.
I'm sorry it's a long read, but I hope people will give it some consideration.
The threads concerning persons complaining to the press AFTER being convicted by a Court raise many examples of misinformation, particularly in respect of journalistic presentation. The headlines always give the impression that it's a 'big bad TOC' demanding £600 plus for someone not paying a 'tiny' fare. The fact that a lengthy assessment & administration process has culminated in the Magistrates decision never seems to explore the matter fully.
I thought when these things went to Court, the TOC did not get all of the fine ?
This is more about ignoring a H.M. Court Summons than a TOC 'fine'
She ignored it, which is almost seen as a contempt of court, so was hit with the maximum, she only has one person to blame really.
I would have though a bit of research on Google about ignoring a Court Summons would have been high on the agenda !
If I had such a document through the post I would have been s**t scared, not blase about ignoring it !
That is the bottom line. Forum users can argue all we like about whether a financial penalty imposed by a Magistrates Court is appropriate or not, but that part has absolutely nothing to do with any TOC. It's the Ministry of Justice Sentencing Guidelines that confirm this.
True, it is the TOC who sanctioned the prosecution, but if a defendant engages with the prosecution process, the outcome is almost always going to be far better than if they do not.
Agreed.
All of this is explained in plain English (and Welsh in this case) in all the documents that the lady would have received with the Summons. She has quite obviously ignored this as she did not appear and also obviously did not complete her earnings details.
Correct. A defendant could and should respond to the Court if they truly feel that they did nothing wrong.
All the TOC gets from a court appearance is compensation for the unpaid fare and any contribution to their prosecution costs. The government pockets the rest.
Correct. Frequently the prosecutor does not get the costs they are claiming, but may only get a part of the claim they are making. That is again the Magistrates decision. By far the major part of the financial penalty imposed by the Court will go to central funds
They get none of the actual fine. However many cases are settled out of court, and that money will go to the train company.
Hence it is in the interests of both parties that cases are settled out of court, if they can both agree on a settlement amount.
Correct. It is a matter of fact that in a majority of ATW cases that are resolved by engaging with the process, any settlement can be as low as one tenth of the average starting point fine that the Magistrates might otherwise impose on conviction.
Some train companies, such as Northern, seem very keen to settle, and may even use their own names for such settlements.
That might change as Northern are in the same group as ATW and have recently put revenue protection work out to tender.
I used to live in Cardiff and used Valley Lines regularly from Whitchurch station (I could see the platform from the window of my flat). All the services then were PayTrains, and usually one could buy a ticket from the guard; only occasionally did I need to buy it on arrival in Cardiff.
However, I noted on a recent visit back to Cardiff that all stations are now governed by Penalty Fare rules, and have TVMs, so woe betide anyone who doesn't buy a ticket before boarding.
A little misleading I'm afraid. No stations on ATW are governed by Penalty Fares. There is no licenced Penalty Fare scheme in operation on ATW and the company cannot & does not impose such penalties.
ATW do have a widely advertised 'Buy-before-you-board' policy and new and improved signage to that effect has gone up at their stations over the past 5 years.
This is in line with National Railway Byelaws and exemptions in relation to Byelaw 18.3 do allow for those occasions when a traveller genuinely could not pay in advance of travel.
It is worth remembering the Appeal Court judgment in Corbyn (1978) whereby if the Magistrates believe that the defendant had genuine opportunity to pay, but did not take the opportunity and wilfully intended to pay ONLY if they were ASKED to do so, they will be directed by their Legal Advisor to convict.
I object to Penalty Fakes not because they are £80 but because of the structure under which they are implemented, for example with no independent appeals process.
There are two levels of assessment in operation at ATW. One by the TOC, one by their agents and of course, there is the option of taking the matter up with Transport Focus if still not happy. Transport Focus will assess whether the correct process has been followed. If the matter still arrives with a Court the Magistrates assess the evidence of the alleged offence and if they are not satisfied, they will not convict.
A mate of mine commutes to Cathays by train. He says the barriers are normally in operation when he goes to work. I'll ask him about when he goes home.
I think we need to keep a sense of perspective here. The woman in question has been prosecuted and found guilty, whether that's right or wrong. I don't think this is the place to speculate, or question the decision of ATW to prosecute or the court to find the defendant guilty. We simply don't have access to the evidence that ATW had, and that includes whether she was known to them from previous incidents or not.
In light of all of this, we need to stay on topic and not drift off into if's but's, why's and wherefore's. If anyoen wishes to discuss theoretical matters on TVM's, or anything else relating to prosecutions but not directly connected to this incident, please start a new thread.
Couldn't agree more.
Does anyone know if this was her first offence or whether she is 'known' to ATW?
This is an important question and also relevant to the case of the similar matter on here, which is now a closed thread.
I wonder if the answer has been declared to the media by the defendant, or researched by the journalists concerned?
Anyone who believes that you can be forced to use an alternative method of payment when you wish to use a perfectly acceptable method according to
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/45185.aspx is living in a fantasy world.
It is quite clear that you are allowed to pay by cash. If the station does not have facilities to accept cash then you may purchase on-train. It does not say that you must use a method acceptable to the machine if you have it. If you can't use your chosen acceptable method then you haven't had an opportunity to pay.
Absolutely correct.
Much assessment work is done around 'ticketless travel and fare evasion' and there is an interesting feature that came out of a recent study of habits of travellers at two stations where high levels of ticketless travellers were regularly recorded.
When questioned, a very high proportion of travellers had said the problem was 'no TVM at their starting station, single staffed window ticket office and a long queue, don't carry cash but wanted to pay by card and the guard didn't reach them'.
In these circumstances it is understandable that travellers will board without tickets if they have queued for the reasonable time
To combat this the TOC concerned installed card only TVMs. The numbers of ticketless travellers fell, but not as significantly as expected.
A majority of those now questioned said 'I don't have a card, I wanted to pay by cash, but the guard didn't reach me'.
Cathays' ticket barriers are only in operation when the tiny ticket office is staffed. There is a separate barrier for each platform. When the station is unstaffed, the portacabin sheds are locked shut and nearby gates are unlocked. My (dated) experience was that staff and barriers were only used on weekday mornings, but National Rail should have up-to-date hours listed.
At many stations where peak traffic is reasonably high, but-off peak usage is minimal and ticket offices close outside the peak periods, this is the norm.
.
