Notice of prosecution & complaint

[diana72]

Hello,
I am looking for your kind advice on how to follow up on this matter...

Facts:
since Jan 2016 I have start commuting from West Hampsted to Luton Airport
I bought in February a seasonal monthly ticket West Hampsted - Luton Airport (all way permitted)

One day I had to go from Luton to Cambridge and I bought at west hampsted station (in the morning for the evening at West Hampstead ticket office) a ticket London Kings Cross - Cambridge asking to the cashier (ticket officer?!) what was the best ticket to buy to go to Cambridge from Luton having my seasonal ticket. The cashier made me a ticket from Kings Cross to Cambridge saying me that was ok and that I had to take the train from Luton to St Pancras and change there.

Therefore I got on a train from Luton to St Pancras with the intention to get the connecting train to Cambridge in the evening.

When getting out at Kings Cross the barrier did not open and the enforcement officer seeing my seasonal ticket told me that my ticket was not valid and I had to pay a 20 pounds fine.

As you can I imagine I was not happy about it since I thought I could go with my seasonal ticket to St Pancras and I did exactly the same journey just one week earlier and the enforcement officers let me pass...

Anyway since I said to the officer that I have taken that train before with the wrong ticket he decided to make a notice of persecution instead than the fine
"Entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel"

I use to spend monthly around 300 pounds between train and tube and at the moment that I have been stopped I had with me 3 tickets (2 train tickets + 1 oyster card) and I felt having no liability if not trusting the ticket officer who made me the wrong ticket and gave me the wrong explanations.

As I stated to the enforcement officer, I have evidence of my travel behavior via the oyster card report and I can demonstrate that I went through Kings Cross the previous week and the enforcement officer let me get out, letting me think that my travel ticket was effectively valid....

I am kindly asking for your advise on how to answer to Govia Thameslink, shall I point it out to the mistake done by the ticket officer who issued the wrong ticket or shall I play guilty saying that I did not understand what my ticket was entitling me and apologise?

Shall I raise at the same time a complaint for the inconvenience created and all the distress coming from what I believe being a low quality service provided by the ticket officer mistake?

Between the lines, I was also very frustrated by the fact that the enforcement officer refused me to pay 20 pounds penalty fare to close the matter and took me 50 minutes discussing the matter and asking for intervention of transport police to clear the matter?!
Transport police has not found me guilty but cannot provide a report or a witness on the facts since we decided of not proceed any further in the circumstances...

In the case that I would decide to ask Govia Thameslink for the video evidence of the facts and I would decide to take this matter to the court seeking for damages, what would you recommend as the best option to take?
Do you think that I have a valid argument on the fact that they kept me at the station for 50 minutes when I offered to pay for the penalty fare? Has the supervisor involved a direct liability on dealing with this matter and not being able to resolve it?

many thanks for your help

 

[bb21]

I think you will have a difficult job convincing anyone that you were advised by the ticket office clerk you could use a West Hampstead season ticket at St Pancras. I am not saying that you are lying, just that it will take a lot to get people to believe your story. Would it not have been possible that you may have misunderstood? Perhaps he/she told you that it was fine to use your Oyster between West Hampstead and St Pancras?

You can certainly raise a complaint regarding being incorrectly advised, although I doubt you will get very far if I'm honest.

As for using the fact that you had done it before to back up your theory that "the enforcement officer let me get out, letting me think that my travel ticket was effectively valid", don't make this worse for yourself please. You will only be digging a deeper hole for yourself.

It's all a bit unfortunate the way things panned out, but you are in a pretty weak position the way I see it.

 

[gray1404]

Why would the RPI offer a PF, but then take such an offer away? It sounds unreasonable for me. Just because the OP stated the'd travelled in such a way before the RPI could still have proceeded with a PF.

Does they have quotas to fill and are under pressure to report people? Not good this case.

 

[ian959]

Why would the RPI offer a PF, but then take such an offer away? It sounds unreasonable for me. Just because the OP stated the'd travelled in such a way before the RPI could still have proceeded with a PF.

Does they have quotas to fill and are under pressure to report people? Not good this case.

Penalty fares are for honest mistakes. Once the OP said to the RPI that she had done the journey last week without problem, it was no longer an honest mistake per se and could be construed as ongoing ticket fraud so the PF was withdrawn. Fairly straight forward and obvious I would think.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To the OP, you might need to lose the indignation attitude as it is not going to do you any good.

The simple facts of the matter are that you did not produce a valid ticket for your journey when requested to do so. That is a simple strict liability offence under the railway Byelaws.

Everything is irrelevant to that one indisputable fact. From what you have said there does not seem to be any procedural issue involved and everyone has acted within their remit. Asking for CCTV imagery is not going to change the simple facts of the case, even IF such imagery was available which is doubtful

If your were misadvised by, or more likely misunderstood, the ticket office then that is another matter outside the court case. That should be a separate complaint to Thameslink.

There is nothing to be achieved by arguing about the time spent in dealing with the matter because at the end of the day, it was caused by you not having had a valid ticket for the journey you made. There was NO PF payable once the offer was withdrawn following your admission to previously having travelled without a valid ticket.

To my mind a clear case of apologise, admit you were in error and pay the amount they hopefully will request for an out of court settlement.

Then complain to Thameslink about the incorrect advice you believe you got from the ticket office staff.

 

[najaB]

Do you think that I have a valid argument...

If you can explain how a ticket from Luton Airport to West Hampstead covers travel beyond West Hampstead and on to St Pancras, then maybe so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would the RPI offer a PF, but then take such an offer away? It sounds unreasonable for me. Just because the OP stated the'd travelled in such a way before the RPI could still have proceeded with a PF.

Because a Penalty Fare is just one way to deal with a ticketing irregularity. They are generally only issued where there is no evidence of any intent to evade a fare and no point in clogging up the courts. The fact that the OP admitted to making a habit of short faring makes their actions seem much less like a mistake.

Does they have quotas to fill and are under pressure to report people? Not good this case.

I doubt very much that is the case, despite it being raised fairly frequently.

 

[Haywain]

Does they have quotas to fill and are under pressure to report people? Not good this case.

If they did, then standing at the barrier line at St Pancras low level would be a very effective way of achieving it. I see PFs being issued pretty much every time I pass through there, and many of them start off with arguments about the validity of the ticket. In this case I agree with NajaB that the withdrawal of the PF offer is likely to have resulted from the admission that the same journey has been successfully made previously.

 

[diana72]

Thank you very much for your help in settling this matter and giving an honest point of view.

Just to clarify, as I stated, I have been commuting on that route only since 2 months and I thought that was not making any difference getting off to one station later that's still in central London... I got confused from the sentence all route permitted. I can agree with you that ignorance is a weak argument and not a valid justification, but I guess that ThamesLink has some liability if the ticket officer make the "wrong ticket" or a ticket that's not covering for the travel that I have asked for... It is to note that for going from Luton to Cambridge, there is no geographic reason to go to st Pancras, but it is just due to the train routes....

In regard the possibility to pay for the additional fares between WestHampsted and KingsCross I have called to TFL who explaiend me that I should get off to the train in West Hampsted, to touch in my oyster get on the train and touch out in KingsCross.... (I am waiting for a written confirmation from TFL about this procedure)

I do not want to find excuses for my mistake, but I think that the procedure that they have in place is not 100% clear and efficient, and as you noted a lot of people get in troubles at St Pancras, maybe I am not the only one who has this problem?

In regard going to court, I don't have a major problem, I am accused of a fair evasion of 2.30 evasion in 2 instances and I have evidence that there has been a genuine communication issue also due to the fact that the procedure is not clear, honestly I really doubt that a court could consider this as fraudolent behavior... since I pay more than 300 pounds per month of public transport and every month I got several issue with touchin/ touch out... I would not be surprised if the court would consider the fact that Thameslink procedure are misleading and that I had all the intention to pay the appropriate fare.

Maybe shall I play guilty and raise a separate matter to the watchdog? do you have any history of similar case been raised? Honestly do not have much hopes in Thameslink complaint procedure and I would rateher to discuss the case and Thameslink procedure with an independent body...

happy to know your opinion and thanks for the support and the valid considerations

 

[island]

The simple facts of the matter are that you did not produce a valid ticket for your journey when requested to do so. That is a simple strict liability offence under the railway Byelaws.

No it's not.

 

[Clip]

Thank you very much for your help in settling this matter and giving an honest point of view.

Just to clarify, as I stated, I have been commuting on that route only since 2 months and I thought that was not making any difference getting off to one station later that's still in central London... I got confused from the sentence all route permitted. I can agree with you that ignorance is a weak argument and not a valid justification, but I guess that ThamesLink has some liability if the ticket officer make the "wrong ticket" or a ticket that's not covering for the travel that I have asked for... It is to note that for going from Luton to Cambridge, there is no geographic reason to go to st Pancras, but it is just due to the train routes....

In regard the possibility to pay for the additional fares between WestHampsted and KingsCross I have called to TFL who explaiend me that I should get off to the train in West Hampsted, to touch in my oyster get on the train and touch out in KingsCross.... (I am waiting for a written confirmation from TFL about this procedure)

I do not want to find excuses for my mistake, but I think that the procedure that they have in place is not 100% clear and efficient, and as you noted a lot of people get in troubles at St Pancras, maybe I am not the only one who has this problem?

In regard going to court, I don't have a major problem, I am accused of a fair evasion of 2.30 evasion in 2 instances and I have evidence that there has been a genuine communication issue also due to the fact that the procedure is not clear, honestly I really doubt that a court could consider this as fraudolent behavior... since I pay more than 300 pounds per month of public transport and every month I got several issue with touchin/ touch out... I would not be surprised if the court would consider the fact that Thameslink procedure are misleading and that I had all the intention to pay the appropriate fare.

Maybe shall I play guilty and raise a separate matter to the watchdog? do you have any history of similar case been raised? Honestly do not have much hopes in Thameslink complaint procedure and I would rateher to discuss the case and Thameslink procedure with an independent body...

happy to know your opinion and thanks for the support and the valid considerations

I dont knwo how you think the procedure for touching in and out is not clear? It is made clear on both the TfL website and at posters at every station on the whole network that the Oyster card is valid on.

I believe the mistake was a miscommunication between you and the clerk as you mentioned you had an oyster so without being there to witness it maybe they said to use your oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross and then your ticket to Cambridge from there?

 

[talltim]

I dont knwo how you think the procedure for touching in and out is not clear? It is made clear on both the TfL website and at posters at every station on the whole network that the Oyster card is valid on.

I believe the mistake was a miscommunication between you and the clerk as you mentioned you had an oyster so without being there to witness it maybe they said to use your oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross and then your ticket to Cambridge from there?

If the OP could use their Oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross, how do they touch in when on the train?

 

[ian959]

No it's not.

It isn't? I could have sworn byelaw 18.1 was strict liability - no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn't? I could have sworn byelaw 18.1 was strict liability - no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

Correct. It's the more serious RoRA offence that requires intent.

 

[island]

It isn't? I could have sworn byelaw 18.1 was strict liability - no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

(1) The post of yours I quoted referred to producing a valid ticket when required, which is not in byelaw 18.1 or any other byelaw. (Byelaw 18.2 requires the production of a ticket, but the word "valid" doesn't appear in that section.)
(2) Unless the OP's train was fast from Luton to St. Pancreas, he had a valid ticket when he entered the train.

 

[bb21]

If the OP could use their Oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross, how do they touch in when on the train?

You cannot.

One has to disembark and touch in in order to use split tickets with Oyster.

 

[gray1404]

If they did, then standing at the barrier line at St Pancras low level would be a very effective way of achieving it. I see PFs being issued pretty much every time I pass through there, and many of them start off with arguments about the validity of the ticket.

If you really wanted to fare dodge then doing it a well known barriered station like St Pancras Low Level would not be a wise move, for that simple reason as you cannot simply walk off the platform without showing a ticket normally. So, I wonder what tickets people are often arriving on at St Pancras thinking they are perfectly valid. Sounds like they might be easy pickings for an RPI issuing a PF.

 

[6Gman]

Thank you very much for your help in settling this matter and giving an honest point of view.

In regard going to court, I don't have a major problem, I am accused of a fair evasion of 2.30 evasion in 2 instances and I have evidence that there has been a genuine communication issue also due to the fact that the procedure is not clear, honestly I really doubt that a court could consider this as fraudolent behavior... since I pay more than 300 pounds per month of public transport and every month I got several issue with touchin/ touch out... I would not be surprised if the court would consider the fact that Thameslink procedure are misleading and that I had all the intention to pay the appropriate fare.

Sorry, but what "evidence" do you have of a "communication issue"?

 

[najaB]

In regard going to court, I don't have a major problem, I am accused of a fair evasion of 2.30 evasion in 2 instances and I have evidence that there has been a genuine communication issue also due to the fact that the procedure is not clear, honestly I really doubt that a court could consider this as fraudolent behavior... since I pay more than 300 pounds per month of public transport and every month I got several issue with touchin/ touch out... I would not be surprised if the court would consider the fact that Thameslink procedure are misleading and that I had all the intention to pay the appropriate fare.

Depending on the particular charges that Thameslink choose to bring, you may well have a big problem in regard to going to court. I doubt very much that they will bring fraud charges so the matter of if it's fraudulent or not almost certainly doesn't enter the picture. And if they bring charges under the Railway Byelaws they don't need to provide evidence of intent.

 

[diana72]

I dont knwo how you think the procedure for touching in and out is not clear? It is made clear on both the TfL website and at posters at every station on the whole network that the Oyster card is valid on.

I believe the mistake was a miscommunication between you and the clerk as you mentioned you had an oyster so without being there to witness it maybe they said to use your oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross and then your ticket to Cambridge from there?

When everyday you have to touch in with the oyster at one station Overground and use a paper ticket to an other station, you discover that by mistake you touch with the oyster card to the wrong station... this is not an opinion but it is what happen to me at least 3 days per month.... In regard using my Oyster at West Hampsted it was not possible since I was on the train and I did not know that I had to get out, touch in west hampsted, loose my train so that I can take the next train and touch out.... sorry but I think that this procedure is just ridiculous....

The fact that the OP admitted to making a habit of short faring makes their actions seem much less like a mistake.
I doubt very much that is the case, despite it being raised fairly frequently.

Maybe it would sound silly but I was sure to have a valid travel ticket since in the past they let me go and my understanding was that I could take also the train to st Pancras... I told them that the week earlier I made the same route and everything was fine because I was sure to have the valid ticket on the fare.... maybe being honest is not a smart move when you deal with a revenue officer? sorry but I still will do the same and I am ready to go to court and take the matter wherever is necessary to have justice... honesty cannot be punished

I have not admitted to have travelled multiple times, I told them I took the same route one week earlier since I thought it was valid, and this correspond to the truth (it correspond with my oyster card travel record) I guess that's a bit different from admitting to be a dodge farer.... but it is more a question, why they have not stopped me the week earlier and as a consequence of it I believed to have a valid travel ticket.... If the officer would have done effectively their job, they would have stop me the week earlier, made the PF and the week after I would have known that I had to buy a supplement for that fare, I would have known how to buy it and I would have avoided this situation.... Do you think that a court would not consider this as a valid argument? it sounds to me as common sense... (on the top of it you can add the fact that I am new to commute on that fare, I am foreigner and maybe there are communication barriers...)

this is exactly the case... I think that there is a mistake in the procedure, I am asking to thameslink to confirm in written the correct procedure to attach to my defense... anyway IMO the procedure is not clear and if you ask to any ticket officer they tell you different things... happy to take this matter separately to the watchdog and get a proper answer...

Do you think that it is reasonable this procedure? I think that would be good to go to court and discuss this procedure, I don't think that I have to pay when Thameslink is free to have such a ridiculous procedure, maybe worth to take to the watchdog?

If you really wanted to fare dodge then doing it a well known barriered station like St Pancras Low Level would not be a wise move, for that simple reason as you cannot simply walk off the platform without showing a ticket normally. So, I wonder what tickets people are often arriving on at St Pancras thinking they are perfectly valid. Sounds like they might be easy pickings for an RPI issuing a PF.

I totally agree with you, and I think that it would be good to raise this matter to the watchdog, why do they get so many PF at St Pancras? maybe their procedure are not clear enough? Why one week I could pass the barrier and week after I cannot do it? Maybe there is intention to mislead passengers? well I think that travellers have a valid point and I am curious if anyone previously has raised the matter in the proper way, if it is not in a court maybe a newspaper? I have also been advised by TFL staff that I can try to go to Kings cross with my ticket and risk it.... seriously??? do you think that I pay 300 pounds per month of ticket to pay for you salary and get explained that I can take the risk??? I think that I have lent that common sense is a precious gift when you talk with a rail officer

Sorry, but what "evidence" do you have of a "communication issue"?

I went to a ticket office and I bought a ticket from KingsCross to Cambridge, knowing that I had to go from Luton to Kings Cross... Do you think that I bought on purpose the wrong ticket? Is this not enough to make it clear that I had all the intention to pay?

 

[furlong]

Penalty fares are for honest mistakes

The term 'honest mistake' doesn't appear anywhere I can find in the legislation, Parliamentary debates or scheme rules (and for good reason, if you think about different ways in which that term can get used). Rather it would be easier to support an assertion that one objective of the system is to avoid issuing Penalty Fares to "honest passengers".

 

[Clip]

If the OP could use their Oyster from West Hampstead to Kings Cross, how do they touch in when on the train?

you get off and use the readers - you should know this.

If you really wanted to fare dodge then doing it a well known barriered station like St Pancras Low Level would not be a wise move, for that simple reason as you cannot simply walk off the platform without showing a ticket normally. So, I wonder what tickets people are often arriving on at St Pancras thinking they are perfectly valid. Sounds like they might be easy pickings for an RPI issuing a PF.

Its called doughnutting and as you well know has been outlined on this forum many times and yet it seems you haven't understood this, again as you dont understand why PF's can be rescinded and a prosecution being the way forward.

The railway has big problems with this and I feel that from reading the OP there has been something lost in translation which has led to their situation.

But that does not absolve the requirements of the OP to provide a valid ticket or oyster when requested.

Im concerned that time after time you add your tuppence worth and try and distract from the issue at hand because of your 'concern' and lack of understanding of the issue

 

[furlong]

And if they bring charges under the Railway Byelaws

...the passenger might be able to claim they have no case to answer.

 

[najaB]

...the passenger might be able to claim they have no case to answer.

That depends on the interpretation of 'their ticket' in Byelaw 18.2 - does it mean 'any ticket' or 'their ticket for the journey they've taken'?

If the former, then there's no case. If the latter, then the OP failed to produce a ticket for a journey from Luton to St. Pancras (specifically for a journey from West Hampsted to St. Pancras).

 

[Clip]

...the passenger might be able to claim they have no case to answer.

But they very much do as you well know being an old member of 'High up BR staff'. Are you trying to give people false hope again?

Show me the contract(that you so like to spout) that shows the passenger can travel, especially from a station with ticket issuing facilities, especially in the old NSE area, without a valid ticket please.

Ill wait, until you report me again and get my post deleted amd not provide an answer. x

 

[furlong]

That depends of the interpretation of 'their ticket' in Byelaw 18.2 - does it mean 'any ticket' or 'their ticket for the journey they've taken'?

The word "valid" is missing and there's case law. I'll look for the reference if nobody beats me to it.

 

[Clip]

That depends of the interpretation of 'their ticket' in Byelaw 18.2 - does it mean 'any ticket' or 'their ticket for the journey they've taken'?

The word "valid" is missing and there's case law. I'll look for the reference if nobody beats me to it.

Go for it. This should be fun considering they didnt have a 'valid ticket'

 

[najaB]

The word "valid" is missing and there's case law. I'll look for the reference if nobody beats me to it.

I know that 18.2 doesn't include the word 'valid' but it does say that I must hand over 'my ticket' for inspection. If I'm on a Perth to Glasgow ticket, does a Plymouth to Penzance ticket meet the requirement? Or a Perth to Glasgow ticket that's a week expired?

 

[furlong]

Ill wait, until you report me again

I don't think I've ever reported any of your posts, by the way.

The point here is it's hard to understand why a Penalty Fare wasn't issued because, as you already pointed out, this keeps the company's options open as it can still go for a RORA prosecution if it thinks it's warranted. But when it doesn't start with a PF, it introduces extra risk that in some situations it will end up with nothing.

 

[Clip]

I don't think I've ever reported any of your posts, by the way.

The point here is it's hard to understand why a Penalty Fare wasn't issued because, as you already pointed out, this keeps the company's options open as it can still go for a RORA prosecution if it thinks it's warranted. But when it doesn't start with a PF, it introduces extra risk that in some situations it will end up with nothing.

If you kept up with the thread or even the OP then you wouldve seen that they admitted to doing it before which led the RPI to not give a PF and go for the more serious charge of prosecution.

When getting out at Kings Cross the barrier did not open and the enforcement officer seeing my seasonal ticket told me that my ticket was not valid and I had to pay a 20 pounds fine.

As you can I imagine I was not happy about it since I thought I could go with my seasonal ticket to St Pancras and I did exactly the same journey just one week earlier and the enforcement officers let me pass...

Anyway since I said to the officer that I have taken that train before with the wrong ticket he decided to make a notice of persecution instead than the fine
"Entering a train for the purpose of travelling without a ticket entitling travel"

With a man of your knowledge in such a vaulted position within BR as I have been told by the owner of this forum Im surprised you dont keep up nor read threads properly.

 

[furlong]

That depends on the interpretation of 'their ticket' in Byelaw 18.2 - does it mean 'any ticket' or 'their ticket for the journey they've taken'?

The referenced case is BURNS v FIRST CAPITAL CONNECT. Here we had the presentation of an Oyster card with insufficient funds being held not to be in breach of 18.2 - but no two cases are ever identical.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

which led the RPI to not give a PF and go for the more serious charge of prosecution.

The problem is that the law does not say the simple things we would all wish that it said, but it's riddled with complexities (or "loopholes" if you like). We weren't there, so we don't know what evidence the RPI actually obtained, but in general, there should be no downside to issuing a PF on the spot and letting the experts in the back office decide later whether to rescind it in favour of a prosecution.

 

[najaB]

The referenced case is BURNS v FIRST CAPITAL CONNECT. Here we had the presentation of an Oyster card with insufficient funds being held not to be in breach of 18.2 - but no two cases are ever identical.

Thanks. The difference there is that an Oyster card could potentially be valid for the journey taken - it was only invalid because of the balance (which wasn't immediately visible), whereas a ticket from Luton to West Hampstead could never be valid to St Pancras (and that was immediately visible).