Summons by Northern Rail..Advice Needed Please

[455driver]

It doesn't. It doesn't matter why the OP ended up with an Off-Peak ticket, what matters is that they didn't pay the excess when it was requested.

Very true, what I meant was the reason she ended up with the 'wrong' ticket in the first place.

You are of course correct and this thread smacks of a head buried in the sand hoping the incident would go away.

The OP should have been in possession of a Peak ticket but only had an Off Peak (for whatever reason), all that needed to be paid was the difference in the price of the two tickets, Northern sent a letter requesting the payment of the difference but the OP felt that this was unfair and didn't pay it meaning the incident has now escalated out of all proportion.

The £2.40 is still outstanding so the OP is still in debt to Northern for (at least) that amount.

 

[najaB]

I think everyone deserves their day in court. If you believe that you are not guilty of an offence then you shouldn't be forced to accept guilt and be criminalised because of it.

Nobody has said that the OP doesn't have the right to their day in court. What we are telling her is that should she choose to make use of that right she will be found guilty as the Court doesn't rule based on what the defendant believes but rather on the facts which are presented. And in this case the fact is that she boarded a train with the incorrect ticket. That was a minor infraction which she was given the opportunity to correct by paying the difference - £2.40. Everything that has followed is a consequence of not availing herself of that offer.

Buying tickets should not be a case of caveat emptor.

Why not? What's special about train tickets that absolves the purchaser of any responsibility for ensuring that they are buying the correct ticket and frees them from any liability for the consequences of buying the wrong one? Especially as the only thing that was initially requested was the difference in fare between the two tickets.

We have started to let people with off peak tickets on the platform but we do let them know that they are not allowed to board.

Why should they not be let onto the platform? There are toilets and a coffee shop on the Manchester bound platform, are you saying you should only be allowed to use those facilities if your ticket is valid on the next train?

 

[DaleCooper]

Buying tickets should not be a case of caveat emptor. We have started to let people with off peak tickets on the platform but we do let them know that they are not allowed to board.

At my local station passing through the barriers gives access to seven platforms with trains of five different TOCs going to I don't know how many destinations, some with peak time restrictions others without, is it for the gate staff to hold passengers back until five minutes before their train is due just in case they catch the wrong one.

 

[ComUtoR]

Why should they not be let onto the platform? There are toilets and a coffee shop on the Manchester bound platform, are you saying you should only be allowed to use those facilities if your ticket is valid on the next train?

No, What I am saying is that previously we have not let those with off peak tickets through the barriers. Some of the tickets will not be accepted by the gates either. Only recently have we let people on to the platform but they are specifically told that they are not allowed to board.

By telling people they are not allowed to board then it places the onus on the passenger to travel with a valid ticket. The TOC has informed the passenger that their ticket isn't valid. As the OP states. If they knew in advance then they would have waited.

 

[najaB]

No, What I am saying is that previously we have not let those with off peak tickets through the barriers. Some of the tickets will not be accepted by the gates either. Only recently have we let people on to the platform but they are specifically told that they are not allowed to board.

That makes sense at terminal stations where the facilities are before the gateline, it makes a bit less sense where the facilities are beyond the gateline.

 

[6Gman]

I have just telephoned the expensive 0870 number to see if there is way to bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion.
I talked to a very young sounding lady who told me that my options are to pay £102.40 settlement to them or go to court and plead not guilty.

Is the age or gender of the person with whom you spoke relevant?

 

[ComUtoR]

That makes sense at terminal stations where the facilities are before the gateline, it makes a bit less sense where the facilities are beyond the gateline.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Our facilities are behind the gateline. The gate refuses the tickets.

I'd argue that it is dependent on the station. If the barrier refuses the ticket then I would say that the right to access the platform is not clear.

One of the reasons why people often want their day in court is to show that its not always clear cut and that their actions were genuine. If the TOC deliberately obfuscates ticketing validity then intent is hard to prove and you shouldn't be criminalised for genuine error. If the outcome was that the OP was found guilty, as expected, but it was found that the passenger should be informed and that policy should be added/amended so that a passenger is ASKED if they wanted off peak or not then that is a victory in itself.

If I was to buy a ticket online then it gives me the options. If the accusations are that TOCs overcharge but now do the reverse by offering the lowest fair but still unsuitable ticket then the issue still remains that passengers are clearly sold the wrong ticket.

If caveat emptor is allowed to apply and, as you rightly say, the railway is not a special case, then selling the highest priced ticket should be totally allowed.

 

[najaB]

One of the reasons why people often want their day in court is to show that its not always clear cut and that their actions were genuine.

I don't doubt that the OP in this case was genuine - they had what they thought was a valid ticket. The problem is that they didn't and were given the opportunity to rectify the situation paying the difference in fare. The court isn't going to be concerned with why the OP had the wrong ticket, but rather with their actions after it was detected.
The prosecution isn't as a result of having the wrong ticket, but rather for failing to pay the excess fare that was due.

To use an analogy (I know, they rarely work) it's like going into a restaurant to take advantage of the £10 lunchtime offer, but not realising that the offer isn't valid on Fridays. When the bill comes and it's £15 would you be justified in paying £10 and walking off?

If the TOC deliberately obfuscates ticketing validity then intent is hard to prove and you shouldn't be criminalised for genuine error.

Again, intent wasn't inferred by the actions on the day, but rather by the OP's lack of response after the fact.

Going back to my analogy above - the restaurant manager lets you leave because you only have £10 on you, but gets your address to post you an IOU. Are you justified in ignoring the IOU when it arrives?

If the outcome was that the OP was found guilty, as expected, but it was found that the passenger should be informed and that policy should be added/amended so that a passenger is ASKED if they wanted off peak or not then that is a victory in itself.

I think that's known as a Pyrrhic victory.

If I was to buy a ticket online then it gives me the options. If the accusations are that TOCs overcharge but now do the reverse by offering the lowest fair but still unsuitable ticket then the issue still remains that passengers are clearly sold the wrong ticket.

If caveat emptor is allowed to apply and, as you rightly say, the railway is not a special case, then selling the highest priced ticket should be totally allowed.

They'll be dammed either way - if they offer Anytime tickets then they are accused of ripping people off, if they sell an Off-Peak ticket then they'll be accused of setting people up for a fail.

 

[snail]

An interesting read.

This mess could have easily been avoided by the ticket office at Piccadilly asking what time the OP was intending to travel back. Then again, she could have read the posters put up by Northern at both stations and on trains making it clear that off peak tickets are not valid on journeys within Greater Manchester starting and finishing between 16.01 - 18.29.

Even for infrequent rail travellers there are enough warnings that you need a valid ticket. The passenger has to take some responsibility for checking they have one.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

One of the reasons why people often want their day in court is to show that its not always clear cut and that their actions were genuine.

Yes, that is a reason for some people to enter that arena. But even if the outcome for you lesleypallmall does include that recognition, your sense of satisfaction will be private, short lived, and in the greater scheme of your life, probably quite trivial. That's what was in my mind when I told you that there are some principles worth taking a risk for, but this isn't one of them. I'm sure you are concerned about several more important matters that need to be reformed, even at the risk of individuals incurring costs in Court (think of end-of-life-care, exploitation of the vulnerable, investment fund fraud as examples).

Anyway, if lesleypallmall, you did want to choose an issue to which you would risk being a martyr, and if that was to do with railway ticketing, then I'm sure that ComUtoR and I and others on here would offer you real practical support. But I would also hope that when choosing a cause, that you wouldn't choose one where the issues before the Court was a couple of pounds outstanding for a journey during the 'peak' with an off-peak ticket, and where the Company had already offered you an opportunity to pay that minor difference, and where through neglect, distraction or more serious diversions, you did not actually participate in the dialogue offered to you, because those failures to engage simply muddy the waters of the crucial issue, and muddy it so very badly that it becomes 'lost' in that silent passage of time while the costs escalated and you said and did nothing.
If you really want to make that point of principle than might be noticed in the future, then here's what you must do: Do it again, get proper written statements, and then go straight for a prosecution; when you lose, Appeal. That might make a difference. And might justify you feeling rather pleased with yourself for some time!

If the outcome was that the OP was found guilty, as expected, but it was found that the passenger should be informed and that policy should be added/amended so that a passenger is ASKED if they wanted off peak or not then that is a victory in itself.

But that is not an option for you, lesleypallmall. This will be heard in a Magistrates Court, where the decision has absolutely no bearing on any other person now or in the future. Yet another reason for focussing on the facts of the matter and a sense of perspective - not any wider principle.

But as I, najaB, bb21 and others have said: please don't.

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't doubt that the OP in this case was genuine - they had what they thought was a valid ticket.

I have been in that situation. A TOC sold me the incorrect ticket. I investigated and was told that I would have to accept PFN etc and it would be down to me to appeal and it gets sorted out after. Whilst I don't believe that is fair (correct one this time) I have little choice but to accept caveat emptor.

The problem is that they didn't and were given the opportunity to rectify the situation paying the difference in fare. The court isn't going to be concerned with why the OP had the wrong ticket, but rather with their actions after it was detected.

I have no doubt that the OP would be found guilty.

The prosecution isn't as a result of having the wrong ticket, but rather for failing to pay the excess fare that was due.

The prosecution is a result of having the wrong ticket initially but came from escalation as the OP did not respond to the TOC, for their own reasons. Failing to pay the excess is aiming to show intent as it assumes that if you accept you had the wrong ticket in error then it is reasonable to pay for the correct fare (phew got it right that time)

Again, intent wasn't inferred by the actions on the day, but rather by the OP's lack of response after the fact.

That is down to the prosecution to prove. The idea of court is to argue your case. If you believe that you should not be paying an excess because you were incorrectly sold in the first place then court is the best place to do that.

I think that's known as a Pyrrhic victory.

But still a victory none the less. It would also affect other passengers and maybe bring balance to the force ticketing system.

They'll be dammed either way - if they offer Anytime tickets then they are accused of ripping people off, if they sell an Off-Peak ticket then they'll be accused of setting people up for a fail.

Exactly. So maybe they should be asking people rather than making an assumption. Issues like this would no longer exist. If McDonalds can say "want fries with that" how hard is it to say "off peak or on ?"

As to your analogy. I eat out a lot. I have been charged one price when I thought the special offer was still on. I informed the waitress that we were seated and ordered whilst the offer was on and I only choose that restaurant because of the offer. She accepted that we were seated and charged the lower price.

When I eat out, and this is prevalent in Indian restaurants, If something is automatically added to the table (such as Raita) Why should I be charged for it ? I never ordered it. It is because people have successfully complained that this practice is being stamped out. Same with "water" Now people are aware that you can get tap water for free a restaurant will usually ask if you want tap water or bottled. If only I could get them to stop automatically charging me for the refillable rather than selling me a single glass of coke.

As you say, why should the railway be different ? Passengers should be better informed when buying a ticket.

 

[sheff1]

This mess could have easily been avoided by the ticket office at Piccadilly asking what time the OP was intending to travel back.

The NRCoC are explicit

12. Restrictions on when you can travel
Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets (including those bought with a Railcard) in addition to/other than those in Condition 10 above such as the dates, days, and times when you can use them, and the trains in which they can be used. These restrictions will be made clear to you by the seller when you buy your ticket.

Unfortunately ticket sellers break these conditions every day of the week with impunity, which then leads to this sort of mess.

The issue in this specific case, though, is that even when things were explained later the OP apparently did not accept she had the wrong ticket and did not take up the offered opportunity to regularise matters.

 

[ComUtoR]

But that is not an option for you, lesleypallmall. This will be heard in a Magistrates Court, where the decision has absolutely no bearing on any other person now or in the future. Yet another reason for focussing on the facts of the matter and not a wider principle.

That is interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

For further clarification. I haven't suggested to the OP that they should have their day in court and martyr themselves for any cause. Respectfully, this is a forum and whilst the advice to the OP has been quite clear and wholly sensible I don't believe that it should go unsaid that the attitude is one of suck it up and swallow it is right.

I read this part of the forum and whilst the advice when someone is guilty is there to genuinely mitigate potential costs and stress there is just as many stating that sometimes it is worth going to court for some of the smallest of things and people have been successful.

I do see the TOC's just getting away with it because its easier to plead guilt than challenge. I read here that a lot of advice given is just to settle out of court as the expense isn't worth it. Morally people do want their day in court and that is also important.

Just because its better to settle out of court (which I haven't denied) Doesn't justify implying that others are wrong when they say that a day in court and fighting for what's right can be worth it. Just because its cheaper and easier doesn't automatically make it right.

When I was mis-sold a ticket if I was "caught" then I would have certainly gone all the way to court. Granted I would have not ignored the TOC's letters.

I think the best advice is never to ignore the letters. Even if you do not pay you should maintain dialogue.

 

[najaB]

As to your analogy. I eat out a lot. I have been charged one price when I thought the special offer was still on. I informed the waitress that we were seated and ordered whilst the offer was on and I only choose that restaurant because of the offer. She accepted that we were seated and charged the lower price.

Thank you, that was exactly the response I was hoping for - the point being that you engaged with the restaurant staff and came to a mutually agreeable solution. That is the course of action that lesleypallmall should have followed. Had she done so then there wouldn't now be a court summons, and it's also possible that Northern may have waived the excess as a goodwill gesture.

The court is not going to be concerned with the right or wrong of why she ended up on a train during peak time, with an off-peak ticket but with the fact that she did nothing to regularise the situation.

Hindsight is, as they say, 20:20.

 

[Realfish]

The NRCoC are explicit


Unfortunately ticket sellers break these conditions every day of the week with impunity, which then leads to this sort of mess.

The issue in this specific case, though, is that even when things were explained later the OP apparently did not accept she had the wrong ticket and did not take up the offered opportunity to regularise matters.

That is an issue, but the one that has exercised the OP most as I read it is that whatever ticket she held, in presenting that ticket and being allowed through the gateline at Bolton, she believes, quite reasonably in my view, that she was given permission to travel, by a servant of the TOC, on the train that she did.

That the gateline staff at Victoria, or their supervisors, did not, it seems, seek to properly resolve the issue there and then has made the matter worse

I'm not absolving the OP from her own subsequent actions - and she ought to be cognisant of Dave's advice - but I do have some sympathy for her position.

 

[najaB]

That is an issue, but the one that has exercised the OP most as I read it is that whatever ticket she held, in presenting that ticket and being allowed through the gateline at Bolton, she believes, quite reasonably in my view, that she was given permission to travel, by a servant of the TOC, on the train that she did.

Were it a small, provincial station with one or two trains per hour and no facilities on the platform I would agree. However, as was pointed out up-thread, it was not unreasonable for the gateline staff to allow the OP onto the platform area even if their ticket wasn't valid for the next train to depart as that is where waiting room, the toilets and the coffee shop are located.

 

[ComUtoR]

The court is not going to be concerned with the right or wrong of why she ended up on a train during peak time, with an off-peak ticket but with the fact that she did nothing to regularise the situation.

So the OP is being prosecuted for failing to respond to a letter or for failing to have the correct ticket ?

The matter was escalated due to the inaction.

Why people choose to ignore the letters is quite frankly beyond me. I do understand why people will fight to the bitter end over what we may consider to be trivial.

There are just as many complaints over a few quid and where dialogue is maintained it often goes in favour of the passenger along with an apology and some vouchers too.

There is currently one worth mentioning where a forumite is fighting to the bitter end and whilst I don't agree with their actions and like Dave will point out, it is often futile and expensive, they do believe its worth it. I think we have to be mindful that it may be trivial to us to others it is important.

Back to the analogy. Some would consider that arguing the toss over a few quid on a meal is also just as trivial.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was not unreasonable for the gateline staff to allow the OP onto the platform area even if their ticket wasn't valid for the next train to depart as that is where waiting room, the toilets and the coffee shop are located.

Not unreasonable no but as I pointed out it is just as reasonable to be told that your ticket may not be valid for travel. If the gate refuses the ticket but the member of staff allows that to be circumvented in the interests of customer service and allowing access to station facilities then who is in the wrong ?

 

[najaB]

So the OP is being prosecuted for failing to respond to a letter or for failing to have the correct ticket ?

The root cause was not having the correct ticket. However, if they had engaged with Northern when the initial letter was sent there would likely have been cause for prosecution.

Not unreasonable no but as I pointed out it is just as reasonable to be told that your ticket may not be valid for travel. If the gate refuses the ticket but the member of staff allows that to be circumvented in the interests of customer service and allowing access to station facilities then who is in the wrong ?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are barriers at Bolton?

 

[Realfish]

Were it a small, provincial station with one or two trains per hour and no facilities on the platform I would agree. However, as was pointed out up-thread, it was not unreasonable for the gateline staff to allow the OP onto the platform area even if their ticket wasn't valid for the next train to depart as that is where waiting room, the toilets and the coffee shop are located.

How do you know that? That's another straw man argument not dissimilar to your contribution on other live discussions on this board ('They may have a second person who reported that they heard the OP say he boarded at Ashton'....'(a parking ticket) could have been borrowed, 'it's been done before'...'post hoc fallacy') to the point of obtuseness. People come on here looking for advice not to be trolled, because najaB that's what it's beginning to feel like.

If the OP presented her ticket and was allowed past the gateline, if what you say is true she could have expected some advice, because while your assertion is conjecture, the role and responsibilities of the gateline assistant is not. Northern require their gateline staff, in their words to;

Acting as the face of Northern Rail, our Customer Service Assistants, Gateline Operators and Train Dispatchers ensure that our customers have the information and support they need at all times. Working in our station you’ll give practical advice on journey times, delays, tickets, fares, and reservations, as well as maintaining the appearance and safety of our stations at all times. In the role of Gateline Operator you will ensure that Northern’s interests in terms of revenue are achieved through pro-active monitoring of the gate line facility.

The revenue protection responsibilities require gateline staff to ensure that passengers are travelling with the appropriate ticket and take action when they are not.

Once again I'm not absolving the OP for her errors in the way that she responded to this. But I have sympathy for her.

 

[snail]

The NRCoC are explicit

These restrictions will be made clear to you by the seller when you buy your ticket.

Does a large poster at the station stating that travel between 1601 and 1829 on an off peak ticket is not allowed comply with this condition? (I don't know whether there is such a poster at the ticket office in Piccadilly but there are posters elsewhere in the station). If the OP had been asked when buying the ticket when she was coming back what if she had said "Oh, about half past six"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are barriers at Bolton?

There is a manual gateline at the entrance to the overbridge most of the day.

Looking at the OP again I do have some sympathy for the OP. If she arrived at Victoria with "about 15 mins of Peak Time to go" she must have been at Bolton station before 6pm as the journey takes around 20 minutes. That does sound early enough for gateline staff to give a polite warning about her ticket not being valid until 6.30.

 

[SussexMan]

Does a large poster at the station stating that travel between 1601 and 1829 on an off peak ticket is not allowed comply with this condition? (I don't know whether there is such a poster at the ticket office in Piccadilly but there are posters elsewhere in the station). If the OP had been asked when buying the ticket when she was coming back what if she had said "Oh, about half past six"?

Surely it isn't that difficult to work out that "what if". How about...

"I can sell you the cheaper off-peak ticket but that isn't valid on trains prior to 6:30pm so if you want to return before 6:30pm you'll need to buy the anytime return."

 

[najaB]

Once again I'm not absolving the OP for her errors in the way that she responded to this. But I have sympathy for her.

Sorry to disappoint you but: a) I don't rise to ad hominem posts; and b) I also have sympathy for the OP being on a peak-time arrival with an off-peak ticket. However, and I think I may be repeating myself, the reason she finds herself with a court summons is because she didn't engage with Northern when they gave her the chance. £2.40 would have solved it, and a letter to customer services may even have gotten that back.

All the points that are being raised about the responsibility of ticket sellers and gateline staff would be relevant in that forum, they will have zero impact on the outcome of a court case.

 

[island]

I really do think people are dragging so many irrelevant matters into this thread and giving the OP false hope.

To reiterate the facts and matters of the case as I understand them:

1. The OP travelled on a train from Bolton to Manchester without having previously paid the fare.
2. Recognising that the appropriate treatment of the OP was to request an excess fare under NRCoC 12, the TOC invited her to pay such a fare.
3. The OP failed or refused to pay such a fare.
4. The TOC invited her to pay a higher amount to settle the matter in view of the time it and its agents had spent on the case.
5. The OP failed or refused to pay such an amount or any amount.
6. The TOC has formed the view that the failure to pay the fare when demanded indicates the intent to avoid the payment thereof.
7. The TOC therefore proposes to prosecute the passenger for travelling on a train without having previously paid the fare and with intent to avoid the payment thereof, contrary to S5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Such a prosecution is bound to succeed.

Non-useful advice includes:

• Restaurant analogies – which are irrelevant, as failing to pay a restaurant bill (where there is a genuine dispute about the amount to pay and the customer leaves a valid name and address) is a civil matter and not a criminal matter
• Suggestions that the passenger had been implicitly authorised to travel by a non-specific member of staff at Bolton – irrelevant as it is s18 Railway Byelaws offences that admit the defence that the passenger was permitted to travel by an authorised person, and additionally it will be difficult or impossible to prove any such authorisation.
• Suggestions that the ticket has been mis-sold, the TOC has failed to comply with its website/the NRCoC/etc. – irrelevant as they do not provide a defence to the criminal offence.
• Suggestions that the TOC's staff have failed or refused to comply with their job descriptions – irrelevant, as that is a matter of the contract between the TOC and its staff.

The OP is earnestly advised to pay the amount now asked of £102.40 to avoid the matter going to court. Recent court stories indicate that the total payable after a conviction is often in excess of £600 — and this is a criminal matter. If the OP feels strongly that the amount being demanded is excessive, the route to follow would be to request it be abated and fully or partially refunded through the customer service department of the TOC in question – after paying and ensuring the prosecution is stopped.

On the other hand, if the OP wants her day in court and is willing to pay the £500+ more that it will cost, it is for her to decide.

 

[najaB]

Restaurant analogies – which are irrelevant, as failing to pay a restaurant bill (where there is a genuine dispute about the amount to pay and the customer leaves a valid name and address) is a civil matter and not a criminal matter

I'm guilty of introducing the restaurant analogy, but it wasn't in any way meant or intended to be applicable to the criminal case, merely to explain why the OP should have paid the excess in the first place.

 

[lesleypallmall]

I have been reading through all of the replies to my post and would like to clarify the reasons that I didn't respond to the letters sent by Northern Rail prior to the Summons.
Both letters were opened and read in one sitting.
The later dated letter said " offence are as follows: you travelled from Bolton to Manchester Victoria without paying the fare and with the intent of avoiding that fare"
" This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £80".
As I read it, I had to admit to being a "Fare Dodger" or go to court. How disgraceful!
I didn't feel the need to telephone them with apologies and payments, I hadn't tried to dodge anything.

 

[221129]

I have been reading through all of the replies to my post and would like to clarify the reasons that I didn't respond to the letters sent by Northern Rail prior to the Summons.
Both letters were opened and read in one sitting.
The later dated letter said " offence are as follows: you travelled from Bolton to Manchester Victoria without paying the fare and with the intent of avoiding that fare"
" This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £80".
As I read it, I had to admit to being a "Fare Dodger" or go to court. How disgraceful!
I didn't feel the need to telephone them with apologies and payments, I hadn't tried to dodge anything.

That does however appear to be your best way forward. Unless you want to go to court (and almost certainly be found guilty) and pay a lot more with a criminal record to go alongside.

 

[najaB]

I didn't feel the need to telephone them with apologies and payments, I hadn't tried to dodge anything.

I understand that you didn't deliberately set out to dodge anything. But I hope you can appreciate that from Northern's point of view they have attempted to collect the underpayment for the journey you actually had taken, and you didn't reply.

Please don't let your legitimate complaint about being sold the wrong ticket (or being allowed on the wrong train) become conflated with the fact that there was and still is a debt, and it's almost certain that you will be found guilty if you let this go to court.

There is still time to pay the settlement amount they offered and you can then pursue your complaint without incurring a criminal record.

 

[455driver]

If, when you opened both letters (what dates are on the letters) you had rung Northern and explained the situation I am 90% certain they would have accepted the fare due and that would have been the end of it.

But you decided to ignore the letters and the matter has now escalated, by ignoring the letters requesting the difference in the fare paid and the actual fare due (which would have cost you the same, as if you had purchased the correct ticket to start with) you are a fare dodger, you are attempting to avoid the part fare of £2.40 which is due.

Look on the original letter as an invoice and the second letter as an invoice plus costs and you are getting somewhere.

 

[island]

I have been reading through all of the replies to my post and would like to clarify the reasons that I didn't respond to the letters sent by Northern Rail prior to the Summons.
Both letters were opened and read in one sitting.
The later dated letter said " offence are as follows: you travelled from Bolton to Manchester Victoria without paying the fare and with the intent of avoiding that fare"
" This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £80".
As I read it, I had to admit to being a "Fare Dodger" or go to court. How disgraceful!
I didn't feel the need to telephone them with apologies and payments, I hadn't tried to dodge anything.

Thing is, as you didn't pay the excess when requested, in the eyes of the law you are a fare Dodger. I repeat, swallow your pride and pay up unless you want to wind up owing a lot more.

 

[bb21]

I will be blunt here.

Both letters were opened and read in one sitting.

Not the train company's problem. You should have been aware that there may be correspondence from Northern due since your details were taken.

The later dated letter said " offence are as follows: you travelled from Bolton to Manchester Victoria without paying the fare and with the intent of avoiding that fare"
" This notice offers you the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty of £80".
As I read it, I had to admit to being a "Fare Dodger" or go to court. How disgraceful!
I didn't feel the need to telephone them with apologies and payments, I hadn't tried to dodge anything.

Yet you still have not paid the correct fare for your journey (ie. the additional £2.40). You may not have tried to dodge anything at the beginning, your actions after it was pointed out to you that an excess fare was due says otherwise, and in a court of law, "intent" is not determined by what was going on in your head, but interpreted through your actions.

As I said before, while I have sympathy that you made an incorrect assumption (ie. that you assumed that you were given implicit permission, which is something you may like to take up with the Customer Service department of the train company if you so wish), the facts of the case as far as railway legislation is concerned is clear. The £2.40 component of their demand is a criminal matter.

I think you are letting your heart rule your head, and I sense that there is nothing we can do to change that.