Fined for being in first class carriage

[Realfish]

While this is extremely unlikely to be the case here, DaveNewcastle also failed to point out its not an offence to sit in First Class without a valid ticket if your first opportunity to buy a 1st Class ticket was on the train (i.e. there were no ticket or PTT facilities at your station of origin, or on any opportunities to purchase a ticket on a previous connecting train/station).

National Rail Conditions of Carriage

Section G: Train Accommodation and Reservations

39. Travelling in first class accommodation with a standard class ticket

....If you have a standard class ticket and you travel in first class accommodation without permission (which includes occupying seats or standing in any part of the carriage), you will have to pay:
(i) the difference between the price of that ticket and the price of the first class ticket for the accommodation you have used; or
(ii) where Condition 4 (b) applies, you may be charged a Penalty Fare.


Presumably this operator adheres to the NRCoC?

 

[talltim]

Not really, I think they're asking the OP to send a copy of a season ticket, which doesn't make sense. I'd love to see what a magistrate thought the next move should be when encountering the following instruction.

"If fail to carry , passenger to send a copy of their seasonal ticket within 14 days to the address below, failure to do so may lead to prosecution."

Yes, even ignoring the grammar issues, it doesn't actually tell you what you need to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

National Rail Conditions of Carriage

Section G: Train Accommodation and Reservations

39. Travelling in first class accommodation with a standard class ticket

....If you have a standard class ticket and you travel in first class accommodation without permission (which includes occupying seats or standing in any part of the carriage), you will have to pay:
(i) the difference between the price of that ticket and the price of the first class ticket for the accommodation you have used; or
(ii) where Condition 4 (b) applies, you may be charged a Penalty Fare.


Presumably this operator adheres to the NRCoC?

Does that mean that you are not allowed to occupy seats or stand in any part of a carriage that contains some first class accommodation, even if you are in the standard class bit? That's what it says....

 

[Haywain]

National Rail Conditions of Carriage

Section G: Train Accommodation and Reservations

39. Travelling in first class accommodation with a standard class ticket

....If you have a standard class ticket and you travel in first class accommodation without permission (which includes occupying seats or standing in any part of the carriage), you will have to pay:
(i) the difference between the price of that ticket and the price of the first class ticket for the accommodation you have used; or
(ii) where Condition 4 (b) applies, you may be charged a Penalty Fare.


Presumably this operator adheres to the NRCoC?

They do adhere to NRCoC, and condition 4(b) applies. Had the OP's son had £20 he would have received a penalty fare. As he didn't have the money it would appear that he has been reported for possible prosecution.

 

[Realfish]

They do adhere to NRCoC, and condition 4(b) applies. Had the OP's son had £20 he would have received a penalty fare. As he didn't have the money it would appear that he has been reported for possible prosecution.

That's what I was wondering. Nevertheless the GTR instructions to staff (still assuming it's them) that I posted earlier do not require the PF to be paid on the spot, the balance or indeed the whole amount can be paid within 21 days.

I recall a few other instances, posted here, where travellers had insufficient funds to pay the whole PF and as such that was considered sufficient for it to be regarded as a PF refusal (one at Luton springs to mind). Perhaps this is a case of the instructions saying one thing but custom and practice, something else.

 

[maniacmartin]

I am not a legal profsessional and ths post is not legal advice

My understanding of Penalty Fares is that you are only obliged to pay the actual fare on the spot (First class Anytime Single between the stations he travelled), and the remainder of the Penalty Fare can be paid at a later date. As we don't know which stations he travelled between, I don't know if the £7 he had on him would have covered the on-the-spot payment

Penalty Fares Rules section 8 states

8.2 The authorised collector may require that person to make a
minimum payment that is equal to the full single fare which
they would have had to pay for their journey if penalty fares
had not applied. The person must be given 21 days to pay the
rest of the penalty fare, starting on the day that penalty fare is
charged. If the penalty fare is not paid in full immediately, it
must be paid in any way that is set out in the notice referred to
in rule 8.3

However, there is no right to a Penalty Fare, and the Train Operating Company can bring a criminal prosecution instead under the Railway Byelaws, section 19. The good news is that that a prosecution under the Byelaws is not recordable so won't show up in most subsequent searches. It only usually results in a fine.

(There's also the more serious Regulation of Railways Act which a criminal prosecution could be brought under, but as the Train Operating Company would have to prove intent which is a higher burden of proof, I doubt it would be used in this case)

Again you've not been very helpful in not actually telling us what this 'slip of paper' says so it's hard to give advice (I am willing to bet the term 'seasonal ticket' doesn't appear anywhere on it), however if the case has been referred to the prosecutions department then I would advise contacting writing to their prosecutions department with an explanation of what happened, and seeking an out of court settlement with them.

As you have now learnt, on the railways, the law is stacked against you, so next time, tell the pushchair users to go in First class instead,

 

[cottonsocks]

I am not a legal profsessional and ths post is not legal advice



Again you've not been very helpful in not actually telling us what this 'slip of paper' says so it's hard to give advice (I am willing to bet the term 'seasonal ticket' doesn't appear anywhere on it), however if the case has been referred to the prosecutions department then I would advise contacting writing to their prosecutions department with an explanation of what happened, and seeking an out of court settlement with them.

As you have now learnt, on the railways, the law is stacked against you, so next time, tell the pushchair users to go in First class instead,

Yes in retrospect he should not have moved out of the way for them. He certainly won't again.
Apologies it is indeed season not seasonal. Sorry

The slip of paper says.

"If fail to carry passenger to send a copy of their season ticket within 14 days to the address below"

Passenger may travel from ---- to ----
On date ----- time ----
Address Prosecution Dept. Room 114, East Side offices, Kings Cross Station, London N1C 4AP

There is no name on it.

Should he contact them first or wait for a letter?

 

[A-driver]

Yes, even ignoring the grammar issues, it doesn't actually tell you what you need to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




Does that mean that you are not allowed to occupy seats or stand in any part of a carriage that contains some first class accommodation, even if you are in the standard class bit? That's what it says....

It dosnt say that at all. On a composite carriage only part of it is first and you can not stand in the area marked as first without a first ticket. The rest is standard. It's rather clear...

 

[talltim]

It dosnt say that at all. On a composite carriage only part of it is first and you can not stand in the area marked as first without a first ticket. The rest is standard. It's rather clear...

So clear that I could misinterpret it? It says 'Any part of the carriage', not 'any part of the accommodation'

 

[A-driver]

So clear that I could misinterpret it? It says 'Any part of the carriage', not 'any part of the accommodation'

Many trains have first class carriages. Others have a mix of standard coaches and composite coaches. You are looking for issues which is why you misinterpreted it. It's pretty clear and unless you can provide some evidence of someone being fined for travelling in a standard section of a composite coach with a standard ticket you don't really have a point...

 

[miami]

Yes in retrospect he should not have moved out of the way for them. He certainly won't again.
Apologies it is indeed season not seasonal. Sorry

The slip of paper says.

"If fail to carry passenger to send a copy of their season ticket within 14 days to the address below"

Passenger may travel from ---- to ----
On date ----- time ----
Address Prosecution Dept. Room 114, East Side offices, Kings Cross Station, London N1C 4AP

There is no name on it.

Should he contact them first or wait for a letter?

Is it hand written!?

 

[cottonsocks]

The slip of paper is about 4 x 10 cm and is printed except for the blanks as above which have been handwritten. Thanks

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . DaveNewcastle also failed to point out its not an offence to sit in First Class without a valid ticket if your first opportunity to buy a 1st Class ticket was on the train (i.e. there were no ticket or PTT facilities at your station of origin, or on any opportunities to purchase a ticket on a previous connecting train/station).

Not relevant.

 

[miami]

The slip of paper is about 4 x 10 cm and is printed except for the blanks as above which have been handwritten. Thanks

I find it amazing that such a piece of paper has been in circulation for so long, however

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1739161 from march 2014 may be of interest

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...63-First-Capital-Connect-Possible-Prosecution shows this wording in use in 2010


So it appears to be a legitimate form.

 

[Jonfun]

If a TIR is being completed (their tickets likely to have been withdrawn as evidence) then the passenger should be given some authority to allow them to complete the journey - some companies just do a coupon off Avantix, clearly this TOC do it as a paper slip, hence the "Passenger may travel from ---- to ----
On date ----- time ----" bit. It also (quite helpfully, IMO!) gives the contact details of the prosecution office who are dealing with the case.

I have to say I don't think arguing over minor points in wording with regards to carriages which may contain more than one class of accommodation adds anything to the discussion or any help to the OP.

 

[maniacmartin]

It does sound like this piece of paper is just the authority that the passenger could show to furter members of staff if needed to be able to complete their journey, since the ticket was withdrawn.

The company will almost certainly be in touch in due course by writing, asking for your son's version of the events. Based on the reply that is given, along with the inspector's notes, they will decide whether to prosecute, settle out of court or drop the case. Note that prosecution departments can often have a quite a large backlog, so it may be several weeks or even months before they write. I presume your son gave them the correct name and address

 

[Shempz]

Not relevant.

Yes it is if that was the case here...as unlikely as it sounds.

e.g. a person buys a standard class ticket in advance from a A -> B.
When they arrive at the station to travel, they decide to change their plans, and travel by 1st Class instead. There are no ticketing facilities whatsoever at A, and surely therefore their 1st opportunity to buy a ticket would be on the train/at a connecting station or at their destination.

In that instance they would either buy a 1st class ticket from A -> B, or if it is allowed by the TOC, purchase an upgrade from standard to 1st.

 

[najaB]

Yes it is if that was the case here...as unlikely as it sounds....

The OP has already said that her son had no intention to travel in First, so in this particular case it is irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that they change their story?

 

[cottonsocks]

It does sound like this piece of paper is just the authority that the passenger could show to furter members of staff if needed to be able to complete their journey, since the ticket was withdrawn.

The company will almost certainly be in touch in due course by writing, asking for your son's version of the events. Based on the reply that is given, along with the inspector's notes, they will decide whether to prosecute, settle out of court or drop the case. Note that prosecution departments can often have a quite a large backlog, so it may be several weeks or even months before they write. I presume your son gave them the correct name and address

They didn't take his ticket though which was a standard return. So that's why we are puzzled about the slip of paper and not sure what to do. It looks like he has to wait for a letter. He isn't denying ending up in 1st class. He did not plan to be there though and isn't looking to use an excuse about not being able to buy a 1st class ticket.

 

[Deepgreen]

Many trains have first class carriages. Others have a mix of standard coaches and composite coaches. You are looking for issues which is why you misinterpreted it. It's pretty clear and unless you can provide some evidence of someone being fined for travelling in a standard section of a composite coach with a standard ticket you don't really have a point...

The point is that it is so badly written, like so much literature produced by the railways these days. It should simply have read "...in any part of the first class accommodation...".

 

[hounddog]

The point is that it is so badly written, like so much literature produced by the railways these days. It should simply have read "...in any part of the first class accommodation...".

Quite. We all know what it's *supposed* to mean. What it *actually says* is something else. I assume it was originally drafted when carriages were wholly first or second class (or maybe third) and wasn't updated with the advent of mixed coaches.

 

[Greenback]

Yes it is if that was the case here...as unlikely as it sounds.

I believe it's already been confirmed that this is not the case here, so it's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion and this thread.

 

[A-driver]

The point is that it is so badly written, like so much literature produced by the railways these days. It should simply have read "...in any part of the first class accommodation...".

I disagree. My reasons are that the evidence is clear-it has never caused any confusion and no ones ever been fined for sitting in a standard section of a composite coach with a standard ticket...

Carry on overthinking it though!

 

[455driver]

Yes it is if that was the case here...as unlikely as it sounds.

e.g. a person buys a standard class ticket in advance from a A -> B.
When they arrive at the station to travel, they decide to change their plans, and travel by 1st Class instead. There are no ticketing facilities whatsoever at A, and surely therefore their 1st opportunity to buy a ticket would be on the train/at a connecting station or at their destination.

In that instance they would either buy a 1st class ticket from A -> B, or if it is allowed by the TOC, purchase an upgrade from standard to 1st.

Can you point me to an example where that has been used successfully, either dealing with a TOC or actually in Court?

No, thought not!
The OP has come on this forum for advice, not peoples opinions being passed off as fact!

 

[jkdd77]

Can you point me to an example where that has been used successfully, either dealing with a TOC or actually in Court?

No, thought not!
The OP has come on this forum for advice, not peoples opinions being passed off as fact!

In *that* situation, the hypothetical passenger would clearly have a defence under byelaw 18, which is why there would be no reported court case. Furthermore, it would be difficult to prove fare evasion if the passenger has not previously had an opportunity to purchase the ticket he/she now requires for travel, given his/her change of travel plans. However, this is of limited relevance to the OP here.

I did wonder whether a passenger who very briefly passes through first class accommodation in order to visit the toilet, or to leave the train, might have a defence, but, again, I don't think the OP's son's situation is truly analogous.

Even if the OP's son was potentially able to argue that briefly moving in to first class in this manner and for this reason did not constitute "travel", the risk-reward ratio of letting it go to court and putting forward a NG plea is such that the prudent course of action would be to look to settle out of court.

Were I in the OP's son's position, I would prefer to pay £20, or even £80, to eliminate the possibility of prosecution, rather than face a prosecution with a 20% chance of my defence succeeding (probably an overestimate in this case) and an 80% chance of it failing and likely having to pay several hundred pounds.

 

[talltim]

Quite. We all know what it's *supposed* to mean. What it *actually says* is something else. I assume it was originally drafted when carriages were wholly first or second class (or maybe third) and wasn't updated with the advent of mixed coaches.

There have been composite coached for a very long time, doe with three classes of accommodation. The rule has certainly been revisited relatively recently, it refers to standard class

 

[Shempz]

The OP has already said that her son had no intention to travel in First, so in this particular case it is irrelevant. Unless you are suggesting that they change their story?

However if the OP's son got on at a station which had no ticketing facilities, then it is very relevant with regards to a PFN, and actually makes the fact their son did not intend to travel in 1st Class irrelevant. I can't recall the OP stating at what station his/her son boarded the train.

As I mentioned, its unlikely that they did board at a station with no ticketing facilities, but until we know for certain, we can't dismiss it.

 

[455driver]

However if the OP's son got on at a station which had no ticketing facilities, then it is very relevant with regards to a PFN, and actually makes the fact their son did not intend to travel in 1st Class irrelevant. I can't recall the OP stating at what station his/her son boarded the train.

As I mentioned, its unlikely that they did board at a station with no ticketing facilities, but until we know for certain, we can't dismiss it.

Did they though?
The rest of your post is sadly lacking in any legal detail.

 

[najaB]

However if the OP's son got on at a station which had no ticketing facilities, then it is very relevant with regards to a PFN, and actually makes the fact their son did not intend to travel in 1st Class irrelevant.

Had the OP's son taken a seat in 1st class immediately on boarding and attempted to purchase an excess to 1st class, having intended to travel in 1st class I could almost support your argument.

However none of this is the case so I can't support your suggestion to stretch the truth (to put it charitably) to avoid the Penalty Fare.

 

[gray1404]

Couldn't the RPI have issued a PF to be paid within is it 21 or 28 days? A passenger does not need to be able to pay the full £20 PF at the time do they do or otherwise loose their right to a PF?

 

[221129]

Couldn't the RPI have issued a PF to be paid within is it 21 or 28 days? A passenger does not need to be able to pay the full £20 PF at the time do they do or otherwise loose their right to a PF?

Although there is no right to PF so it can be revoked at any time.