South West Trains prosecution

[najaB]

Can anyone confirm if this will definitely not show on a CRB check?

Did a google search and some are saying it will and some saying it won't

Thanks

A Byelaws prosecution doesn't show on a records check. No if's, and's or but's. On the other hand, a prosecution under the Regulation of Railways Act does. This is probably why you are seeing two different answers - there are two different types of prosecution.

 

[455driver]

Can anyone confirm if this will definitely not show on a CRB check?

Did a google search and some are saying it will and some saying it won't

Thanks

Unfortunately no it won't as you have not been found guilty of anything despite attempting to defraud the railways.
Next time they will probably go straight to Court as your name will now go on the naughty list, but byelaw offences are not recorded anyway so still wouldn't show up on a CRB/DBS check.
A byelaw offence is similar to a parking ticket in that case.

 

[najaB]

Unfortunately no it won't as you have not been found guilty of anything despite allegedly attempting to defraud the railways.

That whole pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

 

[dannn]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

 

[Matt Taylor]

I'm presuming the time of 0906 is recorded on the letter from SWT as the OP seems a bit vague on may of the details as it was quite some time ago. That being the case we are most likely talking about the 0850 from Poole which gets to Bournemouth at 0903 and is worked by a Fratton crew, indeed I have worked that train a number of times myself. As far as phoning for authorisation is concerned you can forget it, it's simply impossible without compromising operational safety due to the stops at Parkstone and Branksome, and there is insufficient time between stops to try and fail to process a card transaction via the normal means and then also complete a swipe transaction.

 

[class303]

Unfortunately no it won't as you have not been found guilty of anything despite attempting to defraud the railways.

Pathetic post. Taking the OP at face value, they went straight to the guard to try to pay for the journey. I'd assume that anyone who was "attempting to defraud the railway" wouldn't have done so. You may argue that I have no evidence that they did, but equally you have no evidence to the contrary.

Got to be some discretion. Stating that someone was "attempting to defraud the railway" is pretty low.

hopefully the OP will have learnt from his mistake.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Unfortunately no it won't as you have not been found guilty of anything despite attempting to defraud the railways.

Pathetic post. Taking the OP at face value, they went straight to the guard to try to pay for the journey. I'd assume that anyone who was "attempting to defraud the railway" wouldn't have done so. You may argue that I have no evidence that they did, but equally you have no evidence to the contrary.

Got to be some discretion. Stating that someone was "attempting to defraud the railway" is pretty low.

The point is that dannn has been issued with a Summons to appear in Court, and that allegation of an attempt to defraud is what is being claimed! (Or to be precise, the absolute offence of failing to provide a ticket on demand, which doesn't require proof of 'intent').

It is for the Company to provide its proof to the high standard of a Criminal Prosecution, the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", and as a Summons to appear has already been issued, we can safely assume that the Company believes that its evidence passes that test and demonstrates the facts of the fraud.

Surely the question we should address is whether dannn can rebut that Evidence to persuade the Court otherwise? An appeal to show "some discretion" is not going to help at this stage, is it?
Sadly, dannn has been unable to provide any information even remotely resembling evidence which might persuade a Court otherwise, which is why I have made no contribution to the thread before now. There are extremely limited grounds to rebut a Byelaw prosecution, as they are considered to be matters of 'strict liability' in which the facts of the matter are the Evidence, and neither 'intention' nor 'knowledge' of the act are considered. i.e. if a ticket was not presented for inspection on demand, then the Offence is complete.
Do you, class303, have any knowledge or experience in challenging a strict liability Prosecution that you haven't told dannn?

Can anyone confirm if this will definitely not show on a CRB check?

A successful prosecution for a Railway Beylaw Offence will not normally appear on the Police National Computer and consequently, will not appear on a DBS check (formerly known as CRB), even an 'Enhanced' search, because the Court office simply shouldn't type the result into the system.

I do acknowledge the "offence" of passing the opportunity.to purchase but at busy times, (like half-term, it would require allowing an additional half hour.
Surely, finding the guard and offering to pay is usually sufficient most of the time?

I struggle to find the relevance of this to dannn's situation. The Offence is:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

• (1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
• (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.
• (3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
• - (i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey; or
• - (ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
• - (iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.

Does dannn's situation fulfil the requrements of the Offence?
Yes, apparently.
Do any of the prescribed exclusions in (3) apply?
Apparently not from what we have been told.

 

[najaB]

...allegation of an attempt to defraud is what is being claimed! (Or to be precise, the absolute offence of failing to provide a ticket on demand, which doesn't require proof of 'intent').

I think that class303 is objecting to, as I did above, the omission of the word 'allegedly' from 455driver's posting. His post reads as stating that dann is guilty before any evidence has even been put before the court.

 

[455driver]

Pathetic post.

But on the 'evidence' provided, factually accurate!

As for discretion, it is just that and the OP didnt give themselves enough time to buy a ticket before boarding the train which isnt normally a good enough reason for discretion to be shown!
Did the OP go up to the guard and ask if it was okay to buy on board before getting on the train, or did he just get on assuming it would be okay even though he couldnt actually pay for a ticket on board because of the type of card they had, a type which is well known to be unusable on board.

Your 'the passenger is always right' line is pathetic mate!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that class303 is objecting to, as I did above, the omission of the word 'allegedly' from 455driver's posting. His post reads as stating that dann is guilty before any evidence has even been put before the court.

He boarded a train without a valid ticket and no means to buy a ticket, that is all that is relevant for a byelaw offence!
Okay innocent until proven guilty etc but it is plainly obvious the OP is guilty without needing a Judge to rubber stamp it! :roll:

You can be as indignant as you like, the facts remain the facts!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think that class303 is objecting to, as I did above, the omission of the word 'allegedly' from 455driver's posting. His post reads as stating that dann is guilty before any evidence has even been put before the court.

Yes. I understood that distinction quite clearly, thank you.
And the point which I apparently have failed to make clear in response, was that at this stage, it is a distinction which now makes no difference (for the reasons I gave in my response).

He boarded a train without a valid ticket and no means to buy a ticket, that is all that is relevant for a byelaw offence!

. . . .

the facts remain the facts!

Amen.

 

[class303]

despite attempting to defraud the railways.

next time I'm late for work I'll jump straight on the next train and then immediately approach the guard to pay for the ticket. If I wanted to "DEFRAUD the railways" this is exactly how i'd proceed.

 

[Flamingo]

despite attempting to defraud the railways.

next time I'm late for work I'll jump straight on the next train and then immediately approach the guard to pay for the ticket. If I wanted to "DEFRAUD the railways" this is exactly how i'd proceed.

A better idea might be to get up ten minutes earlier, but if you insist on doing this, bring cash...

 

[VauxhallandI]

You are only attempting to default the railway if you have a debit card, whether or not it has several thousand pounds on it!

 

[najaB]

He boarded a train without a valid ticket and no means to buy a ticket, that is all that is relevant for a byelaw offence!

I agree totally that he is guilty of a byelaws offence but, as has been pointed out many times on this forum, that has no bearing on any 'attempt to defraud the railways'.

 

[andykn]

a type which is well known to be unusable on board

"well known"? I don't think so outside the industry. Even after reading this board for while I'm not sure exactly what type of card is "unusable on board" and precisely why and I expect I'm in the top 5% of the population when it comes to railway knowledge.

 

[TEW]

There are some people outside the industry who know very well that their card doesn't work on the train. Normally they will be running late so they were unable to purchase a ticket prior to travel and this card will be the only means of payment they tender when asked. There's nothing in this thread which suggests this was the case here though.

 

[jon0844]

Surely the holder of any card will know where and how it can be used. It will have been published in that long booklet of words called the terms & conditions, which of course most people don't read.

But I'm sure it will be there.

And if it is there, then it shifts the responsibility onto the card owner, not the railway.

 

[Flamingo]

The giveaway is when they say "you have to swipe it"...

 

[najaB]

Normally they will be running late so they were unable to purchase a ticket prior to travel...

If it was staffed station or had a TVM then they should be issued a UPFN or penalty fare as appropriate.

 

[Flamingo]

PF's can only be issued by RPI's (and don't apply to most of the country), UFN's are simply an invoice to pay at a later date (and take around ten minutes to issue if the passenger cooperates).

 

[najaB]

PF's can only be issued by RPI's (and don't apply to most of the country), UFN's are simply an invoice to pay at a later date (and take around ten minutes to issue if the passenger cooperates).

Fair enough. The point I wanted to make is that paying on the train, after passing a ticket machine or ticket office, is a privilege rather than a right. What they should be getting is a some form of paperwork - up to and including letter from the prosecution department.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Surely the holder of any card will know where and how it can be used. It will have been published in that long booklet of words called the terms & conditions, which of course most people don't read.

But I'm sure it will be there.

And if it is there, then it shifts the responsibility onto the card owner, not the railway.

I have cards that work on trains and cards that don't. The terms and conditions of the accounts in question do not differ at all in respect of where I may use the cards (and there aren't a separate set of terms and conditions for the debit cards) - the only way for a person without card-reading equipment to know whether their card will work aboard a train is to try it.

As najaB very correctly reminds us, this isn't relevant at a station with a TVM. I do think that if dannn hasn't done this before then it is a bit unfair to penalise him when he tried to pay, although would note that SWT only have his word that he did indeed approach the guard and try to pay.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My question is - what kind of out of court settlement are SWT likely to accept? £150-200? That's all I can afford to pay

Yes, that's a reasonable guess - perhaps a little more, now that they will have paid the Court's fee for issuing the Summons and by now they will have prepared the bundles of documents for the Court.

BUT, it is not for you to state a figure. If you do have the opportunity to discuss this with the Prosecutor, and if you do reach the position in which a settlement is being agreed, then it is for the Company to state the amount - unless the figure indicating their costs is included in the papers which have been sent to you, it is for the Prosecutor to tell you what these costs are.
I expect that you will want to agree to that settlement, as the alternative outcome in Court will be more costly for you.

 

[455driver]

"well known"? I don't think so outside the industry. Even after reading this board for while I'm not sure exactly what type of card is "unusable on board" and precisely why and I expect I'm in the top 5% of the population when it comes to railway knowledge.

I thought the OP had stated he wanted to use an Electron card but now realise the OP has not stated what type of card it was so I will withdraw that part of my statement!
It would be nice if he could tell us what type of card it was though, just to clarify the fact.

 

[Flamingo]

I thought the OP had stated he wanted to use an Electron card but now realise the OP has not stated what type of card it was so I will withdraw that part of my statement!
It would be nice if he could tell us what type of card it was though, just to clarify the fact.

The same type of cards can be accepted on one account and rejected on another.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Cards that used to say Electron on the front now just say Visa Debit, as do the cards that work, so it's often impossible to tell without trying it. There are sometimes other clues, e.g. purple Nationwide declines but blue Nationwide authorises; blue Natwest declines but purple Natwest authorises; Halifax cards that say Cashminder at the top decline but those that say Reward authorise; etc etc

 

[andykn]

There are some people outside the industry who know very well that their card doesn't work on the train.

I think "a few" might be more accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the holder of any card will know where and how it can be used. It will have been published in that long booklet of words called the terms & conditions, which of course most people don't read.

But I'm sure it will be there.

And if it is there, then it shifts the responsibility onto the card owner, not the railway.

I'd be interested if anyone can produce some card T&Cs that say it can't be used on trains.

 

[DelayRepay]

I think "a few" might be more accurate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'd be interested if anyone can produce some card T&Cs that say it can't be used on trains.

http://personal.natwest.com/content...tWest-Basic-Account-Visa-Debit-Card-Guide.pdf

Natwest have it covered in their Basic Account guide - but the spanner in the works is that they also issue Online Only cards on their non-Basic account, and that guide doesn't mention it.

(And who reads these leaflets anyway?)

 

[Islineclear3_1]

You are only attempting to default the railway if you have a debit card, whether or not it has several thousand pounds on it!

Do you mean "defraud"?

Please explain this statement as I fail to understand....

I want to buy a jumper from M & S and produce my debit card. Am I defrauding M & S (and with intent)? Must I only bring cash if I want to buy from M & S?

 

[PermitToTravel]

I'm sure Johngill100 was being sarcastic