Transport investigations LTD prosecution

[JoeL1991]

Hi my mum has been sent letters by this company asking for a fine to be paid or to be taken to court. However I believe she should not pay the fine as in my eyes she's done nothing wrong but to be honest. Here is the story:

At the start of her journey at her local train station there was no working ticket machine , she then got on the train to cardiff queen st and then had to switch platforms at her next stop for a train to the bay that had a 1 minute gap between arrival and departure. She got on the train and there was no inspector on this train to buy a ticket from and she then got off in the bay and attempted to buy a ticket from one of arriva's employees at the gate like any honest person would do. This employee took a statement from her and her name address etc and threatened her with a fine due to not travelling without a ticket despite her explaining she couldn't purchase one without missing a train and being late to her meeting and the fact that at the start of her journey there was a broken ticket machine. He then took the statement and a few weeks back she received a very poorly written and confusing letter from Transport investigations LTD saying she would either pay the fine or face prosecution. She sent a statement off to them and they replied with an even worse and unclear letter stating that they were still going to carry on with the prosecution. is there anyway i can help her get out of this mess?



Can anyone on here help from past experience?thank you

 

[Flamingo]

Where was her starting station and finishing station? More importantly, where did she ask for a ticket from and to? What time of the day was it? (The questions will get harder, but those will do for the time being).

Just to raise one point, Arriva prosecutions dept, or indeed the magistrates will not care overmuch that she was running late, that is irrevelant.

Arriva sometimes offer out-of-court settlements, but this is not a given.

(Also, a fine is issued by a court, the sum they would be asking for is an out-of-court settlement - unless it has already been to court, in which case it is game over I'm afraid).

 

[Bletchleyite]

had to switch platforms at her next stop for a train to the bay that had a 1 minute gap between arrival and departure.

She might not have much of a case here, because a 1 minute connection is not an official connection. The standard minimum connection time is 5 minutes, which would have her catching the following Bay train with plenty of time to go and buy a ticket.

If having explained her case clearly, telling the truth, they still insist she is in the wrong, she might be best advised to pay any settlement rather than going to Court. But I am not a lawyer, etc, so if considering that paid-for legal advice may be best.

Neil

 

[30907]

She might not have much of a case here, because a 1 minute connection is not an official connection. The standard minimum connection time is 5 minutes, which would have her catching the following Bay train with plenty of time to go and buy a ticket.

Unless the train into Q St was 4 or more late?

 

[Llanigraham]

What station did she get on at?
Why didn't she try to find the guard on the way down to Queen St?
It was not a fine, those are only issued by Courts.
Was she offered the chance to pay a "settlement" figure in the first letter, and if so how much?
What did her statement say?
What legislation does the current letter say her prosecution is under?

The Law is that a passenger should have a ticket before they travel or buy it at the first available moment. In your mother's case that would have been Queen St, apparently.

 

[LateThanNever]

Hi my mum has been sent letters by this company asking for a fine to be paid or to be taken to court. However I believe she should not pay the fine as in my eyes she's done nothing wrong but to be honest. Here is the story:

At the start of her journey at her local train station there was no working ticket machine , she then got on the train to cardiff queen st and then had to switch platforms at her next stop for a train to the bay that had a 1 minute gap between arrival and departure. She got on the train and there was no inspector on this train to buy a ticket from and she then got off in the bay and attempted to buy a ticket from one of arriva's employees at the gate like any honest person would do. This employee took a statement from her and her name address etc and threatened her with a fine due to not travelling without a ticket despite her explaining she couldn't purchase one without missing a train and being late to her meeting and the fact that at the start of her journey there was a broken ticket machine. He then took the statement and a few weeks back she received a very poorly written and confusing letter from Transport investigations LTD saying she would either pay the fine or face prosecution. She sent a statement off to them and they replied with an even worse and unclear letter stating that they were still going to carry on with the prosecution. is there anyway i can help her get out of this mess?



Can anyone on here help from past experience?thank you

If there was no working ticket machine and no working ticket office at the start of her journey then she had no choice but to pay at the other end. (She is not expected to delay her journey when changing trains in order to find a place/person to buy a ticket.) Looks to me as though she endeavoured to pay at the first opportunity so the Arriva employee - suspect he or she was probably agency staff and they will want to justify their existence - should have sold her a ticket.
When replying say just that she was endeavouring to pay at the first opportunity. Then add that you are unable to understand their letter and perhaps they could send a copy in Plain English. But in the meantime you have endeavoured to reply to what you think they are requesting. Keep a copy of the letter and get a proof of posting from the Post Office!

 

[CC 72100]

If there was no working ticket machine and no working ticket office at the start of her journey then she had no choice but to pay at the other end. (She is not expected to delay her journey when changing trains in order to find a place/person to buy a ticket.) Looks to me as though she endeavoured to pay at the first opportunity so the Arriva employee - suspect he or she was probably agency staff and they will want to justify their existence - should have sold her a ticket.
When replying say just that she was endeavouring to pay at the first opportunity. Then add that you are unable to understand their letter and perhaps they could send a copy in Plain English. But in the meantime you have endeavoured to reply to what you think they are requesting. Keep a copy of the letter and get a proof of posting from the Post Office!

Is such a conflictive approach really a good idea? I mean the ball is in their court at the moment, not to OPs. I can't help feeling that peeing them off is going to work out in a 'good' resolution of this for the OP.

 

[Sparky27]

As the TVM was broken at the start of the journey Cardiff Queen Street is seen as the next available opportunity for her to have purchased a ticket from.

The fact your Mother stepped off the Cardiff Bay train without a valid ticket would be classed as fraudulent travel, its comonly known there are no gates or facilities to purchase a ticket once off that train and the appearance of Ticket Inspectors there is more and more frequent.

 

[LateThanNever]

Is such a conflictive approach really a good idea? I mean the ball is in their court at the moment, not to OPs. I can't help feeling that peeing them off is going to work out in a 'good' resolution of this for the OP.

If you genuinely cannot understand what they are asking there is no choice but to ask them to explain better. But in endeavouring to reply to what you think they mean you are being very cooperative rather than conflictive!

 

[bb21]

If there was no working ticket machine and no working ticket office at the start of her journey then she had no choice but to pay at the other end. (She is not expected to delay her journey when changing trains in order to find a place/person to buy a ticket.)

While it is true that a passenger is not expected to delay her journey at an interchange station in order to purchase a ticket, it is debatable whether missing an unofficial connection in order to do so and subsequently arriving at the original booked time counts as "delaying one's journey".

Without anything concrete that I am aware of, I would be very careful in advising the OP to take this line of argument.

Then add that you are unable to understand their letter and perhaps they could send a copy in Plain English.

Erm, no. Simply no.

Do you really think it is a good idea to be deliberately obtuse in such a situation? I would have no problem with this approach if the passenger is totally and unambiguously in the right, but this is not one such case.

The fact your Mother stepped off the Cardiff Bay train without a valid ticket would be classed as fraudulent travel,

Not necessarily, especially if the connection were official.

If you genuinely cannot understand what they are asking there is no choice but to ask them to explain better. But in endeavouring to reply to what you think they mean you are being very cooperative rather than conflictive!

Then perhaps take a more reconciliatory tone and ask them to clarify the specific points which the OP could not understand.

Telling them to send a new letter written "in plain English" as you put it is unlikely to go down well.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There are some important facts which will influence how she should proceed and how the matter can be managed to produce an appropriate outcome. Flamingo has asked for some of these facts already.

If it is a matter of fact that the machine(s) at the station from which she began the journey was truly out of order, then that fact will also be known to the Company, so precision in stating the time and place in her reply will be vital.

Neil Williams refers to the authorised 'minimum connection time' at Q.St. I regret that I can't see the relevance of that stipulation to the duty of a passenger to buy a ticket before travel where possible. But it is certainly worth stating that the actual journey taken did not appear to provide an opportunity until arrival in C.Bay.

The role of revenue inspectors is just that, to inspect and detect revenue irregularities, not to sell tickets (as they should have been bought before reaching them; but if there is a factually correct reason why there was no prior opportunity, then that simple truth will be enough to conclude the matter.

I cannot endorse this approach:

If there was no working ticket machine and no working ticket office at the start of her journey then she had no choice but to pay at the other end. (She is not expected to delay her journey when changing trains in order to find a place/person to buy a ticket.) Looks to me as though she endeavoured to pay at the first opportunity so the Arriva employee - suspect he or she was probably agency staff and they will want to justify their existence - should have sold her a ticket.
When replying say just that she was endeavouring to pay at the first opportunity. Then add that you are unable to understand their letter and perhaps they could send a copy in Plain English. But in the meantime you have endeavoured to reply to what you think they are requesting. Keep a copy of the letter and get a proof of posting from the Post Office!

The question of 'not expected to delay her journey' in order to buy a ticket has no legal basis.
The Revenue Inspection staff may or may not have been justifying their existence, but it does appear to me that they acted correctly (and as stated, would not be in a position to sell tickets).
If you ask for a copy of their letter 'in plain English' (or Welsh!) you may buy yourself some useful time. It won't help in any other sense, and may be counter-productive. You could equally seek professional advice or, as you have done, expert advice from here.

With some more facts, we should be able to guide you to giving your mother the most appropriate advice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless the train into Q St was 4 or more late?

Fair point.

Neil

 

[MikeWh]

She might not have much of a case here, because a 1 minute connection is not an official connection. The standard minimum connection time is 5 minutes, which would have her catching the following Bay train with plenty of time to go and buy a ticket.

Neil

The relevance of minimum connection times is not applicable here. They need to be adhered to if you want the railway to take ultimate responsibility for helping you when trains are delayed, be that authorising travel on a later train with an advance or being eligible for delay compensation.

In this case there is nothing to stop the passenger taking an unofficial connection if they want to take the risk. It's a perfectly valid journey for the ticket that they were unable to purchase earlier, and as such there is no requirement to miss the connection just to purchase the ticket.

Indeed, the railway could shoot itself in the foot were the later train to be cancelled or seriously delayed, resulting in the passenger then being eligible for compensation.

 

[najaB]

In this case there is nothing to stop the passenger taking an unofficial connection if they want to take the risk. It's a perfectly valid journey for the ticket that they were unable to purchase earlier, and as such there is no requirement to miss the connection just to purchase the ticket.

I think the reason that minimum connection times were referred to is because the OP's mum is saying 'I didn't have time to purchase a ticket at Queen Street'.

But the TOC wouldn't have expected her to be able to make that train in the first place. That means that in their eyes she wouldn't have had to 'delay her journey' in order to buy at Queen Street - especially given that there's only about 12 minutes between trains to the Bay.

Edit: Unless, as was suggested up-thread, the train to Queen Street was running late.

 

[Tetchytyke]

All the talk of minimum connection times seems like wibble to me. It also depends on what ground the TOC are attempting to prosecute. If they are relying on the Byelaws, then the Byelaws (the two Byelaws mentioned relate to the obligation to buy and show a valid ticket) actually say this:

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
16(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.

If the ticket machine was not working at the station where the OP's mother boarded the train, then she should not be treated as being in breach of the Byelaw. There is no mention in the Byelaw of being compelled to buy a ticket mid-way through a journey, although it is usually seen as a reasonable obligation if you have the time to do so.

Which immediately makes me wonder where the OP's mother started her journey, where she told the RPI she started her journey, and whether the machine was actually out of order.

Should the OP's mother be telling the truth, repeating the relevant facts- politely- may be the best course of action here.

 

[Class377]

Is a passenger seriously expected to let a train which is sitting there go purely because it isn't an "official" connection? I was under the impression that connection times existed so that a passenger had no complaints if they missed it, not so they should deliberately miss it to avoid prosecution!

 

[yorkie]

All the talk of minimum connection times seems like wibble to me..

Agreed.

If there was no facility to purchase a ticket at the origin station, then that is not an "opportunity to pay". If the Guard is selling tickets and has time to issue you a ticket on the train, that would be the next "opportunity to pay", and if not, then if there's an interchange station and there is sufficient time to purchase a ticket without delaying your journey, that could be the next "opportunity to pay", but if there is not sufficient time, then it isn't, so the next "opportunity to pay" would be on the second train, but if the Guard can't get through that, then the "opportunity to pay" is at the station. Providing the passenger acts reasonably (ie, isn't trying to avoid payment by deliberately avoiding ticket issuing facilities at the destination) at the destination, then there is no offence committed.

Unless there's something else going on here that hasn't been revealed, it sounds like this is a case that should be vigorously defended.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is a passenger seriously expected to let a train which is sitting there go purely because it isn't an "official" connection? I was under the impression that connection times existed so that a passenger had no complaints if they missed it, not so they should deliberately miss it to avoid prosecution!

Totally agreed. People are making up a rule that doesn't exist.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What station did she get on at?
Why didn't she try to find the guard on the way down to Queen St?

Not this again!

I refer you to this (from someone who has experience working an RPI, by the way):

There is no requirement documented that you must seek out the guard if there are no facilities for you to buy.

In addition, see my post here, as on some routes it is also considered rude and jumping the queue to approach the guard and ask to buy a ticket. I was a regular commuter on the Severn Beach line in Bristol (all stations unstaffed except for Bristol Temple Meads) a few years ago, and when people did this then they would always get shouted down by others (including me if I was close enough), and in some cases the guard would inform them that they would be seen in due course as some passengers got on earlier but had not yet been seen.

 

[Llanigraham]

Fine, Yorkie, however until we get answers to the other questions everything is guess work.
We need to know what station this passenger got on at.

 

[Flamingo]

Fine, Yorkie, however until we get answers to the other questions everything is guess work.
We need to know what station this passenger got on at.

I agree. I don't think there is enough information from the OP at this stage (one post with a second-hand somewhat garbled account missing out most salient facts) to offer ANY advice, let alone an assertion that it should be defended in court...

 

[island]

Why didn't she buy a ticket from the guard on the Cardiff Bay service? That service is short and rarely busy.

 

[najaB]

Why didn't she buy a ticket from the guard on the Cardiff Bay service? That service is short and rarely busy.

The OP claims that there was " there was no inspector on this train to buy a ticket from". I don't know if these services are ever run without a guard/ticket inspector, the few times I've used it there has been one.

 

[Flamingo]

There has to be a guard on them, ATW don't have DOO trains.

 

[najaB]

There has to be a guard on them, ATW don't have DOO trains.

I guess the guard must have been too busy dealing with the hordes of passengers.

 

[Greenback]

There is a guard on Cardiff Bay services, but as it's a very short journey and Queen St has barriers, guards may not feel there is a lot of point in doing an inspection. By the time they have finished observing the departure from Queen St, the train is almost due to be pulling into the Bay!

 

[krus_aragon]

My journeys on the Bay line have generally involved the guard checking tickets on each leg, but I can't say that I've always had my ticket checked.

Edit: I haven't travelled that way at peak times, however. Greenback's comments above may be particularly relevant on a full train.

 

[sarahj]

Not aimed at anyone, but when I work short hop trains, I find passengers who really want tickets will find me. On some trains I get a line of folks buying.

Others will sit 3-4 coaches away with a fiver in their hands, should I have the time to get through, if caught without a ticket, will say, well the guard never came around.

ie, those that want a ticket can buy, those that like to chance it, chance it.

 

[najaB]

Others will sit 3-4 coaches away with a fiver in their hands...

(Un)Fortunately the law says that they aren't in the wrong.

(Fortunately for them, unfortunately for the fare-paying passenger).

 

[sarahj]

One of our very early trains is notorious for a group of builders that travel just one stop from Lancing to East Worthing. One groups get in coach 1, the other in coach 4. They all have the fiver in their hands. But know that if you sell to one set, you wont get to the other.
However, since Lacing has a ticket machine, and this happens every day. (they only buy singles BTW. so probably try and wing it for the trip back as well). The RPI's did a special check a while back and caught 9. Not sure if they were PF'd or what.

 

[Fare-Cop]

One of our very early trains is notorious for a group of builders that travel just one stop from Lancing to East Worthing. One groups get in coach 1, the other in coach 4. They all have the fiver in their hands. But know that if you sell to one set, you wont get to the other.
However, since Lacing has a ticket machine, and this happens every day. (they only buy singles BTW. so probably try and wing it for the trip back as well). The RPI's did a special check a while back and caught 9. Not sure if they were PF'd or what.

Intent to pay only if asked - Summons to Magistrates Court, charge RoRA S.5.3.a - prosecutor quoting Corbyn (1978) normally succeeds and has also done so in cases where travellers have boarded at a station without facilities, but failed to pay at an intermediate / changing station where there were facilities too.

By way of explanation of the latter, in one example a regular traveller boarded at a station with no facilities to pay, did not declare his journey when on train, changed at a station where there were facilities and did not pay, boarded a train to his destination where there were no facilities and did not declare and pay on that second train.

On arrival at his destination was checked by an RPI, admitted having not paid on either train and said he did not have time at the interchange.

The man was reported and argued that he should not be expected to miss a train nor be inconvenienced at the changing point and that he did not intend not to pay, but would have paid later if someone had asked him.

Summonsed RoRA 5.3.a - heard at Magistrates Court and Corbyn case cited by prosecutor - defendant stated that he would likely appeal. Case had been heard by a District Judge who advised defendant that the Legal Advisor would be recording his decision in full. Not challenged further and that was in 2012

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not aimed at anyone, but when I work short hop trains, I find passengers who really want tickets will find me. On some trains I get a line of folks buying.

Others will sit 3-4 coaches away with a fiver in their hands, should I have the time to get through, if caught without a ticket, will say, well the guard never came around.

ie, those that want a ticket can buy, those that like to chance it, chance it.

Would it be worth TOCs considering the idea of making a rule that if you don't have a ticket, staffed station or no, you must board at a specific door and buy one before taking a seat, say the rearmost door if the back cab is the logical guard place to sit?

Then if you fail to do this, with clear notices telling you to do so, and the guard comes through, it's PF (or prosecution) time?

This is sort-of how DB's rural DOO services work where there is no TVM - you have to go and tell the driver you have no ticket and why, and he will tell any inspectors who get on that you have so they just sell you a ticket.

Neil