Details taken but unsure why

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . Do you disagree with that or do you think the OP isn't being 100% truthful?

I wouldn't think of making an assessment of jaffa's truthfulness. BUT, I do make an assessment of the range and depth of facts which are not included in this report. If it took a 30 minute interview, then I'll guess that a number of other factors were taken into consideration, possibly some of those raised by others on here. Facts which we haven't had the benefit of considering.

This sums up my position quite nicely:

You are making a lot of assumptions there. The first of which is that we have had the full story...

 

[talltim]

Sounds to me like the OP got caught in a sting. If this is a regular journey (as they say it is) the OP would have known there are no ticket-purchasing facilities at that gate.

If there were revenue staff there, it is pretty reasonable to assume that there might be ticket-purchasing facilities there. If they weren't selling tickets, when asked they should have redirected him across the bridge to buy tickets as he normally does.

 

[LexyBoy]

If there were revenue staff there, it is pretty reasonable to assume that there might be ticket-purchasing facilities there. If they weren't selling tickets, when asked they should have redirected him across the bridge to buy tickets as he normally does.

Exactly. Only people with an understanding of revenue protection would consider approaching staff at the first opportunity to buy a ticket to be a suspicious thing to do.

On the occasions I have arrived in Oxford from Radley I have felt like I'm being questioned to prove that I'm not a fare dodger, being asked questions like "what time was the train from Radley" or "why didn't you get a ticket at Radley". On one occasion the RPI tried to catch me out and get me to admit I'd boarded at Didcot. OP has my sympathy.

 

[Greenback]

Like DaveNewcastle, I'd like the OP to elaborate on what was said during that 30 minute (perhaps less?) period before I even try to reach any conclusion.

 

[FenMan]

On the occasions I have arrived in Oxford from Radley I have felt like I'm being questioned to prove that I'm not a fare dodger, being asked questions like "what time was the train from Radley" or "why didn't you get a ticket at Radley". On one occasion the RPI tried to catch me out and get me to admit I'd boarded at Didcot. OP has my sympathy.

I've had the same experience arriving at Reading from Blackwater. I was (loudly) interrogated by an RPI whilst queuing at the platform-side ticket kiosk. His attitude was shouting "You're a liar", seemingly to provoke a reaction (he didn't get one). He lost interest upon discovering that many of the people in the rapidly growing queue behind me had also travelled from Blackwater.

*This was when there was a single TVM at Blackwater, on the Guildford platform, which is quite a hike for passengers coming from the "town" side of the station i.e. most of them, who are travelling to Reading. This TVM was frequently out of order due to a faulty card reader, so after a while Reading-bound passengers stopped bothering to find out if it was working. All fixed now of course - there are now two TVMs that work most of the time.

 

[andykn]

There seems a remarkable unwillingness from some to accept the most obvious course of events. Traveller arrives at station having been unable to buy ticket beforehand and uses the most obvious means to buy ticket to attempt to do so.

What was said afterwards doesn't alter the fact that the above is what a reasonable person would do.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There seems a remarkable unwillingness from some to accept the most obvious course of events. Traveller arrives at station having been unable to buy ticket beforehand and uses the most obvious means to buy ticket to attempt to do so.

What was said afterwards doesn't alter the fact that the above is what a reasonable person would do.

Exactly!
If you have not managed to buy a ticket before or during your journey because there has not been a chance to, then surely if you are honest and are trying to pay the fare then the default reaction would be to approach the first member of staff you can see once at the destination station!

 

[sheff1]

There seems a remarkable unwillingness from some to accept the most obvious course of events. Traveller arrives at station having been unable to buy ticket beforehand and uses the most obvious means to buy ticket to attempt to do so.

What was said afterwards doesn't alter the fact that the above is what a reasonable person would do.

Of course that is what a reasonable person would do. However, it seems views are different in the Thames Valley. I recall an assertion from a railway employee on here that passengers who travelled from Reading West without carrying proof of residency in the locality had committed a criminal offence and hence were not allowed to buy a ticket for the journey they had just made !

 

[Clip]

There seems a remarkable unwillingness from some to accept the most obvious course of events. Traveller arrives at station having been unable to buy ticket beforehand and uses the most obvious means to buy ticket to attempt to do so.

What was said afterwards doesn't alter the fact that the above is what a reasonable person would do.

Actually what was said afterwards to the RPI does make a whole heap of difference which is why the RPI questioned them for so long.

 

[najaB]

I may have missed it but one thing I'd like to know is where was the first member of staff in relation to the station exit? Did the OP have to pass through the exit in order to speak with them or were they on the platform/concourse?

 

[Flamingo]

I may have missed it but one thing I'd like to know is where was the first member of staff in relation to the station exit? Did the OP have to pass through the exit in order to speak with them or were they on the platform/concourse?

Thry were outside the exit. That's the problem, the OP had exited the station without paying (whatever spin is put on it).

 

[crehld]

There seems a remarkable unwillingness from some to accept the most obvious course of events.

I share your disappointment. There are a few posters on this section of the forum who would have us believe all passengers who find themselves in such situations are pulling a fast one and start from the default position that an OP's version of events is a lie.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyway, this question has yet to be answered and I'd much appreciate a response from those who purport to be in the know. Thanks.

If passengers cannot actively approach staff at the first available opportunity, perhaps you could enlighten us where a ticket could be purchased from without fear of being unduly accused of fare dodging? I only ask because I regularly find myself boarding trains with no guard presence at stations with no ticket issuing facilities, and I'm the conscientious sort who likes to ensure I've paid my way.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thry were outside the exit. That's the problem, the OP had exited the station without paying (whatever spin is put on it).

But what if the first available member of staff happens to be seen outside the station? OP says they observed their presence from within the station and actively approached them to purchase a ticket. Perhaps you are suggesting one should not actively approach staff at the first opportunity?

 

[andykn]

Actually what was said afterwards to the RPI does make a whole heap of difference which is why the RPI questioned them for so long.

I understand that, I'm just puzzled as to why some on here are querying the OPs actions up to that point, getting off the train where you've not been able to get a ticket and approaching the first likely looking member of staff.

After all, we've seen the reaction to people who don't use the first opportunity to pay...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thry were outside the exit. That's the problem, the OP had exited the station without paying (whatever spin is put on it).

Yet paradoxically is still on station premises enough to be stopped by an RPI.

That the "first opportunity to pay" appears to be outside the station is a common arrangement with ticket machines.

 

[Darandio]

Yet paradoxically is still on station premises enough to be stopped by an RPI.

I thought you could be stopped even outside the premises?

That the "first opportunity to pay" appears to be outside the station is a common arrangement with ticket machines.

I think this is where some people are basing the disagreement, there is 'first opportunity to pay' which hasn't been mentioned much and 'first person they saw' which is the defensive line.

Wasn't the 'first opportunity to pay' on the other platform? Albeit beyond the barriers, but not by trying to duck out of a side gate.

 

[najaB]

Thry were outside the exit. That's the problem, the OP had exited the station without paying (whatever spin is put on it).

Ah yes, I just reread the OP and see that. This is, to me at least, a tricky one to come to an opinion that sits well.

The OP was in the wrong - they passed and exit marked for ticket holders only without a ticket. So that's cut and dried fare evasion.

However, they approached the first member of staff they saw and attempted to purchase a ticket. This isn't typical behaviour for someone in the habit of fare dodging - I would expect that they would clock the sting and go to the ticket machine.

What doesn't sit well for me is that the first staff member pointed them to the RPI rather than saying "You can't buy one here."

 

[andykn]

I thought you could be stopped even outside the premises?

Possibly, but people on here have stated before that the premises can go a lot further than you think.

I think this is where some people are basing the disagreement, there is 'first opportunity to pay' which hasn't been mentioned much and 'first person they saw' which is the defensive line.

Wasn't the 'first opportunity to pay' on the other platform? Albeit beyond the barriers, but not by trying to duck out of a side gate.

Approaching visible staff the other side of an exit is not "trying to duck out of a side gate" and most reasonable people would view that as the "first opportunity to pay" when compared with walking over the footbridge.

 

[Darandio]

when compared with walking over the footbridge.

Or using the lift, don't forget the lift. There was a bike involved.

 

[transmanche]

The OP was in the wrong - they passed and exit marked for ticket holders only without a ticket. So that's cut and dried fare evasion.

I'm far from convinced of that.

The photos I posted upthread show that the main sign for that exit does not have any 'ticket holders only' qualifier, and if the warning sign is where W-on-Sea says it is, then it is poorly placed as it is obscured by the telephone boxes.

Wasn't the 'first opportunity to pay' on the other platform? Albeit beyond the barriers, but not by trying to duck out of a side gate.

I'd hardly call walking down this pathway (which has railway maps and signs all along it) 'ducking out of a side gate', especially if you can see railway staff who appear to be selling tickets.

What doesn't sit well for me is that the first staff member pointed them to the RPI rather than saying "You can't buy one here."

^ This.

Having seen the set-up at Manchester Victoria (where a a couple of staff have a little table where they sell tickets for arriving passengers) I'd have thought it perfectly natural, upon seeing a couple of staff members by an exit, to think that they might be selling tickets - that the railway company was being helpful to people using that exit.

 

[Darandio]

I'd hardly call walking down this pathway (which has railway maps and signs all along it) 'ducking out of a side gate',

If you are walking down that pathway, you have already 'ducked out'!

especially if you can see railway staff who appear to be selling tickets.

I cannot see stated anywhere that it appeared someone was selling tickets, the OP only saw staff. Possibly pedantic, but relevant IMO.

For the record, I'm of the opinion that this is a genuine case

 

[talltim]

Put it this way. If someone came up to you and asked to buy a ticket, how could you legitimately accuse them of trying to not buy a ticket?

 

[sheff1]

Wasn't the 'first opportunity to pay' on the other platform? Albeit beyond the barriers, but not by trying to duck out of a side gate.

And if the people at platform 2 exit had been selling tickets (something it would not have been possible to know until you approached them) ...... I can anticipate the comments on here now:

* Why didn't you approach the first staff you saw and ask for a ticket?
*There was someone selling tickets and you walked straight past and over to the other platform - an obvious sign of attempted fare evasion.
etc etc

 

[tony6499]

And if nobody had been by the gate would the OP have continued his exit and left without paying or returned to the main dateline which I guess would have been the crux of the questions asked.

Hopefully the CCTV will be back up the OP that he hasn't done this before.

 

[andykn]

If you are walking down that pathway, you have already 'ducked out'!



I cannot see stated anywhere that it appeared someone was selling tickets, the OP only saw staff. Possibly pedantic, but relevant IMO.

For the record, I'm of the opinion that this is a genuine case

Only relevant to those who understand the nuances of railway law. A reasonable person would see staff by an exit, the nearest staff to them, and assume that if they couldn't sell tickets would be able to advise when asked the nearest place to do so.

 

[rdwarr]

So the OP was outside the station with a bicycle. And rather than just get on it and ride off he did the decent thing and attempted to buy a ticket?
Given some of the "advice" received I'm not sure honesty is always the best policy.

 

[tony6499]

So the OP was outside the station with a bicycle. And rather than just get on it and ride off he did the decent thing and attempted to buy a ticket?
Given some of the "advice" received I'm not sure honesty is always the best policy.

I think he stopped when the saw the inspectors, I doubt very much there would be any just riding off allowed without showing a ticket.

 

[Haywain]

However, they approached the first member of staff they saw and attempted to purchase a ticket. This isn't typical behaviour for someone in the habit of fare dodging - I would expect that they would clock the sting and go to the ticket machine.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is actually typical behaviour of fare evaders and avoiders (the latter being the 'pay when challenged' brigade). Not that I am making a judgement about the OP - I don't feel able to make that without more information as others above have highlighted.

 

[najaB]

The OP was in the wrong - they passed and exit marked for ticket holders only without a ticket. So that's cut and dried fare evasion.

I'm far from convinced of that.

The photos I posted upthread show that the main sign for that exit does not have any 'ticket holders only' qualifier, and if the warning sign is where W-on-Sea says it is, then it is poorly placed as it is obscured by the telephone boxes.

Regardless of intent, once they passed through the exit without a ticket the fare had been evaded. If the OP missed the sign it doesn't change the fact that it's there. What we really need to be able to judge is a picture showing what you see as you go through the exit, my suspicion is that the sign is on the wall, next to the doorway, at or about eye level.

 

[DaleCooper]

Regardless of intent, once they passed through the exit without a ticket the fare had been evaded. If the OP missed the sign it doesn't change the fact that it's there. What we really need to be able to judge is a picture showing what you see as you go through the exit, my suspicion is that the sign is on the wall, next to the doorway, at or about eye level.

Not sure if I'm right but I thought fare evasion was not a strict liability offence and therefore intent is important.

 

[najaB]

Not sure if I'm right but I thought fare evasion was not a strict liability offence and therefore intent is important.

I've been advised by a learned forum member that, for the purpose of law, intent is determined by action, as it's impossible to know with any certainty what was in the mind at the time.

 

[DaleCooper]

I've been advised by a learned forum member that, for the purpose of law, intent is determined by action, as it's impossible to know with any certainty what was in the mind at the time.

Well then without any further information and assuming we've been told the truth, that makes the OP innocent as their action was to ask to buy a ticket