PFN Disputed - Summons Issued - False Witness Statements

[bb21]

Please use the appropriate area to arrange meets

Meanwhile please keep on topic here.

 

[455driver]

Please use the appropriate area to arrange meets

Meanwhile please keep on topic here.

Oh, i was just going to say that I have got a date with a pink and fluffy bird!

Anyway back to "travelling without a ticket but it doesnt matter because the T isnt crossed on the form so I will get away with it!"

 

[tony_mac]

It does make me wonder if my signing or not the PFN is actually an important thing for the Prosecution to have put down on paper - as it was stressed that I did when it plainly can be shown I didn't it could be taken that there was some motive for doing that. Or it could have been an error, I would accept, if told so.

This would take about 4 seconds to deal with in court - it's not in the least significant and it will almost certainly be immediately written-off as a minor clerical error.

The display or not of posters (or leaflets, paintings, murals, &c.) is completely irrelevant to the success or not of a prosecution for joining a train without a ticket

Well, it may be relevant if there was a notice at the origin station which says something like 'buy on board when ticket office is closed'.

 

[MyFriendMary]

The display or not of posters (or leaflets, paintings, murals, &c.) is completely irrelevant to the success or not of a prosecution for joining a train without a ticket. I am very confused as to why members continue to make reference thereto.

Because if there isn't a sign that you can ignore - it isn't true.

I'm surprised that a simple £20 slap on the wrist has gone this far when the OP was in the wrong in regards to not buying before boarding. This would have been done and dusted a long time ago, it would have stung a little bit, but it would soon be forgotten about.

I guess the memories of being in Court are worth something I guess....

 

[leo22]

Oh dear, Perjury criminal acts, the OP needs a reality check. I am a long time reader of these forums but am no expert on rail prosecutions. I do have experience of courts and the OP has got it completely wrong. These technicalities you rely on (lying?) are not going to get you off the hook and not going to scare the witnesses. then no case would ever proceed to court, errors/ inconsistencies in witness statements or evidence are in abundance in courts. the more witnesses you have the greater the inconsistencies that occur. witnesses don't get done for perjury

Saying you signed when you didn't is not perjury. It is not, she has not lied, you cannot prove it. see next para
Even if it was, the court will not consider it perjury at trial at most that the witness is not reliable, they are not there to investigate and bring charges. They decide if there is a case to answer and if so determine the case at trial. If you really believe perjury and criminal acts have been committed in these witness statements, you would have contact the police and convince them to investigate and pass onto the cps. When a witness lies on stand, the judge simply ask for the police to question the witness and investigate.

Re the RPO you allege is lying. so she got her facts wrong possibly makes her less reliable, but that is down to the bench or Dj to decide how much of her evidence he wants to believe.

Witness statements and sworn evidence in court are not blown apart just because they got something wrong. Only if they got everything wrong and their whole evidence is unreliable, and there is nothing else the prosecution has to offer then you have a chance.

In fact you did the prosecution a favour, you have given them the in consistencies so they will just amend the facts they present in court. You may try and adduce the original witness statement but so what. You have not been charged with failing to sign.

Get a solicitor or at least a solicitors advice. I'm confident they will point out that your argument have no merit.

 

[leo22]

My own experience as a witness, I contradicted another witness, the defence stated in summation the other witness "is a proven liar." Defendant found guilty, speaking to the prosecutor afterwards, "clutching at straws, judges know people forget things afterwards." Our differing stories still gave the same material facts.

Just to add, a prosecution would fail if the material facts were wrong.

These would be the station to station journey.

Correct me if I am wrong, In the prosecution that was linked to in this thread , that prosecution would have failed by way of case stated regardless of what the prosecutor said, because the journey did not occur (a to b, when it was b to a) hence the offence did not.

In this case if the material facts are correct, you travelled from new street to wherever without a ticket there is a case to answer. To succeed you would have to show the evidence is totally unreliable. Saying you signed when you didn't, does not make the witness statement totally unreliable, a court would just think she got something wrong. The prosecutor would ask you if you make the said journey, did you have a ticket, why not.

More importantly she is unlikely to say that in evidence. all you can do is in cross examination is bring up her statement, she will say oh I made a mistake. calling her a liar would not mean the bench would side with you, in fact the clerk would probably tell you to move on and warn you.

The only things you can rely on is were you obliged to purchase a ticket prior to boarding at new street (i.e. did you have an opportunity). The guys on here and CAG know better than me on that. A pertinent point would be if you paid the fare afterwards. If you have not they have the right to prosecute. Facilities may not have been there prior to the journey, but you still have an obligation to pay afterwards, even if its part paying the PF with the minimum fare. You can argue to death about how there were no facilities and the RPO didn't do their jobs properly but by not paying the minimum fare through the penalty fare within 21 days you lost a defence.

I have been regularly PF'd on FCC in London, TVM not working (sometimes every day), office shut, oyster reader not working, machine failed to update oyster, oyster failed etc. they rarely believe you in central London. on a weekday I take the PF, pay the min fare and argue the point later on, sometimes receiving vouchers for the inconvenience caused.

 

[samsmoot]

Sorry - meant to say thanks for that.

No developments - still awaiting new court date.

 

[RJ]

I have read this thread with interest. Two blacks don't make a white - if indeed samshoot did commit a byelaw offence, it is unsatisfactory to say that fabrications in an inspector's statements should be disregarded.

I am fundamentally against the sloppy standards employed by some elements of the railway industry where it comes to revenue protection. Some Train Operating Companies have people in revenue protection jobs who can barely put together a legible report, let alone ensure that their reports are articulate, objective and factual. I've read some reports written by inspectors and the quality has been shocking. If enforcing the law against somebody, the TOC should first ensure that their own house is in order.

If the facts alone are sufficient to secure a prosecution, it begs the question of why some revenue staff feel the need to embellish their reports with fanciful fabrications. If what samshoot says about the report is true, I should hope that the entire report is deemed inadmissible and the case proceeds on sound evidence, should it reach court.

 

[Flamingo]

I have read this thread with interest. Two blacks don't make a white - if indeed samshoot did commit a byelaw offence, it is unsatisfactory to say that fabrications in an inspector's statements should be disregarded.

I am fundamentally against the sloppy standards employed by some elements of the railway industry where it comes to revenue protection. Some Train Operating Companies have people in revenue protection jobs who can barely put together a legible report, let alone ensure that their reports are articulate, objective and factual. I've read some reports written by inspectors and the quality has been shocking. If enforcing the law against somebody, the TOC should first ensure that their own house is in order.

If the facts alone are sufficient to secure a prosecution, it begs the question of why some revenue staff feel the need to embellish their reports with fanciful fabrications. If what samshoot says about the report is true, I should hope that the entire report is deemed inadmissible and the case proceeds on sound evidence, should it reach court.

I'd guess the defence solicetor will have no problem riding a coach and horses through it, then.

 

[samsmoot]

If the facts alone are sufficient to secure a prosecution, it begs the question of why some revenue staff feel the need to embellish their reports with fanciful fabrications. If what samshoot says about the report is true, I should hope that the entire report is deemed inadmissible and the case proceeds on sound evidence, should it reach court.

From what I gather this report can in detail be disregarded in court - the witness in person is what counts, it has been suggested. I could easily show inconsistencies but to what end? The court would, it seems, be likely to not care too much.

Me giving no evidence in the box allows complete denial - they must prove the offence and I can't be cross-examined - but apart from the "signature"/"no signature" contradiction the disputed facts can only be shown to be false on their side by my admittance of having committed the offence.

Like yourself I fail to see why the truth was not deemed appropriate, in particular the allegation of my lack of response, which is provably false - but the proof (a few letters and emails) would also show a train journey was made without a ticket.

It did cross my mind whether or not a letter to the court admitting guilt but explaining how it's not as it is made out to be would be helpful or neutral. I wouldn't want to appear a cry baby or hard done by but would like to get a reduction in penalty due to having tried to genuinely dispute an incorrectly issued PFN with relevant facts and due to being completely unaware that I should have paid a full single fare at the time of issue. They just went on about the £20, and when they spoke about "avoidance of a fare" I simply told them I was not doing that but "disputing" what I perceived as a £20 civil debt, as opposed to what they later allege to be a £3.40 train fare - the only 'fare' mentioned was the Penalty Fare, so that, I surmised, was at issue.

Once I chose to dispute the PFN the cost went up - giving more incentive to fight it. The reasons given not to pay the PFN were good enough to show non-compliance - stating "no signature - lost right of appeal" invalidates the PFN, for a start, so why no civil claim for £20/40/60 instead of a 'surprise' summons because of an unstated £3.40? Why be less than candid and completely explanatory of their intentions at all times? Why not say "pay £3.40 to avoid the Magistrates and we'll have to County Court you for the rest"?

 

[Anvil1984]

I have read this thread with interest. Two blacks don't make a white - if indeed samshoot did commit a byelaw offence, it is unsatisfactory to say that fabrications in an inspector's statements should be disregarded.

I am fundamentally against the sloppy standards employed by some elements of the railway industry where it comes to revenue protection. Some Train Operating Companies have people in revenue protection jobs who can barely put together a legible report, let alone ensure that their reports are articulate, objective and factual. I've read some reports written by inspectors and the quality has been shocking. If enforcing the law against somebody, the TOC should first ensure that their own house is in order.

If the facts alone are sufficient to secure a prosecution, it begs the question of why some revenue staff feel the need to embellish their reports with fanciful fabrications. If what samshoot says about the report is true, I should hope that the entire report is deemed inadmissible and the case proceeds on sound evidence, should it reach court.

Hang on a minute how do we know the RPI embellished the report or fabricated anything?? I believe Penalty Fares Notices are dealt with in the same way as Unpaid Fares Notices are on other companies by which I mean the PF is filled out on triplicate pre-printed notepad (1 copy to the the company, 1 to the passenger and 1 for the RPIs records). After those there is a pre-printed witness statement where you just need to fill in the blanks. On one of the sentences on the witness statement it says something along the lines of "I asked the passenger to sign this Unpaid Fares Notice and they agreed". As I said way earlier in the thread it may have been a case of just forgetting to edit / omit that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once I chose to dispute the PFN the cost went up - giving more incentive to fight it. The reasons given not to pay the PFN were good enough to show non-compliance - stating "no signature - lost right of appeal" invalidates the PFN, for a start, so why no civil claim for £20/40/60 instead of a 'surprise' summons because of an unstated £3.40? Why be less than candid and completely explanatory of their intentions at all times? Why not say "pay £3.40 to avoid the Magistrates and we'll have to County Court you for the rest"?

Because you've refused to pay the penalty fare to dispose of this they have cancelled the penalty fare / admin costs. The amount they are asking from the court is the price of a Standard Day Single from Birmingham New Street to Longbridge. I believe this is standard procedure

 

[samsmoot]

Because you've refused to pay the penalty fare to dispose of this they have cancelled the penalty fare / admin costs. The amount they are asking from the court is the price of a Standard Day Single from Birmingham New Street to Longbridge. I believe this is standard procedure

So why didn't they say they wanted £3.40 before issuing the summons?

 

[Anvil1984]

So why didn't they say they wanted £3.40 before issuing the summons?

Because they didn't want you to pay £3.40 if they did they would have stated that. You were liable to pay a £20 Penalty Fare but refused to then the admin charges racked up.

Because of that they have went to the court wanting the original fare due + costs (over £100) and they'll probably be a Victim Surcharge (about £20) added on and this is before we get to the fine (which goes to the court not London Midland)

 

[samsmoot]

Hang on a minute how do we know the RPI embellished the report or fabricated anything??

She wrote 'New Street' - a lie.
She said 'verbally gave address' - a lie.
Said 'given copy of PFN' - a lie.
She said 'signed' PFN - a lie.
They say 'no response' - a lie.

If you don't know something to be true then why say it is? Because you can't be bothered to check your own facts which you wrote down?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because they didn't want you to pay £3.40 if they did they would have stated that. You were liable to pay a £20 Penalty Fare but refused to then the admin charges racked up.

Because of that they have went to the court wanting the original fare due + costs (over £100) and they'll probably be a Victim Surcharge (about £20) added on and this is before we get to the fine (which goes to the court not London Midland)

They obviously must have wanted £3.40 as they are now asking a court to order payment of it. Asking first wasn't possible, then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because they didn't want you to pay £3.40 if they did they would have stated that. You were liable to pay a £20 Penalty Fare but refused to then the admin charges racked up.

Not refused to pay - disputed validity of PFN which was incorrectly issued.

 

[Anvil1984]

She wrote 'New Street' - a lie.
She said 'verbally gave address' - a lie.
Said 'given copy of PFN' - a lie.
She said 'signed' PFN - a lie.
They say 'no response' - a lie.

If you don't know something to be true then why say it is? Because you can't be bothered to check your own facts which you wrote down?

Birmingham New Street is not a lie that's where you joined the train for purposes of the PFN (Penalty Fares are based where you joined the train not where you started your journey).

She did not write the facts down they are pre printed. You would have been offered a copy if you didn't accept then that's your own fault and would make you look worse in court. Forgetting to state "refused to sign on the statement" is a mistake but again do you think that's going to make you look good in front of a judge / magistrates and the TOC will have a copy of the Penalty Fare Notice

You had more than one chance to pay for your journey and refused, you were offered a chance to atone by paying a legitimate penalty fare (Ticket machines ignored at Sandwell and Dudley, chance to pay at Birmingham New Street not taken) again this was refused. To be honest in court they don't really need to mention the Penalty Fare as this isn't what they are asking for they just have to ask

Did you board the train from Birmingham to Longbridge without a valid ticket?
Was there an opportunity to buy at the start of your journey?
Were there any notices, signs or did anybody permit you to travel without a ticket for your journey in particular the service from Birmingham to Longbridge?

If the answer to the first two is yes and the answer to the third point is no then sorry you'll be found guilty if you carry down this path and you'll just be looking at damage limitation
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They obviously must have wanted £3.40 as they are now asking a court to order payment of it. Asking first wasn't possible, then?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not refused to pay - disputed validity of PFN which was incorrectly issued.

They want the £3.40 now plus costs plus fee. Way more than the Penalty Fare. Whats the point in a penalty fares system if you just offer the normal fare

The Penalty Fare was correctly issued

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;

You cant be charged for the Sandwell and Dudley to Birmingham part as that was with Virgin who don't operate Penalty Fares. So stating the journey on the train you were penalty fared from Birmingham New Street to Longbridge is correct and you were leaving a train after travelling on a named Penalty Fare train

You didn't care to buy for a ticket nor pay the penalty fare so it escalated. for a S18 bylaw prosecution you must have a valid ticket at the start of your journey.

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.

Again no get out clause for you there unless you can prove the ticket machine wasn't there / working

 

[samsmoot]

Birmingham New Street is not a lie that's where you joined the train for purposes of the PFN (Penalty Fares are based where you joined the train not where you started your journey).

She did not write the facts down they are pre printed. You would have been offered a copy if you didn't accept then that's your own fault and would make you look worse in court. Forgetting to state "refused to sign on the statement" is a mistake but again do you think that's going to make you look good in front of a judge / magistrates and the TOC will have a copy of the Penalty Fare Notice

You had more than one chance to pay for your journey and refused, you were offered a chance to atone by paying a legitimate penalty fare (Ticket machines ignored at Sandwell and Dudley, chance to pay at Birmingham New Street not taken) again this was refused. To be honest in court they don't really need to mention the Penalty Fare as this isn't what they are asking for they just have to ask

Did you board the train from Birmingham to Longbridge without a valid ticket?
Was there an opportunity to buy at the start of your journey?
Were there any notices, signs or did anybody permit you to travel without a ticket for your journey in particular the service from Birmingham to Longbridge?

If the answer to the first two is yes and the answer to the third point is no then sorry you'll be found guilty if you carry down this path and you'll just be looking at damage limitation

No opportunity to buy ticket at "start of journey" - but was at New Street. So one "no" - does that help?

Admitting the offence should make me look better, all facts considered, but even if they all were, I wonder if would matter to the court that I didn't just ignore it all as incorrectly stated?

 

[Anvil1984]

No opportunity to buy ticket at "start of journey" - but was at New Street. So one "no" - does that help?

Admitting the offence should make me look better, all facts considered, but even if they all were, I wonder if would matter to the court that I didn't just ignore it all as incorrectly stated?

There was an opportunity at the start of the journey, we've demonstrated now by various methods that there is a ticket machine there (not seeing it is not a defence unless you can prove it was unfairly hidden in a place no one could see it). You've had more than 1 opportunity to pay before boarding the Birmingham to Longbridge train once at Sandwell and another at Birmingham

 

[MyFriendMary]

Sorry I'm a bit lost here, so my question might be incorrect, but how did you appeal the PF if you never received a copy? I'm pretty sure you are meant to send a copy of your PF to the appeals address

 

[island]

I am disappointed to see that the discussion is still going down rabbit-holes and minutiae of validity of penalty fares.

The offence charged is not failure to pay a penalty fare. It is failure to have a ticket when joining a train. Any defect in process in issuing a penalty fare bears no relevance to whether this offence has been committed or not.

Nothing obliges a Train Operating Company, having detected a crime, to accept payment of any amount, whether that be £3.40, £20, or anything else, in return for ceasing to pursue the matter.

It would be most helpful to (and for) the OP to concentrate on the prosecution issue and the reliability of witnesses rather than continuing to discuss the finer details of a penalty fare notice which has in any case almost certainly been cancelled.

 

[Anvil1984]

I am disappointed to see that the discussion is still going down rabbit-holes and minutiae of validity of penalty fares.

The offence charged is not failure to pay a penalty fare. It is failure to have a ticket when joining a train. Any defect in process in issuing a penalty fare bears no relevance to whether this offence has been committed or not.

Nothing obliges a Train Operating Company, having detected a crime, to accept payment of any amount, whether that be £3.40, £20, or anything else, in return for ceasing to pursue the matter.

It would be most helpful to (and for) the OP to concentrate on the prosecution issue and the reliability of witnesses rather than continuing to discuss the finer details of a penalty fare notice which has in any case almost certainly been cancelled.

Sorry but i feel the PF talk is pertinent especially as the OP is trying to use its "false issuing" as his main defence when it shouldnt be

 

[Fare-Cop]

I am disappointed to see that the discussion is still going down rabbit-holes and minutiae of validity of penalty fares.

The offence charged is not failure to pay a penalty fare. It is failure to have a ticket when joining a train.

It would be most helpful to (and for) the OP to concentrate on the prosecution issue and the reliability of witnesses rather than continuing to discuss the finer details of a penalty fare notice which has in any case almost certainly been cancelled.

Exactly so. The OP says in the original post that a Summons has been received. That summons defines the charge, which is an allegation of an offence contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18

Any penalty fare notice that may have been issued has clearly been cancelled and the Court will only be concerned with the substance of the charge as summonsed. That allegation will be that the OP boarded a train and failed to pay the appropriate fare before doing so when facilities were available and did not therefore have a valid ticket for the journey.

 

[samsmoot]

Sorry I'm a bit lost here, so my question might be incorrect, but how did you appeal the PF if you never received a copy? I'm pretty sure you are meant to send a copy of your PF to the appeals address

Good question, actually: I obtained a copy of an LM PFN then wrote in stating the time and date etc.

I do get that the PFN may have been cancelled and that prosecution is correct - but in doing so, to say that I ignored letters, is wrong. It seems to have been important enough to put it into the Statement of Facts that I failed to communicate, so it is being relied upon in some way - if untrue, then why convey false information and make it sound worse? Why not say "we received numerous communications which we chose not to respond to"? Why not say I challenged a PFN under the prescribed civil process? Why not say no mention of £3.40 had ever been made? Why not just say "we chose not to pursue the civil remedy to get our £20/40/60 and instead issued this summons whilst the accused was engaging with us with a view to challenging this civil penalty"? Why not just tell the whole truth, in other words? If they asked for £20 then why say later that they expected payment of £3.40?

I am supposed to be honest - so should they be - especially to a court of law.

 

[island]

The £3.40 will be compensation. You will also see another figure for costs, which may now have reached £100. These two figures would be rolled up into one in the event of a round-sum settlement for (for example) £60 at an earlier stage of the process.

 

[talltim]

Why not just tell the whole truth, in other words? If they asked for £20 then why say later that they expected payment of £3.40?

They asked for payment of £3.40 before you started the journey.

 

[CallySleeper]

Once I chose to dispute the PFN the cost went up - giving more incentive to fight it.

Did you not prefer just to fight the PFN when the cost to you was lower? Or do you prefer the increased risk?

Why not say "pay £3.40 to avoid the Magistrates and we'll have to County Court you for the rest"?

So why didn't they say they wanted £3.40 before issuing the summons?

Erm, actually they have done in the form of a rail ticket. Pay £3.40 to avoid Magistrates/RPIs/summons/hot water. But you chose with intent to ignore two opportunties to pay the fare due, and your actions since have only served to compound your position.

 

[samsmoot]

Have heard nothing since posting so hopefully that's the end of the matter.

Thanks for all the advice - very much appreciated.

 

[185143]

No opportunity to buy ticket at "start of journey" - but was at New Street. So one "no" - does that help?

Admitting the offence should make me look better, all facts considered, but even if they all were, I wonder if would matter to the court that I didn't just ignore it all as incorrectly stated?

There was an opportunity at the start of the journey, we've demonstrated now by various methods that there is a ticket machine there (not seeing it is not a defence unless you can prove it was unfairly hidden in a place no one could see it). You've had more than 1 opportunity to pay before boarding the Birmingham to Longbridge train once at Sandwell and another at Birmingham

I'll stir the brown stuff and say that there was also an opportunity to pay onboard the Virgin Train as all TMs carry Avantix machines.

The ONLY way there was not an opportunity to pay on the Virgin train would be if it was a double voyager and the TM was in the other unit.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Have heard nothing since posting so hopefully that's the end of the matter.

Thanks for all the advice - very much appreciated.

I'm not sure how long they have after issuing the original summons before they can issue a new one. I wouldn't think you're out of the woods just yet.

 

[Stigy]

For the record, perjury wouldn't have entered the equation either for something like saying you signed when you didn't. They'd have had their copy of the PFN as a company so it's not like the RPIS was lying, more than likely just a mistake which slipped through the net. Not perjury.

 

[samsmoot]

I'm not sure how long they have after issuing the original summons before they can issue a new one. I wouldn't think you're out of the woods just yet.

Nor me on both counts - so I say 'hopefully' it's all over whilst knowing it may not be. The only time limit I am aware of is that they need to start a prosecution within 12 months of the offence (or at least that was the case around 10 years ago from what I remember), which they did.