Split Ticketing Notice of Intention to Prosecute.

[221129]

Even worse, could it be interpreted as intention to defraud?

No, because it is a valid combination as long as you buy the extra ticket before station B (Ideally before boarding at Station A)

 

[DaleCooper]

No, because it is a valid combination as long as you buy the extra ticket before station B (Ideally before boarding at Station A)

Then it's the old story "I was going to buy the extra ticket, honest guv."

 

[Deerfold]

Only if it is a season ticket

Or Zonal.

 

[cookie365]

I thought that might rattle a few cages

What if your ticket from A to B was an ordinary A to B single and you intended on buying a zonal or season ticket from B to C?

 

[DaleCooper]

I wonder how Flamingo would react to someone who "intended to buy a ticket" no matter what sort.

 

[cookie365]

I wonder how Flamingo would react to someone who "intended to buy a ticket" no matter what sort.

I mean intending to buy a zonal/season before B and approaching the guard before B to do so.

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder how Flamingo would react to someone who "intended to buy a ticket" no matter what sort.

My general rule of thumb is if they find me, I'll sell them whatever is valid for the train. If I find them, I may need some persuading, or give them advice whilst selling them whatever is valid. If they are kicking the arrse out of it, or fail the attitude test, or I have to do more to attract their attention than a generic "Tickets Please" then I need a lot of persuading. If they then start selectively quoting NRCoC at me or otherwise fail the attitude test, then it can get VERY expensive very quickly...

 

[SqUaShIe P]

my train fares are paid as expenses by by employer and that I have no personal gain if I avoid fares.

If my train fare was paid by expenses, I wouldn't be bothered about saving £5.10 a day. Id just buy one ticket all the way through :/

...just saying

 

[gnik1]

If my train fare was paid by expenses, I wouldn't be bothered about saving £5.10 a day. Id just buy one ticket all the way through :/

...just saying

I traveled to Brussels last weekend using a state of the art, clean, safe and punctual Jumbo Jet for £14.99, that's why I want to look after my employer's interests and get the best deal. By contract it costs me almost £50 to get to Luton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That seems a reasonable approach. In my case I always intended to pay and I think it was the guard or inspector that failed the attitude test. I had approached what I conceived to be an excess ticket booth, which looks very similar one that is on Platform 5 at Victoria to buy a ticket. I then have a the guard approach me who thinks it an outpost on Syrian/Turkish border with a major attitude problem believing that the passenger is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[bb21]

I traveled to Brussels last weekend using a state of the art, clean, safe and punctual Jumbo Jet for £14.99, that's why I want to look after my employer's interests and get the best deal. By contract it costs me almost £50 to get to Luton.

Meaningless comparison. How much will the flight cost on a walk-on basis?

The airline industry and the rail industry operate on two completely different models.

 

[najaB]

I then have a the guard approach me who thinks it an outpost on Syrian/Turkish border with a major attitude problem...

Ding! We have a new one.

...believing that the passenger is guilty until proven innocent.

As you've been told already, you were in the wrong by passing St. Albans without a ticket. The guy/gal on the barrier was trying to do you a favour by dealing with it there and then by way of a PF -if they thought you were doing anything underhanded they would have proceeded directly to a prosecution.

 

[gnik1]

That question appears to contradict itself. Of course you can ask for tickets which you don't already hold.

It would be perfectly acceptable to buy a ticket for the onward journey from an on-board guard (so no need to alight at B).

I think that varies with the rail provider.

If you are on South Eastern they seem very customer friendly and regularly go through the trains selling tickets, especially early in the morning. Sometimes it is hard to get them to sell you a ticket. This week I was on the 5.58 from Bearsted to Blackfriers and alighted at Maidstone East to find the guard, who said that he would come and see me to sell a ticket. I got to Blackfriers he had not found me. I tried to find him at Blackfriers and could not at first, he was hidden away between carriages so the driver helped. When I found him he said the train had become too crowded, and the rolling stock was the wrong type 507s (?)I think he said. He sold me the ticket whilst the a train that I needed on the other platform pulled out. A bit frustrating but he was a reasonable chap and meant no harm.

The train that had pulled out was the 7.08 to Luton, run by Thameslink, apparently a train without a guard, so no chance of buying a ticket. My only chance is to buy the ticket, was on the South Eastern train rather than running the risk of encountering the staff of Thameslink, at Luton, who seem to lack any form of customer care towards their honest customers. I must admit I do feel a little sorry for them as when I go through the barriers, they always seem to be turning away people with outdated tickets or showing them receipts, but they do not take any action against them.

It just seems the guards attitudes are so different.

 

[najaB]

My only chance is to buy the ticket, was on the South Eastern train...

Or, as has been suggested multiple times, buy your tickets the day before from the ticket office, or online for collection.

 

[bb21]

I think that varies with the rail provider.

If you are on South Eastern they seem very customer friendly and regularly go through the trains selling tickets,

Must have been the first time I have seen "SouthEastern" and "customer friendly" go hand-in-hand on this forum.

 

[Flamingo]

To the OP: Have you read the thread? If you want the TOC to apply the rules to the letter, you must ensure you are in complience with these rules yourself. If you want to play the system, you need to be careful as if you get it wrong, the system may come back to bite you on the arrse, as happened.

All the justification about being willing to pay the fare is rubbish, as the fare is the cost of the ticket from your origin to your destination, which you were not willing to pay.

As regards all the stuff about the staff "failing the attitude test" and "poor customer service", this is the usual moan of somebody who has been caught. The staff were doing their job of picking up and dealing with ticket irregularities. You were one, and were dealt with appropriately. You don't have to like it. You are not in a position to moan about it.

 

[DaleCooper]

To the OP: Have you read the thread? If you want the TOC to apply the rules to the letter, you must ensure you are in complience with these rules yourself. If you want to play the system, you need to be careful as if you get it wrong, the system may come back to bite you on the arrse, as happened.

All the justification about being willing to pay the fare is rubbish, as the fare is the cost of the ticket from your origin to your destination, which you were not willing to pay.

As regards all the stuff about the staff "failing the attitude test" and "poor customer service", this is the usual moan of somebody who has been caught. The staff were doing their job of picking up and dealing with ticket irregularities. You were one, and were dealt with appropriately. You don't have to like it. You are not in a position to moan about it.

Well that seems to sum things up nicely, and all of this was over saving £4.90.

 

[krus_aragon]

...will not have paid his fare from A to D within the meaning of the section: London & North Western Rly. Co. v Hinchcliffe [1963] 2 K.B. 32

Do I read that correctly as stating that the LNWR's case against an individual's non-payment of a fare was still being pursued four decades after they were grouped into the LMS, and fifteen years after the LMS itself was nationalised?

 

[najaB]

Do I read that correctly as stating that the LNWR's case against an individual's non-payment of a fare was still being pursued four decades after they were grouped into the LMS, and fifteen years after the LMS itself was nationalised?

I believe it was supposed to be 1903, rather than 1963.

 

[krus_aragon]

I believe it was supposed to be 1903, rather than 1963.

Ah, that seems more likely...

 

[Deerfold]

I traveled to Brussels last weekend using a state of the art, clean, safe and punctual Jumbo Jet for £14.99, that's why I want to look after my employer's interests and get the best deal. By contract it costs me almost £50 to get to Luton.

Did you have a ticket that covered travel all the way to Brussels before you boarded the plane?

 

[island]

I traveled to Brussels last weekend using a state of the art, clean, safe and punctual Jumbo Jet for £14.99, that's why I want to look after my employer's interests and get the best deal. By contract it costs me almost £50 to get to Luton.

I very much doubt you travelled on a jumbo jet (Boeing 747) as they virtually never serve such a short route. And if you did, it probably wasn't state of the art as most of them are many years old.

 

[DaleCooper]

Did you have a ticket that covered travel all the way to Brussels before you boarded the plane?

...or buy a ticket from the stewardess?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Do I read that correctly as stating that the LNWR's case against an individual's non-payment of a fare was still being pursued four decades after they were grouped into the LMS, and fifteen years after the LMS itself was nationalised?

I believe it was supposed to be 1903, rather than 1963.

There is a misprint in the book from which I copied the paragraph verbatim. Yes, that judgement was given in 1903.

I had made a pencil note in the margin highlighting the error for my own benefit, and I congratulate you on your own attention to detail!

 

[CharlieSpotted]

... or I have to do more to attract their attention than a generic "Tickets Please" then I need a lot of persuading.

This is interesting... I travel daily between WVH and BHM (a relatively short commute) and hold a nTrain monthly ticket for the purpose. I've been doing this for some years now. Tickets are rarely checked on the train between these stations, so it's not something I feel the need to be particularly alert to.

Last Friday, however, I felt a solid tap on my shoulder. I had fallen asleep against the window, with my earphones in, and the London Midland train manager wanted to check my ticket.

Obviously, I hadn't heard them shout 'Tickets Please!' as they entered the carriage.

I don't think I'd ever fallen asleep on the train before in all the years I've been doing this commute!

I did have my ticket, as always, and after a little fumbling, was able to present it... but I wonder if (given what you've said) the train manager might have thought "Oh, he's pretended he didn't hear me, pretended to be asleep, and now fumbling around in his pockets, I bet he doesn't have a ticket!".

I'm not saying that people don't do that, I'm quite sure they do, but I just wonder if people in your position always assume guilt?

 

[PermitToTravel]

Falling asleep is fine if you already have all the tickets you need...

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Falling asleep is fine if you already have all the tickets you need...

Obviously it's fine, but I was more interested in the 'default attitude' to someone who had fallen asleep (for example). Would the person checking the tickets be automatically suspicious that it was a ruse? Just curious to hear an opinion from someone in that position.

 

[Flamingo]

If they didn't have a ticket, then it might depend on where they boarded and quite how much waking up they required. If I was having to go down the route of assessing the level of consciousness, and when they eventually woke up they would claim they had boarded at the stop five minutes previous, then I would be VERY suspicious. If they then went into the pocket dance, or I must have lost it, or any story that starts "Well, it's like this, bud...", then it's game over.

 

[Clip]

Obviously it's fine, but I was more interested in the 'default attitude' to someone who had fallen asleep (for example). Would the person checking the tickets be automatically suspicious that it was a ruse? Just curious to hear an opinion from someone in that position.

Its not the falling asleep really its the pocket dance that Flamingo mentioned that may have got it suspicions up however they wouldve melted away as soon as he saw you had the right ticket on you

 

[Deerfold]

Its not the falling asleep really its the pocket dance that Flamingo mentioned that may have got it suspicions up however they wouldve melted away as soon as he saw you had the right ticket on you

I find that slightly odd. I have lost my ticket on 1 occasion. Still no idea how I did it (unless I missed my pocket putting it in). When the guard came round I immediately checked my pockets as I was sure it must be in one of them. Isn't this what anyone would do who really thought they had a ticket they couldn't find?

However it wasn't there.

Fortunately the guard either believed me or thought it too much hassle to do anything other than ask me to pay again (fortunately it was a fare under a fiver and I was aware it was my fault for having lost my ticket).

In this case I was not asleep.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I find that slightly odd. I have lost my ticket on 1 occasion. Still no idea how I did it (unless I missed my pocket putting it in). When the guard came round I immediately checked my pockets as I was sure it must be in one of them. Isn't this what anyone would do who really thought they had a ticket they couldn't find?

Absolutely! And in my case, I had just been woken from my slumber, I'm bound to be a little hazy as to exactly which pocket to find my pass in! It probably took a second or two for me to realise where I was, never mind anything else! To be expected, surely?