidence of intent to evade the fare in your specific case.

What needs to happen from here is that the goverment should, in the light of hundreds of complaints filed with Passenger Focus (and possibly the Office of the Rail Regulator) to allow a defense if a passenger can prove they paid for the journey subsequently. There is no loss to the TOC.

That isn't at all reasonable or fair. Train tickets are transferable between persons. Proof of having paid for a ticket is not proof of entitlement to travel. So - it's all very well saying "I don't have my ticket, it's lost" or "I have only part of my ticket"; the point is someone else may have it and be able to submit it for a refund or use it for travel.

And that is why S.18 exists. No argument, you were guilty of failing to show a valid ticket and the TOC have no idea where the other portion of your ticket was. Was it being used by someone else? How will they know?

The TOCs need to unerstand that "customer service" is important and allowance should be made for honest mistakes that do not lead to courtrs, fines and threats of imprisonment. The balance is too far in favour of the company and not enough for the consumer.

So how would you deal with it, if you were a TOC? Allow those who don't present a ticket when asked to escape a penalty fare if they can submit a receipt showing they paid for a journey? I have already addressed the difficulties that brings above.

The TOC said my case had been reviewed by an independent appeals process and my research demonstrated that this company is a subsidiary of the TOC with common office and a shared director. Not good.

I agree that there is a conflict of interest.

Passenger focus need to have "teeth" to bring cases against the TOC as if they were a policing body along the lines of OFT or the ORR. That woyld keep balance as many consumers do not have the benefit of legal training or ability to go up against big business.

It would be good if there was a proper customer service regulator, I agree. One that could levy punishments in extreme cases. Passenger Focus is deeply flawed, both from a TOC perspective and a passenger perspective.

The end result was good and I suppose, for me, that is what I wanted.

It was - and I am glad you were not prosecuted, as, provided you've been honest here, you made a simple error.

However your understanding of the "playing field" as far as ticket irregularities is concerned isn't quite up to scratch!

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Bye-laws are for innocent mistakes, whether TOCs are abusing them is for another thread, you stating they are not is inaccurate in the extreme!
ATOC are the ones (supposedly) writing and administering the rules, if they are not happy about it then they should sort out the problems, that is what they are there for!

So the guilty party "gets away" with it because it is cheaper! Brilliant.

Your problem is that you see every breach of the rules as "guilt." If a passenger has PAID but makes a mistake or someone steals their tickets they are not GETTING AWAY with anything. Only dishonest people "get away" with things.

You do not seem to grasp the concept of justice. Here are some examples from PF:

Rough rides: Passengers caught out by the system

- A passenger selected the print–at–home option for his tickets but forgot to print them. He took his email confirmation to the ticket office and was told to speak to the train conductor. He did so before boarding and was advised to get on, but subsequently received a court summons for not having a valid ticket.

- Two elderly, disabled passengers had tickets for a specific train but travelled on an earlier service after one of them fell over and was in pain. They acknowledged that their tickets were not valid but felt that the train company would understand. They were issued with an unpaid fares notice for £239.

- A passenger could not produce her ticket when asked but had proof of purchase and the return half of the ticket. She was threatened with prosecution unless she was willing to pay £92 to "settle".​

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

I agree. There is no evidence of intent to evade the fare in your specific case.



That isn't at all reasonable or fair. Train tickets are transferable between persons. Proof of having paid for a ticket is not proof of entitlement to travel. So - it's all very well saying "I don't have my ticket, it's lost" or "I have only part of my ticket"; the point is someone else may have it and be able to submit it for a refund or use it for travel.

And that is why S.18 exists. No argument, you were guilty of failing to show a valid ticket and the TOC have no idea where the other portion of your ticket was. Was it being used by someone else? How will they know?



So how would you deal with it, if you were a TOC? Allow those who don't present a ticket when asked to escape a penalty fare if they can submit a receipt showing they paid for a journey? I have already addressed the difficulties that brings above.



I agree that there is a conflict of interest.



It would be good if there was a proper customer service regulator, I agree. One that could levy punishments in extreme cases. Passenger Focus is deeply flawed, both from a TOC perspective and a passenger perspective.



It was - and I am glad you were not prosecuted, as, provided you've been honest here, you made a simple error.

However your understanding of the "playing field" as far as ticket irregularities is concerned isn't quite up to scratch!

Your last point is well made. I used to commute for years but have not used the trains since 1991 as my work is no longer in London. I was a lawyer for many years and used to the concept of justice. When my honest mistake led to being treated like a serious criminal something rose up in me to fight the cause for justice and the downtrodden!

PF do need some teeth as they are like most watchdogs--they just watch. I was tempted to form a new consumer advocacy group along the lines of "Nader's Raiders" in the US. Ralph Nader was a lawyer who stood up for the little man and injustice. His favourite targets were large corporations screwing over those who did not have the benift of money to pay for lawyers. I think Ralph would have liked to have got stuck into the TOCs bringing the full wieght of EU consumer law to bear which I believe may trump "by laws" as the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the 1993 EU Directive makes it illegal to purport to ignore the provisions of the statute in ALL consumer cases. Speeding fines etc are not consumer related matters but buying a ticket is.

As of today there is not a level playing field. IF the TOCs cannot deal with honest people because their system is flawed that is their problem. It is not right to say we have to persecute all people because we can't tell who the crooks are. What kind of country would we have if such appraoch applied to other areas of consumer law? You buy a car and it explodes--ro recourse because some people are stupid and put nitro in their tank....

 

[Mojo]

I am personally of the opinion that a prosecution under RRA would not have succeeded, but one under the Byelaws would.

However, whilst you did breach the Byelaws; for a Toc to bring a charge against a customer where there is proof that the customer had paid the fare in advance would not be good both on a customer service grounds, and given the limited resources that any prosecutions department would have. There is also the issue in the past that where the law has been broken, Magistrates have come down sympathetically on the side of the customer, feeling that the actions of the Toc have been excessive, leading to negative PR.

 

[bb21]

You buy a car and it explodes--ro recourse because some people are stupid and put nitro in their tank....

What?! This is relevant because?

Bye-laws are for innocent mistakes, whether TOCs are abusing them is for another thread, you stating they are not is inaccurate in the extreme!
ATOC are the ones (supposedly) writing and administering the rules, if they are not happy about it then they should sort out the problems, that is what they are there for!

I am only quoting the ATOC view on this. A passenger making a one-off mistake should not normally be dealt with under the Byelaws. Why is your opinion more qualified than the ATOC one? If you have a problem with ATOC's views then I suggest you take it up with them.

So the guilty party "gets away" with it because it is cheaper! Brilliant.

Railway companies now exist to make money ultimately, so hardly surprising. The people at the top of your organisation probably take a different view to you and your colleagues. That's life.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

I am personally of the opinion that a prosecution under RRA would not have succeeded, but one under the Byelaws would.

However, whilst you did breach the Byelaws; for a Toc to bring a charge against a customer where there is proof that the customer had paid the fare in advance would not be good both on a customer service grounds, and given the limited resources that any prosecutions department would have. There is also the issue in the past that where the law has been broken, Magistrates have come down sympathetically on the side of the customer, feeling that the actions of the Toc have been excessive, leading to negative PR.

I suspect this is why they dropped the case. As a former officer of the court, I think my evidence would have been well received and a good magistrate will usually take the justice route over a technical breach of a "mere" by-law especially where there is no dishonesty involved.

I would like to see things not have to go this far. Perhaps an independent appeals body--as things stand the TOCs have in house appeals which are a sham and technically illegal as they represent them as "independent" when they are not. It is misleading to customers who think they are getting a fair hearing on appeal whereas the TOCs simply have reinforcement of their policies and the gradual wearing down of the passenger.

TBH natural justice demands independent appeals as it is a human right to have a fair hearing. If an appeals system is "in house" it cannot be fair. This is the TOCs achilles heal and the one that should be exploited in due time by someone willing to take it on. ORR may do this but I am not interested in further involvement as I have told the TOC that I do not plan to pursue them any further with EC regs, appeals to ORR or through some contacts in the Justice Department.

I am pleased it is all over and that jutisce was served in this instance. And I emphasise "justice" as I know 18 (2) is blind to justice.

 

[W230]

Your problem is that you see every breach of the rules as "guilt."

Helmut, let me try and simplify this issue of strict liability that you seem to be finding it incredibly difficult to grasp by using the speeding analogy already used somewhere in the depths of this mile long thread (another offence of strict liability).

If you drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone, you are guilty of speeding. Fact.

I'm not referring to people arguing over whether speeding equipment was faulty etc, just the fact that someone is doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

So if you are doing 35mph in a 30mph, it doesn't matter whether you didn't realise whether that you were doing it or whether you did it deliberately, or whther your brakes stopped working or whatever. There is no defence to this offence (only a defence to incorrect calibration and the like). No one has to prove any intent, you are simply guilty.

The S18 byleaw offence is the same. It doens't matter what you intent was. Intent is irrelevant. The offence is complete. Make sense?

Didn't think so (cue - 10 line reply!)

 

[island]

I really don't think it is worth spending any more time attempting to explain the strict liability concept here.

 

[Helmut Fleugzo]

Helmut, let me try and simplify this issue of strict liability that you seem to be finding it incredibly difficult to grasp by using the speeding analogy already used somewhere in the depths of this mile long thread (another offence of strict liability).

If you drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone, you are guilty of speeding. Fact.

I'm not referring to people arguing over whether speeding equipment was faulty etc, just the fact that someone is doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

So if you are doing 35mph in a 30mph, it doesn't matter whether you didn't realise whether that you were doing it or whether you did it deliberately, or whther your brakes stopped working or whatever. There is no defence to this offence (only a defence to incorrect calibration and the like). No one has to prove any intent, you are simply guilty.

The S18 byleaw offence is the same. It doens't matter what you intent was. Intent is irrelevant. The offence is complete. Make sense?

Didn't think so (cue - 10 line reply!)

I am not arguing against the fact that By law 18 is one of strict liability.

I am arguing it is wrongly designated as such as there are too many possibilities of abuse such as PF listed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/928...forced-to-pay-huge-fines-watchdog-claims.html

Rough rides: Passengers caught out by the system

- A passenger selected the print–at–home option for his tickets but forgot to print them. He took his email confirmation to the ticket office and was told to speak to the train conductor. He did so before boarding and was advised to get on, but subsequently received a court summons for not having a valid ticket.

- Two elderly, disabled passengers had tickets for a specific train but travelled on an earlier service after one of them fell over and was in pain. They acknowledged that their tickets were not valid but felt that the train company would understand. They were issued with an unpaid fares notice for £239.

- A passenger could not produce her ticket when asked but had proof of purchase and the return half of the ticket. She was threatened with prosecution unless she was willing to pay £92 to "settle".​

The above are causes where natural justice should trump a by-law.

There is never an excuse for speeding as it is usually caused by lacking due care and attention or simply being in a hurry. It is avoidable.

However, should 18 (1) or (2) always apply? No--I do not think it should and an appeals system needs to be in place that applies the rules of natural justice.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, unlike speeding, which is an offence against the State, the Rail by laws are to protect a business. Businesses are subject to the civil law and unfair contract terms legislation. The TOCs see themselves as agents for criminal justice and behave accordingly--worse in fact, as the government have independent appeals processes whereas the TOCs use an in house appeals system that many passengers may believe is "independent." IN fact, I thought this too until tipped off that the appeal I lodged was a sham and would not be decided in my favour.

The TOCS achilles heel is in the lack of independent appeal. If the Goverment come down on them it will be through this route--but it is going to take a lawyer with time and backing to take them to task and that is not me!