• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

fare dodger hit with £886 fine

Status
Not open for further replies.

341o2

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
2,014
The Bournemouth Echo has this story:

A MAN who failed to pay a £2.50 rail fare has been slapped with costs and fines totalling £886.50 after the case was taken to court.

Joshua Green, 26, of Bargates in Christchurch, travelled on a South West Trains service on May 31 2015, but didn't have a valid ticket for the trip.

As a result, the case was eventually handed to magistrates in Bournemouth, and a charge of travelling on a railway without paying a fare was proved in his absence on December 22.

Green was fined £540 for the offence, will pay compensation costs of £2.50, a £54 victim surcharge, costs of £140 and a criminal courts charge totalling £150.

Just two days after the defendant was convicted, the controversial criminal courts charge was scrapped by the government.

The charge is a mandatory, non-means tested fee ranging from £150 to £1,200 for convicted criminals.

Green's case was one of more than 25 relating to allegations of offences onboard trains brought before the magistrates court on just one day.

Scott Fincher, 41, of Gainsborough Avenue in New Milton, faces a fine of £440, compensation costs of £3.10, a £44 victim surcharge, costs of £140 and a criminal courts charge totalling £150 after travelling on a train without paying a fare of £3.10.

The charge was again proved in his absence.

Warren Rolfe, 19, of Pear Close in Poole, failed to pay a £2.30 rail ticket, and will now pay out a total of £886.30 after the charge of travelling on a railway without paying fare was proved in his absence.

Matthew Sparke-Egan failed to pay £7.50 when he travelled on a South West Trains service on May 31 2015.

The 46-year-old, of East Campbell Street in Glasgow, now faces costs and fines totalling £781.50.

In total, the cases of 11 people accused of failing to pay their rail fare were brought before magistrates, although several were adjourned.

Other charges before the court on the same day relate to failing or refusing to hand over a valid ticket not in a designated compulsory ticket area.

The cases of eight defendants charged under the bylaw were brought before the court.

Among them was Julian Belton of Hawkwood Road in Bournemouth.

The 42-year-old was convicted of the offence in his absence.

He was fined £220, will pay £4 in compensation, a £22 victim surcharge, costs of £140 and a £150 criminal courts charge.

A further eight defendants are accused of boarding a train in a non-compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket, including Peter Gaffney, 42, of Belle Vue Road in Bournemouth.

The charge, proved in his absence, relates to a journey made on May 29 2015 in Christchurch.

He will pay out a total of £317.30 by January 12 after a collection order was made by magistrates.

Finally, one man was charged with occupying a reserved seat without a valid ticket.

The case has been adjourned until a later date.

A spokesperson from South West Trains said all fines imposed are decided by magistrates.

"Every year, the honest majority of passengers are deprived of millions of pounds worth of potential improvements to their train services as a direct result of deliberate fare evasion," he said.

“It is a basic principle of rail travel in the UK that passengers must buy a valid train ticket before starting their train journey. Along with other train operators, South West Trains takes a firm but fair approach to dealing with those without a valid ticket.

"We will continue to work with the rest of the industry to tackle this serious issue."

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14196648.Man_who_dodged___2_50_rail_fare_is_hit_with___886_fine/?action=success#comment_15203447

Apparently the fare was only a few pounds, the preson chose not to pay (presumably) and to ignore a court summoons which is probably why the fine is now so large
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
I wonder what

"Finally, one man was charged with occupying a reserved seat without a valid ticket."

Could refer to.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,583
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is a Byelaw penalty for this I believe, though it's the first time I heard of it being applied. I'm assuming he likely refused to move when requested by the reserver and guard.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,110
Location
Redcar
There is a Byelaw penalty for this I believe, though it's the first time I heard of it being applied. I'm assuming he likely refused to move when requested by the reserver and guard.

There is indeed:

19. Classes of accommodation, reserved seats and sleeping berths

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

Source

Not that I've ever heard of it being used before! One assumes they dramatically failed the attitude test...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,110
Location
Redcar
Occupying a 1st Class seat with a standard ticket?

Perhaps but's its the mention of 'reserved' that makes we wonder because if they were just in a 1st class seat then surely that's what the article would have said (or words to that effect)?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,708
Location
Scotland
You're assuming the newspaper report is accurate, not something I would rely on.
Oh, I rarely accept newspaper reports at face value, but it would be very odd indeed for a story that was about a fare dodger to then talk about another fare dodger by mentioning travelling in a reserved seat. Much easier to say "John Brown was also found guilty of fare dodging."
 

tony6499

Member
Joined
27 Sep 2012
Messages
914
I wonder of all those convicted in their absence might appear on the forum here asking what to do ? It seems that there was a crackdown on people not responding to the summons papers
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
. . . It seems that there was a crackdown on people not responding to the summons papers
I don't get that impression. This seems a quite typical turn out for a session in the Magistrates', in terms of proportions of no-shows, 'guilty' pleas and 'not guilty' pleas (which will be those that were adjourned).

There is a significant number of people who fall into 2 categories :-
- they are the sort of person who is likely to avoid paying for goods and services if they think they can get away with it;
. . and,
- they are the sort of person who would not bother to attend the court when they don't get away with it.

The irony in this report is in the imposition of the awful Criminal Court Charge which ran for 8 months last year and was lifted just 2 days after the reported session. None of the parties would have had notice of that intent to abolish the charge when the date of the hearing was set.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,609
Location
Isle of Man
Then they would just call him a fare dodger.

I think the motivation for prosecution was the lack of a valid ticket, but if they're an arse about it and take a reserved seat they're not entitled to then the TOC may as well go the whole hog and get them for that too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
None of the parties would have had notice of that intent to abolish the charge when the date of the hearing was set.

Was the charge charged on date of conviction, or date of first hearing? If the former, I'm amazed more lawyers didn't try and get a hearing adjourned/deferred until after the horrible charge had been abolished.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,821
I don't get that impression. This seems a quite typical turn out for a session in the Magistrates', in terms of proportions of no-shows, 'guilty' pleas and 'not guilty' pleas (which will be those that were adjourned).
.

Indeed and the problem is is that TOCs and local rags dont seem overly keen on publishing this sort of stuff which I think they should as it makes more of an impression to those who do and will try it on.
 

Realfish

Member
Joined
15 Aug 2012
Messages
272
I wonder what

"Finally, one man was charged with occupying a reserved seat without a valid ticket."

Could refer to.


I'm assuming it means 'without a valid reservation' and as NW says they refused to move.

In BR days the seat reservation label always carried the warning of a £ penalty for occupying the seat without reservation
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
Re: Criminal Courts Charge.
Was the charge charged on date of conviction, or date of first hearing? If the former, I'm amazed more lawyers didn't try and get a hearing adjourned/deferred until after the horrible charge had been abolished.
It was applied to the sentence on the date of conviction.
As I tried to say above, none of the parties would have know that it was about to be abolished two days before hand, so there would have been no opportunity for a Defendant or their legal representative to try to avoid the Charge.
(Equally, I know that many Magistrates would have been equally content to have avoided imposing the Charge, which was widely resented, and if they had known that it was about to be abolished, they might even have 'assisted' a short delay, simply to avert the need to impose it).

Indeed and the problem is is that TOCs and local rags dont seem overly keen on publishing this sort of stuff which I think they should as it makes more of an impression to those who do and will try it on.
Yes, and would assist with the apparent public mis-perception that a buying a ticket before travel is an option without consequences.
 
Last edited:

crehld

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2014
Messages
1,994
Location
Norfolk
Indeed and the problem is is that TOCs and local rags dont seem overly keen on publishing this sort of stuff which I think they should as it makes more of an impression to those who do and will try it on.

Actually this sort of thing (and not just limited to railway offences) gets reported in local papers all the time, the problem is it's very obscure and often hidden amongst a myriad of other 'public notices' which very few people pay attention to. Of course readership of local newspapers is also extremely low, which will only further serve to obscure this sort of reporting. It's only when these cases make the national headlines that they have any real impact on public awareness.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, and would assist with the apparent public mis-perception that a buying a ticket before travel is an option without consequences.

A mis-perception which, unfortunately, some TOCs have actively reinforced by giving the impression it is OK to buy on board and not before you travel.

Indeed, only yesterday I witnessed an RPI issue an off-peak day return with Senior Railcard discount applied to a passenger who would have bypassed an open ticket office and a number of operational TVMs.
 
Last edited:

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,152
South West Trains don't do seat reservations so being prosecuted for occupying a reserved seat does seem rather strange.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
How many words is that story? Slow news day in Bournemouth!
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,329
I wonder of all those convicted in their absence might appear on the forum here asking what to do ? It seems that there was a crackdown on people not responding to the summons papers

Nope, it is normal for SWT to basically book a Court for either a full day or half a day to get them all done, the prosecutions unit it is quite a busy department! ;) :lol:
 

SWTCommuter

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2009
Messages
353
South West Trains don't do seat reservations so being prosecuted for occupying a reserved seat does seem rather strange.

That was my first thought too. Cross Country also serve Bournemouth so it would be interesting to know if the offender was on a Voyager and refused to move for a reservation that wasn't displayed.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,294
South West Trains don't do seat reservations so being prosecuted for occupying a reserved seat does seem rather strange.

Byelaw 19 covers this, I think:

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class...

So sitting in first without an appropriate ticket?
 
Last edited:

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,305
Byelaw 19 covers this, I think:



So sitting in first without an appropriate ticket?

Seems likely, from 2011:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=54211
I have been issued with a summons to appear at the magistrates court. I sat in First class with a standard ticket as the train was crowded and I was feeling unwell. I offered to pay the fine but was told I would be cautioned instead. The summons says I occupied a seat, berth or train when a notice indicated that it is reserved for a specific ticket holder contrary to section 19 of the Railway Byelaws".

That said, I wonder what the definition of "remain" is in
"no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice"

Is it acceptable to walk through? How about stopping to let someone past? What if you're walking through but then the exit door is blocked, so you walk back and that exit door is also blocked?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
South West Trains don't do seat reservations so being prosecuted for occupying a reserved seat does seem rather strange.
Byelaw 19 is used to capture passengers travelling in First Class accomodation on a Standard class ticket.

Byelaw 19 covers this, I think:

So sitting in first without an appropriate ticket?
That's right.
 

Class377

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
444
Similarly (thought I'd tag it on to here as it's another large court fine, rather than start a new thread);

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...tried-dodge-paying-ticket-cost-just-2-70.html

A passenger has been fined almost £800 after he was caught without a train ticket - that would have cost just £2.70.

XXXXXX XXXXXX, of Exeter, Devon, was found guilty of travelling on a Great Western Railway train in Paignton, south Devon, in June with intent to avoid paying the fare.

Torbay magistrates fined the 49-year-old £550 and ordered him to pay £215 costs - and the £2.70 fare in compensation.

That's a total of £767.70 due to the court, much more than the £2.70 it would have cost him for the journey in the south west.

XXXXXX was one of 19 passengers who were ordered to pay a total of nearly £12,000 in fines and costs by the court this week.

Most were for not paying low-priced fares while travelling on Great Western Railway trains.

Eighteen-year-old XXXXXX XXXXXX from Paignton was stopped at Newton Abbott and found without a ticket for carriage, that would have cost £6.70.

She was ordered to pay £656.70 by the court.

And 28-year-old XXXXXX XXXXXX was stopped at Torquay train station without a valid ticket. What would have cost her £4.50 for the journey ended up costing a lot more as the court fined her a total of £406.50.

(I've taken the names out in case these people don't want their names showing up everywhere!)

Like with SWT, I assume this isn't a crackdown but rather a typical group of cases for a TOC?

I did like the following part of the article though;

The Citizens Advice Bureau warns that if you travel by train without a valid ticket, you could be charged a penalty fare.

Correct, but rather missing the point that these people went to court and got massive fines :lol:
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
8,579
Location
Crayford
Why censor the names?
Indeed. I can't see RailUK doing more damage to their reputations than the Daily Mail already has done.

I did like this quote from a GWR spokesman:
'While it would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases suffice it to say that we have to follow due process and always attempt to deal with matters without court action.

'However, should individuals not respond to us the matter is referred to the criminal court process. Where a penalty fare is issued the passenger is written to and offered the opportunity to pay or to appeal the fine; a subsequent reminder is sent (after 28 days), and then it is largely taken out of our hands and into the court process.

'To be consistent for all those travelling the rules are the same regardless of the fare amount and are determined by national conditions of carriage.

'It is the Courts decision and we would respect that decision. I think it is also worth pointing out that the 'fine' in these instances is determined by the court, not by any train operator.'

So the penalty fare is a fine, but the proper court imposed fine is only a 'fine'. No wonder ordinary people don't understand the terminology. However, it's good to see the declaration that they treat court as the last resort.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,848
Location
Epsom
Why censor the names?

Agree.

If the court has released the names for publication, then there is no reason not to publish the names. The more widely published the names are, the greater the deterrent factor against further potential fare dodgers.
 

crehld

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2014
Messages
1,994
Location
Norfolk
Agree.

If the court has released the names for publication, then there is no reason not to publish the names. The more widely published the names are, the greater the deterrent factor against further potential fare dodgers.

They're a matter of public record anyway!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top