Northern Rail fixed penalty notice - advice needed please

[MRB1884]

Hi, could anyone offer advice as I have received a fixed penalty notice from Northern Rail today.
On Thursday 14/05/15 I was let down by a lift to work. I ran to Harrogate station and just caught the 8:29am train to travel 1 stop to Hornbeam Park (£2 return). With no time to buy a ticket I fully intended to purchase one on the train or failing that the man that is always at hornbeam park.
I was next in line to buy on the train when the train pulled into hornbeam park. Conductor said "just get one off the man on the platform".
I was first off the train, asked ticket seller for a Harrogate/Hornbeam return which he started to do. Two gentlemen approached and asked if they could have a word, I thought it was a survey and said yes I'm just getting a ticket. He said no straight away and ticket seller cancelled what he had put in machine.
One asked me why I hadn't bought ticket at Harrogate and I explained. He asked if I knew it was an offence to travel without buying one. I said I'd had no time to do so and he'd just prevented me from doing so. He asked for ID and I showed him some gave address which he checked on phone etc.
I asked if I could now go buy ticket as it was a return and I would need to get back home later in the day, which both of them said I couldn't do and wouldn't let me go back and get one.
He said I would get a letter warning me about regulations for the future and details of how to pay on line.
I asked of what I was supposed to do on the return journey and they both laughed and said not our problem but as this is a non-ticket office station you can pay at other end. All this as I hear other passengers from Harrogate buying tickets right next to the 3 of us.

N Rail letter dated 03/06/15 "initial contact" letter asking me to explain my actions, which I did, expressing in no way trying to evade payment and actually trying to pay when stopped.
Today 30/06/15 N Rail letter dated 26th. Fixed penalty notice of £80 + £1.80 for fare (the cost of the single fare journey taken) 14 days to pay or legal action will be taken.
Is this all above board by Northern Rail?
It is not what they told me was going to happen when they spoke to me
As the man selling tickets is there every day during rush hours does this not make it a part time ticketed station the only difference being that he has no office and is in the rain most days?
Surely it should be stop one stop all?

It bothers me because I was in no way trying to avoid paying and I have a disgust for the daily fare dodgers between these two stations both ways and how they laugh and get away with it

Any help gladly received

Thanks

 

[antharro]

Seems pretty simple to me. Pay the £81.80 and put it down to experience, or argue it out in court. You are required to have a ticket before you travel, and the fact you had been let down by your lift and had only just made the train will carry no weight at all. Have a read through the other threads in this sub-forum and you'll quickly realise that the train operating companies (TOCs) will hear every reason under the sun why people have not got a ticket - running late, unwell, something on their mind, etc, etc. Genuine fare evaders will try every excuse to try to justify their actions and escape paying the fare. It might seem harsh but that's the reality of it, and it's better to take the hit than to drag it all through court which will be considerably more expensive.

I am sure others will be along soon to advise further.

 

[cjmillsnun]

By getting on the train without a ticket (being late is not an excuse) you have committed an offence.

You have two choices. either pay the £80 and the fare, or contest it in court, lose (the case is a slam dunk, you travelled without a ticket), and pay more.

Sorry I can't offer better news.

 

[MRB1884]

Ok cheers that's what I feared. I'll put it down to experience then.
I just find it so annoying that it states on the letter "AND with the intent of avoiding that fare" when I clearly was not.

Ah well you live and learn

 

[najaB]

I was next in line to buy on the train when the train pulled into hornbeam park. Conductor said "just get one off the man on the platform".

Can you identify the conductor and would he be willing to confirm your version of events? If not, then pretty much you're in the wrong because you travelled without a ticket and can't prove that you had been given permission to do so by an authorised person.

Sorry that I can't be more help than that.

 

[34D]

Arguably the conductor was happy to sell you a ticket on board the train, and arguably he gave you permission to purchase on the platform.

Do you want to try to argue/fight, or do you just want to pay the penalty being requested?

 

[najaB]

Arguably the conductor was happy to sell you a ticket on board the train, and arguably he gave you permission to purchase on the platform.

Agreed. But proving it is the problem.

 

[34D]

Agreed. But proving it is the problem.

Quite, and 6 weeks later, not only will the conductors memory be empty of the matter, but CCTV will have most probably been taped over.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I just find it so annoying that it states on the letter "AND with the intent of avoiding that fare" when I clearly was not.

The common / everyday meanings of "intention" are not the same as the meaning of that word in UK law. Their is a vast canon of literature on the subject, mainly identifying a person's actions and words as the criteria for identifying their 'intention'. In the application Railway Law to this question, then the 'intention' is evidenced by a non-ticket holding passenger passing an opportunity to pay. The jurisprudence specifically confirms that the 'intention' does not imply that the passenger had any permanent 'intention' to avoid payment.

Whether there was an opportunity or not in that incident, I can't tell. But as it is a fundamental prerequisite of rail travel that passengers hold a ticket before travelling (notwithstanding any practice or experience of ticket selling after boarding, with or without ticket selling facilities at the point of departure), I agree that it would be expedient to accept the offer of an Out of Court settlement.

A passenger "running late" on arrival at the station is not an adequate ground for contesting a challenge of failure to pay where facilities were available.

 

[furlong]

Is this all above board by Northern Rail?

Opinions vary, but given the cost, uncertainty and difficulty of a challenge, the pragmatist just pays up the paltry amount requested and sees their problem go away or tries to persuade Northern, by whatever means, that pursuing their particular case is just not worthwhile.

Through Freedom of Information we are told that £80 is a "properly costed assessment of the average amount of time needed to process a typical case of this kind and is not intended to represent a punitive sum".

If you want to clutch at straws:

Did Northern bring its additional costs upon itself by refusing to accept your reasonable offer to pay the fare on the spot and is it reneging on an agreement to pay the fare online by issuing a so-called "Fixed Penalty Notice"?

Have you ever made a rail journey previously without paying?

If you travel every day do you have tickets or proof of payment (without suspicious gaps) which might persuade Northern to use its discretion on this occasion? Or do you possess an expensive season ticket that might possibly persuade them not to pursue a "good customer"?

 

[island]

Arguably the conductor was happy to sell you a ticket on board the train, and arguably he gave you permission to purchase on the platform.

Do you want to try to argue/fight, or do you just want to pay the penalty being requested?

This is irrelevant. The offence was committed by joining the train without a ticket at a station where facilities to do so were available.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Or do you possess an expensive season ticket that might possibly persuade them not to pursue a "good customer"?

It always seems a little strange that those making a regular daily journey don't hold a season ticket, if only to avoid the daily aggravation of having to queue for a ticket.

 

[Greenback]

A passenger "running late" on arrival at the station is not an adequate ground for contesting a challenge of failure to pay where facilities were available.

Take heed of what Dave says. You don't really have a defence as far as I can see, as it's the responsibility of the passenger to buy a ticket before boarding the train where such facilities exist, and they most certainly do in Harrogate.

This is irrelevant. The offence was committed by joining the train without a ticket at a station where facilities to do so were available.

Agreed. There isn't even mention of nay queues for the TVM's or at the office, it seems just that the OP was late, presumably because they had been let down, and didn't want to wait for the next service at 0904. It would probably have been quicker to walk it.

It always seems a little strange that those making a regular daily journey don't hold a season ticket, if only to avoid the daily aggravation of having to queue for a ticket.

Me too. However, people don't always travel often enough to make it worth the bother of getting a photocard and buying a season. Sometimes people don't even know such tickets exist!

In this case, it may be that the OP only takes the train once or twice a week, having a lift the rest of the time.

 

[anme]

It always seems a little strange that those making a regular daily journey don't hold a season ticket, if only to avoid the daily aggravation of having to queue for a ticket.

Given that the OP was expecting a lift on this occasion, it seems plausible that they don't take the train every day. They may also work part time, or like me have rather irregular work patterns which are not well catered for by season tickets (as I've posted before).

I don't think any conclusions should be inferred from the fact someone doesn't own a season ticket for their "commute". I don't own a season ticket, and I certainly hope that wouldn't count against me if I was ever challenged.

 

[clagmonster]

On Thursday 14/05/15 I was let down by a lift to work. I ran to Harrogate station and just caught the 8:29am train to travel 1 stop to Hornbeam Park (£2 return). With no time to buy a ticket I fully intended to purchase one on the train or failing that the man that is always at hornbeam park.
...
Two gentlemen approached and asked if they could have a word, I thought it was a survey and said yes I'm just getting a ticket.

Just a slight inconsistency here. Given that you were in so much of a rush, when you thought the revenue inspectors were just doing a survey, why did you agree to the word, rather than say 'Sorry, I'm in a rush for work'?

Obviously, once you knew who they were, you had no choice but to speak to them.

With the others, my advice is pay the £80. It would be nailed on for byelaw prosecution at least if it got to the courts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the application Railway Law to this question, then the 'intention' is evidenced by a non-ticket holding passenger passing an opportunity to pay. The jurisprudence specifically confirms that the 'intention' does not imply that the passenger had any permanent 'intention' to avoid payment.

Whether there was an opportunity or not in that incident, I can't tell. But as it is a fundamental prerequisite of rail travel that passengers hold a ticket before travelling (notwithstanding any practice or experience of ticket selling after boarding, with or without ticket selling facilities at the point of departure), I agree that it would be expedient to accept the offer of an Out of Court settlement.

A passenger "running late" on arrival at the station is not an adequate ground for contesting a challenge of failure to pay where facilities were available.

Point of inquiry:
Clearly, between refusing the opportunity to pay the fare at Harrogate station and reaching Hornbeam Park, the passenger has demonstrated through his actions an intention to avoid payment.
However, when the passenger is in a queue to pay their fare, or even in this case in the process of carrying out the transaction, at their destination station, with no visible revenue block, can intent to avoid the fare still be proven? As a non-legal eagle, it would seem to me that the passenger is clearly demonstrating intend to pay the fare, despite having refused the previous opportunity.

Just wondering, I'm not an expert and I will bow to your wisdom.

In any case, it is a moot point as I think we all agree this would be a slam dunk byelaw case, so the advice has to be pay the £80.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you identify the conductor and would he be willing to confirm your version of events? If not, then pretty much you're in the wrong because you travelled without a ticket and can't prove that you had been given permission to do so by an authorised person.

Sorry that I can't be more help than that.

To defend the byelaw offence, you would surely need the permission before boarding the train. From my reading of events, the conversation with the guard took place shortly before alighting.

I think if I was in a similar position of rushing to work and being ticketless, assuming no CTA as in this case, I think my advice would be to ask the guard before boarding, thus
a) removing the byelaw offence, assuming permission was given before boarding
b) quite possibly jumping the queue and ensuring that I was able to pay my fare

Of course, this is all stated with hindsight.

 

[najaB]

To defend the byelaw offence, you would surely need the permission before boarding the train. From my reading of events, the conversation with the guard took place shortly before alighting.

Agreed that the byelaw wording is "enter a train", however it would help the OP's case if they were able to show that they were given permission to travel without a ticket and purchase at their destination.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Point of inquiry:
Clearly, between refusing the opportunity to pay the fare at Harrogate station and reaching Hornbeam Park, the passenger has demonstrated through his actions an intention to avoid payment.
However, when the passenger is in a queue to pay their fare, or even in this case in the process of carrying out the transaction, at their destination station, with no visible revenue block, can intent to avoid the fare still be proven? As a non-legal eagle, it would seem to me that the passenger is clearly demonstrating intend to pay the fare, despite having refused the previous opportunity.

Just wondering, I'm not an expert and I will bow to your wisdom.

The simple answer is that the precise circumstances you describe are not (to my knowledge) captured by case law, and therefore, there can be no certain answer. [I have a maxim that the law leaves us sailing through oceans of doubt in which there are islands of certainty]. The 'intent' to avoid paying a fare in terms of the RoRA is marked out in that vast ocean of doubt by the islands which correspond to the judgements in Corbyn, Browning and Floyd.
But your question has already extracted a crucial element which can be easily compared with Corbyn, and at a stretch, with Floyd - the "despite having refused the previous opportunity". In Corbyn, the passenger carried a note advising his future intention to pay (if demanded) but had passed an opportunity to pay on each occasion prosecuted. In Floyd, the passenger carried a valid ticket for his journey, but chose not to demonstrate that contract and instead argued that other circumstances applied.
Both were convicted.

Developing my 'islands of doubt' metaphor, we have to recognise that they really are discrete 'islands' and do not even merge into each other, leaving real-world incidents which could fall between two of them but be captured by neither.
Happy to discuss, but lets not continue it in this thread.