FCC Prosecution...please please help

[furlong]

Well recent examples such as these suggest the industry itself is still pretty confused about the times of travelcard validity despite the sorely-inadequate attempt to set 04:29 as the standard.

The OP hasn't told us the stations involved, but anyway, what does the definitive source of customer information for all passenger rail services on the National Rail network in England, Wales and Scotland tell us if it was out-boundary?

Travelcards purchased outside of the London Fare Zones area:

* Off-Peak Day Travelcards are valid for travel from whenever Off-Peak fares become available from your station – check our Journey Planner to see whether an Off-Peak fare is available when you wish to travel. Valid up to the early hours of the following day provided the train you are using beyond the London Fare Zones area departs no later than 02:30. If you are already on a train by 02:30 you may continue your journey provided no further change of trains is made. Within the London Fare Zones area you may use the Travelcard until 04:29.

 

[bb21]

2. So them opening the barriers for me after seeing my ticket was invalid and letting me on the train is not evidence that I was travelling with authorization from an RPI?

As a number of people have already pointed out, the difficulty is in obtaining the CCTV image, assuming that you get there before it is destroyed, and that if you get there, were allowed a copy.

I am not sure there are many outside the industry who would be confident that they know.

Or even those in the industry.

How many actually read the notices issued when the railway day was synchronised with TfL, assuming that their management actually issued those notices?

 

[martybabes]

Caveat: I haven't checked whether this law is still current, but if it is:

Regulation of Railways Act 1889
S. 5
(1) ...
(2) ...
(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
...

My emphasis shows that for a S.5(3)(a) charge there is a two-part burden of proof upon the Prosecutor. He has to prove that there was an attempt to travel on the railway (easy enough I would say) and there was also an intent to avoid payment thereof. Proving one of the two will not secure a conviction.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

1. So does moving to the train as if to board or to travel include handing your ticket to an RPI BEFORE any travel, on the side of the barriers within the station to be told your ticket is invalid? Your telling me that they can prosecute me on those grounds?

Without further evidence to the contrary, then I'm sorry to say that, yes, the conditions in the Act and the clarifications from subsequent case law suggest to me that a prosecution would pass the tests of a realistic prospect of success.

2. So them opening the barriers for me after seeing my ticket was invalid and letting me on the train is not evidence that I was travelling with authorization from an RPI?

This is the element of the incident where I understood that we didn't have any evidence. (Am I wrong?)

3. What evidence do they have that I did anything other than what I said? If they didn't believe that I had permission to board after the RPI telling me I could pay at a later date, the only other alternative is that they'd genuinely think I'd be as stupid as to walk through the barriers that the RPI opened for me and board the train if I knew it would mean I was facing prosecution?

I can only base my answer on what you have posted on here, which, it seems to me, is :
1. the Company's evidence of the written report by their Inspector,
2. your telephone conversation today (challenging his claim),
3. your implied admission that you have not paid the fare for your journey.

Is there anything else? What does the Inspector's report say?

 

[blazintec]

Without further evidence to the contrary, then I'm sorry to say that, yes, the conditions in the Act and the clarifications from subsequent case law suggest to me that a prosecution would pass the tests of a realistic prospect of success.

This is the element of the incident where I understood that we didn't have any evidence. (Am I wrong?)

I can only base my answer on what you have posted on here, which, it seems to me, is :
1. the Company's evidence of the written report by their Inspector,
2. your telephone conversation today (challenging his claim),
3. your implied admission that you have not paid the fare for your journey.

Is there anything else? What does the Inspector's report say?

But if he didn't let me through the barriers, then how on earth would I have got past them into the train? And before you say I jumped over them, then how would the RPI have got all my details?...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't presume to be able to answer these questions that you're putting to me. But I am trying to assist by applying what I believe are the same analaytic procedures that a Railway Investigator will apply.
I'm not interested in making a judgement about you, but I am trying to replicate or anticipate the judgement which will flow from the evidence that you've provided on here, in the hope that it helps you to make the best decisions.

If you are persuaded that your challenge is evidentially robust, then you should feel confident.

 

[blazintec]

I don't presume to be able to answer these questions that you're putting to me. But I am trying to assist by applying what I believe are the same analaytic procedures that a Railway Investigator will apply.
I'm not interested in making a judgement about you, but I am trying to replicate or anticipate the judgement which will flow from the evidence that you've provided on here, in the hope that it helps you to make the best decisions.

If you are persuaded that your challenge is evidentially robust, then you should feel confident.

I know you are simply trying to help, we are on the same level. The reason I asked you that was to once again get an answer and therefore identify any flaws in my argument (or more specifically what reasons they'd have for not believing specific parts of my account).

Do you not believe that the fact I was entering kings x on the ticket side of the barriers and they managed to get all my details, followed by me getting on the train home, makes the fact that they let me through the barriers pretty self explanatory?

I do appreciate you're bluntness. Let me ask you this, going by everything I've said, do you think there is a real chance of me being prosecuted and obtaining a criminal record?

 

[martybabes]

I don't presume to be able to answer these questions that you're putting to me.

So let me put a question to you instead.

How do you prove the intent required by the statute? On what are you intending to rely?

All I have seen so far is the belief that there was a valid ticket (which I think adequately negatives the intent) rather than that there wasn't a ticket but a determination to travel anyway (as would be required under the Section).

 

[jon0844]

I can't see any intent myself and I'm not sure how there could be any proven.

Given the details were taken before travel, and the OP wasn't asked the all important 'would you have travelled if not stopped' question, it's surely a byelaw 18 offence at most?

But, it's also rather nasty to proceed with even that in my humble opinion.

I know some would argue against the use of the word entrapment, but it seems that the person at the gate was already planning to report for prosecution (clearly someone with no money by their own admission couldn't quality for a PF) yet possibly wanting to give the impression it was actually just to arrange for collection of the ticket fee later.

The other possible options were to give an unpaid notice or, if feeling in a very generous mood, endorse the ticket and give permission for travel. Staff do have discretion, and as it was the first train of the day (I presume) and going against the flow, I doubt management would have been hugely upset or thinking it was about to open the floodgates.

If people are to be reported for prosecution before travel, I do fear that FCC and others might seek to take things a step even further in the future.

One day they'll be standing in a ticket hall, saying they're doing some market research and one lucky person can stand to win an annual gold card for just answering a couple of random questions. All you need to do is 'step this way' before you buy your ticket. It's okay, come through the gates, there are less people on this side...

Now we'd like you to answer a few simple questions for our survey.

1. Do you have a ticket already? No? Of course not - we took you from the queue!
2. If you were in a rush one day and didn't buy a ticket, then at the destination saw an open barrier with no way to buy your ticket - would you leave without paying? We probably would! Yes? That's great!

Okay then, that's all the questions. Thanks for taking part! Now we just need to get your name, address and a signature so we can prove we spoke to you today. And as you don't have a ticket you better get back through the gates now, or you might get in trouble hehe!

We'll let you know in a few weeks the outcome of the survey...

After that, TOCs will begin to issue prosecutions via conversations on Twitter...

 

[Fare-Cop]

I arrived at kings cross with a return travel card at 5:12am (To make it clear i was INSIDE kings cross station, not on the side of the barriers of arrival after taking a train; I had taken no train at this point). I gave my ticket to the RPO to which he told me my ticket expired at 4:30am and I'd have to buy a new one. I told him I had no money and no way of getting home and asked if there was anyway I could pay later. He said okay, OPENED the barriers, let me through, took my details down, and I was on my way and took the train home. about 4 weeks later I get a letter through the post saying they intend to prosecute me,

I can't see any intent myself and I'm not sure how there could be any proven.

Well, it has been separately ruled that 'a person cannot give what he does not have' and 'a fare is due at the time of travel and not later'. A person who boards a train without a valid ticket or means to pay intending to travel without paying does commit an offence, but this doesn't appear to be the case here.

FCC may be labouring in a mistaken belief that they can successfully prosecute an intent not to pay because the traveller had neither valid ticket or means to pay the fare, but, if the incident is all as clear-cut as blazintec suggests, I agree that I cannot see how it can be proven that he set out with the intention to travel without paying.

Intent can occur at any time of course, a traveller may set out intending to pay, but an opportunity to travel without doing so presents and the traveller takes that opportunity and might properly be reported, but I do not believe this post falls in that category.

If this is exactly as blazintec states, that cannot apply because the traveller was not aware that he did not have a valid ticket until told so by the barrier staff.

Given the details were taken before travel, and the OP wasn't asked the all important 'would you have travelled if not stopped' question, it's surely a byelaw 18 offence at most?'

Yes, but even the Byelaw 18.2 matter fails, because the traveller did 'show a ticket' and was given permission to travel by an authorised person.

The other possible options were to give an unpaid notice

Which is what I would have expected should be done in this situation.

or, if feeling in a very generous mood, endorse the ticket and give permission for travel. Staff do have discretion,

Whilst I agree with the sentiment and have done this many times in the distant past when I was an inspector myself, there is always a 'cop-out' for management if you've wound them up, because Condition 59 of NRCoC states that 'no member of staff has any authority to waive or vary these conditions'

and as it was the first train of the day (I presume) and going against the flow, I doubt management would have been hugely upset or thinking it was about to open the floodgates.

I agree, a pragmatic approach should be taken in such a situation

If people are to be reported for prosecution before travel, I do fear that FCC and others might seek to take things a step even further in the future.

That one is already covered, S.5 RoRA does state 'if any person travels or attempts to travel without a valid ticket...etc.', but in this particular case I agree that I cannot see how they believe that they can succeed if they are seeking to prove intent not to pay.

All of this is tempered by the thought that as always, we only get one version of any incident on here and whilst I do not suggest for one minute that I do not believe blazintec has not been entirely truthful, maybe FCC believe they have evidence that we are not a party to.

 

[island]

My personal opinion, which is uninformed and probably wrong, is that the OP appears to have met the criteria of the offence of attempting to travel without having previously paid his fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof. It appears to me that seeking to pass a ticket barrier without holding a valid ticket would count as attempting to travel without having previously paid his fare. As for the intent, it has been well-established that a passenger with no means to pay his fare can be deemed to have intent to avoid payment. And I have little hesitation in concluding that had the OP not encountered a closed gateline, he would have travelled without paying his fare and thought no more of it.

I am of the opinion that the passenger has not committed the offence of travelling without having previously paid his fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof, because when he decided to travel, he did so on the understanding (which appears to have been wrong) that he had been permitted to travel by an officer of the railway and pay his fare at a future date. He genuinely intended to pay at that stage.

I am further of the opinion that the passenger has not committed the offence of boarding a train without having with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel, contrary to section 18 (1) of the Railway Byelaws, as he has a defence under section 18 (3) (iii) in that an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

I do, however, believe that FCC has handled this poorly. If it was the gateline attendant's intention to report the passenger for prosecution, he should have been clear about this and offered the passenger the opportunity to regularise his situation by an alternative method, such as a SILK.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I do, however, believe that FCC has handled this poorly. If it was the gateline attendant's intention to report the passenger for prosecution, he should have been clear about this and offered the passenger the opportunity to regularise his situation by an alternative method, such as a SILK.

Yes, I agree 100%. I nearly mentioned SILK arrangements in my earlier post, but it was getting a bit lengthy. As this incident was at 05.12 according to the original post, the booking office at KGX is open from 05.00 hours so the traveller could have been directed to go there for instructions.

Once sorted, he could have travelled on a later train with a valid fare paid ticket. End of problem.

I know that it is frustrating how many times when delivering further training for existing staff for RPI roles I have asked a classroom what the SILK arrangement is and have been met with blank stares and silence, so I'm not surprised that barrier staff don't often mention it.

 

[tony6499]

Yes, I agree 100%. I nearly mentioned SILK arrangements in my earlier post, but it was getting a bit lengthy. As this incident was at 05.12 according to the original post, the booking office at KGX is open from 05.00 hours so the traveller could have been directed to go there for instructions.

Once sorted, he could have travelled on a later train with a valid fare paid ticket. End of problem.

I know that it is frustrating how many times when delivering further training for existing staff for RPI roles I have asked a classroom what the SILK arrangement is and have been met with blank stares and silence, so I'm not surprised that barrier staff don't often mention it.

I think office staff don't want people knowing about SILK due to the work it causes, mind you may have been difficult for the OP to find someone at wherever he was going to to find somebody to pay his fare and the ticket office to be open at his destination so they could pay it

 

[thedbdiboy]

Having read through three pages of this, I have to say that assuming that the information provided by the OP is accurate, there is absolutely no realistic prospect of intent being proven. The issue as always is that ultimately, if not settled beforehand, it will be need to be resolved in court.
I will also go out on a limb here (given the fairly fundamentalist approach to Byelaw 18 adopted here by many respondents), but even a Byelaw 18 prosecution might struggle in the face of the facts assuming that they are as described. Whilst the byelaw requires a valid ticket to be held, in practice on those occasions when such matters make it to court, magistrates tend to avoid convicting where a person had a ticket that a reasonable person might consider to be valid. Using the return portion of a ticket an hour beyond expiry could well fall into this category.

 

[jon0844]

FCC wouldn't be stupid enough to take this to court*.

Even if it was within its rights to do so based on what some people have said on here, it's on shaky ground from a PR point of view, given that someone was effectively reported for prosecution before travel.

Now I know the OP could be lying, or being a little conservative with the truth (such as being told they couldn't travel without going to buy a new ticket but then ignoring said advice and jumping on the train anyway). But, I have to assume that what was said is true - and, if so, the press would have a field day.

And in any case, the details were still taken from the OP before travel even if he said 'sod this' and jumped on the train. What was the RPI intending to do by taking said details if the passenger still had the option not to travel (whether that was to wait for someone to pick him up, or call a taxi and be taken to someone that had some money)?

The fact a ticket is valid beyond midnight of the date shown on the ticket means you can't even argue that the OP should have known it wasn't valid because it was the next day.

Nor the fact that other options weren't offered to the OP, such as SILK, un unpaid fares notice or simply permission to travel given the time of morning.

Personally, I'd hope that FCC - especially under the management of the new MD who seems to be a bit more proactive than those before him (I read the recent Meet The Directors forum and it's beginning to look like it might actually be useful once more) - will see sense on this and we'll hear good news from the OP in the coming days.

* Ok, history suggests that might be a dumb statement!

 

[blazintec]

Anyone who is questioning the truth of my account; I don't know any of you and will never meet any of you, and vice versa. I have absolutely no reason what so ever to with hold any of the truth as this would probably even be non-beneficial to me. Thank you all for your inputs so far. You have given me (somewhat) peace of mind. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to call up the prosecution office to see if there has been any developments in my case; I am just itching to find out what is going to happen.

 

[RJ]

I think office staff don't want people knowing about SILK due to the work it causes, mind you may have been difficult for the OP to find someone at wherever he was going to to find somebody to pay his fare and the ticket office to be open at his destination so they could pay it

I hope this isn't true. SILKs are a minor. If an intending traveller has no money, one of the first things I tell them is that someone can go to any Train Operating Company's ticket office in the UK and pay on their behalf. There is a nice, clear page in The Manual that advises of the process.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Having read through three pages of this, I have to say that assuming that the information provided by the OP is accurate, there is absolutely no realistic prospect of intent being proven. The issue as always is that ultimately, if not settled beforehand, it will be need to be resolved in court.
I will also go out on a limb here (given the fairly fundamentalist approach to Byelaw 18 adopted here by many respondents), but even a Byelaw 18 prosecution might struggle in the face of the facts assuming that they are as described. Whilst the byelaw requires a valid ticket to be held, in practice on those occasions when such matters make it to court, magistrates tend to avoid convicting where a person had a ticket that a reasonable person might consider to be valid. Using the return portion of a ticket an hour beyond expiry could well fall into this category.

Couldn't agree more on this one, taking the OPs account as accurate there is no intent and no Byelaw 18 offence either.

 

[jon0844]

Anyone who is questioning the truth of my account; I don't know any of you and will never meet any of you, and vice versa. I have absolutely no reason what so ever to with hold any of the truth as this would probably even be non-beneficial to me. Thank you all for your inputs so far. You have given me (somewhat) peace of mind. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to call up the prosecution office to see if there has been any developments in my case; I am just itching to find out what is going to happen.

It's nothing personal, honest. Just the obvious statement that advice given here is based on the story presented being true. If it wasn't true, or not entirely true, then any advice given on what to do, or what might happen, might not then be accurate.

Ultimately, only you know the truth and if you did lie (for whatever reason - and I speak generally about all posters, not specifically you) then you'd gain nothing. Nobody here is affected either way after all, so I have to assume you have told the truth.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Can anyone prove that the OP travelled?

Other than he already might have admitted it in phone calls / emails to FCC.

If the details were taken by the RPI prior to travel, and no CCTV exists of him boarding the train, travelling on the train, or exiting at his destination, then the only thing that can be proved is that the OP is, after a drop or two of falling down juice, a friendly chap who gives his name and address to railway officials when requested!

Thats why you catch people during or after they have completed their journey, not?

 

[jon0844]

It is rather bizarre.

If the OP had jumped the barriers, or walked through open gates, I can see they might have a case - as you've crossed into a controlled area without a valid ticket - but when you've presented the ticket, been let in and spoken to staff before getting on a train?

 

[blazintec]

Do you guys think itd be a good idea to call the prosecution offuce to try and get things moving faster? I genuinely cannot function with this hanging over me

 

[bb21]

Do you guys think itd be a good idea to call the prosecution offuce to try and get things moving faster? I genuinely cannot function with this hanging over me

This is not normally a recommended move, however some posters have reported success after phoning up, but usually when they intended to settle and an agreement was made over the phone.

I am not aware of a case where a matter is dropped as a direct result of a phone call so cannot really say the prospect of success.

 

[jon0844]

Do you guys think itd be a good idea to call the prosecution offuce to try and get things moving faster? I genuinely cannot function with this hanging over me

I really wouldn't be letting this worry you too much. At worst, you'll be asked to make a settlement of around £80-100 (and I think they'll offer this to you without having to ask, as the point is they won't want to take it to court).

I'd seriously consider bringing this up on Twitter (@FirstCC) as that can get the ball rolling on things, and you might stand a better chance of getting someone within FCC to have a word to end this, than trying to end it yourself.

Of course, that might do no good (but, nor will it do any harm either).

Otherwise email them at their customer service address and explain the situation. They'll almost certainly have to escalate it to someone that will have the authority to deal with it, but if you do that now then you're saving valuable time and won't be desperately trying to chase people when you're now presented with a settlement figure and the risk of them proceeding to court if you don't respond, or have to pay up.

I can't remember the name of the person I emailed when I had my own problem, but if you can find someone who works in the revenue protection team then that's maybe another option - and skips the delay of the social media team, or customer services, passing it on. Perhaps an FCC employee on here could assist by giving you a private message?

 

[blazintec]

I really wouldn't be letting this worry you too much. At worst, you'll be asked to make a settlement of around £80-100 (and I think they'll offer this to you without having to ask, as the point is they won't want to take it to court).

I'd seriously consider bringing this up on Twitter (@FirstCC) as that can get the ball rolling on things, and you might stand a better chance of getting someone within FCC to have a word to end this, than trying to end it yourself.

Of course, that might do no good (but, nor will it do any harm either).

Otherwise email them at their customer service address and explain the situation. They'll almost certainly have to escalate it to someone that will have the authority to deal with it, but if you do that now then you're saving valuable time and won't be desperately trying to chase people when you're now presented with a settlement figure and the risk of them proceeding to court if you don't respond, or have to pay up.

I can't remember the name of the person I emailed when I had my own problem, but if you can find someone who works in the revenue protection team then that's maybe another option - and skips the delay of the social media team, or customer services, passing it on. Perhaps an FCC employee on here could assist by giving you a private message?

Thanks for your reply. I actually did email a lady who picked up the phone when I rang the office on the day I received the letter (Friday). She told me to email her, I did, but haven't heard back yet. I am aware that it has been practically no time at all as I doubt there was anyone in the office on the weekend, but it is just in my nature to be a prolific worrier and over think things. I will try and get to them via twitter

 

[jon0844]

You should get some sort of email to acknowledge receipt soon, and then it might take a bit longer to actually get a proper response - given the need to make enquiries etc.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

[I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this question from last night]

So let me put a question to you instead.

How do you prove the intent required by the statute? On what are you intending to rely?

All I have seen so far is the belief that there was a valid ticket (which I think adequately negatives the intent) rather than that there wasn't a ticket but a determination to travel anyway (as would be required under the Section).

Clarification of intent in general Criminal matter includes S.8 of the Criminal Justice Act which offers the basis for an objective assessment : "whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances." and which has been subsequently developed in numerous judgements (e.g. R v Allen) which confirm that a person's intent can be inferred from their actions alone, without having to consider what might have been their thoughts.

However, we have specific decisions in the application of S.5 of the RoRA, to assist us; notably Corbyn v Saunders (in which the passenger had simply passed a briief opportunity to pay and that there was no need to look for a permanent intention, "when passing the ticket inspector . . .the requisite intent to avoid payment is proved") and Browning v Floyd (in which the passenger presented a valid ticket but had not paid his fare) or Reynolds v Beasley (in which he presented a ticket which was not his). In applying these strict and forlumaic tests, then I reached the conclusion that an Investigator looking at blazintec's file would determine that a Prosecution would be appropriate.

Now, I must say, that considering all the facts presented on here, I must agree with others that I would expect any Investigator to reach the same conclusion as everyone else, that blazintec has provided a reasonable explanation and prosecution would not be appropriate.
But, for what it's worth, I'll repeat that when the more limited evidence that appears to be on file, and which is verifiable, is subjected to the formulaic toolkit of tests available to the Railway Investigator, then I'm not so sure.
Happy to be corrected.

Certainly, I doubt any Railway Revenue Investigator has a procedure chart with a branch which asks "does passenger claim they were authorised to travel without a valid ticket?" "If 'yes', stop the investigation".

[Apologies again for the delay - I realise that the conversation has moved on]

 

[blazintec]

[I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this question from last night]Clarification of intent in general Criminal matter includes S.8 of the Criminal Justice Act which offers the basis for an objective assessment : "whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances." and which has been subsequently developed in numerous judgements (e.g. R v Allen) which confirm that a person's intent can be inferred from their actions alone, without having to consider what might have been their thoughts.

However, we have specific decisions in the application of S.5 of the RoRA, to assist us; notably Corbyn v Saunders (in which the passenger had simply passed a briief opportunity to pay and that there was no need to look for a permanent intention, "when passing the ticket inspector . . .the requisite intent to avoid payment is proved") and Browning v Floyd (in which the passenger presented a valid ticket but had not paid his fare) or Reynolds v Beasley (in which he presented a ticket which was not his). In applying these strict and forlumaic tests, then I reached the conclusion that an Investigator looking at blazintec's file would determine that a Prosecution would be appropriate.

Now, I must say, that considering all the facts presented on here, I must agree with others that I would expect any Investigator to reach the same conclusion, that blazintec has provided a reasonable explanation.
But, for what it's worth, I'll repeat that when the more limited and verifiable evidence that appears to be on file is subjected to the formulaic toolkit of tests available to the Railway Investigator, then I'm not so sure.
Happy to be corrected.

Certainly, I doubt any Railway Revenue Investigator has a procedure chart with a branch which asks "does passenger claim they were authorised to travel without a valid ticket?" "If 'yes', stop the investigation".

[Apologies again for the delay - I realise that the conversation has moved on]

In that case, do you think my best course of action is to offer an out of court settlement? =/

 

[jon0844]

I'd continue to try and get them to drop it, but if they insist on a settlement then, yes, you probably should pay and continue to appeal afterwards (by escalating the case and attempting to get a refund less the fare due).

 

[blazintec]

I'd continue to try and get them to drop it, but if they insist on a settlement then, yes, you probably should pay and continue to appeal afterwards (by escalating the case and attempting to get a refund less the fare due).

Are you sure they'd insist on a settlement first and won't just go straight to court? Because from reading other accounts it seems like they just jump straight to the latter...