Northern Rail fare dodge letter

[LateThanNever]

This is also bad advice. The Railway operator can have their evidence put to proof, but there is no requirement for them to provide counter evidence to a proposition which is immaterial to the question before us: was the passenger acting lawfully?

So are passengers presumed from the start to be acting unlawfully, when they have been verbally told to board a train?

 

[Merseysider]

Do the prosecution department not also have to consider Byelaws 18 (3), i, ii & iii?

Yes, but it is proving (3)iii that is the problem! Otherwise anyone could just say "the man on the platform said I could travel" and get away with ticketless travel!

 

[Llanigraham]

So there's a presumption of guilt not innocence?

Read what I said.
The OP states that she was told something, but is unable to provide proof of that, so unless she can find the person that "supposedly" said it, it is her word against nothing.
Now which way do you think a Court would lean? (and ignoring your usual anti-railway bias!)

 

[bb21]

So are passengers presumed from the start to be acting unlawfully, when they have been verbally told to board a train?

No.

From a court's point of view, they can only go by what evidence is in front.

The railway company provides evidence that the passenger was in breach of the Byelaws.

The passenger disputes that, but could not back up her argument with any evidence.

So how do you expect a court to reach its verdict?

 

[reb0118]

Agree but a Byelaw prosecution is not possible as she was given permission to travel!

No, we only have her word for that.

So there's a presumption of guilt not innocence?

I feel that you are possibly giving the OP's friend false hope here. The case in point is the fact that the passenger was found to be exiting Preston station without being able to present a valid ticket to show that she had paid her fare. She has admitted to the fact that there were facilities for her to purchase one at Chorley but that she did not do so. This can be proved.

Her defence is that she was given permission to board without a ticket by a member of staff at Chorley but crucially she was not given anything in writing to corroborate this, another point worth considering is - was the person authorising travel actually authorised to give this permission. It can be seen that the passenger will have great difficultly proving that authority was in fact given. There is, in my opinion, an outside chance that the member of staff concerned was indeed authorised to permit ticket-less travel, remembers the passenger concerned, and will confirm that he granted permission to travel - that said, I feel that that would be a forlorn hope and I fear this defence does not bear scrutiny.

As an aside, just who is in fact authorised under the byelaws to permit ticketless travel?

 

[LateThanNever]

Read what I said.
The OP states that she was told something, but is unable to provide proof of that, so unless she can find the person that "supposedly" said it, it is her word against nothing.
Now which way do you think a Court would lean? (and ignoring your usual anti-railway bias!)

It is her word against Northern Rail, who are as unlikely as she is to be able to provide proof. But they have an interest in the case (unlike - generally- the Police). So if I were a magistrate I'd presume innocence. Horrified to think you would not!
By the way Oi! I'm not anti railway (anti the Criminal Serco perhaps) just in favour of innocence until guilt is proved!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No.

From a court's point of view, they can only go by what evidence is in front.

The railway company provides evidence that the passenger was in breach of the Byelaws.

The passenger disputes that, but could not back up her argument with any evidence.
So how do you expect a court to reach its verdict?

She has evidence, but what you want is written evidence! Unless the railway staff are required to provide written evidence (which, as far as I am aware they are not) then why should their evidence be better then than the innocent until proved guilty party?

 

[bb21]

It is her word against Northern Rail, who are as unlikely as she is to be able to provide proof. But they have an interest in the case (unlike - generally- the Police). So if I were a magistrate I'd presume innocence. Horrified to think you would not!
By the way Oi! I'm not anti railway (anti the Criminal Serco perhaps) just in favour of innocence until guilt is proved!

It is not her words against Northern's. Northern have evidence for their claims. She has not.

Northern have not made any comment on whether she was provided with authority to travel without a ticket. It is the passenger who made claims.

 

[Elecman]

I am confused, if she alighted at Platform 1 and went flown the subway and up onto platform 3/4 presumably heading towards the booking office to buy a ticket from the staff at the bottom of the ramp from booking office to platform 3/4 she has NOT attempted to leave the station so where is the intent to avoid payment? If you got on the back of the train at Chorley ( being nearest the booking office) then using the subway to go to Platform 3/4 would be quite reasonable. If she intended leaving without paying she would have continued through the subway to either the car park exit or up onto platform 5/6 and up the bridge and out via the top exit thus bypassing any staff selling/checking tickets.
To me her story about wanting to purchase a ticket seems perfectly reasonable in this particular case.

 

[DelayRepay]

It is her word against Northern Rail, who are as unlikely as she is to be able to provide proof. But they have an interest in the case (unlike - generally- the Police). So if I were a magistrate I'd presume innocence. Horrified to think you would not!
By the way Oi! I'm not anti railway (anti the Criminal Serco perhaps) just in favour of innocence until guilt is proved!

I understand the sentiment here but it doesn't really help the OP, since it is unlikely that you will be the magistrate hearing their case if Northern take this to court. Every week in my local paper's court report there are a hand full of people convicted of travelling without a ticket. If it was as simple as saying "That man said it was ok" - then surely none of these people would be found guilty and ordered to pay fines an compensation?

If the facts are as reported then this stinks but giving the OP false hope that their friend will get off on a technicality isn't really helpful.

 

[Elecman]

I think people have missed something here. As her train arrived on Platform 1 then using the subway onto platform 3/4 is perfectly reasonable as it would lead upto the ticket office/ staff selling tickets on the footbridge especially if they had joined the back of the train at Chorley (nearest to the booking office/ platform entrance). If she had wanted to avoid payment she could have continued under the subway to the car park exit or even up onto platform 5/6 and up the steps there bypassing all staff., or even using the lifts and other subway and leave via platform 7 bypassing any staff.Going up onto 3/4 suggests she did intend paying for her ticket.

 

[reb0118]

I'm .......in favour of innocence until guilt is proved!

Look at it this way. As this is a strict liability case then guilt has been proved. No ticket, with the means to pay prior to boarding the train, and we may add exiting the destination station without attempting to purchase one either, equals guilty of at very least a byelaw offence.

So, do we agree that enough evidence has been provided to prove guilt?

Now we come to the defence do you think that the passenger has provided enough evidence to refute the charge? Obviously not as no ticket was held, and there was no attempt to purchase one upon arrival. But the passenger may hold a get out of jail card in the fact that she was given permission to travel. This, unless she can obtain proof, offers no hope however.

This is the adversarial system that we use in these Islands. Both the prosecution and the defence are tested in court. In this case the prosecution will provide enough evidence to withstand this test; as things stand at this time, the defence can not.

 

[LateThanNever]

No.

From a court's point of view, they can only go by what evidence is in front.

The railway company provides evidence that the passenger was in breach of the Byelaws.

The passenger disputes that, but could not back up her argument with any evidence.

So how do you expect a court to reach its verdict?

I understand the sentiment here but it doesn't really help the OP, since it is unlikely that you will be the magistrate hearing their case if Northern take this to court. Every week in my local paper's court report there are a hand full of people convicted of travelling without a ticket. If it was as simple as saying "That man said it was ok" - then surely none of these people would be found guilty and ordered to pay fines an compensation?

If the facts are as reported then this stinks but giving the OP false hope that their friend will get off on a technicality isn't really helpful.

Fair enough. But this hasn't come to court yet! I think that if enough doubt can be engendered in the comfortably based Surrey prosecution dept. then there will be no case to answer and this is the way that should be pursued. I agree that there is no written evidence but written evidence, although better, is not the only evidence! And it seems highly likely that Northern have similarly no written evidence. Eg have they never given permission for someone to travel ticketless? In which case what evidence do they have?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at it this way. As this is a strict liability case then guilt has been proved. No ticket, with the means to pay prior to boarding the train, and we may add exiting the destination station without attempting to purchase one either, equals guilty of at very least a byelaw offence.

So, do we agree that enough evidence has been provided to prove guilt?

Now we come to the defence do you think that the passenger has provided enough evidence to refute the charge? Obviously not as no ticket was held, and there was no attempt to purchase one upon arrival. But the passenger may hold a get out of jail card in the fact that she was given permission to travel. This, unless she can obtain proof, offers no hope however.

This is the adversarial system that we use in these Islands. Both the prosecution and the defence are tested in court. In this case the prosecution will provide enough evidence to withstand this test; as things stand at this time, the defence can not.

But it will not be strict liability if she's been given permission!

 

[455driver]

Fair enough. But this hasn't come to court yet! I think that if enough doubt can be engendered in the comfortably based Surrey prosecution dept. then there will be no case to answer and this is the way that should be pursued. I agree that there is no written evidence but written evidence, although better, is not the only evidence! And it seems highly likely that Northern have similarly no written evidence. Eg have they never given permission for someone to travel ticketless? In which case what evidence do they have?

Are you willing to stand the costs to the OP if this goes to Court?
If the defence is 'the man at the station told me to get on' can you honestly see it standing up in Court?
You are either very naive or incredible <deleted>!

 

[jkdd77]

I feel that you are possibly giving the OP's friend false hope here. The case in point is the fact that the passenger was found to be exiting Preston station without being able to present a valid ticket to show that she had paid her fare. She has admitted to the fact that there were facilities for her to purchase one at Chorley but that she did not do so. This can be proved.

Her defence is that she was given permission to board without a ticket by a member of staff at Chorley but crucially she was not given anything in writing to corroborate this, another point worth considering is - was the person authorising travel actually authorised to give this permission. It can be seen that the passenger will have great difficultly proving that authority was in fact given. There is, in my opinion, an outside chance that the member of staff concerned was indeed authorised to permit ticket-less travel, remembers the passenger concerned, and will confirm that he granted permission to travel - that said, I feel that that would be a forlorn hope and I fear this defence does not bear scrutiny.

As an aside, just who is in fact authorised under the byelaws to permit ticketless travel?

IMO, the defintion of 'authorised person' in railway byelaw 25(1):

“authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in
connection with the railway;

is such that, as far as the byelaws are concerned, an 'on-duty' member of gateline staff would be deemed to be an authorised person for the purpose of permitting travel regardless of whether, in granting this authority, the staff member was acting in violation of company policy. After all, passengers ought to be able to rely on information given by rail staff.

That said, I understand that the burden of proof to show that permission was given, (and hence was acting lawfully), is on the passenger, on the balance of probabilities, and agree that it is most unlikely, based on what has been posted so far, that the OP's friend will be able to discharge this responsibility. If she had the name of the staff member who granted permission, then this would at least be a start, albeit that there is always the risk that the staff member would deny granting permission.

I also agree that, in general terms, it is prudent to get permission to start a journey without a ticket in writing before actually boarding, although it is clearly too late for the OP's friend to do this!

 

[LateThanNever]

Are you willing to stand the costs to the OP if this goes to Court?
If the defence is 'the man at the station told me to get on' can you honestly see it standing up in Court?
You are either very naive or incredible <deleted>!

I'm happy to stick with the incredible. For me I find it incredible that asking somebody where you can buy a ticket makes you a criminal- but you will doubtless enlighten me?
I've been in a Magistrates Court - have you?

 

[455driver]

I'm happy to stick with the incredible. For me I find it incredible that asking somebody where you can buy a ticket makes you a criminal- but you will doubtless enlighten me?
I've been in a Magistrates Court - have you?

Hypothetical situation-

I am a persistent fare dodger and on alighting the train I see there is a block on, in your world all I have to do to prevent being prosecuted is to ask one of the RPIs if I can buy a ticket because the man at the other station said it would be okay!
Do you see any sort of problem with that?



Yes I have been in a magistrates Court a few times and a Crown Court once!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If the defence is 'the man at the station told me to get on' can you honestly see it standing up in Court?

It's in the top four of regular excuses, so we have to admit that it has some established basis . . . .

. . . . as a scam.

I've been in a Magistrates Court - have you?

I am very impressed with your accumulated experience.
I've worked there too, though not today. I was in two Courts of Appeal in the RCJ, and will only be n one of them tomorrow, but no Magistrates this week.

But, so what ? ? ?

We have a duty in this forum to give accurate and relable advice, and I'd like to think that we could achieve a respectable standard of competence. I think that this might take a little more expertise than a visit to a Court and an opinion about 'fairness'. Don't you?

 

[LateThanNever]

Hypothetical situation-

I am a persistent fare dodger and on alighting the train I see there is a block on, in your world all I have to do to prevent being prosecuted is to ask one of the RPIs if I can buy a ticket because the man at the other station said it would be okay!
Do you see any sort of problem with that?

Yes I have been in a magistrates Court a few times and a Crown Court once!

Excellent! Delighted to find a fellow criminal (sorry not serious) but isn't it part of that process to be innocent until proven guilty?

If you have bought a ticket for the last 2 years and all of a sudden you are threatened with prosecution by a private co because one of their agents/employees is convinced you're avoiding fares how would you feel?
Would you be absolutely delighted?

 

[bb21]

Excellent! Delighted to find a fellow criminal (sorry not serious) but isn't it part of that process to be innocent until proven guilty?

The passenger is innocent until proven guilty. Until she is found guilty by the court, she is only a suspect.

Northern will try their best to establish that she is guilty, and she will try her best to show otherwise. The decision will rest with the magistrate.

If you have bought a ticket for the last 2 years and all of a sudden you are threatened with prosecution by a private co because one of their agents/employees is convinced you're avoiding fares how would you feel?
Would you be absolutely delighted?

I think that is a separate issue to the one being discussed, which relates to the application of the law, and I agree that consistency is a bit of an issue at the moment in respect of how such passengers are treated.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've been in a Magistrates Court - have you?

Yes, often, but then I did used to be a Court Presenting Officer for a Government Dept!

 

[LateThanNever]

It's in the top four of regular excuses, so we have to admit that it has some established basis . . . .

. . . . as a scam.

I am very impressed with your accumulated experience.
I've worked there too, though not today. I was in two Courts of Appeal in the RCJ, and will only be n one of them tomorrow, but no Magistrates this week.

But, so what ? ? ?

We have a duty in this forum to give accurate and relable advice, and I'd like to think that we could achieve a respectable standard of competence. I think that this might take a little more expertise than a visit to a Court and an opinion about 'fairness'. Don't you?

It's in the top four of regular excuses, so we have to admit that it has some established basis . . . .

. . . . as a scam.

I am very impressed with your accumulated experience.
I've worked there too, though not today. I was in two Courts of Appeal in the RCJ, and will only be n one of them tomorrow, but no Magistrates this week.

But, so what ? ? ?

We have a duty in this forum to give accurate and reliable advice, and I'd like to think that we could achieve a respectable standard of competence. I think that this might take a little more expertise than a visit to a Court and an opinion about 'fairness'. Don't you?

I absolutely agree we have a duty to give accurate and reliable advice! But regret I think it is much about negotiation. Rail cos are capitalists. I've negotiated with Tesco (amongst others) and they are complete s****s so you have to be equally s *****y to negotiate with them. So, before it gets to court I think you should suggest that the rail cos would be on a hiding if they dared to prosecute. (Note, for example, that Tesco have been found out - as Wickes were yonks ago - for effectively pre advising 'profits'). Honesty in capitalism is underwhelming to say the least.

Fairness is philosophical and I'd like to think, both that is available in court, and that we'd encourage posters to think about that from their personal point of view!

Probably perhaps? we should have a separate 'negotiating' section prior to prosecution! Because the rail prosecutors are capitalist and self interested!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, often, but then I did used to be a Court Presenting Officer for a Government Dept!

Fair enough! I was in the probation section which did not fill me with joy - even less now!

 

[455driver]

we should have a separate 'negotiating' section prior to prosecution! Because the rail prosecutors are capitalist and self interested!

The negotiations would consist of-
1/ did you travel on our train yes or no?
2/ did you have a valid ticket(s) for the complete journey you were making or did you purchase one at the earliest possible time?
If the answer to 2/ is no-
3/ give us an £80 admin fee or see you in Court!

Negotiation over!

 

[LateThanNever]

The negotiations would consist of-
1/ did you travel on our train yes or no?
2/ did you have a valid ticket(s) for the complete journey you were making or did you purchase one at the earliest possible time?
If the answer to 2/ is no-
3/ give us an £80 admin fee or see you in Court!

Negotiation over!

So do you consider this £80 admin fee for the railway's incompetence entirely fair?

 

[bb21]

I absolutely agree we have a duty to give accurate and reliable advice! But regret I think it is much about negotiation. Rail cos are capitalists. I've negotiated with Tesco (amongst others) and they are complete s****s so you have to be equally s *****y to negotiate with them. So, before it gets to court I think you should suggest that the rail cos would be on a hiding if they dared to prosecute. (Note, for example, that Tesco have been found out - as Wickes were yonks ago - for effectively pre advising 'profits'). Honesty in capitalism is underwhelming to say the least.

Fairness is philosophical and I'd like to think, both that is available in court, and that we'd encourage posters to think about that from their personal point of view!

Probably perhaps? we should have a separate 'negotiating' section prior to prosecution! Because the rail prosecutors are capitalist and self interested!

I don't know what dealings you have had with Tesco and what nature these dealings are of. What you must understand is that the train company probably deals with hundreds of such cases each day and has been to the court countless times. Any possible gaps in their arguments and loopholes would probably have been identified and taken care of. It is not in the interests of the passenger to threaten the train company with regard to prosecution because the odds are stacked against the passenger.

The "negotiation" as you referred to in this case should be more about how it would be worthwhile for the rail company to keep the case out of court, not threatening them how they would fail, as they would probably laugh it off.

So do you consider this £80 admin fee for the railway's incompetence entirely fair?

No, but that is not how the law works.

 

[Llanigraham]

So do you consider this £80 admin fee for the railway's incompetence entirely fair?

But the railway hasn't been incompetent!
The person who has been incompetent is the passenger who hasn't bought their ticket before they started their journey from a place where that process was available.

And having seen the number of people who seem to not be able to do that simple job, especially in the Northern Rail area, I make the admin fee a lot more. Perhaps double it and then see how many others "try it on".

 

[LateThanNever]

I don't know what dealings you have had with Tesco and what nature these dealings are of. What you must understand is that the train company probably deals with hundreds of such cases each day and has been to the court countless times. Any possible gaps in their arguments and loopholes would probably have been identified and taken care of. It is not in the interests of the passenger to threaten the train company with regard to prosecution because the odds are stacked against the passenger.

The "negotiation" as you referred to in this case should be more about how it would be worthwhile for the rail company to keep the case out of court, not threatening them how they would fail, as they would probably laugh it off.

I agree absolutely that you should show how it would be in the interest of the railco to keep things out of court - indeed that is what I was trying to suggest - that a strict liability prosecution would be on a hiding to nothing!
But I think it is very much give and take. So in a former life I said no to Tesco and relations improved! All I'm trying to suggest is that you have to get your arguments ready and imply there could be consequences and indeed, importantly, emphasise the Common Law and you may have a little more ammunition!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the railway hasn't been incompetent!

Really - you're entirely happy with their service?

 

[Class377]

Really - you're entirely happy with their service?

Being happy with their service is nothing to do with it - if you don't like it, you have the option not to travel, but if you are travelling you have to follow the law and buy a ticket!

 

[Llanigraham]

Really - you're entirely happy with their service?

Read the rest of what I wrote, instead of picking out the bits you want to!

 

[LateThanNever]

Being happy with their service is nothing to do with it - if you don't like it, you have the option not to travel, but if you are travelling you have to follow the law and buy a ticket!

Read the rest of what I wrote, instead of picking out the bits you want to!

But the OP was given permission to travel without a ticket. To end up threatened with prosecution in the circumstances would make me very unhappy with their service!

 

[Darandio]

But the OP was given permission to travel without a ticket.

Apparently yes, but without a shred of proof it's impossible for you to decide whether they were given this permission or not, it's already been pointed out that it's one of the most used excuses. They also decided that the queues were too long at the ticket office and possibly the ticket machines, without a shred of proof. There are many facts stacked against them.

Your incessant posting of 'advice', also seen in other threads is somewhat of a crusade and is becoming tiresome Trying to give false hope is doing nobody any favours whatsoever. It's also got no comeback on you , and it's the financial wellbeing of someone else you are playing with, not yours. The sooner you realise this, the better.