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

[SELW]

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

I am also taking professional legal advice.

 

[furlong]

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?

I would suggest the next step is to try to get this escalated to board level within CrossCountry, to ensure the company is truly satisfied that the case has received a sufficient level of internal review, before it goes any further.

 

[30907]

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.

In fact, for the journey the OP wanted, a SVR to London Terminals would have been sufficient and cheaper. Should have realised, I went that way in July (fortunately avoiding XC by walking across Brum).

Sorry, this only applies if the break of journey at High W was within the relevant time limit.

Strikes me XC should be looking at an out of court settlement in his favour pronto.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am also taking professional legal advice.

Good I think that's wise.

I agree with everyone here that you've not done anything wrong but I would certainly seek legal advice just to cover all bases especially when dealing with a criminal matter. Plus if, by some miracle, it does get to court having someone well versed with legal procedure can only be a positive.

When CrossCountry do drop this I would be very tempted to pursue them for any costs incurred in dealing with the matter.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I am also taking professional legal advice.

I'll guess, depending on how your advisor initially asseses your incident, that they might advise you not to discuss the matter anywhere public (such as this forum).

We would all want to respect that advice if / when it is given. But we can still give you advice, and that would be to ensure that your solicitor is informed of the relevant details of the particularly arcane railway legislation (such as the privately prosecuted Regulation of Railways Act) and the supplimentary documents (such as the Routing Guide which confirms the validity of your journey) and which apply to contracts for passenger carriage on the railways.

They will be able to ensure that this does not proceed to a hearing in front of the Magistrates.
[all of the above presumes that there is no other material evidence which has a bearing on the matter of which we on here are unaware]

 

[bb21]

Well said Dave, and I can only echo what these two said above.

And good luck.

 

[SELW]

OPs son here,

Thanks for all the advice and support so far. Good to know I'm not the only one who has found this whole thing a little bizarre.

So just to make sure I've understood what you have all said.

Effectively I was allow to travel the route I took because the routeing tables said I could. For not travelling my direct or shortest route I should have paid an excess - in this case of £0.

I've had a look at the routeing tables, and I think I have interpreted them correctly.

First, I found the routeing points for my origin and destination stations. Image 1 attached.

Then I used that information to find the Stockport to South Ruislip went via the London Group. Image 2 attached.

The I used that the London Group to Stockport, and London Group to Ruislip. As both shared a permitted route 'GC', my journey is valid?

That said as XC are only currently contesting the Stockport - Leamington Spa part of the journey getting all the way to High Wycombe isn't necessary.

For example London Group to Stockport GC+BO gets me there (happens to go via High Wycombe), as does RG+RO.

Thanks,

 

[furlong]

Effectively I was allow to travel the route I took because the routeing tables said I could.

Yes, but you can see how complex they are to work with!

There are also a number of ambiguities in the rules that have never been resolved and so could be argued and decided either way in a court. Part of the argument could still fall into this category, which is why you might need a lawyer already familiar with these sorts of railway issues (or an expert witness) if Cross Country persists and tries to rely upon some of these ambiguities to win its case.

For not travelling my direct or shortest route I should have paid an excess - in this case of £0.

You were not travelling on the precise shortest route (it goes through Birmingham Snow Hill rather than New Street) so we have all ignored that in the discussion here.

There are two sets of routes - VIA LONDON and NOT VIA LONDON.

Some people argue that a ticket for the more expensive of the two (VIA LONDON) can be used on the cheaper route (NOT VIA LONDON) without any excess. This appears to have been the opinion of the ticket office that sold you the ticket (and this remains my personal opinion too).

Others believe you can only do this if you change the ticket (in the appropriate direction - so either OUT or RETURN, or both) with a 'Change of route' excess of £0 and that you can do that on the train during the journey. A train company might be keen to do this because it records more accurately the route you actually took and so helps it argue that it should receive a larger slice of the money people like you paid. But the attribution of the ticket money is an exceedingly complex matter that has no effect on validity and so should be of no concern to you as a passenger.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Then we have a further complication because the VIA LONDON routeing looks to be valid (via Leamington) through High Wycombe (on a train that doesn't stop there) to London Marylebone and back. But if the train were to stop at High Wycombe instead of passing through we hit another ambiguity. Must you still go to London and back for correct validity (but you don't really have to because you are allowed to finish your journey early anywhere you choose which could be High Wycombe)? Or are you not allowed to pass through your final destination on a train that stops there, invalidating that particular route because you must go through London but you couldn't? (This question is dodged by picking the route through Paddington as in the earlier screenshot.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has anyone ever successfully obtained a zero fare excess in this kind of situation? I have asked for one before and have always been referred to it being valid anyway.

 

[pitdiver]

I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent but after reading some of the posts on this thread i am totally baffled. How can an ordinary person be expected to understand the complexities of the various parts of the ticketing regulations so avoiding a situation similar to what has occurred here. That's coming from an ex Booking Clerk albeit LUL.

All I can say is I hope the prosecutors get a good earwigging from the magistrates if it ever gets that far.

Rob H

 

[General Zod]

Just to reiterate and clarify what Furlong said in his previous post ; OP was NOT actually "off route" on his " via London" ticket. He is allowed to travel beyond Leamington Spa and as far as Reading where he can get onto the train to London Paddington and then to Marylebone and High Wycombe. The £90.00 Off Peak Return allows for this route to be taken. There should have been no problems if the ticket was checked on XC anywhere between Stockport and Reading. It is bizarre behaviour from XC. I live in HWY and visit Manchester regularly, occasionally on a HWY-MAN SVR ( via London) and have used three routes - via Euston, Banbury ( not London) and Reading/Paddington - with no problems whatsoever. If anyone had recourse to argument it would have been a Chiltern TM between Banbury and HWY even then I am certain he wouldn't have done anything so pedantic.

 

[Haywain]

I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent but after reading some of the posts on this thread i am totally baffled. How can an ordinary person be expected to understand the complexities of the various parts of the ticketing regulations so avoiding a situation similar to what has occurred here. That's coming from an ex Booking Clerk albeit LUL.

All I can say is I hope the prosecutors get a good earwigging from the magistrates if it ever gets that far.

Rob H

In the circumstances described in this thread, the "ordinary person" should have a reasonable expectation the the staff they encounter know enough about such matters to not let things get anywhere near as far as they have. When obscure routes are used even staff may have trouble establishing validity, but this one seems far from obscure or complex and is the sort of journey that CrossCountry staff should be expected to be encountering every single day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remain utterly amazed this got any further than the guard getting some retraining.

 

[talldave]

More worrying, as I think another poster already commented, is whether any similar cases have gone to court without ever coming to the attention of the experts on this forum?

 

[yorkie]

Has anyone ever successfully obtained a zero fare excess in this kind of situation? I have asked for one before and have always been referred to it being valid anyway.

In my opinion it is not necessary according to my interpretation of the rules.

The NRCoC entitles a passenger to pay "the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available at a ticket office for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route", which in this case would be zero, so if XC believe it is necessary to issue the excess (which I don't), then they should be issuing it at the cost of zero.

However an XC Guard has personally told me that XC's policy was (and, unless it's changed, presumably still is) not to issue zero fare excesses, which is fine; they can simply accept the ticket as valid.

 

[miami]

More worrying, as I think another poster already commented, is whether any similar cases have gone to court without ever coming to the attention of the experts on this forum?

It's interesting how the TOCs can make a mistake which has massive implications and just say "sorry, never mind", despite the weeks of stress and perhaps costs for the wronged party, but a passenger making a mistake can get sent to court.

Seems a bit unbalanced.

 

[maniacmartin]

Then I used that information to find the Stockport to South Ruislip went via the London Group. Image 2 attached.

The I used that the London Group to Stockport, and London Group to Ruislip. As both shared a permitted route 'GC', my journey is valid?

This is not how the routeing guide works. You don't look for maps that are in common when using the LONDON mapped route. Instead you find one map combination valid for the getting to London part, and one map combination valid for the leaving London part.

Each individual map combination is a valid combination if it is a single map, or if each of the maps (separated in the yellow pages with a plus) joins up with a routeing point in common on both maps, and they whole route has no double-backs.

 

[furlong]

More worrying, as I think another poster already commented, is whether any similar cases have gone to court without ever coming to the attention of the experts on this forum?

That's a matter I think the ORR should be invited to investigate under the consumer regulations. This is easier if the original poster provides them with a specific example of a problem.

49. Regulation 3 of the CPRs contains a general prohibition of unfair commercial practices. A commercial practice is considered unfair if:
• it is not professionally diligent, and
• it materially distorts, or is likely to materially distort, the economic behaviour of the average consumer.

50. Essentially, for the general prohibition to apply, the practice must be unacceptable when measured against an objective standard relevant to the industry within which it is taking place (although poor current practice that is widespread in an industry/sector cannot amount to an acceptable objective standard) and must also have (or be likely to have) an effect on the economic behaviour of the average consumer.

51. This second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought, or would not exercise cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.

52. The Regulations define the ‘average consumer’ by reference to the concepts of the ‘average’ consumer, the ‘average’ member of a targeted group of consumers and the ‘average’ member of a vulnerable group of consumers. Different types of consumers may react differently to the same practice.

There are various ways to navigate this (and lots of available cop-outs) but here's one suggestion:

Would the average member of a vulnerable group of consumers pay up £52.70 demanded under the threat of a criminal conviction which is (on the face of the one-sided evidence presented here) not professionally diligent, thereby (in effect) buying a product (fare) they would not otherwise have bought? Also throw in the industry responses we saw earlier stating that two single tickets must be bought (at a significantly higher cost).

 

[Be3G]

Some people argue that a ticket for the more expensive of the two (VIA LONDON) can be used on the cheaper route (NOT VIA LONDON) without any excess. This appears to have been the opinion of the ticket office that sold you the ticket (and this remains my personal opinion too).

Not just an opinion; fact – as bb21 pointed out to me earlier in this thread with a quote from the Routeing Guide itself.

 

[furlong]

Not just an opinion; fact – as bb21 pointed out to me earlier in this thread with a quote from the Routeing Guide itself.

I am not going to present an argument (off-topic for this thread) that encourages a position opposed to my own, but I accept that our view is not universally held and the other side can present a respectable argument.

 

[infobleep]

More worrying, as I think another poster already commented, is whether any similar cases have gone to court without ever coming to the attention of the experts on this forum?

What would happen if a case went to court and the defects had inexperienced lawyers in this area or they defended themselves and in either case lost? Would it have ramifications for other people later on, given the precious case history now existed?

 

[bb21]

Magistrates courts do not set case law precedents iirc but don't quote me on that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would it have ramifications for other people later on, given the precious case history now existed?

Magistrates Court decisions do not create precedent, and in any case whether the person's ticket is valid is a finding of fact not a finding of law. Findings of fact do not usually create precedent either.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with bb21 and Artic Troll. But I wouldn't expect this to reach a Court. Both parties should be arguing any technicalities beforehand - the new Criminal Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions should be complied with to avoid wasting Court time with details like this.

 

[infobleep]

Magistrates Court decisions do not create precedent, and in any case whether the person's ticket is valid is a finding of fact not a finding of law. Findings of fact do not usually create precedent either.

Magistrates courts do not set case law precedents iirc but don't quote me on that.

I agree with bb21 and Artic Troll. But I wouldn't expect this to reach a Court. Both parties should be arguing any technicalities beforehand - the new Criminal Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions should be complied with to avoid wasting Court time with details like this.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[cuccir]

Just thought that I'd give this a bit of a bump to see if we knew if this situation had developed further? It seemed a clear cut case but would be good to know if SELW's son got this sorted?

 

[gray1404]

Yes, I have been wondering about this one too. An update would be great

 

[SELW]

SELW's son here.

Apologies for the tardiness of this update, I was indeed told to stop discussing this publicly by my legal adviser at the time.

Anyway things turned out like this:

I entered a not guilty plea by post.

A few days before the initial court hearing I received a letter from the train company informing me that they intended to drop the prosecution. Also informing me next time I should record all my ticket buying conversations in writing!?

Happily I was much relieved but perplexed.

On the day of the hearing I rang the court to check everything had been cancelled. It was at this point I was informed it wasn't, and that my case would be heard in a few hours!

Panic ensues.

The next day the court informed me that the prosecution had been withdrawn in court.

Relief returns.

My legal adviser informed me the train company probably hadn't acted quickly enough to withdraw the prosecution.

So bizarrely this actually ended up in front of a magistrate somehow.

And that's the last I've heard about it.

I would like to say thank you and that I'm very grateful for all your advice, especially around the technicalities of train routes - knowledge I never thought I would need to know.

Cheers,

 

[miami]

SELW's son here.

Apologies for the tardiness of this update, I was indeed told to stop discussing this publicly by my legal adviser at the time.

A good plan. The theory that the armchair activists on the forum, and the realities of being up in court, are very different.

Glad it worked out.

 

[yorkie]

I trust you were suitably compensated?

If not, I would not see the matter as concluded.