Without valid ticket

[island]

So someone travelling with Northern in the same situation could argue that it's advertised that Anytime Single/Return fares are sold on board even to people who ignored ticket selling facilities and that the service wasn't provided.

I don't think that following this advice is wise. Train companies' advertisements are unlikely to excuse a breach of the law.

 

[323235]

Why lock the toilet? That sounds like a Network Rail proposal for increasing the amount taken by the chargeable toilets at Piccadilly. When Network Rail did increase the charge at Piccadilly many regional/Intercity operators publicised that they toilets available for free on the train and that their customers didn't need to pay again to use the toilet.

I have seen some Northern guards lock the toilet door on the Hadfield line where fare evasion is considered rife.

 

[ian959]

So in the OP's case they can't argue that they have been treated differently to advertised.

I am a bit perplexed as to how you come to this conclusion? Nantwich has a TVM which would have been the OPs first opportunity to buy a ticket. The TVM may not take cash but since the OP subsequently bought his weekly ticket with a debit card then the TVM would still have been his first opportunity to buy in his particular circumstances.

As far as I can see the OP has committed an offence under both ATW and Northern advertised ticketing rules. Am I missing something?

In the circumstances described by the OP he traveled without a valid ticket and could not show one upon demand, clearly a breach of the Bye-laws. The OP may have had an arguable position if he only had cash with which to pay his fare but since he had a debit card I don't see any mitigating reason. Even if the TVM would not issue a weekly ticket he could have bought a single ticket and acquired the weekly ticket later.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So someone travelling with Northern in the same situation could argue that it's advertised that Anytime Single/Return fares are sold on board even to people who ignored ticket selling facilities and that the service wasn't provided.

Yes. I agree that this is a persuasive arguement when evidenced by the printed material on display which you've quoted.

Unfortunately, it's not clear how and when that "someone" is going to articulate that argument. To the Inspector when detected travelling without a ticket? To the Investigator reading their written explanation of events? To the Magistrates when facing the risk of Conviction?
In each of those circumstances we've seen persuasive arguments fail to persuade, and we have no binding authority to support that "someone" against the other compelling interpretation - that they were evading paying their fare by only offering to pay when challenged.

Having said that - I'll repeat my agreement that the Company's printed statement is persuasive, and it can be, and should be, used to assist the honest passenger who is unjustifiably suspected of fare evasion.

 

[northwichcat]

I am a bit perplexed as to how you come to this conclusion? Nantwich has a TVM which would have been the OPs first opportunity to buy a ticket. The TVM may not take cash but since the OP subsequently bought his weekly ticket with a debit card then the TVM would still have been his first opportunity to buy in his particular circumstances.

As it said ATW's wording is different and doesn't suggest that you can buy on board. However, if it was a Northern station and there was a queue for the TVM someone could think Northern say the conductor will sell you the standard fare on board and it's before 09:30 so I can buy the ticket I want from the conductor.

There's all sorts of grey areas with TVMs:
1. It might not sell the ticket you require.
2. It might refuse your card for no apparent reason.
3. Passengers charters state how long you should be expected to queue to buy a ticket. If the queuing time exceeds that time that surely you can argue that it wasn't an opportunity to buy a ticket.
4. As well as what I said regarding Northern many TOCs like TPE refer to 'walking past an open ticket office' in announcements and ignore TVMs.
5. The TVM might crash but still show the green 'working light' - it happens on Northern TVMs.

In the OP's case they showed an invalid ticket rather than initially saying they don't have a ticket, which would likely affect their claim that they would have bought a ticket if given the opportunity. If they failed to realise the ticket had expired then why would they have purchased a new ticket?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately, it's not clear how and when that "someone" is going to articulate that argument. To the Inspector when detected travelling without a ticket? To the Investigator reading their written explanation of events? To the Magistrates when facing the risk of Conviction?
In each of those circumstances we've seen persuasive arguments fail to persuade, and we have no binding authority to support that "someone" against the other compelling interpretation - that they were evading paying their fare by only offering to pay when challenged.

I think a good solicitor could win a case of fare evasion on that argument. However, I doubt many good solicitors appear in court for cases of over unpaid fares of under £10 unless it's the solicitor themselves accused of fare evasion.

 

[michael769]

I think a good solicitor could win a case of fare evasion on that argument. However, I doubt many good solicitors appear in court for cases of over unpaid fares of under £10 unless it's the solicitor themselves accused of fare evasion.

I think the real "issue" is that you would probably need to take the matter to an appeal court before you might win (good solicitor or no), all the time ramping up the costs. It is the time , hassle and cost of going to appeal that is the practical impediment from most folks.

Of course it just takes one person willing to go that far to give us a ruling on the point, that would then be binding on the lower courts.

 

[MikeWh]

Of course it just takes one person willing to go that far to give us a ruling on the point, that would then be binding on the lower courts.

Which is why the TOCs would never let a dodgy case get anywhere near a court.

 

[jb]

Which is why the TOCs would never let a dodgy case get anywhere near a court.

Really? I would think they wouldn't give a monkeys, and rewrite their posters if and when they have to.

 

[northwichcat]

Which is why the TOCs would never let a dodgy case get anywhere near a court.

Except Northern: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/commuter-finally-cleared-over-50p-861691

I think maybe Northern got a bit too cocky after winning this case: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...aw_student_gets_163_1_000_bill_over_1_2609459

 

[michael769]

I think maybe Northern got a bit too cocky after winning this case: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...aw_student_gets_163_1_000_bill_over_1_2609459

A verdict in a Magistrates court is not binding though.

A ruling handed down by a Superior Court of Record is quite another matter entirely.

 

[Starmill]

Just to add some additional info for the fares boffins. All of the operators had there own RPO's out at Picc today and will do all week. Aside from ATW who Northern and Cross country staff were dealing with.

RPO's from TPE. northern, Virgin and cross country will be at Picc all week blocking all exits.

Will they be there this weekend do you know at all?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will be a revenue blockade at Picc all week with staff from all tocs concerned taking part. If a passenger has not purchased a ticket at first attempt, then they will not get any opportunity to purchase and will instead be cautioned and Mg11'd for prosecution. It's a very literal 'unless the passenger had no opportunity whatsoever, then you're done for'.

It better not be.

I plan on getting on a train to Pic from Mauldeth Road, whose booking office is closed for refurbishment, so if G4S are gone by the time I get there I will be boarding without a ticket as I cannot pay by card atm.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think a good solicitor could win a case of fare evasion on that argument. However, I doubt many good solicitors appear in court for cases of over unpaid fares of under £10 unless it's the solicitor themselves accused of fare evasion.

Indeed. Even in Burns v First Capital Connect the passenger defended himself and won. I quite agree with you, but the point I was making was that success is not assured, and there are many, many successful prosecutions which are contested by the passenger. The cost of legal representation can be a gamble compounding the cost of prosecution.

The country's most expensive law firm with a well publicised expertise in contesting Fare Evasion will charge £3k - £4k for a court appearance.

 

[Asian Demon]

It better not be.

I plan on getting on a train to Pic from Mauldeth Road, whose booking office is closed for refurbishment, so if G4S are gone by the time I get there I will be boarding without a ticket as I cannot pay by card atm.

You won't have had a first opportunity then would you, so I don't see an issue. This is simply an exercise to catch those who blatantly evade their fares. An example which was seen by myself on Monday by two idiots who were sat across from me who travelled from Macclesfield and were laughing and joking about avoiding the conductor for the service. This while waving about 20 quid notes and laughing about how much booze they were going to drink. Needless to say they got a shock at Manchester Picc.

 

[323235]

Yes I'm sure there will be a fair few from Macclesfield ,who normally walk past the ticket office and get on a Pendolino/Voyager avoiding the guard.

Hopefully it will teach some of them a good lesson.

I'm very supportive of these barrier operations, as long, as they don't attempt to penalise the genuine travellers unable to buy a ticket.

There was one instance the other week of a man returning on the train to Prestbury (unstaffed) who complained that he was refused an evening return at Macclesfield after completing the 3 minute journey by staff carrying out a revenue block their.

I was hoping one day they would try this on me more forcefully than they have done in the past when they have listened to valid reasoning, however it hasn't happened yet.