Being taken to court

[Lauraxox]

Hello,

So, me and my friend are being taken to court by transport investigations Ltd for apparent 'fare evasion' in November me and my friend picked up out pre paid tickets from a machine at the station and waited for out train. Our train was announced delayed then a few minutes later a train pulled into the station that was travelling to out destination so we went over to a platform employer and showed him out tickets and asked if they were correct which he replied yes to so we boarded the train. Once the ticket inspector took our tickets he said they were invalid as we were on the wrong train and asked us to pay which I explained I didn't have the funds and gave him my details. A week after this occurred I went to London for a month to visit family so I returned to a letter offering me the opportunity to pay within 21 days which I had missed as I was in London for that time period. I have explained all this to transport investigations and the fact a employee told me it was the correct train and that it will be viable on cctv but they're still taking me to court.
Please any advice as I am absolutely terrified and have never been in trouble like this before. Also I have offered to pay them several times but they wont accept.

 

[CheesyChips]

Could you let us know the details of the journey and the ticket you held? Your start point and destination, time, train company etc. Perhaps there was something like "via SOMEWHERE" written on the ticket?

What was the operator of the train you boarded? This might be something like CrossCountry, Northern, Virgin

Do you remember what capacity the platform employee was working in? E.g were they manning a gateline?

Did the ticket inspector explain why your tickets were invalid? Did you remain on that same train until your destination?

 

[najaB]

If you can't remember exactly what the tickets said on them, the confirmation email would have most (if not all) of the information that we need. It would be useful if, as well as the information that CheesyChips asked for, you could tell us the type of ticket (e.g. Advance / Off-Peak), if there were any rail card discounts applied (e.g. Young Person / Two Together) and if you had that railcard in your possession at the time.

 

[island]

You may as well forget the CCTV at this stage as it'll have been overwritten by now. It's kept for less than a month. Even if it was retained, it will not record audio and cannot prove what you were told by the man on the platform.

 

[Lauraxox]

Could you let us know the details of the journey and the ticket you held? Your start point and destination, time, train company etc. Perhaps there was something like "via SOMEWHERE" written on the ticket?

What was the operator of the train you boarded? This might be something like CrossCountry, Northern, Virgin

Do you remember what capacity the platform employee was working in? E.g were they manning a gateline?

Did the ticket inspector explain why your tickets were invalid? Did you remain on that same train until your destination?

Hi,

It was a virgin train I had but we got on a CrossCountry, it was stated on the train tickets it was for the virgin train but in the rush of things we didn't check when the train approached and just asked the employee as we didn't want to miss our train. The tickets were for Durham to Doncaster at 8:38 on the 28th November. The employee was stood beside the train when it arrived (sorry I don't know what their job role is specifically)

Yeah, he explained that we had got on the wrong train which we both accepted and gave our details over as we had no funds. The ticket inspector came round just before our stop so we did

 

[Lauraxox]

If you can't remember exactly what the tickets said on them, the confirmation email would have most (if not all) of the information that we need. It would be useful if, as well as the information that CheesyChips asked for, you could tell us the type of ticket (e.g. Advance / Off-Peak), if there were any rail card discounts applied (e.g. Young Person / Two Together) and if you had that railcard in your possession at the time.

It was advance single from Durham to Doncaster for the 8:38 train on the 28th November. My friend had a railcard discount but I didn't and had a full advance single. It was for a virgin east train which we got onto a crosscountry after asking the station employer if it was the correct train.

 

[miami]

What does the letter say? Does it mention something about byelaws, or something about regulation of railways act 1889?

I'd be very surprised if t were the latter.

 

[Haywain]

What does the letter say? Does it mention something about bye laws, or something about regulation of railways act 1889?

I'd be very surprised if it were the latter.

Corrected that for you. I suspect auto-correct.

 

[najaB]

It was for a virgin east train which we got onto a crosscountry after asking the station employer if it was the correct train.

Thanks for that. The Guard on the train was correct that your tickets were invalid for that service. Of course, the issue you have is that you didn't know that and were told by someone on the platform that they would be.

And as a result you've ended up with a court summons.

It may not be too late to avoid a court date though. First thing first, contact VTEC to tell them that you didn't receive any previous correspondence and ask if they are willing to set aside the summons. In your letter/email (written correspondence is best), explain what happened and offer to pay the fare that is outstanding - they're human beings and will work with you to try and reach the best outcome.

I know you probably feel that it's unfair that you have to pay again, and I totally understand why you feel that way - but unless you can find the 'person on the platform' and they remember what happened some months ago there's no way to prove that you were told what you were told.

 

[Clip]

It was advance single from Durham to Doncaster for the 8:38 train on the 28th November. My friend had a railcard discount but I didn't and had a full advance single. It was for a virgin east train which we got onto a crosscountry after asking the station employer if it was the correct train.

And this would all boil down to what you asked the person on the platform then.

If you asked them if it was the train to Donny then they are obviously going to say yes.

 

[Lauraxox]

And this would all boil down to what you asked the person on the platform then.

If you asked them if it was the train to Donny then they are obviously going to say yes.

I asked him if the ticket I had whilst showing him was valid for the train that had arrived at the station

 

[sheff1]

First thing first, contact VTEC to tell them that you didn't receive any previous correspondence and ask if they are willing to set aside the summons.

As they were on a Cross Country Train with a Virgin ticket, I would have thought it was XC who would be pursuing the fare before moving on to the summons. I don't see what Virgin Trains East Coast could do to set it aside.

 

[Lauraxox]

Thanks for that. The Guard on the train was correct that your tickets were invalid for that service. Of course, the issue you have is that you didn't know that and were told by someone on the platform that they would be.

And as a result you've ended up with a court summons.

It may not be too late to avoid a court date though. First thing first, contact VTEC to tell them that you didn't receive any previous correspondence and ask if they are willing to set aside the summons. In your letter/email (written correspondence is best), explain what happened and offer to pay the fare that is outstanding - they're human beings and will work with you to try and reach the best outcome.

I know you probably feel that it's unfair that you have to pay again, and I totally understand why you feel that way - but unless you can find the 'person on the platform' and they remember what happened some months ago there's no way to prove that you were told what you were told.

Yeah exactly,

I'll try contacting them and hope for the best! Yeah I've sent a few letters saying the exact same situation and offering to pay countless of times which I've taken copies of and the fact I was away from the property for the 21 day period which I have witness to

 

[Lauraxox]

As they were on a Cross Country Train with a Virgin ticket, I would have thought it was XC who would be pursuing the fare before moving on to the summons. I don't see what Virgin Trains East Coast could do to set it aside.

Sorry I think I've caused some confusion, it was Cross-country that sent the first letter for payment then they passed it onto Transport investigations to pursue and they are the ones that have sent court summons.

 

[najaB]

As they were on a Cross Country Train with a Virgin ticket, I would have thought it was XC who would be pursuing the fare before moving on to the summons. I don't see what Virgin Trains East Coast could do to set it aside.

D'oh! Sorry, yes I meant XC - got the operators muddled.

 

[Lauraxox]

Thanks for that. The Guard on the train was correct that your tickets were invalid for that service. Of course, the issue you have is that you didn't know that and were told by someone on the platform that they would be.

And as a result you've ended up with a court summons.

It may not be too late to avoid a court date though. First thing first, contact VTEC to tell them that you didn't receive any previous correspondence and ask if they are willing to set aside the summons. In your letter/email (written correspondence is best), explain what happened and offer to pay the fare that is outstanding - they're human beings and will work with you to try and reach the best outcome.

I know you probably feel that it's unfair that you have to pay again, and I totally understand why you feel that way - but unless you can find the 'person on the platform' and they remember what happened some months ago there's no way to prove that you were told what you were told.

Yeah exactly, sorry I think I've caused a bit of confusion, the ticket I had was for a Virgin train but I got on the cross country and they have now passed the matter onto Transport investigations who are taking me to court. I've offered to pay countless of times but they are adamant I was trying to avoid paying

And this would all boil down to what you asked the person on the platform then.

If you asked them if it was the train to Donny then they are obviously going to say yes.

I asked him if the ticket I had was for the train that arrived into the station whilst showing him my ticket which he said yes to

 

[John Palmer]

'They are adamant I was trying to avoid paying' suggests that Transport Investigations Ltd may be contemplating a prosecution under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act. The basis on which avoidance of payment is being alleged isn't clear to me (is it because there was no reply within 21 days to the offer to accept payment?), but since the OP says that her own attempts to achieve a settlement have so far failed, I suggest she should treat herself as being under imminent threat of prosecution for a serious criminal offence, and that she would probably benefit from some professional legal assistance at this stage in an attempt to avert such an outcome.

I am surprised that there has been no comment about the OP's statement that the train for which she evidently held a valid Advance ticket was delayed. In these circumstances the terms of Virgin Trains East Coast’s Passenger Charter become relevant:

"Looking after you when services are delayed
Despite our best efforts, sometimes there may be delays to your journey. When this happens we will always do everything we can to minimise the disruption to you. As soon as we know what is happening we'll let you know, and ensure we update you with the latest information at regular intervals. Our staff will provide information and assistance to help you find the best options to complete your journey with the minimum of delay and inconvenience."

I take it from the OP's account that she approached a member of station staff at Durham, her point of departure. The station is managed by Virgin Trains East Coast, implying that the staff member to whom she spoke was employed by that company. She says: "I asked him if the ticket I had was for the train that arrived into the station whilst showing him my ticket which he said yes to." Insofar as that is germane to any criminal charge she faces, it is not for her to prove that this was the substance of that conversation; rather the burden lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not. But in any event, the appropriate staff response to her enquiry was either to confirm that arrangements had been made for the Cross Country train to accommodate delayed Virgin passengers such as her, if such were the case, or, if it were not, to draw to her attention the fact that the Advance ticket she held was not valid for travel on the Cross Country train. It appears that she did not receive the 'information and assistance' from Durham station staff to which she was entitled under the Charter, with the consequence that she was induced to board the Cross Country train and thereby expose herself to risk of prosecution. I suggest that these are matters that ought to be brought to Virgin Trains' attention by way of formal complaint, in parallel with whatever action the OP decides to take regarding the threatened prosecution on behalf of Cross Country.

 

[najaB]

The station is managed by Virgin Trains East Coast, implying that the staff member to whom she spoke was employed by that company.

Not necessarily. It could, potentially, have been the cleaner or a random stranger who happened to be wearing a uniform that resembled the VTEC one. I don't believe that it was, but it would be up to the OP to state specifically who it was she spoke to - 'a man on the platform' just doesn't cut it.

She says: "I asked him if the ticket I had was for the train that arrived into the station whilst showing him my ticket which he said yes to." Insofar as that is germane to any criminal charge she faces, it is not for her to prove that this was the substance of that conversation; rather the burden lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not.

Erm... no. If my defence is based on the content of a conversation, it is up to me to prove that the conversation actually occurred - usually by calling the other party as a witness. It is, generally speaking, impossible for either party to provide evidence of the content of a conversation that they hold never happened.

 

[Lauraxox]

Not necessarily. It could, potentially, have been the cleaner or a random stranger who happened to be wearing a uniform that resembled the VTEC one. I don't believe that it was, but it would be up to the OP to state specifically who it was she spoke to - 'a man on the platform' just doesn't cut it.
Erm... no. If my defence is based on the content of a conversation, it is up to me to prove that the conversation actually occurred - usually by calling the other party as a witness. It is, generally speaking, impossible for either party to provide evidence of the content of a conversation that they hold never happened.

I am 100% certain it was someone of authority that I asked.

I completely understand, my friend was with me at the time so she would be able to confirm exactly what happened and what was said. My main issue with this is the fact I have offered to pay several times and explained why I didn't in the 21 days given which I have evidence and witness for but they won't let me and keep saying I've avoided to pay which I never once have it was just unfortunate I didn't have the funds on me at the time which was the whole reason I bought a advance ticket to start with.

 

[najaB]

I completely understand, my friend was with me at the time so she would be able to confirm exactly what happened and what was said.

That is good and may work in your favour.

My main issue with this is the fact I have offered to pay several times and explained why I didn't in the 21 days given which I have evidence and witness for but they won't let me and keep saying I've avoided to pay which I never once have it was just unfortunate I didn't have the funds on me at the time which was the whole reason I bought a advance ticket to start with.

Get in contact with Cross Country Trains (XC), assuming that is who you are dealing with. Explain to them that you didn't receive any of their previous correspondence - they actually would prefer to settle out of court as they get 100% of any settlement, where they don't if it is a court fine.

 

[Lauraxox]

That is good and may work in your favour.
Get in contact with Cross Country Trains (XC), assuming that is who you are dealing with. Explain to them that you didn't receive any of their previous correspondence - they actually would prefer to settle out of court as they get 100% of any settlement, where they don't if it is a court fine.

I've already wrote to them asking to pay the full amount which I got no response to & it was then passed onto transport investigations which I've also offered several times to pay but they refuse to accept and keep saying they're going forwards with prosecution even though I've explained everything to them and the last letter I received was saying they are waiting to confirm a court date. I really don't know what to do now as I feel all my efforts and my reasons to this are just not being taking into account whatsoever

 

[John Palmer]

A random stranger, eh? Might it not be more constructive to adopt the premise that the OP approached a member of staff she took to be in a position to provide an accurate response to her enquiry? To require a passenger 'to state specifically who it was she spoke to' involves an impractical obligation to check such a person's credentials. The absence of appropriate 'information and assistance' from VTEC in accordance with its Charter doesn't 'cut it' either.

If a defence is based upon the content of a conversation then it is one that will not be entertained until such time as the Defendant (or another witness) gives evidence that it took place. If such a conversation would be sufficient to secure an acquittal, the burden then falls on the prosecution to satisfy the court so that it is sure that the conversation relied upon did not take place. There may be a dispute as to whether any such conversation took place at all, or, if it did, as to its content. If the evidence conflicts and a reasonable doubt remains, then that doubt must be resolved in favour of the defendant. That was the sense I had intended to convey, and I had hoped it was was clear from the terms of my post. Obviously this was not the case, and for that I apologise.

 

[najaB]

A random stranger, eh? Might it not be more constructive to adopt the premise that the OP approached a member of staff she took to be in a position to provide an accurate response to her enquiry? To require a passenger 'to state specifically who it was she spoke to' involves an impractical obligation to check such a person's credentials. The absence of appropriate 'information and assistance' from VTEC in accordance with its Charter doesn't 'cut it' either.

As I said, I believe that the OP approached a staff member, but it is up to them to provide evidence that they did so. Otherwise anyone could just claim 'the man on the platform' gave them permission and we might as well give up on selling tickets entirely. I agree that if the conversation occurred as the OP states then they should not be prosecuted for acting on the advice they reasonably believed to be correct.

If a defence is based upon the content of a conversation then it is one that will not be entertained until such time as the Defendant (or another witness) gives evidence that it took place.

The OP has already posted here, and in her correspondence with both XC and TIL that such a conversation did occur.

If such a conversation would be sufficient to secure an acquittal, the burden then falls on the prosecution to satisfy the court so that it is sure that the conversation relied upon did not take place.

Sorry, but no. If the OP is unable to say who the conversation occurred with then how is it possible for the prosecution to establish that the conversation did not occur? How can anyone prove that the conversation didn't occur? The best they can do is say that there is no evidence that it did happen, but that isn't the same thing.

There may be a dispute as to whether any such conversation took place at all, or, if it did, as to its content. If the evidence conflicts and a reasonable doubt remains, then that doubt must be resolved in favour of the defendant.

I may be completely wrong here, but if the defence is predicated on the occurrence of event X, then the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that X actually happened. If the only evidence that the defendant provides is to say "X happened" then there is no reason to doubt the prosecution's case.

 

[Lauraxox]

I agree that if the conversation occurred as the OP states then they should not be prosecuted for acting on the advice they reasonably believed to be correct.The OP has already posted here, and in her correspondence with both XC and TIL that such a conversation did occur.
Sorry, but no. If the OP is unable to say who the conversation occurred with then how is it possible for the prosecution to establish that the conversation did not occur? How can anyone prove that the conversation didn't occur? The best they can do is say that there is no evidence that it did happen, but that isn't the same thing.

I don't know if this would help whatsoever but I've rang Virgin and requested CCTV footage from them for the time the incident occurred and the date, platform etc. (I also wrote it in a email as well for written proof which I've printed) which I've had a response back saying it's only kept for 30 days. Will any of this help me? I'm truly trying my best to prove that the conversation took place but everything seems no use, my friend can confirm the conversation took place but will this help whatsoever?

 

[najaB]

I don't know if this would help whatsoever but I've rang Virgin and requested CCTV footage from them for the time the incident occurred and the date, platform etc. (I also wrote it in a email as well for written proof which I've printed) which I've had a response back saying it's only kept for 30 days. Will any of this help me? I'm truly trying my best to prove that the conversation took place but everything seems no use, my friend can confirm the conversation took place but will this help whatsoever?

CCTV will almost certainly have been deleted months ago. Having your friend confirm the conversation does help, however.

The question I have though is if you're being prosecuted because of the events on the day, or because (for whatever reason) the TOC didn't receive your initial correspondence and are treating it as as if you had failed to respond.

If it is the latter, then it doesn't matter what your friend witnessed.

 

[miami]

Lauraxox, it would be really helpful if you can say if the letters you've received refer to "prosecution under section 18 of the Railway Byelaws" or "prosecution under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, are you both being prosecuted, and both for the same reason?

 

[Lauraxox]

deleted
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lauraxox, it would be really helpful if you can say if the letters you've received refer to "prosecution under section 18 of the Railway Byelaws" or "prosecution under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, are you both being prosecuted, and both for the same reason?

In the letters I've received it keeps referring to Bye law year 1889 and National railway Bye law 2005 bye law 18? Sorry I'm not much use at the moment just I don't have all the paper work in front of me but they keep highlighting 'Fare evasion' on every letter, I'll double check all this though when I get home.

Yes she is
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

CCTV will almost certainly have been deleted months ago. Having your friend confirm the conversation does help, however.

The question I have though is if you're being prosecuted because of the events on the day, or because (for whatever reason) the TOC didn't receive your initial correspondence and are treating it as as if you had failed to respond.

If it is the latter, then it doesn't matter what your friend witnessed.

I believe it's just for fare evasion (sorry not sure under what bye law exactly etc as I haven't got the paperwork infront of me) as they keep highlighting it in letters to myself every time I explain the situation

 

[najaB]

In the letters I've received it keeps referring to Bye law year 1889 and National railway Bye law 2005 bye law 18? Sorry I'm not much use at the moment just I don't have all the paper work in front of me but they keep highlighting 'Fare evasion' on every letter, I'll double check all this though when I get home.

If it is a Byelaw prosecution then it's a good news, possible bad news situation.

The good news is that even if you were found guilty, you wouldn't receive a criminal record.

The possible bad news is that the Byelaws are what are known as strict liability offences - this means that all that XC has to prove is that you were on the train with an invalid ticket. Your defence would depend 100% on proving that you were given permission to board the train with the ticket you held.

 

[Lauraxox]

If it is a Byelaw prosecution then it's a good news, possible bad news situation.

The good news is that even if you were found guilty, you wouldn't receive a criminal record.

The possible bad news is that the Byelaws are what are known as strict liability offences - this means that all that XC has to prove is that you were on the train with an invalid ticket. Your defence would depend 100% on proving that you were given permission to board the train with the ticket you held.

I've just double checked and believe it is definitely bye law 18.1 or 18.2

Suppose that's gave me some sort of hope then as that's what I was most concerned about!

All I can say in my defence is that my witness would be my friend as they were with me and they no longer have CCTV, I don't even have a description of who it was I asked as I didn't think it would be necessary as I believed what they had said was accurate

 

[miami]

Basically the bylaws are sort of like a parking ticket*. You're technically guilty by not having a valid ticket (There are a few exceptions, and you do have an exception as you were given permission to board, but you have to prove that), but aside from having to pay the fine nobody really cares too much**

The Regulations of railway act 1889 is far more serious. It's harder for the railway to prove you've broken it, but the consequences are more serious (including a criminal record).

* Some parking tickets
** It might harm some types of immigration cases into some countries

In the latter case it may well be worth talking to a solicitor.