The return half of the ticket 'lost' and then reused is a massive fraud that happens on the railway. New ticket every time, and prosecution if there's a refusal to buy one otherwise. I see that fiddle going on all the time, and the fact that there is proof of purchase is irrelevant. I don't mind your other examples being used as examples of OTT-ness, but I must object to you claiming that this one is wrong.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Penalty Fare-enforcement may involve Blackmail
- Thread starter Helmut Fleugzo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Helmut Fleugzo
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 35
Quite.
What we seem to be discussing is the meaning of justice and whether strict liability needs NOT be employed in cases where a passenger has acted honestly.
PF have some good examples but I am sure there are more--passenger has a stroke and is unable to see or function but manages to crawl aboard a train but has dropped his tickets when the stroke hit. Inspector arrives and hands him a penalty. Appeals processes fails because not having a ticket is strict liability. RPSS threaten imprisonment and a long jail term unless he pays up.
Not good? Justice must prevail or our society will become a police state where all criminal laws will be strict liability.
How do we change the rules so that justice prevails? Or is it the view of some that justice is not relevant and that strict liability should apply to all without the right of independent appeal. And if there is a right to an independent appeal, upon what grounds should an appeal succeed?
TOCs seem to have set things up so that no grounds of appeal exist (its strict liability after all--no excuses no matter how extentuating the circumstances)--this is where they may have a problem as Human Rights legislation always grants appeal to an independent body. That is why we have a courts system and a Copurt of Appeal (and a further right of recourse to the Supreme Court and yet another to the ECHR). Even a speeding ticket can be appealed (some people speed because they have to reach a hospital to save a life, or they are running from a threat of their life such as a madman in the car behind them.....).
EM2
Established Member
If you are so convinced that you were right and could have detonated a small thermonuclear device in the Byelaws, RoRA and the Penalty fare scheme, why did you not let the TOC pursue it to court, rather than fight to have the case dropped?
D841 Roebuck
Established Member
So 8 pages of outrage that the OP dares to question "the system". Dire warnings about costs. And the OP (Effectively) won...
Priceless :grin:
Priceless :grin:
Sorry Helmut but in all those examples from PF the person/people in question did not have valid tickets for travel when asked for them so the actions of the TOC were correct whether that suits with you ideology or not it is fact. The two old ladies travelled on an earlier train than they were booked so their tickets were not valid. The fact they had a fall is irrelevant they should have asked the guard before boarding and not just assumed! In your case the simple fact is your could not produce a valid ticket for travel when asked so were in breach of the bye laws. You were lucky the TOC didn't go any further with it. Take it as experience and make sure next time you have all tickets issued then you won't have this problem again. The TOC has no way of knowing if you made an honest mistake or gave the other tickets to someone else.
Agreed Dave, and even the OP I think would hopefully admit that it's monumentally silly to leave tickets at home that actually state on them that they are required to be carried! Everybody at some point has lost a ticket - it happens, but to make a conscious decision not to take part of the ticket?! I imagine that's not a mistake the OP will make again!
If a passenger is the victim of a theft then obviously they should not be penalised, but it would be reasonable to expect them to have to provide evidence of the crime, e.g. a crime reference number after they have reported it to the police, and not just take 'oh, someone must have stolen my ticket' at face value.
Sorry but how many people are going to have a stroke and still catch their train? This is hardly comparable to deciding not to carry a ticket, only the reservation, and really shouldn't be encouraged. If you have a stroke then seek immediate medical assistance, don't catch your train home regardless.
And I can't find any reference to such an incident in the PF document you linked to so is it just an extreme and ridiculous example you have made up?
D841 Roebuck
Established Member
Still "won" though, legless or not.
Mind you, I suspect the man on the Clapham omnibus might have less success in a similar case than a stroppy and outraged ex-lawyer with mates in the Met / CPS...
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
When considering the legitimacy or scope of the Railway Byelaws (which seems to have become a current theme in this wandering thread) it might be worth remembering that these Byelaws are intended to regulate the activity of persons while on Railway property, for which purposes, the Railways are private property.
In this light, comparisons with a motorist speeding on the public highways are unhelpful; better comparisons might arise with the regulations (which include Byelaws) that apply to persons on other private property (e.g. heritage houses, care homes, prisons, schools, ports and hospitals).
Other, more comparable, Regulations apply to the workplace (where the public may be admitted). These have been created by similar delegated legislation and include the Management of Health and Safety at Work and Control of Asbestos at Work, and some regulations on Taxation. These have all had the effect, at some time or other, of rendering an 'innocent' person or enterprise in a technical 'breach' of the regulations overnight; despite vigourous and articulate protestations. There's also the famous example of the novellist Ian McEwan being investigated for a Byelaw breach after admitting taking pebbles from the protected Chesil Beach during a radio interview.
My point is, that the Railways are as entitled to create Byelaws to regulate persons on their property as are many other bodies. That authority has been already been challenged. Unsuccessfully, in Boddington v British Transport Police. To imagine that the Railway Byelaws might now be considered ultra vires in a Judicial Review after so many decades stretches my credulity.
In this light, comparisons with a motorist speeding on the public highways are unhelpful; better comparisons might arise with the regulations (which include Byelaws) that apply to persons on other private property (e.g. heritage houses, care homes, prisons, schools, ports and hospitals).
Other, more comparable, Regulations apply to the workplace (where the public may be admitted). These have been created by similar delegated legislation and include the Management of Health and Safety at Work and Control of Asbestos at Work, and some regulations on Taxation. These have all had the effect, at some time or other, of rendering an 'innocent' person or enterprise in a technical 'breach' of the regulations overnight; despite vigourous and articulate protestations. There's also the famous example of the novellist Ian McEwan being investigated for a Byelaw breach after admitting taking pebbles from the protected Chesil Beach during a radio interview.
My point is, that the Railways are as entitled to create Byelaws to regulate persons on their property as are many other bodies. That authority has been already been challenged. Unsuccessfully, in Boddington v British Transport Police. To imagine that the Railway Byelaws might now be considered ultra vires in a Judicial Review after so many decades stretches my credulity.
Last edited:
There shouldn't be any need as he says he was a lawyer and must already understand it!
Only looking out for himself and not caring for others who have 'suffered'?
Seems rather odd to me too. Selfish even.
Last edited:
Without accepting this contention, what about East Coast or TfL?
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,461
I think this thread has run its course as we are just going round in circles.
As DaveNewcastle has already pointed out, the Railway Byelaws have been challenged before, unseccessfully, so maybe the OP should take that into account in the future.
We don't live in a perfect world and never will, and by the looks of it the Railway Byelaws are here to stay, whether we as passengers like them or not.
This thread is therefore locked. Anyone who has significant contribution still to make is welcome to contact the staff team.
As DaveNewcastle has already pointed out, the Railway Byelaws have been challenged before, unseccessfully, so maybe the OP should take that into account in the future.
We don't live in a perfect world and never will, and by the looks of it the Railway Byelaws are here to stay, whether we as passengers like them or not.
This thread is therefore locked. Anyone who has significant contribution still to make is welcome to contact the staff team.
- Status