Fell asleep on train and now being prosecuted

[Buckshot78]

Well, in response to my e-mail to the Debt Recovery Unit, I've had a reply saying that my case is being reviewed and I should get a decision in due course.

I did make it clear it my e-mail that I accepted full responsibility for missing my stop and also accepted that I might be liable for a penalty. My main complaint was the severity of the fine. I've also explained the circumstances behind my fine, so hopefully they might take mercy...

To be honest, I didn't expect a reply, so I'm quite pleased to have even got this far. Even if I end up having to pay the fine, I'll be less annoyed now that I've been able to put my side forward. I really don't think it's on for them to hand out fines without giving the details of the report they were sent or giving the recipient the right to respond.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Yes they are. You are treated as being without a ticket for the journey past the destination on your ticket. As Northern don't operate Penalty Fares Condition 2 will apply.

How do you interpret that as qualifying for an excess fare?

Condition 2 which states

If you travel in a train
(a) without a ticket; or
(b) the circumstances described in Conditions 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 35 and 39 apply;
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms unless either:

(Rule 18 is the one which deals with travelling beyond the station to which you have booked.)

Surely this is unambiguous? The OP should have been sold a return from where his original ticket expired to Liverpool.

Northern are, in my view, attempting to extort £80 on the basis that the OP won't take the risk of losing a court case.

 

[Crossover]

Northern are, in my view, attempting to extort £80 on the basis that the OP won't take the risk of losing a court case.

What Northern appear to be doing does seem somewhat dubious - it seems to be currently a case of assume everyone is out to stuff the railway rather than try to deduce if it is an honest mistake.

As was mentioned IIRC in the thread by thebrad which was linked to in the OP, it also appears from reports on here that Northern are also of the habit of not advising passengers when they take their details that they are likely to end up with fare + £80, possibly wanting to avoid any hassle that mentioning it may cause, instead preferring to say they will be sent a letter asking them to pay the fare. Of course, they do, but also want another £80 which seems to be why passengers are getting a tad cheesed off.

Also, in your post you mention about single, return fare, or penalty fare. Since Northern don't appear to operate the latter, it makes the whole exercise look even more dubious!

 

[jon0844]

Just like 'down here' in PF land where people are regularly told to accept the PF (and pay in full) and that they have 28 days to appeal and get the money back.

They're not told they have little to no chance of this once they've accepted it and paid, but it must help reduce the chance of conflict.

 

[crosscity]

Must've been an illegally imported one from communist Hungary. They weren't licensed and didn't go on sale in the West until mid 1980.

I am sure it was a legally acquired one - they were all the rage at the time, so probably 1980. As I didn't move to Birmingham until late 1978, I wasn't far off.

 

[snail]

Surely this is unambiguous? The OP should have been sold a return from where his original ticket expired to Liverpool.

So you think anyone travelling without a ticket should just be able to pay the full fare without fear of prosecution in non-PF areas?

Someone can be liable to pay the full fare and also be in breach of the byelaws for not having a ticket. As Island said, if you travel without a ticket you are in breach of byelaw 18.

 

[bb21]

Condition 2 which states

(Rule 18 is the one which deals with travelling beyond the station to which you have booked.)

Surely this is unambiguous? The OP should have been sold a return from where his original ticket expired to Liverpool.

Northern are, in my view, attempting to extort £80 on the basis that the OP won't take the risk of losing a court case.

When you purchase a ticket to travel on the railways, apart from the NRCoC, you also agree to abide by the Railway Byelaws and a host of other legislation.

While I remain unconvinced about the legality of Northern's "Fixed Penalty Notice" scheme, my opinion on the issue of excess fare remains in the OP's circumstance. I think you are making a classic error of selective vision here. The NRCoC is only one of the things that both parties have to abide by. It cannot overwrite the law.

 

[noddingdonkey]

I would venture that the purpose of the NRCOC is to act as a kind of easement for the byelaws. Indeed the byelaws refer the reader to the NRCOC on page 4.

Let's not forget that in this case, the OP had a ticket for part of the journey taken which was sold subject to the NRCOC, therefore those conditions must apply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you think anyone travelling without a ticket should just be able to pay the full fare without fear of prosecution in non-PF areas?

Someone can be liable to pay the full fare and also be in breach of the byelaws for not having a ticket. As Island said, if you travel without a ticket you are in breach of byelaw 18.

They have two choices: Amend the NRCOC or go through the relevant procedure to introduce penalty fares officially.

Byelaw 18 is interesting

(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 NRCOC is available at all staffed stations. I would venture that it would qualify as a notice for these purposes.

However the Byelaw only deals with "entering a train for the purposes of travel" not "remaining on a train further than the point to which you have paid" so it's irrelevant in this situation anyway.

 

[snail]

I see your reference and refer you to Condition 1 of the NRCoC:

Tickets remain the property of the relevant Train Company. Each ticket is issued subject to:
(a) these Conditions;
(b) the applicable Byelaws;
[...]

It's a question of whether the Railways Act 2005 can be overridden by a contract clause. As a byelaw breach is a criminal offence I think it unlikely. Has this ever been tested in Court?

 

[island]

Saying that the NRCoC constitutes a notice permitting passengers to join a train without a ticket seems to me to be extremely fanciful and quite unwise.

 

[Ferret]

Saying that the NRCoC constitutes a notice permitting passengers to join a train without a ticket seems to me to be extremely fanciful and quite unwise.

If that was a legitimate defence to Byelaw 18, do we not think a barrister may have tried that in Court by now?

 

[island]

Indeed!

 

[noddingdonkey]

Let's look at this from another angle: Why is the railway allowed to issue conditions of service which contradict the byelaws?

 

[island]

Anyone can issue terms of service that violate the law, but there are consequences, the most usual being that the law overrides the terms. If I put a notice up in my shop saying "no cash refunds under any circumstances; we will happily exchange or issue a credit note", that is overridden by the law saying I must give a cash refund for goods that are faulty/unmerchantable/not as described.

 

[noddingdonkey]

But in this case and conditions are less restrictive than the law, so the railway as issuer of the conditions, should be bound by them rather than the law?

 

[Ferret]

But in this case and conditions are less restrictive than the law, so the railway as issuer of the conditions, should be bound by them rather than the law?

Are you really saying we can ignore a law because we don't like it?! Because that seems to be the gist.

 

[island]

But in this case and conditions are less restrictive than the law, so the railway as issuer of the conditions, should be bound by them rather than the law?

I think we're getting off-topic.

 

[noddingdonkey]

Are you really saying we can ignore a law because we don't like it?! Because that seems to be the gist.

No, because the railway has published contract terms and conditions which explicitly say that something is permissible.

 

[MikeWh]

As someone who has fallen into a deep sleep on a train on a handful of occasions, I find it really sad that such an act could now cost £80+.

 

[Flamingo]

Unfortunately, I have checked the rulebook and nowhere does it say that "being asleep" is an accepted excuse.

You would not believe the number of passengers I have to wake up who turn out not to have a ticket, or have slept past the station on their ticket but now need a ticket to a station further down the line. It is at least 50% of passengers who are asleep and require more than a simple call of "All tickets please" when in their vicinity to wake them.

By this stage I work on the principle that asleep + no ticket = fare dodge.

 

[David Goddard]

I dont suppose the train the OP was travelling on would have had CCTV? Northern would be quick to whip the tape out if they wanted to prove themselves right, so if there was some then could it be used to prove the OP fell asleep?

 

[Flamingo]

How do you prove somebody is "asleep"? It doesn't matter if they are, it's still not a defence.

 

[jon0844]

If you're so tired you might fall asleep and miss your stop, besides the issue of getting done, it would also be a major inconvenience and as such worth setting an alarm beforehand.

And if I was on an Intercity train and planned to sleep (much to the annoyance of others when I snore!), I might seek the TM and show my tickets and give my seat location in advance, so s/he would not need to wake me.

 

[snail]

And if I was on an Intercity train and planned to sleep (much to the annoyance of others when I snore!), I might seek the TM and show my tickets and give my seat location in advance, so s/he would not need to wake me.

The TM on the Virgin train I was on last night leaving Euston advised passengers to leave their tickets in view if they planned to sleep and didn't want disturbing during his ticket check. (There was no check prior to boarding the train)

 

[455driver]

As someone who has fallen into a deep sleep on a train on a handful of occasions, I find it really sad that such an act could now cost £80+.

But when you accidentally fall asleep and go past your stop do you think "oh never mind I will just avoid the ticket barriers and go shopping" or do you think "oh bugger what time is the next train back"?

2 very different situations.

 

[Flamingo]

But when you accidentally fall asleep and go past your stop do you think "oh never mind I will just avoid the ticket barriers and go shopping" or do you think "oh bugger what time is the next train back"?

2 very different situations.

Technically they are both the same, in practice they will be dealt with completely differently...

 

[noddingdonkey]

But I come back to the point that the railway has said, in black and white, that if you travel further than you have paid for you will be charged the cost of a ticket for the part of the journey you didn't originally pay for.

To attempt to charge anything else is entirely unreasonable.

 

[snail]

But I come back to the point that the railway has said, in black and white, that if you travel further than you have paid for you will be charged the cost of a ticket for the part of the journey you didn't originally pay for.

No, it says you will be liable for the cost of the extra journey. Not the same thing. And the law still says you must produce a valid ticket for your journey when asked to do so. Also in black and white.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But I come back to the point that the railway has said, in black and white, that if you travel further than you have paid for you will be charged the cost of a ticket for the part of the journey you didn't originally pay for.

To attempt to charge anything else is entirely unreasonable.

You have indeed expressed this opinion and already done so in this thread quite clearly.
You'll also recall that I posted the Offence (Section 103 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act) which, along with the Byelaw Offence and Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act, which others have indicated, are used to prosecute passengers in that position. If you have a glance through any of the Industry's own guidance given to Rail Investigators, by the CPS [1] and from the UK Government's "House of Commons Transport Committee" [2], you'll find these offences repeated there, specifically identifying passengers who have over-travelled.
The Courts have not experienced difficulty in prosecuting these Offences.
For clarity, once a passenger has reached the point for which their ticket was valid, then the Contract to which the "Conditions" refer to has been fulfilled and as a consequence they are no longer applicable - at that point, there is no Contract in force.

I'm sorry to say that simple repetitition of your point of view is unlikely to change anything, for the Investigators and Prosecutors working for the Railway Companies, nor for the passengers who over-travel.

If you wish to continue debating the reasonableness of those prosecutions, then I doubt anyone would want to stop you, in fact there seem to be several willing people already, but perhaps you could begin a new thread for the topic rather than confuse Buckshot78, the OP, who sought assistance that could be relied upon, to help in dealing with Northern Rail's 'offer' of an £80 penalty settlement?

[1] Crown Prosecution Service - Transport Offences
[2] House of Commons "Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport" ISBN 978 0 215 51449 3

 

[mrmatt]

If you're so tired you might fall asleep and miss your stop, besides the issue of getting done, it would also be a major inconvenience and as such worth setting an alarm beforehand.

The NRE app for Android lets you set an alarm based on the train you are on and your destination, it then goes off a few minutes before the booked arrival time. Quite handy if you are unsure as to the exact time your train gets in