Court Summons for Fare Evasion - HELP!

[DaveNewcastle]

The question of 'Wednesbury reasonableness' applies to decisions or to the application of a statute which is inherently unreasonable. It doesn't help you in te position you are in right now.
The wording of an earlier drafting of the Byelaw (similar to how it is today) was challenged in Heap v Day, where it was found that, if a passenger has a ticket then they must show it or be subject to a penalty, but if they do not have a ticket or has lost it, the part of the byelaw "a person shall hand over this ticket for inspection" does not apply and that the Byelaw was 'reasonable'.
And in Lowe v Volp the phrase "shall hand over [the ticket] for inspection" was challenged and found to be reasonable.

I don't recall the exemption for liability in "No person shall be in breach if . . an authorised person . . " being challenged for 'unreasonableness' and it seems to me unlikely that it would, because it seems to be entirely reasonable (in terms of Wednesbury reasonableness).

Your challenge surely is that this exemption in Byelaw 18.3 is entirely reasonable, and that only if you are disallowed that exemption and convicted under Byelaw 18.1, then, and only then, would you find that conviction to be unreasonable. But that would all depend on the evidence, and that is where I will have gone full circle.

But as I keep telling you, you really shouldn't let this get anywhere near a Court of Law. It seems to me a very simple matter that can be dealt with by the way I've explained to you.

 

[319321]

That assumes the app has the necessary privilege to read the IMEI - as I understand it that is a higher security level than most apps would need. This is precisely why device IDs were invented.

You can change the IMEI of the phone, in the case of some phones (particularly those using MediaTek chipsets), very easily. Once you combine a pre-pay sim with a top-up (paid in cash, of course, from a shop you don't usually use) and a phone with an IMEI that you can change you have a 'hot' phone you can use for drug-dealing and the like.

It used to be the case that if you bought certain phones from abroad, you were advised to change the IMEI to one that had similar features in the UK e.g. some 3g operators only made 3g features available to those phones they knew to be 3g, adn they didn't know every phone in the world that had 3g, so if you had a phone from abroad you would need to change the IMEI to one that matched a phone available in the UK that did have 3g features.

 

[najaB]

You can change the IMEI of the phone, in the case of some phones (particularly those using MediaTek chipsets), very easily. Once you combine a pre-pay sim with a top-up (paid in cash, of course, from a shop you don't usually use) and a phone with an IMEI that you can change you have a 'hot' phone you can use for drug-dealing and the like.

I don't doubt it, but most apps don't use the IMEI for identification. They use a unique device ID which changes when the device is reset.

 

[Airline Man]

Hi Meghan. I work for a major airline. My understanding is that if you have ever been arrested for an offence even if there were no charges brought or you were found not guilty then you are not applicable for the Visa Waiver Programme and have to apply for a visa.

I know you are cabin crew and already have US visas so I am not entirely sure how this works. I personally know people who have a criminal record (minor) and have travelled to the US without a visa. They genuinely didn't know they had to apply for a visa and experienced no problems on arrival. I don't know if everyone's criminal history is available to the US authorities (I hadn't heard of that).

I'm guessing here but if it is a civil offence I think you're okay. The best thing to do would be to speak to a union rep, they should be happy to help. I wouldn't speak it to your line Manager, I've seen what management can do to people - especially with my lot.

Sorry, I couldn't be more hopeful.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm guessing here but if it is a civil offence I think you're okay.

If it was a Civil matter, then you are correct, there is absolutely no relevant record. But it isn't.

It's a Criminal matter.

 

[miami]

Hi Meghan. I work for a major airline. My understanding is that if you have ever been arrested for an offence even if there were no charges brought or you were found not guilty then you are not applicable for the Visa Waiver Programme and have to apply for a visa.

I know you are cabin crew and already have US visas so I am not entirely sure how this works. I personally know people who have a criminal record (minor) and have travelled to the US without a visa. They genuinely didn't know they had to apply for a visa and experienced no problems on arrival. I don't know if everyone's criminal history is available to the US authorities (I hadn't heard of that).

I'm guessing here but if it is a civil offence I think you're okay. The best thing to do would be to speak to a union rep, they should be happy to help. I wouldn't speak it to your line Manager, I've seen what management can do to people - especially with my lot.

Sorry, I couldn't be more hopeful.

Yes,

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program.

However as the OP currently holds "a US C-1/D and B-1/2 Visa", that wouldn't be a problem -- I believe the B-1/2 visa basically removes the need for a VWP admission.

 

[Steveoh]

As an aside, I still find it strange that in this case the OP is considered not to have a valid ticket. I'm making the assumption here that it's an advance ticket. The OP has the receipt presumably from the trainline, the mobile provider can show it was downloaded to a particular phone number (a guess), the OP got on the right train etc etc etc. I know it the strictest possible terms they were unable to produce a ticket there and then but all the evidence from original ticket purchase is there. I speak as an ordinary punter here and I for one will not be moving to mobile tickets if this sort of thing can happen.

 

[najaB]

As an aside, I still find it strange that in this case the OP is considered not to have a valid ticket. I'm making the assumption here that it's an advance ticket. The OP has the receipt presumably from the trainline...

Which proves only that a ticket was purchased. And proves even less to a guard on a train as they have no way to know if that ticket has since been refunded.

the mobile provider can show it was downloaded to a particular phone number (a guess)

An incorrect guess. The data would be transferred via an SSL connection so even if the mobile provider could show that data has been transferred (I highly doubt they would keep this level of records) they would have no way to show what the packets contained.

the OP got on the right train etc etc etc. I know it the strictest possible terms they were unable to produce a ticket there and then but all the evidence from original ticket purchase is there. I speak as an ordinary punter here and I for one will not be moving to mobile tickets if this sort of thing can happen.

What has happened in this case is no different to what would happen today if you forget your paper ticket.

Note: The post I'm quoting was posted into the 'Who is an authorised person' thread but makes more sense in this one.

 

[Steveoh]

Which proves only that a ticket was purchased. And proves even less to a guard on a train as they have no way to know if that ticket has since been refunded.

I wasn't referring to the guard, it was the way that this has been escalated and dealt with subsequently.

An incorrect guess. The data would be transferred via an SSL connection so even if the mobile provider could show that data has been transferred (I highly doubt they would keep this level of records) they would have no way to show what the packets contained.

Someone must keep a record otherwise how would you know it had been downloaded? There must be some security mechanism in place around the ticket and some of audit trail.

What has happened in this case is no different to what would happen today if you forget your paper ticket.

I don't disagree in that there was no ticket to display on the train to the guard. I do however feel there is a big difference in evidence that can be supplied to back up the ticket purchase, validity etc for the journey in question vs having brought a paper ticket with cash and having lost it for example.

Note: The post I'm quoting was posted into the 'Who is an authorised person' thread but makes more sense in this one.

NB I didn't want to post here as to clutter up this thread as I thought it should be for advice to the OP. For what it's worth I would follow the advice to contact Passenger Focus.

 

[najaB]

I wasn't referring to the guard, it was the way that this has been escalated and dealt with subsequently.

I suppose, but to me the issue is more around having apparently been given permission to travel, and how they have since been threatened with prosecution. This could equally have happened with a paper ticket and the same amount of evidence would be available.

Someone must keep a record otherwise how would you know it had been downloaded? There must be some security mechanism in place around the ticket and some of audit trail.

I imagine that the app vendor would be able to interrogate the logs and see audit trail. The mobile provider definitely could not, at least I wouldn't want to deal with a mobile provider that snoops on SSL traffic.

I don't disagree in that there was no ticket to display on the train to the guard. I do however feel there is a big difference in evidence that can be supplied to back up the ticket purchase, validity etc for the journey in question vs having brought a paper ticket with cash and having lost it for example.

I agree that there is more evidence, however the legal requirement is to have the ticket in your possession when you travel. This is no different for electronic tickets than it is for paper.

NB I didn't want to post here as to clutter up this thread as I thought it should be for advice to the OP. For what it's worth I would follow the advice to contact Passenger Focus.

I understand, but I think that thread was dealing with more generic concepts rather than the specific case.

 

[John Palmer]

I assume from the OP’s reference to byelaws that Transport Investigations Ltd may be contemplating a prosecution under Byelaw 18(1) or (2).

Before I boarded I gave him a brief summary of what happened including showing him the booking confirmation and error message on the app and he said something to the effect of "the train is about to leave, get on and I'll come and find you later" although this was back in August.)

With regard to the possible defence set out in Byelaw 18(3)(iii), Meghan’s evidence to this effect is entitled to as much credit as any evidence to the contrary. However, that is not to say that such contrary evidence will not be given, in some such form as: “I remember clearly that I informed the accused that she should not board the train if she was not in possession of a valid ticket.” It is possible that the (?)train manager might give such an account, and it is also possible that such evidence might be preferred to Meghan’s. Therein lies her risk, and to meet it I fully agree with DaveNewcastle’s advice in post #49.

In post #57 najaB referred to the impossibility of the app recognising its reinstallation on the same device if the device ID has undergone a reset. But the account given makes no reference to such a reset of the device, merely stating that the app was re-installed. Hence, unless we are told that the device ID was reset, I don’t understand the error message ‘Ticket locked to another device’. Could it be that the m-ticket in question was never actually downloaded onto the OP’s phone?

Tying an m-ticket to a particular device and precluding its transfer to another seems to me to represent very poor system design. Replication of the m-ticket to others isn’t an issue in Cross Country’s case, because it is a term of issue that the ticket is tied to a passenger’s name and the named ticket holder must carry with them one of the specified forms of ID, see: https://www.buytickets.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/terms.aspx

I see that way back in October 2011 the migration of tickets from one phone to another was raised with Masabi, who said they were “thinking about it”, see post #148 in http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52712&page=10. Not much sign of them having done much since to cater for technical glitches such as that experienced by the OP here.

 

[najaB]

In post #57 najaB referred to the impossibility of the app recognising its reinstallation on the same device if the device ID has undergone a reset. But the account given makes no reference to such a reset of the device, merely stating that the app was re-installed. Hence, unless we are told that the device ID was reset, I don’t understand the error message ‘Ticket locked to another device’. Could it be that the m-ticket in question was never actually downloaded onto the OP’s phone?

I believe that it was reset as the OP has said:

I spoke to the train line after the journey and they advised that because I some issues with my phone and had to restore it, meaning I had to redownload the app, it incurred the error even though it was the same phone. I had never used an e-ticket before so was unaware how they worked.

'Restore' is commonly used in the same context as 'reset' where phones are concerned.

 

[John Palmer]

I hadn't previously interpreted Meg90's post in that way, but you may very well be right.

I have asked Masabi what a passenger should do when a ticket gets 'locked to another device.' The enquiry has been acknowledged, and, I am told, ' is being reviewed by our support rockstar.'