PFN Disputed - Summons Issued - False Witness Statements

[LateThanNever]

Would have thought that the prosecution would fail on an error of fact - so long as they continue to allege the travelling was from B'ham New St.!

 

[455driver]

it all depends what the OP said to the RPI when questioned!
Or are you saying that all you have to do is say you travelled from station B instead of station to get off being prosecuted?

Maybe we are getting down to why the OP refused to sign the notice?

 

[DelayRepay]

I am under no illusions as to my chances if it gets to the Magistrates' Court - but if found guilty I would appeal, I would think. I am prepared to risk extra costs if it means a possibility of winning. By winning I mean either in court or by showing the Witness up for the liar they are and getting them investigated/prosecuted/imprisoned.

I would suggest, if you are seriously considering going down this road, that you take proper legal advice before it's too late. But personally I think you should have paid the penalty fare when you had the chance.

 

[yorkie]

looking at National Rails station guide-

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SAD/details.html

It says Sandwell & Dudley has a ticket office and ticket machines (actually a PERTIS machine) available so the no opportunity defence would appear mute!

moot? (Sorry, couldn't resist picking up on that!)

So it could be argued that you had left insufficient time to purchase a ticket before boarding your train.

I think that if you arrive at the station and there are no facilities available, you shouldn't have to wait an unknown period for facilities to become available. What matters is what facilities were available at the time you commenced your journey, and until the Train Companies state exactly how long before your train is due to depart you should arrive, I don't think people can be expected to miss a train in case the ticket office re-opens.

PERTIS machines are only of any use if you're paying by cash, not card. They're also being phased out, as others have said.

Ticket machines, which may or may not have been working, may or may not take the chosen payment method (in Northern-land many are card only), I can think of a payment method which isn't available at any machines, but I don't want to go giving the OP ideas..!

We still do not know how long there was between trains at BHM either.

I think my advice would be, as the OP wants to fight it in Court, ensure that you get a good solicitor.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

it all depends what the OP said to the RPI when questioned!
Or are you saying that all you have to do is say you travelled from station B instead of station to get off being prosecuted?

Maybe we are getting down to why the OP refused to sign the notice?

Exactly what I was thinking.

It can't be as simple as letting it go to Court and then saying "well actually I didn't start at Birmingham New Street" as otherwise anyone could say that to get out of it! In my opinion, if they've made an error as to the origin station, the error needs to be challenged at the outset. (IANAL!)

 

[CyrusWuff]

Would have thought that the prosecution would fail on an error of fact - so long as they continue to allege the travelling was from B'ham New St.!

I stand for correction, but the OP has stated they travelled from Sandwell and Dudley to New Street on a Virgin service, thus a Penalty Fare wouldn't apply for that leg of the journey as Virgin don't operate a Penalty Fare scheme.

As such, London Midland can only enforce "their" part of the journey, namely New Street - Longbridge, so that's probably not a showstopper when it comes to a prosecution.

YMMV. IANAL. E&OE. And other such acronyms.

 

[455driver]

moot? (Sorry, couldn't resist picking up on that!)

Yea alright I will let you have that one!

I think that if you arrive at the station and there are no facilities available, you shouldn't have to wait an unknown period for facilities to become available. What matters is what facilities were available at the time you commenced your journey, and until the Train Companies state exactly how long before your train is due to depart you should arrive, I don't think people can be expected to miss a train in case the ticket office re-opens.

If the staff member was already on the platform despatching the train (do Ticket Office staff despatch trains at SAD?) then it must have been quite close to departure time when the OP arrived at the station!

PERTIS machines are only of any use if you're paying by cash, not card. They're also being phased out, as others have said.

It looks as if there is a proper ticket machine there now anyway so that point is moot! (where is the tongue sticking out smillie when you want one )

Ticket machines, which may or may not have been working, may or may not take the chosen payment method (in Northern-land many are card only), I can think of a payment method which isn't available at any machines, but I don't want to go giving the OP ideas..!

A lot of people try that one on as it is!

We still do not know how long there was between trains at BHM either.

They are quite regular most of the day.

I think my advice would be, as the OP wants to fight it in Court, ensure that you get a good solicitor.

On the evidence they have provided a good bank manager might be more appropriate (to provide a large loan) because I cant really see anything for the OP to use as a defence.

The OP seems set on their course of action anyway so I dont think they are going to take any notice of anything posted on here!

 

[LateThanNever]

it all depends what the OP said to the RPI when questioned!
Or are you saying that all you have to do is say you travelled from station B instead of station to get off being prosecuted?

Maybe we are getting down to why the OP refused to sign the notice?

I took it that they'd already been informed of where the OP travelled from but had failed to take it on board.
And if you have evidence that you boarded at a different station from that alleged then yes you'd get off. The railway is all about location! Accuracy is legally important and if the customer needs to be accurate then so definitely do the prosecutors!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I stand for correction, but the OP has stated they travelled from Sandwell and Dudley to New Street on a Virgin service, thus a Penalty Fare wouldn't apply for that leg of the journey as Virgin don't operate a Penalty Fare scheme.

As such, London Midland can only enforce "their" part of the journey, namely New Street - Longbridge, so that's probably not a showstopper when it comes to a prosecution.

YMMV. IANAL. E&OE. And other such acronyms.

But does a lack of a Penalty Fare affect the fact that you travelled without a ticket? Indeed if you started on a service that doesn't have Penalty Fares how on earth are you supposed to realise a subsequent service does have Penalty Fares? Osmosis - or just paranormal waves?!

 

[island]

The Penalty Fare Notice seems invalid to me as the OP's journey started on a train that was not a Penalty Fares train.

The OP seems to me to have committed an offence under section 18 (1) of the Railway Byelaws by joining a train without a ticket where ticketing facilities were available at Sandwell & Dudley, and a further such offence at Birmingham New Street.

The fact that an invalid Penalty Fare Notice was issued does not, as far as I know, provide a defence to the offence.

I can make no comment on the implications, if any, of any alleged inaccuracies in the statement of the revenue protection inspector, due to insufficient knowledge of the topic.

 

[Nick W]

OK, thanks for that info. I really didn't notice until quite recently. It's not that in your face - you'd have to turn around and have a good look - it's next to the photo booth, which is behind the entrance door. You would not see it if you went to the ticket counter then continued to the platform entrance. I'm not trying to make excuses, just saying as it was.

The law is, unfortunately, not on your side. The ticket machine could be on a remote platform and it would still be considered an "opportunity". I therefore take back the mention of a possible defence.

Have you written to the railway company asking whether, in light of the administrative error, they would, on this occasion, accept payment of the fare and conclude the matter. If they have really messed up, I'd have thought they would accept.

 

[samsmoot]

The law is, unfortunately, not on your side. The ticket machine could be on a remote platform and it would still be considered an "opportunity". I therefore take back the mention of a possible defence.

Have you written to the railway company asking whether, in light of the administrative error, they would, on this occasion, accept payment of the fare and conclude the matter. If they have really messed up, I'd have thought they would accept.

I wrote - but threateningly re the false statements. So rather than having a Defence as such I am looking at pointing at their evidence as being unreliable enough to give reasonable doubt as to its accuracy.

That I boarded at S&D seems on the one hand to admit the offence but on the other denies the facts as alleged. A dilemma for me as far as the best way to go.

 

[Flamingo]

More or less, yes. Once I looked at the Rules I realised that the issuance of a PFN needed to be in accordance with these Rules - and as it wasn't issued according to the Rules it seemed reasonable to say so and to dispute it on that basis. And once I looked at the Summons I saw a false Witness Statement and think that's just not right.

To ask a pertinent question, would you have left without paying at your destination if you had not been stopped?

 

[yorkie]

They are quite regular most of the day.

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to say it but yes, you are right, and that is in the OPs favour, as there would only be a requirement to visit the ticket office at BHM if there wasn't a train due shortly.

There would, however, be an obligation to pay at the destination, of course, if facilities exist.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I have quite a bit of experience with matters such as this:

. . . . I could press for the Witness to be prosecuted for lying to the court; I can do this and not attend a hearing; I can do this and attend the hearing and get the Witness to repeat the lies under oath. This is to make the offence more serious, as lying under oath in the court may be taken as exacerbating the crime of perjury or perverting the course of justice or whatever.

I am hoping that the prosecutor may be swayed by threats of the Witness being pursued for telling lies - the fact that it is stated by them that I did sign the PFN must have some importance to have been part of the Witness Statement, and therefore should be true - but it's clearly not, as shown by the non-signature on the PFN which this same witness also signed.

My attitude is that if they use lies to prosecute me, I will try and make sure that all such liars pay the penalties laid down in law. Not paying a train fare is one thing, lying under oath is much more serious - and I won't stand for it - if I don't have to.

I am under no illusions as to my chances if it gets to the Magistrates' Court - but if found guilty I would appeal, I would think. I am prepared to risk extra costs if it means a possibility of winning. By winning I mean either in court or by showing the Witness up for the liar they are and getting them investigated/prosecuted/imprisoned.

So my question really is whether or not this threat has any meat to it?

I regularly see Defendants arguing that there was 'a lie' in the prosecution evidence. It always results in either one of two outcomes, and neither are of any benefit to the client. One is that the Prosecution does not present the contentious evidence (after which it is of no interest to the matter before the Court if the defence wishes to re-introduce it), and the other is that the Court rules that the defence must confine itself to the matter before it.

In a handful of cases, the determined Defendant has parted ways with its counsel in disatisfaction that the procedural complaint is not being pursued, and continues as a litigant-in-person in an attempt to find fault with the Prosecution. In every single case I can recall, they failed. And quite regularly are reprimanded by the Appeal Judge for straying from the matter before them. I have suffered a few this year already. Doomed every time, and expensive. What a sad waste of time, energy and money.

You are in exactly this position yourself, samsmoot. You may have reason to believe that some injustice or other has taken place and it disadvantages you. You may be able to provide robust evidence to support that belief. But in the meantime, we have the substantive matter in front of us that you have been captured by Railway Byelaw 18. That is a matter of fact, isn't it?

 

[yorkie]

But does a lack of a Penalty Fare affect the fact that you travelled without a ticket?

A PF could still be issued, if the passenger had sufficient time to purchase the correct ticket at the interchange station without delaying their journey.

The problem is that there is no defined length of time that would be deemed sufficient. It would depend on the station, the length of any queues*, the platforms you arrive/depart from, and any mobility issues.

* Passengers are apparently expected to queue for an indefinite/undefined amount of time at their origin station, even if it means missing the train at the start of their journey. But, once their journey has commenced, passengers are not expected to delay their journeys by queuing to purchase tickets at an intermediate station.

Indeed if you started on a service that doesn't have Penalty Fares how on earth are you supposed to realise a subsequent service does have Penalty Fares? Osmosis - or just paranormal waves?!

There should be sufficient notices at the interchange station, in theory.

 

[cuccir]

I concur broadly with Island's assessment - an illegitimate penalty fare, which does not override the fact that an offence was committed. A possible defense might rest on how reasonable it would be to not be aware of the ticket vending machine and/or PERTIS machine at S&D: I don't know the station, so can't comment here.

With regards to the general question - TOCs certainly can and do back down where they see a prosecution as difficult to manage. You might want to read through this thread which contains some very good advice about court procedure, and also shows an example of a prosecution backing down.

All that said, of course, it is a riskier strategy [Edit- and see DaveNewcastle's advice above]. Many of us would agree that your attitude and actions would suggest that, perhaps, you're the sort of person who isn't going to go out of their way to buy a ticket (apologies if this assessment is incorrect)? The point is that if the TOC has picked up on this, it might also make them a bit more bolshy.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks - I don't think there was a machine there at the time but have since noticed it - it may have been there but it is hard to see as you enter the station.

If there is a ticket machine there, and it would have accepted payment and sold you a ticket, then unfortunately you can argue all the other stuff that may well be in your favour, but at the end of the day you will struggle to defend a charge that you should have purchased from the machine.

What does the station signage say? I am aware of a station near me which has a notice stating that when the ticket office is closed, you may board the train and purchase on board. However such a sign is unlikely to be in place at Sandwell & Dudley; quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Clip]

It does state on LM's website that they do indeed have a TVM there.

 

[samsmoot]

I concur broadly with Island's assessment - an illegitimate penalty fare, which does not override the fact that an offence was committed. A possible defense might rest on how reasonable it would be to not be aware of the ticket vending machine and/or PERTIS machine at S&D: I don't know the station, so can't comment here.

With regards to the general question - TOCs certainly can and do back down where they see a prosecution as difficult to manage. You might want to read through this thread which contains some very good advice about court procedure, and also shows an example of a prosecution backing down.

All that said, of course, it is a riskier strategy [Edit- and see DaveNewcastle's advice above]. Many of us would agree that your attitude and actions would suggest that, perhaps, you're the sort of person who isn't going to go out of their way to buy a ticket (apologies if this assessment is incorrect)? The point is that if the TOC has picked up on this, it might also make them a bit more bolshy.

Thanks for the info and link. I see the risk and may myself back down if necessary to save expense and stress.

I do usually make sure I buy a ticket and really should have got one at New street - delayed journey or not I see it would have been the wise thing to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there is a ticket machine there, and it would have accepted payment and sold you a ticket, then unfortunately you can argue all the other stuff that may well be in your favour, but at the end of the day you will struggle to defend a charge that you should have purchased from the machine.

What does the station signage say? I am aware of a station near me which has a notice stating that when the ticket office is closed, you may board the train and purchase on board. However such a sign is unlikely to be in place at Sandwell & Dudley; quite the opposite in fact.

Not sure about the signage - the office is almost always manned - apart from when they deal with the Virgin train.

 

[bb21]

As to the location of the ticket machine at Sandwell & Dudley, it is in the ticket hall opposite the ticket windows. It is easy to miss on the way in if the passenger is focused on the ticket windows, but if looking for an alternative method, turn around and it should be easy to spot.

 

[samsmoot]

I have quite a bit of experience with matters such as this:I regularly see Defendants arguing that there was 'a lie' in the prosecution evidence. It always results in either one of two outcomes, and neither are of any benefit to the client. One is that the Prosecution does not present the contentious evidence (after which it is of no interest to the matter before the Court if the defence wishes to re-introduce it), and the other is that the Court rules that the defence must confine itself to the matter before it.

In a handful of cases, the determined Defendant has parted ways with its counsel in disatisfaction that the procedural complaint is not being pursued, and continues as a litigant-in-person in an attempt to find fault with the Prosecution. In every single case I can recall, they failed. And quite regularly are reprimanded by the Appeal Judge for straying from the matter before them. I have suffered a few this year already. Doomed every time, and expensive. What a sad waste of time, energy and money.

You are in exactly this position yourself, samsmoot. You may have reason to believe that some injustice or other has taken place and it disadvantages you. You may be able to provide robust evidence to support that belief. But in the meantime, we have the substantive matter in front of us that you have been captured by Railway Byelaw 18. That is a matter of fact, isn't it?

Yes, it is. No doubt.

I have no counsel to part ways with and nor am I likely to find representation due to being poor. I completely take your point and may well decide to change my plea.

It's not so much the injustice I feel strongly about, it's the fact of the prosecution presenting obviously contradictory evidence saying opposite things. Why did they not just tell the truth? I have been nothing but candid - it seems unreasonable for the prosecution to submit inconsistent evidence as the basis of the claim - even if not repeated in court it has still been presented to the court in writing.

I could plead guilty and then pursue a complaint - if it would be worth it. I don't know why the Witness says I signed when she also says I didn't - telling the truth shouldn't be a problem but it appears it must have been. Now I have told the prosecutor about the 'error' I would expect it not to be repeated - to do so would seem to me to be very wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can I add a link:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

The advice seems at odds with the facts. Any opinions on this article?

 

[Anvil1984]

Sorry not used to penalty fares but can I ask where this whole started on a Virgin Service so can't be charged a PF by LM thing comes from

The SRA penalty fare rules state

Circumstances in which a penalty fare may not be charged
7.1 Operators may only charge penalty fares to people who are:
a travelling by, present on or leaving a train which is named as a penalty fares train by an approved penalty fares scheme; or
b present in, or leaving, a compulsory ticket area which is named as part of an approved penalty fares scheme.
7.2 An authorised collector must not charge a penalty fare under rule 6.2 if the person joined the train at a station which is not named as a penalty fares station by the relevant approved penalty fares scheme.

I can only see train mentioned and not "at the start of the journey"

Sorry genuine question not being snappy

 

[bb21]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

The advice seems at odds with the facts. Any opinions on this article?

It is sufficient to say that there are many things wrong with that article.

 

[TEW]

The most obvious error being the complete lack of recognition of the offences created by the Railway Byelaws and the fact that most people being legitimately issued will in fact be guilty of an offence contrary to them.

 

[samsmoot]

I concur broadly with Island's assessment - an illegitimate penalty fare, which does not override the fact that an offence was committed. A possible defense might rest on how reasonable it would be to not be aware of the ticket vending machine and/or PERTIS machine at S&D: I don't know the station, so can't comment here.

With regards to the general question - TOCs certainly can and do back down where they see a prosecution as difficult to manage. You might want to read through this thread which contains some very good advice about court procedure, and also shows an example of a prosecution backing down.

All that said, of course, it is a riskier strategy [Edit- and see DaveNewcastle's advice above]. Many of us would agree that your attitude and actions would suggest that, perhaps, you're the sort of person who isn't going to go out of their way to buy a ticket (apologies if this assessment is incorrect)? The point is that if the TOC has picked up on this, it might also make them a bit more bolshy.

Thanks for that - yes, a good thread with relevant info.

 

[tony6499]

It is sufficient to say that there are many things wrong with that article.

Seems it is 5 years old

 

[island]

It is sufficient to say that there are many things wrong with that article.

It is mostly correct about things that would impugn the validity of a penalty fare notice.

It says nothing about the fact that travelling without a ticket is usually a criminal offence for which one may be prosecuted.

 

[LateThanNever]

Yes, it is. No doubt.

I have no counsel to part ways with and nor am I likely to find representation due to being poor. I completely take your point and may well decide to change my plea.

It's not so much the injustice I feel strongly about, it's the fact of the prosecution presenting obviously contradictory evidence saying opposite things. Why did they not just tell the truth? I have been nothing but candid - it seems unreasonable for the prosecution to submit inconsistent evidence as the basis of the claim - even if not repeated in court it has still been presented to the court in writing.

I could plead guilty and then pursue a complaint - if it would be worth it. I don't know why the Witness says I signed when she also says I didn't - telling the truth shouldn't be a problem but it appears it must have been. Now I have told the prosecutor about the 'error' I would expect it not to be repeated - to do so would seem to me to be very wrong.

These matters are visceral to come to terms with and most would feel similar. It may be too late but negotiation is a matter of degree. Much as it may seem obvious, to achieve the best end result - and that is the objective - use polite suggestions to indicate problems in order to give the other party the opportunity to admit errors or (you hope) perhaps enough rope to hang itself - before upping the ante and even then only in stages. Going in all guns blazing gives no opportunity for the desired outcome without the other party admitting defeat, which is initially unlikely as they started the battle!

 

[Yew]

It does state on LM's website that they do indeed have a TVM there.

However the Map on NRE makes no mention of a TVM, only of the Permit to travel Machine. However I wouldn't want to base a defence on that, unless there where several other contributory factors..

@ OP - I dont think this will end particuarly well, but good luck!+

 

[samsmoot]

These matters are visceral to come to terms with and most would feel similar. It may be too late but negotiation is a matter of degree. Much as it may seem obvious, to achieve the best end result - and that is the objective - use polite suggestions to indicate problems in order to give the other party the opportunity to admit errors or (you hope) perhaps enough rope to hang itself - before upping the ante and even then only in stages. Going in all guns blazing gives no opportunity for the desired outcome without the other party admitting defeat, which is initially unlikely as they started the battle!

I said the following at the end of my letter - I can paste it all if of help:

'I believe it would be in the best interests of justice and of all parties concerned if this prosecution were discontinued. If however you decide to proceed I will have no alternative but to report the criminal actions of *** and *** by way of making a complaint about their willfully making false statements amounting to perjury and perverting the course of justice.

It is very disconcerting and distressing to have received this Summons, and I am appalled that your witnesses have chosen to make false statements to the court. I have committed no offence whereas your two witnesses have committed many. I have no desire to attend a Magistrates' Court to defend the charge but if I am forced to do that by your refusal to withdraw your Summons I will do so vigorously. I hope that commonsense and the requirements of witnesses to make truthful statements will now prevail.'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However the Map on NRE makes no mention of a TVM, only of the Permit to travel Machine. However I wouldn't want to base a defence on that, unless there where several other contributory factors..

@ OP - I dont think this will end particuarly well, but good luck!+

Thanks. I should be aware of when exactly to throw in the towel - it's an enticing option. Seems a bit early to concede though. But a bit late too.

 

[island]

Sorry, but you are yourself making a false statement (albeit not one subject to perjury) by saying you have committed no offence.