facing court twice for the same journey

[stuartyoung]

Due to website problems with virgineastcoast, I was unable to get the free ticket for travel from my rewards Re:eastcoast. I attempted to purchase a ticket from Edinburgh to Stevenage about 10 days before I wanted to travel. The site kept crashing and apologising to rewards customers who may be affected. Still having trouble with booking I thought it best to buy an advance ticket a few days before travelling. The site kept crashing everytime it got to the payment page. I missed a ticket from Ladybank- stevenage at around £45. I attempted again and the same again but this time £66 Edinburgh- stevenage. I boarded a train at ladybank 530am 31st July 2015, and asked for a single to edinburgh. £12 and my card was declined, i had spok en to the guard about my problem before. he issued me an unpaid fare notice. Got to Edinburgh about 6am and went straight to virgin east coast office, where he could offer no help and his manger would not be in for a few hours. I had been awake for three days by this point! he gave me the customer services number to call. I said i will just jump on the train and sort it out on my way home. He said go for it!. Stated problem to guard on the next train and after about 30 minutes she came back and gave me an unpaid fare notice and asked me what station I wAS TRAVELLING TO. She said she could only do peterborough or london. I opted for London. £145. I managed to stay awake and allighted the train at peterborough, it was another hour or so before the next virgineastcoast train to stevenage. I boarded the next train going to stevenage. By sandy two ticket inspectors asked for my ticket, so i showed them the unpaid fare notice. They said it was not valid and would have to pay a penalty fare , I refused, as the unpaid fare notice, was to london. including my details. Which were on the notice i had originally handed them. Anyhow I am in Cambridge magistrates court under reg18 and 24. any advice welcome.

 

[najaB]

Due to website problems....

Let me see if I've understood your post correctly:

1. Your intended journey was Ladybank to Stevenage.
2. You boarded an Edinburgh-bound train at Ladybank at 0513 and your card declined on the train. You received an unpaid fare notice for this journey.
3. On arrival at Edinburgh you went to the VTEC office but weren't able to purchase a ticket.
4. You were told to board the train and purchase on board.
5. You boarded a VTEC train that was bound for London, but it wasn't scheduled to call at Stevenage.
6. You weren't able to purchase on board and received a second UFN - this time for £145 for an Edinburgh-London journey.
7. You alighted at Peterborough and boarded a VTEC train that did stop at Stevenage but were then asked to pay a Penalty Fare as you didn't have a ticket from Peterborough to Stevenage.

If this is correct then some comments and questions follow.

Point 2: This is the correct course of action. You cannot be prosecuted for boarding without a ticket as there isn't (as far as I know) a ticket machine, and the ticket office was not yet open.

Point 3: Why were you unable to purchase a ticket?

Point 4: Were you actually told to board without a ticket, or did you tell the staff member that you intended to do so? If you were unable to purchase a ticket at Edinburgh, how did you expect to be able to purchase one on the train?

Point 7: VTEC don't (to the best of my knowledge) operate a penalty fare scheme. What were you actually asked to pay?*

Edit: *See MikeWh's post below.

 

[MikeWh]

You alighted at Peterborough and boarded a VTEC train that did stop at Stevenage but were then asked to pay a Penalty Fare as you didn't have a ticket from Peterborough to Stevenage.

Point 7: VTEC don't (to the best of my knowledge) operate a penalty fare scheme. What were you actually asked to pay?

It might be a wild guess but VTEC trains calling at Stevenage are quite rare compared to GTR trains calling at Stevenage. GTR do operate penalty fares.

 

[najaB]

It might be a wild guess but VTEC trains calling at Stevenage are quite rare compared to GTR trains calling at Stevenage. GTR do operate penalty fares.

Ah, I mis-read the OP as having waited for the next VTEC train. Your reading makes more sense.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it a UFN from one TOC doesn't necessarily entitle the holder to travel on a second TOC's service. If the OP had waited for the next VTEC train they would have been fine. Is this correct?

 

[stuartyoung]

I boarded a great northern train at peterborugh. where i was given a penalty fare after showing them my previous unpaid fare notice which states to london, that was £140. I was under the impression that cover me until I got to stevenage.

 

[221129]

I boarded a great northern train at peterborugh. where i was given a penalty fare after showing them my previous unpaid fare notice which states to london, that was £140. I was under the impression that cover me until I got to stevenage.

No it doesn't.

 

[najaB]

I boarded a great northern train at peterborugh. where i was given a penalty fare after showing them my previous unpaid fare notice which states to london, that was £140. I was under the impression that cover me until I got to stevenage.

Presumably then it is GTR who are prosecuting you. This simplifies things considerably:

1. You boarded a GTR train from Peterborough without a ticket, which had both ticket vending machines and an open ticket office
2. You refused to pay the penalty fare when requested.

Again, a few comments follow:

Point 1: This is a violation of Byelaw 18.
Point 2: This is a violation of Byelaw 24.

Advice: You need to explain to GTR that you mistakenly believed the UFN from VTEC covered your journey and ask them to set aside the prosecution if you pay the ticket cost and a contribution to their costs so far.

 

[221129]

On a side note, did you pay the UPFNs ?

 

[jkdd77]

Is there anything online, or in any other publications, relating to UFNs only being valid by the TOC which issued it? I can't find anything, except that the pictures of UFNs found online bear no reference to any TOC-only restrictions, and the only information I can find says that UFNs act as authority to travel to the destination station listed on the ticket.

Logically, if a UFN is intended to be for, and represent, an Anytime Single, then it ought to take the T & Cs of that ticket, taking account of NRCoC Condition 10. If the UFN is a ticket within the meaning of the NRCoC, then, again, any TOC-only restrictions must be stated on the UFN in order to be enforceable.

Since the PF was presumably cancelled prior to prosecution, and since the OP is not being charged with fare evasion, the question of whether the UFN was valid for the journey made is not strictly relevant, albeit I think that, unless the TOC-only restriction, or any purported BoJ restriction, was made clear to the OP at the time the UFN was issued, or printed on the UFN itself, it was in fact valid.

The OP is charged under byelaw 18, with byelaw 24 merely stating that breaches of byelaw 18 are an offence. There is a defence under byelaw 18 if no purchase facilities were available at the station, at the time of travel, from which a defendant commenced their journey.

The OP's journey was from Ladybank to Stevenage, with the changes of trains at Edinburgh and Peterborough not constituting a BoJ. Therefore, if Ladybank didn't have any ticket purchasing facilities at the time of travel, and, based on the information on NRE, I don't think it did, he/ she is not guilty of the offence charged and should plead not guilty.

 

[najaB]

Logically, if a UFN is intended to be for, and represent, an Anytime Single, then it ought to take the T & Cs of that ticket, taking account of NRCoC Condition 10.

That is an assumption that I wouldn't be prepared to depend on without written confirmation that it is correct.

As I understand it - and I'm happy to be corrected - a UFN is effectively a promissory note between the TOC that issues it and the passenger. I have difficultly with the suggestion that the passenger is entitled to take advantage of the T&Cs of a ticket that they haven't yet bought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The OP's journey was from Ladyback to Stevenage, with the changes of trains at Edinburgh and Peterborough not constituting a BoJ. Therefore, if Ladybank didn't have any ticket purchasing facilities at the time of travel, and, based on the information on NRE, I don't think it did, he/ she is not guilty of the offence charged and should plead not guilty.

Again, as I understand it, to apply Condition 19 of the NRCoC you need to be in posession of both tickets before arriving at the split point. If you do not then it should be treated as two separate journeys.

 

[furlong]

Have you paid both the Unpaid Fares Notices and did you do that promptly?

Going only on what you stated here, it could indeed be worth getting advice from a local solicitor to see if a reasonable defence could be raised. There appear to be complexities here affecting both sides and I'm not sure that it would be sensible to discuss them in a public forum.

 

[DaleCooper]

The thread title is "facing court twice for the same journey". Does this refer to the two offences being dealt with at Cambridge or is there another court case?

 

[stuartyoung]

I found this on the SRA below, would this mean that the UFN from VTEC, shoild of stopped me getting a penalty fare on the great northern, or even being given a penalty fare from Ladybank or Edinburgh?

(2)The full single fare applicable in the case of a person
charged a penalty fare while travelling by, being present on
or leaving a train, having travelled on or having been
present on a preceding train, is the full single fare in respect
of a journey from the station (in this regulation referred to
as “the first boarding station”), at which that person
boarded the preceding train, to the next station at which
the train by which he is travelling or on which he is present
is scheduled to stop, or, where that person is leaving the
train at a station, that station.

I have been trying to deal with vtec to avoid prosecution on both counts. I have an email from vtec that all I needed to do was book my ticket and it would show up as free (rewards from eastcoast.co.uk), The site crashed ten days on the trot. let alone trying to pay for an advance ticket.

 

[najaB]

The OP is charged under byelaw 18, with byelaw 24 merely stating that breaches of byelaw 18 are an offence.

There is also 24. (2) (iii)

No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.

The OP has said that they refused to pay the PF when requested.

 

[jkdd77]

That is an assumption that I wouldn't be prepared to depend on without written confirmation that it is correct.

As I understand it - and I'm happy to be corrected - a UFN is effectively a promissory note between the TOC that issues it and the passenger. I have difficultly with the suggestion that the passenger is entitled to take advantage of the T&Cs of a ticket that they haven't yet bought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Again, as I understand it, to apply Condition 19 of the NRCoC you need to be in posession of both tickets before arriving at the split point. If you do not then it should be treated as two separate journeys.

Any rail ticket represents a token of a contract entered into for travel by rail.

In the case of a UFN, this contract for travel formed between the passenger and the TOC which issued it is subject to a condition and promise to pay the fare due at a later date (as specified), and I believe that it constitutes a ticket within the meaning of the byelaws, the franchise agreements, and the NRCoC.

Under the franchise agreements, and the NRCoC, the TOC which issues any ticket, other than a TOC-only ticket, valid for travel on National Rail services,
does so on behalf of all TOCs, which are obliged to accept the inter-available ticket for travel on their services.

Condition 19 has nothing to do with it, except that it helpfully makes clear that one journey is still only one journey even when covered by multiple tickets. The passenger has made one journey, commencing from a station with no ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel.

 

[najaB]

Condition 19 has nothing to do with it, except that it helpfully makes clear that one journey is still only one journey even when covered by multiple tickets. The passenger has made one journey, commencing from a station with no ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel.

Condition 19 has to come into play because at no point on the day has the OP said they attempted to buy a single ticket to cover their whole journey. They intended to use two tickets.

 

[stuartyoung]

there is another court case with VTEC in doncaster

 

[jkdd77]

There is also 24. (2) (iii)The OP has said that they refused to pay the PF when requested.

This is not relevant since the inspector had no legal power, whether under the byelaws or under "any other enactment", to demand immediate payment of the PF, which was arguably invalid, and which has now been cancelled in any case.

Failure to pay a PF immediately may constitute evidence of fare evasion (of which the OP is not charged), but is not an offence in its own right.

 

[DaleCooper]

Failure to pay a PF immediately may constitute evidence of fare evasion (of which the OP is not charged), but is not an offence in its own right.

The OP didn't fail to pay they refused to pay.

 

[najaB]

I believe that it [an unpaid fare notice] constitutes a ticket within the meaning of the byelaws, the franchise agreements, and the NRCoC.

I acknowledge that it might do just that, but cannot in good conscience advise the OP to depend on that possibility when they have already been summonsed to appear in court. Do you know of any definitive source which you can use to confirm your belief?

 

[jkdd77]

Condition 19 has to come into play because at no point on the day has the OP said they attempted to buy a single ticket to cover their whole journey. They intended to use two tickets.

The OP's intent is completely irrelevant to a byelaw 18 charge; the courts will not be concerned with what might have happened but didn't, or with tickets that might have been purchased but weren't. All that matters is:
1) Whether the UFN was contractually valid for the journey made; if so, the case is dismissed immediately; if not;
2) At which station did the OP commence his/ her journey by rail; clearly, based on the NRCoC, and, more importantly, based on the railway byelaws, this is Ladybank;
3) Whether Ladybank had purchase facilities at the time at which the OP started his/ her journey.

Byelaw 24(2)(iii) does *not* create an criminal offence of failing, or refusing, to pay a PF, which in itself is a civil matter, and the Penalty Fare Regulations 1994 and Penalty Fare Rules 2002 make clear that a passenger issued with a PF is not required to pay it all immediately. Byelaw 24 does not mean that railway staff can demand full payment of an alleged debt on the spot; failing, or refusing, to pay may be a separate offence under other legislation, but is not a byelaw matter.

 

[stuartyoung]

I asked on the first train (ladybank to stevenage) for a ticket to stevenage which he could not do, but proceeded with a single to edinburgh. my card was declined with more than enough funds for the whole the whole journey and probably a little spare.

 

[najaB]

2) At which station did which the OP started his journey by rail; clearly, based on the NRCoC, and, more importantly, based on the railway byelaws, this is Ladybank.

My understanding is that if I board a train at Ladybank and ask for a ticket to Edinburgh then my journey ends on arrival at Edinburgh, regardless of what journey I may subsequently make.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Byelaw 24(2)(iii) does *not* create an criminal offence of failing, or refusing, to pay a PF, which in itself is a civil matter...

Agreed. The fact that a Byelaw 24 charge has been raised makes one wonder exactly what happened on the day. Only the OP and the RPI know for sure.

 

[30907]

Another matter that needs clarifying is - what did the OP ask for at Edinburgh that caused problems? Can't imagine in normal circumstances a single to Stevenage would require a manager to issue - was their card declined again?

 

[gray1404]

This case raises the issue of TOCs making up their own rules when it comes to UPFNs. Some TOCs will "say" it is only valid on their services and others won't. Some will only issue it for travel on the said train the passenger is currently on and others will issue it to cover an entire journey. This is clearly wrong.

My view is that an UPFN should be issued for the journey being made by the passenger. I would argue that the Train Manager was wrong to say she could only issue it to Peterborough or London. It should have been issued to their final destination. I would actually say that the first guard issuing it should have done this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was the passenger trying to use a "Solo"/"Electron" type card, which are poorly accepted by various parts of the railway?

If so, could they not have withdrawn cash to pay for the ticket instead? There are multiple cash machines at Edinburgh Waverley.

 

[najaB]

I would actually say that the first guard issuing it should have done this.

The OP said that he attempted to pay for a ticket to Edinburgh. The guard issued a UFN for the journey the OP was attempting to make at the time.

 

[30907]

My view is that an UPFN should be issued for the journey being made by the passenger. I would argue that the Train Manager was wrong to say she could only issue it to Peterborough or London. It should have been issued to their final destination. I would actually say that the first guard issuing it should have done this.

If by the first guard you mean the Scotrail guard, then they were only asked for a ticket to Edinburgh.

 

[DaleCooper]

Would the VTEC guard have been able to sell a ticket or can they only issue a UFN?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I can't make out how much you actually paid for the ticketless journey you took?

I agree that there might be scope for legal argument in Court, but as it may go either way (based on the fragments discosed here), and will not come without a cost, I'm not sure that a balanced evaluation of the probabilities would favour contesting it.
To make a proper evaluation, we;d want to see what Evidence the Company had (which I guess includes your admission of ticketless travel), and what Evidence you have (which I guess includes an unconfirmed conversation and some unfortunate but irrelevant experiences with your internet connection to a ticketing system).

The thread title is "facing court twice for the same journey". Does this refer to the two offences being dealt with at Cambridge or is there another court case?

Two alleged offences:-

. . . I am in Cambridge magistrates court under reg18 and 24.