Facing prosecution [XC - Using a ticket on a cheaper route]

[SELW]

Somewhere between Macclesfield and Birmingham if I remember correctly. This was all about 5 months ago.

The conversation was more or less along the lines of (heavily paraphrased):

Inspector: You don't have a valid ticket.
Me: Yes I do, I bought the ticket I was told to buy after explaining which routes I intended to take.
Inspector: But its the wrong route.
Me: But I make this journey on a regular basis using this same ticket and it was inspected every time without a problem.
Inspector: The previous inspectors probably didn't check the route.
Me: I've done everything I reasonable can to buy the correct ticket. So whilst I understand the problem I don't think its my problem I was sold the wrong ticket.
Inspector: Well I'll give you an excess, and take your name and address. We will write a letter to you.
Me: I don't want a letter from you.
Inspector: Its nothing to worry about. It will help us to get the money for the ticket from the 'via London' operator.

Basically I asserted throughout the entire conversation that I had done everything I reasonable could to purchase the correct ticket, and that as far I as know I had the correct ticket. When the conversation ended I was left under the strong impression that the matter had been resolved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I would take this to Court armed with the relevant documentation, and make XC look very stupid indeed. Amazed this has got this far.

 

[bb21]

So he didn't even ascertain that you were going beyond Coventry which is the point where you actually started becoming off-route? Your ticket was undoubtedly valid without any excess fare between Manchester and Coventry by virtual of Manchester - Birmingham - Coventry - Euston - Marylebone - High Wycombe being a permitted route if required to travel via London.

Lovely. I think there is plenty of material to report XC to the DfT for a breach of the TSA and thereby their franchise terms if they do not back down.

Where is the case being heard, I think I might make an effort to attend.

 

[30907]

The only question you haven't answered is - if you travelled on a weekday, what time trains did you use (approximately will do!).

The reason for the question is that the off peak time restrictions for the two routes are different, so we need to be sure your ticket was valid for when you travelled.

 

[Be3G]

It is still there, towards the top of the second page in Section A:

[…]

I would say take them to court and dish out a spanking. It is a great example of a TOC whose prosecutions department gets things spectacularly wrong.

So it is! I sit corrected, thank you. In that case, yes, this really is an open and shut case in the OP's favour. (I am not a lawyer etc.)

 

[bb21]

So it is! I sit corrected, thank you. In that case, yes, this really is an open and shut case in the OP's favour. (I am not a lawyer etc.)

I think it was removed and reinstated, and possibly gone through that cycle twice even but my memory is a little fuzzy.

 

[furlong]

The reason for the question is that the off peak time restrictions for the two routes are different, so we need to be sure your ticket was valid for when you travelled.

But if it had fallen foul of a time restriction the correct action would again surely have been an excess, plus to change a restriction code (if the relevant codes haven't been linked together properly) you need that change of route excess first.

 

[SELW]

So he didn't even ascertain that you were going beyond Coventry which is the point where you actually started becoming off-route?

I think they actually did, as I said I was going to change at Leamington Spa. I suppose on the plus side, at least this would seem to reduce the amount of money they can claim, e.g. Coventry to Leamington Spa as opposed to Stockport to Leamington Spa.

The only question you haven't answered is - if you travelled on a weekday, what time trains did you use (approximately will do!).

My travel plan for the day.

Details for your journey on 11 May 2015 (week day).
Departing from Altrincham at 11:59.
Arriving into High Wycombe at 15:36.

11:59 Altrincham Northern Rail towards Stockport
12:35 Stockport Crosscountry towards Leamington Spa
14:46 Leamington Spa
15:36 High Wycombe
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where is the case being heard, I think I might make an effort to attend.

Stockport at the moment, I'll let you know how this all turns out in any case.

 

[bb21]

I think they actually did, as I said I was going to change at Leamington Spa. I suppose on the plus side, at least this would seem to reduce the amount of money they can claim, e.g. Coventry to Leamington Spa as opposed to Stockport to Leamington Spa.

I see.

Yes, that too I suppose.

My travel plan for the day.

Details for your journey on 11 May 2015 (week day).
Departing from Altrincham at 11:59.
Arriving into High Wycombe at 15:36.

11:59 Altrincham Northern Rail towards Stockport
12:35 Stockport Crosscountry towards Leamington Spa
14:46 Leamington Spa
15:36 High Wycombe

Good. No issue on that front.

 

[OwlMan]

I think it was removed and reinstated, and possibly gone through that cycle twice even but my memory is a little fuzzy.

He was not off route at all 9at least until Reading - as he was changing at Banbury he was always on route with XC - London - Manchester (or Wilmslow/Stockport) is valid via Reading.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Contrary to S5 (3) (a) of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 . . . .

So they are prosecuting him for fare evasion - for an unpaid fare of, what, zero?! I've seen it all now.

Technically, a prosecution of an offence under S.5 (3) can succeed even if the unpaid fare is zero, but it would be remarkable if it reached a hearing.


But with this . . . . . !!

He was not off route at all London - Manchester (or Wilmslow/Stockport) is valid via Reading.

I can't see how it could succeed.

 

[bb21]

He was not off route at all 9at least until Reading - as he was changing at Banbury he was always on route with XC - London - Manchester (or Wilmslow/Stockport) is valid via Reading.

Hmm, yes, I somehow overlooked the famous Reading route. Shows you that trying to do two things at the same time is not really a good idea.

This just gets better and better.

 

[SELW]

He was not off route at all 9at least until Reading - as he was changing at Banbury he was always on route with XC - London - Manchester (or Wilmslow/Stockport) is valid via Reading.

Sorry I don't understand. I was travelling, Altrincham > Stockport > Leamington Spa > High Wycombe (in that direction).

I do sometimes change at Banbury, but not on that journey.

How does a Reading route apply here?

Is there some official source I can refer to here?

 

[bb21]

Sorry I don't understand. I was travelling, Altrincham > Stockport > Leamington Spa > High Wycombe (in that direction).

I do sometimes change at Banbury, but not on that journey.

How does a Reading route apply here?

Is there some official source I can refer to here?

If you check the Routeing Guide (provided that you can follow it), you will find that Altrincham - Stockport - Birmingham - Reading - Paddington - Marylebone - High Wycombe is a permitted route for your journey, so you were in fact not off-route on a Via London ticket at all between Stockport and Leamington Spa.

The National Routeing Guide is the official document which sets out what permitted routes are for a journey as referenced in Condition 13 of the NRCoC, links to both I provided earlier in the thread.

 

[221129]

Sorry I don't understand. I was travelling, Altrincham > Stockport > Leamington Spa > High Wycombe (in that direction).

I do sometimes change at Banbury, but not on that journey.

How does a Reading route apply here?

Is there some official source I can refer to here?

Basically they are saying that you were not off route at any point when you were stopped. They therefore have no case against you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A London to Manchester ticket is valid to travel Paddington-Reading-Banbury-Birmingham-Manchester. Which I'd forgotten.

If the only issue is you weren't travelling via London, then XC should be dropping the matter.

 

[SELW]

Thank you all, this has been very useful and educational.

 

[MichaelAMW]

A London to Manchester ticket is valid to travel Paddington-Reading-Banbury-Birmingham-Manchester. Which I'd forgotten.

If the only issue is you weren't travelling via London, then XC should be dropping the matter.

It's even valid Marylebone - High Wycombe - Birmingham - Manchester so he was never off route for the to/from London part, although I appreciate there is then a double back issue, depending on how you look at it.

 

[gray1404]

I cannot say nothing more then the other members on here have said, other then, under no circumstances should you enter a guilty plea. You have done nothing wrong. At which Court is this case due to be heard? I shall certainly make a point of trying to attend if I am in the country. I am shocked this has not been dropped before now. The person you had the conversation with on the train, was that the Train Manager or one of their Revenue Protection Staff? See how much trouble the actions of one person not knowing how to do their job can cause for another. If all he wanted to do was to issue a zero rated excess fare, there would have been no need for them to take your name and address. I think the person on board knew exactly what they were doing in reporting a passenger. Totally wrong! I'd go to the press with this one too! Shame on XC!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Makes you wondr if anyone with any legal training has even looked at this case! Clearly nobody within Cross Country with any knowledge of ticketing, excess fares and routing has. I wonder if this would get dropped on the day once the Lawyer representing XC realises there isn't a cat in hell's chance. After which time the OP would have had to have gone to all the bother, time and expense and researching and preparing their defence - or, as I would hope, instructing another to do so

 

[70014IronDuke]

So, assuming the OP has retold this story accurately, he has been caused material loss (falsely charged extra fares), plus he and his family, have been caused huge stress and worry through the fault of XC.

All serious posters on here have no truck with fare evaders (quite rightly) - but what happens if he wins his case?

Surely he should not only be recompensed for the direct material loss, but for the time, stress and worry involved. Does this court do that, or does he have to initiate another action to get compensation? One hopes rather the former.

I must say, the experts in here on this subject are an amazing lot. I take my hat off to you.

 

[DarloRich]

Something is not right here.

How has this case, which looks, prima facie, to be about traveling with a valid ticket managed to get this far? Does it not show a serious failing within the prosecuting organisation that this has been allowed to happen? Has the OP been off route at any point? With my cack handing reading of the routing guide i don't think so.

How has this not been picked up at some point along the chain from guard to manager to revenue collection to prosecution to issuing proceedings?

 

[SELW]

How has this not been picked up at some point along the chain from guard to manager to revenue collection to prosecution to issuing proceedings?

Probably worth mentioning that XC handed this off to Transport Investigations Limited, who based on the information I have provided them (much as the same here), had only ever sent me form letters with no specific detail on my case.

So perhaps they are just following a procedure without really thinking about what they are doing.

 

[General Zod]

The XC web site itself sells you the "via London" which involves travelling all the way to Reading and then continuing to London Paddington , Marylebone and finally to High Wycombe. Here's a screenshot for teh LOLs ! It is the £90 Off Peak Return and you can clearly see all the calling points en route.

 

[furlong]

If things are as they appear - and there is still an important caveat that we only have one side of the story - I'd suggest it falls so far below the level of professional diligence required by a train operator, that both the DfT and the ORR should be invited to open investigations.

For every case where someone is brave enough to seek help on a forum like this, how many more similar cases might there have been where people submitted to the company's pressure to pay up or accepted a conviction that might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice?

 

[crehld]

Something is not right here.

How has this case, which looks, prima facie, to be about traveling with a valid ticket managed to get this far? Does it not show a serious failing within the prosecuting organisation that this has been allowed to happen? Has the OP been off route at any point? With my cack handing reading of the routing guide i don't think so.

How has this not been picked up at some point along the chain from guard to manager to revenue collection to prosecution to issuing proceedings?

It's a legitimate question. It's certainly not the first time it has happened.

For every case where someone is brave enough to seek help on a forum like this, how many more similar cases might there have been where people submitted to the company's pressure to pay up or accepted a conviction that might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice?

This remains my concern.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Has the OP's son responded to any previous letters, or has he been a bit of an ostrich hoping it'd go away? That could explain why Transport Investigations have allowed it to get this far, although you'd question the accuracy of their name if they didn't immediately pick up on the issue.

Although I suspect they did, thinking (probably rightly) that a lot of innocent people would cough up in fear.

 

[SELW]

Has the OP's son responded to any previous letters, or has he been a bit of an ostrich hoping it'd go away? That could explain why Transport Investigations have allowed it to get this far, although you'd question their name if they didn't immediately pick up on the issue.

OP sons here, responded twice in a timely fashion. First time they respond with a basic rehash of previous threats. Second time they never responded - had assumed matter was closed until I got the court summons out of the blue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wish I could say I was surprised.

Good luck!

 

[gray1404]

Given you have received a Court Summons, and given you have done nothing wrong I am assuming that you will be entering a not guilty plea, have you instructed a Solicitor yet? This is something I would strongly recomment doing. Normally I think someone dealing with criminal defence work would be able to represent but, given this issue relates to issues of excess fares, ticketing and the routing guide, I wonder if they would know enough to be able to present your case in the degree of detail whilst maintaining clearity in Court.

 

[30907]

But if it had fallen foul of a time restriction the correct action would again surely have been an excess, plus to change a restriction code (if the relevant codes haven't been linked together properly) you need that change of route excess first.

I agree it wouldn't have been correct procedure, and I didn't think it was a likely scenario.

The OPs answer anyway confirms he was complying with the restriction code.

Sorry for the slight red herring.