facing court twice for the same journey

[jkdd77]

An authorised collector may lawfully *request* that a PF is paid immediately, but has no right to issue an instruction to that effect. Similarly, a collector may request additional information such as date of birth, NI number, phone number, but has no right to issue an instruction that such additional information (over and above name and address) be given, (nor to detain if, having correctly given their name and address, a passenger refused to give this additional information), and it would not be an offence under byelaw 24, or any other legislation, for a passenger to refuse to give their NI number.

Byelaw 25, defining the word "ticket", states:

“ticket” includes...[snip]
(ii) any permit authorising the person to whom it is issued to travel on a train provided by an Operator (whether or not it also authorises that person to make a journey on a train provided by another railway undertaking),
(iii) an authority to travel on a train provided by an Operator subject to a condition that payment of the correct fare for the person using that authority on which it is used is made during or at the end of that journey or otherwise as provided by the terms applicable to its use

I believe that it is clear that an UFN meets (ii), (iii), or both, and hence is a "ticket" within the meaning of railway byelaws.

 

[DaleCooper]

Two alleged offences:-

Yes, I can read.

 

[jkdd77]

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).

Two alleged offences:-

The "admission of ticketless travel" is surely irrelevant, given that the OP's origin station, Ladybank, had no ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel, so this was not an offence. The OP's journey by rail, having started at Ladybank, ended when he/ she left railway premises, which presumably did not occur at Edinburgh or at Peterborough, but rather at Stevenage.

I agree that the supposed difficulties in purchasing a ticket is also largely irrelevant, but I am really struggling to see how the magistrates could possibly convict in this case, given that there is a crystal-clear defence under byelaw 18(3)(i).

(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;

 

[najaB]

...given that there is a crystal-clear defence under byelaw 18(3)(i)...

By the interpretation that there was a single Ladybank to Stevenage journey. However, an alternative view is that their Ladybank-Edinburgh journey (which they attempted to buy a ticket for) ended when they arrived at Edinburgh.

 

[stuartyoung]

thank you so much for all your replies. I am in Cambridge mags tomorrow morning. So glad I still have the scotrail UFN in my wallet! They have not contacted me at all. I am in doncaster 17th march.

I do have other mitigating circumstances which hopefully I would not have to air.

Will let you all know what happens tomorrow.

and thanks again

stuart

The "admission of ticketless travel" is surely irrelevant, given that the OP's origin station, Ladybank, had no ticket purchase facilities at the time of travel, so this was not an offence. The OP's journey by rail, having started at Ladybank, ended when he/ she left railway premises, which presumably did not occur at Edinburgh or at Peterborough, but rather at Stevenage.

I agree that the supposed difficulties in purchasing a ticket is also largely irrelevant, but I am really struggling to see how the magistrates could possibly convict in this case, given that there is a crystal-clear defence under byelaw 18(3)(i).

 

[jkdd77]

By the interpretation that there was a single Ladybank to Stevenage journey. However, an alternative view is that their Ladybank-Edinburgh journey (which they attempted to buy a ticket for) ended when they arrived at Edinburgh.

Such an interpretation would be incorrect.

As is made clear by the NRCoC, a change of trains does not constitute a break or termination of journey, and buying a ticket for only part of a journey does not mean that the journey ended at that station (which, in the case of a 19(c) split at a non-stopping station, may be impossible in any case).

 

[John Palmer]

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.

I read the emboldened passages in the OP as indicating that two distinct UPFNs were issued: Ladybank to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to London. Have I got that right?

 

[stuartyoung]

I read the emboldened passages in the OP as indicating that two distinct UPFNs were issued: Ladybank to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to London. Have I got that right?

yes, Ufn's on both the first trains. first one at 0540 vtec about 7amish

 

[gray1404]

For me, this comes down to one question, was the UPFN issued for travel to London was valid for travel to Stevenage. This may end up being the saving grace. I do personally think that the guard on the East Coast service should have issued it to Stevenage rather then London.

 

[reb0118]

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

Until the OP returns I would hazard a guess at zero.

This case raises the issue of TOCs making up their own rules when it comes to UPFNs.

And why ever not? Surely it is up to each TOC to make and enforce whatever rules they wish with regard to ticketless travel - subject to formal scrutiny from the relevant authorities, and of course conforming to the law of the land.

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.

Why is this wrong? Can you elaborate?

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.

In most cases it is only permitted to issue a UPFN to the first station where the passenger can alight and purchase a valid ticket, or combination of valid tickets, to cover their throughout journey. It would be only under exceptional circumstances that it would be issued to a station other than any where the train actually stopped. The guard was using her discretion by issuing it as far Peterborough. Personally I would only have issued it to to Newcastle as there would have been plenty of opportunity to sort things out there.

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

Do you mean the ScotRail guard on the Ladybank [LDY] train? Aye right!......

.......What right does a ScotRail guard have to authorise ticketless travel on a VTEC train or vise versa? In any case he was only asked for Edinburgh and Edinburgh was what was given.

For me, this comes down to one question, was the UPFN issued for travel to London was valid for travel to Stevenage. This may end up being the saving grace. I do personally think that the guard on the East Coast service should have issued it to Stevenage rather than London.

If the passenger restricted themselves to VTEC then this is possibly a grey, or in your case gray (), area? My personal view is that it would be acceptable. If, however, the passenger decides to travel on a different TOC then they are subject to that TOC's rules and he may become unstuck.

Peterborough or London? It really makes no difference, the OP would have had a further opportunity to purchase a valid ticket from Edinburgh to Stevenage at either location upon submitting his UPFN and some cash (or other valid method of payment) at the booking office there prior to boarding the train to Stevenage.

To me the OP has had a string of missed opportunities to sort this out.

I've just had a thought:question for the OP- the RPIs didn't try to PF you from LDY to Sandy did they? £278! Ouch! I would understand if you refused to pay that. (BTW I know there is no PF scheme at LDY).

 

[najaB]

I believe that it is clear that an UFN meets (ii), (iii), or both, and hence is a "ticket" within the meaning of railway byelaws.

You may think so, but you will notice that definition (ii) specifically allows travel on another operator's trains, but definition (iii) which matches a UFN does not.

 

[jkdd77]

You may think so, but you will notice that definition (ii) specifically allows travel on another operator's trains, but definition (iii) which matches a UFN does not.

The case law from Burns v First Capital Connect [2012] EWHC 1305 (Admin)
(01 May 2012) http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...=first+and+capital+and+connect&method=boolean
makes clear that an invalid ticket is still a ticket for the purpose of byelaw 18(2).

The appeal is unopposed. Upon reflection, the respondent has not sought to uphold the decision of the magistrates. The reason is quite straightforward: as is apparent from the wording of the two questions posed by the magistrates, no offences was committed under Byelaw 18(2). In effect, as Mr Fuller has submitted today, the very wording of the question reveals that no offence was, on those facts, capable of being committed under Byelaw 18(2). The appellant had indeed handed over his Oyster card, albeit there were insufficient funds on it. Accordingly, the two questions posed, to which I have already drawn attention, must be answered: in respect of question A: no; and question B: yes. Whatever may have been the appellant's fate, had he been prosecuted under Byelaws 17(1) or 18(1), which focus on valid tickets, those were not the Byelaws under which he was prosecuted. A prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) was, whatever the underlying merits, doomed to fail. It follows that the appeal must be allowed.

If an invalid Oyster card is a ticket as defined by case law, then so too is a UFN, even if invalid for the journey on Thameslink.

A prosecution under byelaw 18(2) is bound to fail.
A prosecution in an English court alleging breach of byelaw 18(1) at Tweedbank (or indeed Edinburgh) is bound to fail, since an English court lacks jurisdiction over offences committed in Scotland under Scots law.

This is even before one reiterates that neither prosecution can succeed, since the OP has a clear defence under byelaw 18(3), assuming that Tweedbank indeed, as appears likely, had no purchase facilities at the point of travel.

As is made clear by the linked case law, the question of whether the OP might be guilty of fare evasion is of no consequence, since he/ she is not being charged with that offence. Indeed, it is of no relevance to a byelaw 18 prosecution whether the UFN(s) remain(s) unpaid.

Having read the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, the Thameslink franchise agreement, and the NRCoC, I am of the opinion that a UFN notice issued to London is effectively a delayed-payment SOS, valid for travel to Stevenage or Sandy, with VTEC acting as agent for Thameslink, (and all other TOCs on which the corresponding SOS would have been valid), in selling the delayed-payment ticket and thus entering into the contract for travel on behalf of all TOCs on which the SOS would have been valid. However, again, even if I am incorrect, this does not affect the validity of the 18(3) defence.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You have used the word 'clear' on a few occasions in giving advice to stuartyoung. I don't think we use that word in the same way.

The decision in Burns was 'clear' in respect of the wording of TfL Byelaw 18, where it was held that Burns did, in fact, "hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person" by presenting an Oyster card with insufficient funds, as it was the failure to "hand over" a ticket that had been alleged.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A passenger is expected to buy all tickets before travel, where they are intending to split tickets en route, unless there are no ticket facilities available in which case they should buy all tickets at the first available opportunity. Therefore there are two Unpaid Fares Notices- one Ladybank-Edinburgh and one Edinburgh-London, and I do not think the OP can rely on the fact that Ladybank was unstaffed.

The issue will be whether the two Unpaid Fares Notices have been paid within the time limit. If they have not, then the OP has not paid the fare due.

If the two Unpaid Fares Notices have been paid, then the OP may want to consider pleading Not Guilty. The Unpaid Fares Notice acts as an authority to travel without a valid ticket, which is a stated defence to Byelaw 18. Both my copy of The NFM64 Manual and the NRE public website state this about Unpaid Fares Notices:

[UFNs] are available for use by Revenue Protection Inspectors and Conductors. They may be used in cases where there is no intent to avoid payment of the rail fare and the matter is a Civil Debt

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/noindex/61203.aspx

Clearly ATOC's intention with UFNs is that it is effectively an invoice for the travel undertaken. If payment is not made then the criminal law may apply, but if payment is made then there has been no avoidance of the fare.

The only issue may be if the UFN states that it is only valid on Virgin Trains East Coast, or on the specific train it was issued on. Frustratingly I can't find an example UFN to check. Maybe others can help with that.

As for the argument that the OP should have sorted it out at Peterborough, I can certainly understand why he didn't; he would be invoiced for travel to London even if he then paid again Peterborough-Stevenage. And, if he's paid his UFNs, he has paid for travel to Stevenage.

 

[reb0118]

As for the argument that the OP should have sorted it out at Peterborough, I can certainly understand why he didn't; he would be invoiced for travel to London even if he then paid again Peterborough-Stevenage. And, if he's paid his UFNs, he has paid for travel to Stevenage.

My understanding of the UFN scheme, at least how it is applied at my TOC, is that you can take your UFN/Card Declined Slip (which will be made out for a single journey to the first suitable station where the passenger can sort themselves out , but no further than the terminating point of the service) to the booking office upon arrival and purchase your ticket there, a copy of the UFN/Card Declined Slip is faxed to the relevant back office, and the UFN/Card Declined Slip is marked as PAID/NFA.

NB at that time you can request a return or that you require a ticket to a destination beyond that shewn on the UFN.

e.g. In the OP's case above he could have taken his LDY to EDB card declined slip to the ScotRail Excess Office on platform 14 upon arrival at EDB and stated that he required a ticket from LDY to SVG and that is what would have been issued to him and the matter would have been closed.

 

[DaleCooper]

e.g. In the OP's case above he could have taken his LDY to EDB card declined slip to the ScotRail Excess Office on platform 14 upon arrival at EDB and stated that he required a ticket from LDY to SVG and that is what would have been issued to him and the matter would have been closed.

Except that for some undisclosed reason the OP wasn't able to buy a ticket at Edinburgh.

 

[reb0118]

Except that for some undisclosed reason the OP wasn't able to buy a ticket at Edinburgh.

True, but the opportunity was there.

Can the OP answer the question that a few have already asked: have the UFNs been paid?

Originally posted by NRE
Travel by Leaving From To Arriving
Train 05:36 Ladybank [LDY] Edinburgh [EDB] 06:46
Train 07:00 Edinburgh [EDB] York [YRK] 09:32
Train 10:03 York [YRK] Stevenage [SVG] 11:56

I was not sure about the timings that the OP gave in his first post so I did an enquiry for the first departure tomorrow - according to the above the first connecting train south from the first departure at LDY is the 07:00 XC service the first VTEC would've been 07:30 giving 44 minutes to sort out any problems?

Can the OP give his full itinerary for the journey taken on the day in question? Cheers.

 

[DaleCooper]

True, but the opportunity was there.

Actually that is the big unanswered question, was the opportunity passed by or did something outside the OP's control prevent the OP from purchasing a ticket or paying the first UFN?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can I further ask the OP - what was the reason for the card being declined? Was it an online only card, which the railway has issues accepting? This may make for an interesting test case if so.

Mind you, if it were me, I'd just have drawn the cash at Waverley and paid cash there.

 

[najaB]

Can I further ask the OP - what was the reason for the card being declined? Was it an online only card, which the railway has issues accepting? This may make for an interesting test case if so.

I've never known them to decline in a POS terminal though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My understanding of the UFN scheme, at least how it is applied at my TOC, is that you can take your UFN/Card Declined Slip (which will be made out for a single journey to the first suitable station where the passenger can sort themselves out , but no further than the terminating point of the service) to the booking office upon arrival and purchase your ticket there, a copy of the UFN/Card Declined Slip is faxed to the relevant back office, and the UFN/Card Declined Slip is marked as PAID/NFA.

That would resolve the issue between Ladybank and Edinburgh, which is subject to Scottish law.

But my question was about the second journey, which was Edinburgh to Stevenage. The OP received a UFN for that journey, which was made out to London Kings Cross. That would act as an authority to travel between Edinburgh and London. When the OP was stopped, he was on a train to London and presented a UFN with the destination of London, he was just not the train on which he had the UFN issued.

Whilst a UFN can be settled at a ticket office, I'm not aware of any obligation to settle it at a ticket office; the only obligation seems to be making payment to RPSS within 21 days of issue. Indeed, the VTEC website doesn't actually list making payment at a ticket office as one of the options: https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/customer-service/revenue-protection-policy/

Unless the UFN is only valid for the service or TOC on which it was issued, I do not see how the OP has fallen foul of the specific Byelaw, as he had an authority to travel to London. Does anybody know if the UFN restricts the holder to a specific train or TOC?

If he hasn't made payment of the UFN then he may have other issues.

 

[stuartyoung]

This has been frustrating watching this thread and having to await moderator approval for my posts.

Result first: prosecution were going to ask for an adjournment, as ticket inspector was in south africa. I stated the matter could and should be dealt with today as i might be liable for wasted costs, with the evidence I had.

I tried to get straight to the point that we was hear under reg18(2) and that under 18(3) with ladybank being the start of my journey that day, the case should be dismissed. 3 magistrates, two women and one man (main judge), i was asked to leave the bench and enter the dock for swearing in and gave oral evidence as well as ufns from scotrail 31st july 2015 5.40am and edinburgh same date 7.30am. the edinburgh ufn guard would only allow peterborough or london for ufn. I opted for Lonon as that would get me home if awake at peterborough. I got onto a great northern train at peterborugh (the next train to leave for stevenage). 1116 train to the best of my knowledge. showed ticket inspectors my ufn and was told it was not valid. ufn had all my details on it! interview terminated at stevenage station 1235.


I told the court basically what was in my original post and my attempts to redeem my free ticket (from rewards) a ticket quite some days before travel. The same message came up everytime, we are sorry that our rewards website is currently not working. we apologise for any inconvenience. Even the attempted purchase of a £44 fare from ladybank to stevenage and £66 edinburgh to Stevenage but at payment stage vtec website crashed.

I have an Electron card, which was declined on the first train, with more than enough funds to pay for my whole journey. Usually the money is held in the account and frozen for 3-5 days. I had to get back to Stevenage to take care of my disabled son, who was due back from cyprus, where he was on holiday with his gran. I still needed to be able to feed him for the next few days.

I pointed out to the court that the ufn was in fact authorisation for travel and that I had asked every guard for a ticket to stevenage in the first instance.


Well cutting through the chase now.........the prosecution was in a dilemma as he was about to give evidence , but could not. He then asked if I would take an undertaking, that i would not sue govia through the high court! I stated that all I wanted was my costs. He then offered the court no evidence and I had costs awarded of £33 travel for two hearings over this matter.

I did not have to produce all the evidence I had with me. Which was just printouts of emails from vtec confirming free ticket.

No I have not paid the ufns. My Problem is solely with vtec, whatever happens they have lost a loyal customer.

many thanks everyone

stuart

 

[najaB]

Does anybody know if the UFN restricts the holder to a specific train or TOC?

I'd appreciate a link as well. The Byelaws reference linked above by jkdd77 doesn't, to my mind, allow travel on another TOC.

 

[GadgetMan]

I'd appreciate a link as well. The Byelaws reference linked above by jkdd77 doesn't, to my mind, allow travel on another TOC.

I issued UFNs under Central Trains and XC, both clearly stated on the back that they were only Valid on the trains operated by the issuing TOC. This also meant I only issued them to the last station the passenger would travel through/to on my TOCs train. I'd assume other TOCs are probably the same.

 

[stuartyoung]

A (who remind me of parking ticket inspectors in london when doing delivery jobs [example; camden had a scheme that the personwith most tickets issued woulkd get a free holiday or something similar] it did not matter you was parked legally and within time)part I have left out is the way I was treated by the two inspectors on great northern . After showing the ufn to london, they wanted to give me a penalty fare, i was at the end of my tether and had told them that I had not slept in 3 days, i refused to have annything to do with them. they called the police. i tried to get off the train without them at hitchin while the doors were closing..ifailed they got off as well. one of them was right in my face and i told him tha he was invading my personal space and to move away. once he moved away, i telephoned (the reason for getting off the train, knowing the police would be waiting at stevenage station) vtec customer services (on number given by vtec staff at Edinburgh) and was trying get the issue resolved, to no avail. i do not know how long I was on the phone. the next train come in and two plain clothed met police officers departed and approached me, also very shortly after two uniformed police officers appeared along with the two ticket inspectors. I was nearly arrested! one of the officers snatched my wallet out of my hand and passed to the ticket inspectors.

 

[najaB]

...ufns from scotrail 31st july 2015 5.40am and edinburgh same date 7.30am.

No I have not paid the ufns.

:roll:

 

[jkdd77]

Well, the OP seems to have been guilty of fare evasion, and breaching byelaw 10(5) for good measure; in addition, I also doubt that he promptly complied with a lawful request to provide his name and address, presuming such a request was indeed made.

Had the correct charges been put, he would, IMO, have no defence; however, the magistrates can only rule on the specific charge before them, and, for reasons already given, I believe that the decision of the magistrates to acquit on the actual charge brought was the correct one. Edit- the immediately preceding sentence is called into question by the OP's subsequent post.

Although the six month time limit for pursuing a fare evasion charge has now passed, it was still possible that a summons issued in, or before, January (perhaps by VTEC) may yet find its way to the OP, so he should not celebrate just yet. Edit- it seems that the OP is currently facing a byelaw 18 prosecution brought by VTEC.

If not, then there remains a civil debt in the amount of the unpaid UFNs, albeit that I personally consider it unlikely that VTEC, Thameslink, or any other TOC, would seek to pursue the debt in a county court. The validity of the PF is no longer relevant, since it was cancelled in order to pursue the failed prosecution.

Morally, the advice must be to pay the unpaid UFNs, albeit that I suspect that the practical advice would be to sit tight and hope that the matter is not pursued further.

Regardless of my personal opinion of whether the OP deserves the extreme good fortune that has come his/ her way, I do think that the acquittal (Edit- if the OP was indeed acquitted) shows that it is possible for a defendant wrongly charged, or, as in this case, charged with the wrong offences, to get a not guilty verdict without needing to hire an expensive solicitor. It follows logically that I believe that a passenger who is wrongly accused or wrongly charged should not simply plead guilty or pay a 'out-of-court settlement' for the sake of expediency.

 

[stuartyoung]

A (who remind me of parking ticket inspectors in london when doing delivery jobs [example; camden had a scheme that the personwith most tickets issued woulkd get a free holiday or something similar] it did not matter you was parked legally and within time)part I have left out is the way I was treated by the two inspectors on great norther . After showing the ufn to london, they wanted to give me a penalty fare, i was at the end of my tether and had told them that I had not slept in 3 days, i refused to have annything to do with them. they called the police. i tried to get off the train without them at hitchin while the doors were closing..ifailed they got off as well. one of them was right in my face and i told him tha he was invading my personal space and to move away. once he moved away, i telephoned vtec customer services (on number given by vtec staff at Edinburgh) and was trying get the issue resolved, to no avail. i do not know how long I was on the phone. the next train come in and two plain clothed met police officers departed and approached me, also very shortly after two uniformed police officers appeared along with the two ticket inspectors. I was nearly arrested! one of the officers snatched my wallet out of my hand and passed to the ticket inspectors.

when you are looking at £14.90 apparent fare, do you think it prudent to have the expense of four police officers attending? Has this world gone mad?

 

[jkdd77]

I'm now not completely certain whether:
1) the OP's case was adjourned rather than dismissed, or
2) a) the OP was found not guilty following a prosecution brought by Thameslink/ Great Northern, but;
b) VTEC have brought a separate prosecution under byelaw 18 in relation to exactly the same offence of which the OP has just been acquitted.

If (2), then the OP has a "double jeopardy" defence, in addition to the usual defence points.

If (1), then the OP still has a strong defence based on the points I previously raised, especially the defence under byelaw 18(3)(iii) in relation to the single journey from Ladybank to Stevenage at a time when it appears that no purchase facilities were available. The OP's journey plainly did not terminate at Edinburgh, even if he only asked for, and was only issued with, an UFN to cover part of his journey, and even if he committed other offences by continuing his journey from Edinburgh without previously purchasing a ticket to cover the remainder of his journey.

It is not the OP's problem that VTEC have ignored the possibility of bringing other charges which would be more likely to succeed, and which are now "time-barred".

 

[DaleCooper]

I will hopefully deal with this at the next hearing in 3 weeks time with vtec prosecuting.

I sincerely hope that justice will prevail at that hearing.