Details taken but unsure why

[najaB]

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

No, their action was to first pass through the station exit and then ask to buy a ticket. It was the first action that caused fare evasion to occur. If they had asked for a ticket before passing the exit, then they wouldn't be in this situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I should stress that, based on the story as presented, I don't believe there was a willful attempt to travel without paying.

 

[transmanche]

No, their action was to first pass through the station exit and then ask to buy a ticket. It was the first action that caused fare evasion to occur. If they had asked for a ticket before passing the exit, then they wouldn't be in this situation.

So he should have stood where the lockable gate is - and shouted at the staff to ask if he could buy a ticket? :roll:

 

[crehld]

So he should have stood where the lockable gate is - and shouted at the staff to ask if he could buy a ticket? :roll:

Or stood there in perpetuity.

 

[najaB]

So he should have stood where the lockable gate is - and shouted at the staff to ask if he could buy a ticket? :roll:

Either that, or go the the ticket machine on the opposite platform. As I said above, I don't believe there was any wilful attempt to travel without paying, however ignorance of the law is no excuse.

My 'beef' (if I have one, still can't decide) is with the first member of staff spoken to. If the OP's story is complete I think they really should have told him to turn around and use the ticket machine.

 

[SephenWorceste]

Would that machine sell a ticket from a different station?

 

[sheff1]

My 'beef' (if I have one, still can't decide) is with the first member of staff spoken to. If the OP's story is complete I think they really should have told him to turn around and use the ticket machine.

I seem to have missed something. Where is this ticket machine and is it possible to buy tickets originating from Radley from it ?

 

[crehld]

Would that machine sell a ticket from a different station?

No it would not. Only Southern machines can do this as far as I know.

 

[transmanche]

No it would not. Only Southern machines can do this as far as I know.

VTEC have one 'railside' at Newcastle. It's been there for a year or two now.

 

[SephenWorceste]

No it would not. Only Southern machines can do this as far as I know.

Thank you. It would be a useful feature on machines near me in Worcestershire.

 

[najaB]

Would that machine sell a ticket from a different station?

Unfortunately not, but according to the OP there were people with ticket machines at the barrier line.

 

[gray1404]

I've had a look through the OP and the replies. I feel sorry for the OP here because I do not believe their intent was to avoid paying the fare. He approached someone and asked to buy a ticket for starters. Its reasonable to do that I guess. I do hope that when the TOC take a look at this they will take a common sense approach and see this too. Its a shame the staff member at the station saw that he'd come from an unmanned station with on ticket selling services, had had the decency to approach him for a ticket and directed him to the ticket office. My heart does no out to the OP because I don't see any intent to avoid paying (he was proactive at trying to pay in fact) and has just found himself in a load of hastle.

 

[Crossover]

No it would not. Only Southern machines can do this as far as I know.

There is also one on the paid side of the barrier at Wakefield Westgate, a number of those at Warwick Parkway also can. I seem to recall the paid side of Darlington could do tickets from other stations too

Some Overground ones can as well (me and another forum member purchased a Boundary Zone 6 to Gatwick ticket from one a few months ago)

 

[Gathursty]

I do feel for OP but it is strict liability. I'd be tempted when I next go to Wigan Wallgate from my halt to shout to the men at the top of the stairs to come down and sell me a ticket rather than risk walking up to them (if I hadn't been seen by the conductor in time). I might even throw them my fare and see if they can catch it and throw me a ticket down. :P

On a serious point, could you ask an RPI where to go to buy a ticket at the station if you were in an area which could not be construed as the exit and had arrived from an unmanned station?

 

[gray1404]

I do feel for OP but it is strict liability.

He didn't exit the station though without attempting to pay his fare. Does that make any difference. I would understand if someone exited a station, but (I am interested here) did he commit an offence if he did not exit the station, having had no opportunity to pay, but merely approached a member of staff to ask to buy a ticket. Passengers without tickets cannot reasonably be expected to know the locations of ticket selling points at every station and it is reasonable for them to look for it and ask staff too.

What I am saying in a nutshell is, given he'd had on opportunity to pay whatsoever, and was in the process of trying to buy a ticket (asking staff) does the strict liability only come in upon exiting the actual station it's self (without paying the fare)?

 

[MikeWh]

I do feel for OP but it is strict liability.

I feel for the OP and despair for the majority of people who still seem to think there has been any wrongdoing here. OK, waiver if the OP has not told us the truth, but I'm not sure we'll see them back given the reception they've been given.

Facts: OP usually has a season. Usually arrives on platform 1. Has a bike. Has used platform 2 exit with season ticket before. Is getting daily tickets in July and August because they're cheaper than a season with the 16-25 railcard. Arrives on platform 2 and sees staff checking tickets through the side gate. As this will avoid having to cart the bike over the bridge they ask whether they can buy a ticket. Hand on heart, can anyone really see what is wrong with this scenario?

DaveNewcastle has rightly asked what happened in the 30 minute conversation with the RPI. 30 minutes seems a long time, but maybe it only seemed that long to the OP. If the OP wasn't expecting trouble I can well see how they might seek explanations as to why they are being picked on. Did they fail the 'attitude test'? We may never know. Even if they did, does this change the actual scenario where they needed a ticket at that station and just chose to ask the wrong staff member? Even if they, heaven forbid, became violent, that might trigger an assault charge, but it still doesn't alter the fact that they were not fare evading.

The sign on the gate (or wall next to it) is a bit unfortunate, but is it really a crime to be passing such a sign to get to a member of staff who might be able to save inconvenience of using the bridge? I would suggest that anyone who thinks that a crime has been committed at that point needs to seriously reconsider their attitude to providing customer service.

 

[furlong]

I do feel for OP but it is strict liability.

This thread is wandering all over the place now. No, it has already been explained that there are no ticketing facilities at Radley, so you might anticipate that a prosecutor would consider whether, as the OP passed through Oxford station, something the OP did proves beyond reasonable doubt that they did not intend to pay the fare at that identified moment in time. (We know that a later demonstration of an intent to pay does not negate an earlier intent not to pay.)

As well as the interview, the exact location where each staff member was standing and why they were in those positions, how crowded it was and where the carriage door the OP used was positioned on the platform might all be important factors.

 

[DaleCooper]

I do feel for OP but it is strict liability.

In an earlier post I suggested that this is not a strict liability offence was I wrong?

I'm not sure we'll see them back given the reception they've been given.

This has been a true of several recent threads

something the OP did proves beyond reasonable doubt that they did not intend to pay the fare at that identified moment in time. (We know that a later demonstration of an intent to pay does not negate an earlier intent not to pay.)

How can this be beyond reasonable doubt when so many (presumably reasonable) posters on here have serious doubts. Furthermore the action of passing through the gate is being considered as separate from approaching the RPI when the two could be considered parts of a single act.

As for the 30 minute interview, at that point either an offence had been committed or it had not, the details of the interview cannot change that.

 

[Flamingo]

The question really comes down to could the OP see the staff before leaving the platform, and did they approach the staff or did the staff stop them first.

 

[crehld]

The question really comes down to could the OP see the staff before leaving the platform, and did they approach the staff or did the staff stop them first.

I believe both of these questions have been satisfactorily answered by the OP already.

 

[DaleCooper]

I believe both of these questions have been satisfactorily answered by the OP already.

Here are the answers to save everyone the trouble.

I approached the member of staff to ask if I could buy a ticket.

I could see the staff from the platform

 

[gray1404]

.....proves beyond reasonable doubt that they did not intend to pay the fare at that identified moment in time. (We know that a later demonstration of an intent to pay does not negate an earlier intent not to pay.

I disagree. I don't see anywhere here how the OP has shown any intent not to pay their fare. Rather the opposite, it appears they intended to pay their fare throughout.

 

[andykn]

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.

But whatever the sign says, what a reasonable person would have done is still to approach the nearest likely looking member of staff if they were just the other side of a gate, even if that gate is marked "ticket holders only".

 

[najaB]

But whatever the sign says, what a reasonable person would have done is still to approach the nearest likely looking member of staff if they were just the other side of a gate, even if that gate is marked "ticket holders only".

I agree that it was a reasonable assumption to make. My hope is that the TOC doesn't take any further action as the OP's description of their actions, while in breach of the rules, doesn't match behaviour typical of a serial fare dodger.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Given that platform 1 at Oxford is gated, and the OP said he was making a return journey, any dodge would be a pretty pointless exercise. You'd save about 60p with a YP card.

Sadly, as a regular user of Oxford station, I'm not remotely surprised by the hostile attitude displayed by staff in this case. The despatchers are invariably helpful and friendly, the barrier staff less so.

 

[gray1404]

Did he break any rules be passing a sign though? If so, which ones? I'd understand if he'd have had a chance to pay already but he hadn't and if he'd exited the actual station building without paying. Are signs enforceable because if we are going to rely too heavily on them we could see signs appearing for everything just to catch people out.

A total lack of humanity and common sense shown on the part of the RPI here. It is cases like this that annoy me because this is not fare evasion. The OP was attempting to pay his fare for goodness sake. I hope that FGW issue disciplinary action here for a lack of discretion and no customer service skill. The end result is stress and worry for the passenger and a waste of company resources - which will cost them money.

I've had an incident with an RPI at Oxford too wanting to issue me with a PF. He was demanding my details on the basis my ticket was invalid. It was a Liverpool to London Off Peak Return using the return part on a bank holiday Monday (i.e. no peak time restrictions). He said it was "only valid on the direct service from Euston with Virgin." Interesting there were no direct services on VT that weekend anyway and I wanted to break my journey at Oxford. My ticket was totally valid. I have to admit I was very taken a back at being accused of using an invalid ticket when it was totally valid. I stood my ground and insisted that the route was valid and would he care to check the routing guide. That was too much like hard work and he was insisting on giving me a PF. In the end when I insisted that he at least consulting the routing guide another RPI came over and said "just let him though."

 

[najaB]

Did he break any rules be passing a sign though? If so, which ones? I'd understand if he'd have had a chance to pay already but he hadn't and if he'd exited the actual station building without paying.

Based on the description of events the conversation with the RPI occurred outside the station entrance. The OP had chosen to walk over to the staff members he saw, rather than use the ticket office/vendors on the opposite platform. So technically they [the OP] were in the wrong.

I still think that the first staff member should have directed the OP back inside, rather than to the RPI.

 

[Mag_seven]

I have no doubt that the OP intended to pay his fare and not dodge it. However you have to see things from the RPI point of view i.e.

"this exit when open is normally unstaffed therefore a magnate for fare dodgers ergo anyone attempting to leave via this exit without ticket must be a dodger."

Thus in the RPI's view everyone without a ticket attempting to leave by this exit is tarred with the same brush.

Regardless of what the OP did (i.e. ask about buying a ticket), the RPI saw him as someone attempting to leave via this exit without a ticket.

 

[furlong]

How can this be beyond reasonable doubt when so many (presumably reasonable) posters on here have serious doubts.

Because this forum is, quite rightly, not in possession of all the evidence.

The question really comes down to could the OP see the staff before leaving the platform, and did they approach the staff or did the staff stop them first.

I believe both of these questions have been satisfactorily answered by the OP already.

Knowing the sight lines of the station and likely location of the staff as I do, I haven't seen enough information to concur with the use of the word 'satisfactorily'.

 

[DaleCooper]

Because this forum is, quite rightly, not in possession of all the evidence.

So without all the evidence you are saying it is beyond reasonable doubt, that is absurd. It is the lack of evidence that leaves room for doubt.

 

[furlong]

it is beyond reasonable doubt

That is the question I think a court might ultimately have to address, if the matter was prosecuted.

(Go and read the original messages again, not the selective quotations.)