Northern Rail fare dispute initial contact lettet

[ScottJay]

Hi all,

2 months or so ago i got my details taken by a revenue officer outside the station who then proceeded to lead me back in the station and as i explained i forgot my ticket, yes guys i actually did, and i recieved my initial contact letter explaining this and i also enclosed all previous tickets as i collect them for reasons as this showing im s regular train user on that line and showing i buy that specific ticket regularly and also enclosed all of these aswell as a copy of a bank statement from where i used to buy tickets also. I recieved a message before asking to call them re important matter, and im worried, does anyone whos had this experience know what it will be about?

The cost was 14.30 open return manchester victoria to marsden yorks.

Regards

 

[reb0118]

We will probably need a few more facts but from what you have posted it seems that Northern have received your response to their initial response letter. They may wish to clarify with you some detail or indeed they may wish to offer you a settlement (although in most cases they will do this by letter).

If there are no aggravating factors and you are not previously known to Northern then it seems in most cases you will be offered an administrative penalty of £80 + fare due. NB this is not guaranteed as in some cases they can, and do, report people for prosecution.

Presenting old tickets as "proof" of previous compliance can be a two edged sword as any gaps in your purchasing history can be interpreted as times when you have also avoided your fare - it is better to stick to the day in question. You state that you forgot your ticket on that day - where is this ticket now? NB, that said even if you can present that ticket it still offers no defence against a Section 18 Byelaw offence as that is complete if you are merely unable to produce a ticket on demand to an authorised person (usual caveats apply) - no intent to avoid your fare is required. Notwithstanding that, it may, & I repeat just may, offer some corroboration to your story - it can at the very least do no harm.

The above is just guess work until you give Northern a call to see what they require from you. You can then get back to us for further advice.

 

[ScottJay]

Yeah i realised when sending the old tickets its a two way thing and can explode in spectaculsr fashion. I havent had any previous dealings with northern at all in that manner. Was the revenue officer correct in his way by approaching me outside the station? And when i ring northern tomorrow can i just offer to pay outstanding are plus reasonable costs? Thanks in advance

 

[bb21]

You will need to answer the questions asked or we cannot offer you the most appropriate advice because we were not there.

When you said that you forgot your ticket, do you mean you bought the ticket in advance but left them home, or that you did not buy a ticket at all, or else?

Where were you stopped? Do you mean you made a journey Victoria - Marsden - Victoria or the other way round?

 

[maniacmartin]

When you say 'outside the station', where exactly do you mean? Were you still on railway property, such as a station forecourt?

 

[First class]

When you say 'outside the station', where exactly do you mean? Were you still on railway property, such as a station forecourt?

It makes absolutely no difference.

 

[LateThanNever]

It makes absolutely no difference.

It does if the OP was off railway property and had disposed of the ticket or even chose not to present it as he had finished his journey. Otherwise we'd all have drawerfuls of tickets that we could never dispose of. (Oh I know some do have a collection!) It seems odd that the OP said he was 'led back' to the station.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It makes absolutely no difference.

Oh it does. If the OP was off railway property, then railway employees have no right to stop him/her unless they are BTP.

 

[Flamingo]

Makes no difference from the point that the OP did not have a valid ticket and said so...

 

[First class]

Oh it does. If the OP was off railway property, then railway employees have no right to stop him/her unless they are BTP.

That is definitely not correct either!

They have the right to:

1) Demand correct name & address
2) Arrest/detain such persons who fail to comply with above

At any place! Railway property or otherwise! The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 does not set boundaries. Outside the local Poundland, at the bus station etc, it makes no difference.

All that is required is for the person being stopped to have been (or attempted to have been) a passenger of a railway, and not yet produced a ticket showing they had paid for their complete journey.

There is some case law, (about a woman who was stopped by a BR member of staff at a London gateline who bruised a passengers arm when she walked through without showing a valid ticket). The member of staff arrested her, using physical force. It turns out she had actually paid. She tried to sue BR for injuries/assault. Court threw the case out. Judge ruled that even if acting beyond the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, a "citizens arrest", for an offence under the Theft Act would have been just as applicable. Perhaps one of the legal people on here can look it up, it was on Lexis Libary or some similar named site a few years back.

The case law in that instance also determined how "officer of the railway" should be interpreted, which basically ended up as any railway employee.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

ScottJay, until you call the office back, you won't be sure of what the purpose of the conversation is, but if they were determined to prosecute you, then they wouldn't be calling you by phone. It's more probable that this once-off ommission will be the subject of one of the Company's offers of an administrative settlement of £80 plus the fare due; (and just perhaps, your report of a lost ticket has been believed, thanks to some improbable evidence!)

When you say 'outside the station', where exactly do you mean? Were you still on railway property, such as a station forecourt?

It does if the OP was off railway property and had disposed of the ticket or even chose not to present it as he had finished his journey. Otherwise we'd all have . . . . <snip>

I agree with collector that this point is absolutely irrelevant to ScottJay's question, and LateThanNever's speculation about "Otherwise we'd all have . . . . " just seems to miss the point entirely.

There is some case law, (about a woman who was stopped by a BR member of staff at a London gateline . . . .

. . .
Perhaps one of the legal people on here can look it up, it was on Lexis Libary or some similar named site a few years back.

Well if anyone on here knew, I should, but it is only ringing a very faint and distant bell with me. I'll have a search sometime soon.
It is immaterial where an interview takes place - it is the evidence gained from it that is material. It is true to say that a routine ticket inspection would not take place outside a station, but that is radically different from an informed interview which may, in its due course of questions and answers, include a request to present any relevant tickets for travel. Very different.

 

[najaB]

All that is required is for the person being stopped to have been (or attempted to have been) a passenger of a railway, and not yet produced a ticket showing they had paid for their complete journey.

While that may be the letter of the law, I think that practically speaking it would be a very brave prosecutor who attempted to pursue a case against someone who couldn't produce a ticket after they had left railway property.

But, as DaveNewcastle says, it isn't pertinent to the OP's case.

 

[LateThanNever]

While that may be the letter of the law, I think that practically speaking it would be a very brave prosecutor who attempted to pursue a case against someone who couldn't produce a ticket after they had left railway property.

But, as DaveNewcastle says, it isn't pertinent to the OP's case.

It is pertinent in that it looks as tho', if the OP had said nothing - and thus not admitted travel - he would have had no subsequent problem.
It is a great pity that those who try to be cooperative are penalised. It encourages lack of cooperation and much worse, which is, at the very least, undesirable.
(And the pity is even more scandalous when this penalty is generated by corporations who are partially complicit in defrauding the taxpayer).
It looks as tho' the pertinence is a lesson for next time.

 

[ScottJay]

Originally i was outside as i noticed the change in the footpath. I also recieved a fixed penalty of £80 today, if i pay this would that then been the end of it? As the jobs im applying for need an unblemished record

 

[bb21]

It is pertinent in that it looks as tho', if the OP had said nothing - and thus not admitted travel - he would have had no subsequent problem.

Erm, no. Terrible advice. There is no way to know whether the OP was observed alighting from a train. This will only make things worse without knowing the exact circumstances.

(And the pity is even more scandalous when this penalty is generated by corporations who are partially complicit in defrauding the taxpayer).

The relevance to this particular matter being?

Originally i was outside as i noticed the change in the footpath. I also recieved a fixed penalty of £80 today, if i pay this would that then been the end of it? As the jobs im applying for need an unblemished record

You have still not explained whether you actually had a ticket or not. What do you mean by "i forgot my ticket"? Where did you leave it, or did you forget to buy one?

The £80 fixed penalty sounds like an offer of a settlement for this matter. You might want to upload an image of the letter blocking out confidential details so we can be sure.

 

[najaB]

Originally i was outside as i noticed the change in the footpath. I also recieved a fixed penalty of £80 today, if i pay this would that then been the end of it? As the jobs im applying for need an unblemished record

If Northern have offered a £80 settlement, then yes paying it would be an end to the matter.

 

[Class377]

Originally i was outside as i noticed the change in the footpath. I also recieved a fixed penalty of £80 today, if i pay this would that then been the end of it? As the jobs im applying for need an unblemished record

Yes, paying the £80 would end the matter.

It would be a private settlement and would not show up on any check (apart from one Northern would do if you were to be caught again). If offered it you should jump at the chance to pay it.

 

[ScottJay]

It wont let me upload the photo my phone is old keeps failing. It basically says fixed penalty notice and if i pay it discharges liability to conviction. I left it at home but enclosed all tickets inc that. Like i said if i pay is that the end of the matter as i cant have a record

 

[bb21]

I see. I think you should be able to sleep tight without the worry of a court case if you pay the £80 and that should be the end of the matter, that is if you are happy with this outcome.

It will not show up on any checks as there is no involvement of the criminal justice system. It is a private matter between you and the train company which has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Be more careful in the future because another similar incident could be a lot more costly, in several respects.

 

[Greenback]

As bb21 says, it will be the end of the matter and the settlement in respect of your debt won;t appear on any DBS checks.

I also support the advice for you to be extra careful in future. If you are in the same position again it's very unlikely that the company will take a lenient view.

LateThanNever, I find it disappointing that you are continuing to give poor and irrelevant advice to people in this section of the forum. In this case you have encouraged non co-operation which is exactly what you objected to when those who are co-operative are penalised. The suggestion that not co-operating would have meant the OP would have had no further trouble is not a good one. It could have ended up being much worse for them.

 

[323235]

Yes advice to be uncooperative is an absolutely disastrous idea in cases like this, I've seen enough instances on this forum to now that it is 100% NOT the way to reach the best outcome in cases of fare irregularities and disputes

 

[Greenback]

I'll always co-operate no matter what the situation or where it occurs. Being unco-operative can have many adverse consequences that can be far in excess of what will otherwise be encountered.

And I feel it's always best to be totally honest. Trying to lie and trick your way out of a situation can be another recipe for disaster.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Sorry if I was off railway property and a railway employee tried to stop me, if I had a ticket or no (I always have a ticket when I'm travelling just for the record), I would tell them to get stuffed. Once I am off railway property I cannot be detained by an employee of a private company. That would actually give a railway employee more powers than some police officers.

As an example Special Constables have full powers of arrest in their county and any adjoining county (whether on or off duty). They do not have powers of arrest or detention outside of those areas. They hold a warrant card as a member of their counties force. Paid officers have powers of detention and arrest anywhere in the UK.

To say that a railway employee (a member of a private company) has powers of detention ANYWHERE is ridiculous. BTP I can accept, they hold a warrant card and are a national force.

I have no doubt that I would be stopped and questioned on railway property in the future, however I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[GadgetMan]

Sorry if I was off railway property and a railway employee tried to stop me, if I had a ticket or no (I always have a ticket when I'm travelling just for the record), I would tell them to get stuffed. Once I am off railway property I cannot be detained by an employee of a private company. That would actually give a railway employee more powers than some police officers.

As an example Special Constables have full powers of arrest in their county and any adjoining county (whether on or off duty). They do not have powers of arrest or detention outside of those areas. They hold a warrant card as a member of their counties force. Paid officers have powers of detention and arrest anywhere in the UK.

To say that a railway employee (a member of a private company) has powers of detention ANYWHERE is ridiculous. BTP I can accept, they hold a warrant card and are a national force.

I have no doubt that I would be stopped and questioned on railway property in the future, however I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Showing your ticket would be too difficult?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Showing your ticket would be too difficult?

Why should I have to on the public highway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

As bb21 says, it will be the end of the matter and the settlement in respect of your debt won;t appear on any DBS checks.

I agree.

Sorry if I was off railway property and a railway employee tried to stop me, if I had a ticket or no (I always have a ticket when I'm travelling just for the record), I would tell them to get stuffed. . . . .

. . .

To say that a railway employee (a member of a private company) has powers of detention ANYWHERE is ridiculous.

1. This is not relevant to ScottJay's request.

2. If the Regulation of Railways Act doesn't catch you with that uncooperative response, then please don't be surprised if the Public Order Act does!

3. In this section of the forum, we try to give factually reliable advice, so while you may find the powers granted to control fare evasion to be "ridiculous", it is NOT helpful to suggest that because a concept appears to you to be "ridiculous" then it should not be relied upon in the strategies to detect fare evasion.

Please keep comments relevant to those seeking advice, or else start your own thread to discuss a matter of more general interest.

 

[Greenback]

You are free to make whatever decision you want, cjmillsun, I just don't think it's a good idea to offer this as advice to others n this thread.

 

[Llanigraham]

Sorry if I was off railway property and a railway employee tried to stop me, if I had a ticket or no (I always have a ticket when I'm travelling just for the record), I would tell them to get stuffed. Once I am off railway property I cannot be detained by an employee of a private company. That would actually give a railway employee more powers than some police officers.

As an example Special Constables have full powers of arrest in their county and any adjoining county (whether on or off duty). They do not have powers of arrest or detention outside of those areas. They hold a warrant card as a member of their counties force. Paid officers have powers of detention and arrest anywhere in the UK.

To say that a railway employee (a member of a private company) has powers of detention ANYWHERE is ridiculous. BTP I can accept, they hold a warrant card and are a national force.

I have no doubt that I would be stopped and questioned on railway property in the future, however I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Oh dear!!
I suggest you read the Regulation of Railway Act in full and complete detail before making comments like that.

 

[jkdd77]

2. If the Regulation of Railways Act doesn't catch you with that uncooperative response, then please don't be surprised if the Public Order Act does!

I'm not qualified to comment on the RRA, but, having read section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I very much doubt that a member of the public who told a member of rail staff to "get stuffed" in these specific circumstances would commit any offence under the Public Order Act, unless the words were screamed, shouted, made in a threatening manner, or repeated.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I agree.

1. This is not relevant to ScottJay's request.

2. If the Regulation of Railways Act doesn't catch you with that uncooperative response, then please don't be surprised if the Public Order Act does!

3. In this section of the forum, we try to give factually reliable advice, so while you may find the powers granted to control fare evasion to be "ridiculous", it is NOT helpful to suggest that because a concept appears to you to be "ridiculous" then it should not be relied upon in the strategies to detect fare evasion.

Please keep comments relevant to those seeking advice, or else start your own thread to discuss a matter of more general interest.

I am taking this to a separate thread.