Passenger breaks law, then whines when she's punished

[Joe Paxton]

I think that in court a passenger seeking to defend a prosecution in these circumstances would need to prove that a card they held was not usable.

There's not going to be a prosecution in such an event as the TOCs wouldn't take it that far. And if any were were stupid enough to take it that far, they'd be laughed out of court.

MikeWh's post above (#68) is bang on the money I'd say. To add to what he said...

[...]
And what about the case where at the exact moment on the train there is enough money available but an imminent future transaction which does have to be made by credit card will wipe it out?
[...]

Or, if we're talking about a debit card, then a Direct Debit payment is due to come out of the bank account imminently. A passenger holding cash and a debit card shouldn't need to pay with the latter putting themselves in a position to be charged by their bank for either a failed DD collection attempt else or going overdrawn (and an unauthorised overdraft can attract some nasty charges).

I think sometimes people who's financial affairs are reasonably comfortable don't realise that many others don't have a great deal of leeway, and things can be thrown off balance quite easily.

 

[Navajo8686]

Re post #52 above - you are correct that we do not, as a rule, PF from card only stations on LM. However circumstances are taken into account and if someone says "I didn't buy a ticket because I just jumped on the train as I was late and didn't have time" then they will get a PF irrespective of TVM type.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There isn't any caselaw on any of this. Companies are free to choose to accept whatever form of payment they wish, e.g. TfL refuse to accept cash on buses, Uber taxis insist you pay by debit or credit card through their app. However a company cannot and should not advertise that they accept a method of payment and then insist that you use a different method of payment.

Be aware, too, that overdrafts and credit cards are not the passenger's money, they are lending facilities which can be revoked at any time. I cannot imagine a court looking favourably on a TOC attempting to force someone to use a credit facility because it was inconvenient to accept an advertised method of payment.

The NRE website says this: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/45185.aspx

The following are accepted as methods of payments at National Rail stations and retail outlets. They also apply to paying on-train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed.

Self-service ticket machines at National Rail stations will accept a more limited range of payment.

Cash
Any combination of notes and coins are accepted, as below.
Coins

Acceptable combinations of coins are:
1p and 2p coins up to 20p
5p and 10p coins up to £5
20p and 50p coins up to £10
£1 and £2 coins up to any amount
Jersey/Guernsey/Isle of Man coins will not be accepted.
Bank Notes of the British Isles

The following bank notes may be accepted:
Bank notes issued by the Bank of England and bearing a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen;
Sterling notes issued by Allied Irish Banks plc
Sterling notes issued by Bank of Ireland
Sterling notes issued by Northern Bank Ltd
Sterling notes issued by Ulster Bank Ltd
Bank notes issued by Bank of Scotland
Bank notes issued by Clydesdale Bank plc
Bank notes issued by Royal Bank of Scotland
Sterling bank notes issued by the Isle of Man Bank Ltd
Sterling bank notes issued by States of Guernsey
Sterling bank notes issued by States of Jersey

If they say they will accept cash, then they should accept cash. They don't say "staffed ticket offices", they say "National Rail stations". If I turn up at a National Rail station and there's nowhere to hand over the cash, then they're not complying with their advertising. I would argue that there isn't an opportunity to pay if nobody will take my cash from me. It's really quite simple.

 

[Haywain]

The NRE website says this:

Self-service ticket machines at National Rail stations will accept a more limited range of payment.

If they say they will accept cash, then they should accept cash. They don't say "staffed ticket offices", they say "National Rail stations". If I turn up at a National Rail station and there's nowhere to hand over the cash, then they're not complying with their advertising. I would argue that there isn't an opportunity to pay if nobody will take my cash from me. It's really quite simple.

So, having quoted chapter and verse, you are happy to ignore part of it?

 

[Tetchytyke]

So, having quoted chapter and verse, you are happy to ignore part of it?

Which part have I ignored?

Self-service TVMs will offer a restricted method of payment, although the website doesn't say in what way they are restricted. Some TVMs only take cards; some, indeed, only take cash. That's all well and good, and I encourage TOCs to install TVMs as a customer service. It's nice of them to warn that not all TVMs will accept all forms of payment.

But the fact is they say they accept cash at all National Rail stations. If there is only a card-only TVM then they are not providing what they advertise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH my personal view is that if the railway will not accept cash (at the passenger's option) at all its sales outlets where this is physically possible (i.e. all but online), it either needs to provide a reasonable alternative (some kind of Oyster style card toppable-up at shops etc) or formally cease to accept cash throughout (which I would expect to see in about 10-20 years' time but not yet).

 

[Haywain]

But the fact is they say they accept cash at all National Rail stations. If there is only a card-only TVM then they are not providing what they advertise.

I don't see the word 'all' in the quote you've used.

 

[MikeWh]

I don't see the word 'all' in the quote you've used.

They also don't say any other descriptive word either, like some or most or many. They just say stations.

 

[philthetube]

Following this argument logically if you carry an Isle of Man note you needn't use any tvm as this is valid cash and I am sure that they would not accept one. I wouldn't either, I didn't think they were legal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Following this argument logically if you carry an Isle of Man note you needn't use any tvm as this is valid cash and I am sure that they would not accept one. I wouldn't either, I didn't think they were legal.

I didn't think they were, either. Scottish notes may however present an issue, as might a coin that for whatever reason doesn't work the mechanism.

This is why cash is a right nuisance, and the sooner we as a society abandon it the better!

But until we do...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Following this argument logically if you carry an Isle of Man note you needn't use any tvm as this is valid cash and I am sure that they would not accept one. I wouldn't either, I didn't think they were legal.

In this context, it doesn't matter if it is legal tender, which has a very specific meaning. If ATOC/RDG say that they accept a note, they accept it. They can choose to accept payment in the Sri Lankan rupee if they so desired.

The point is you can't say you'll accept something, refuse to accept it because it is inconvenient and then prosecute someone for not paying you. If you don't want to accept it, don't say you'll accept it.

The correct response to someone wanting to buy a ticket, who wasn't able to use their chosen payment method at the origin, is to sell them a ticket. It's not controversial. And if you think too many passengers are swinging the lead and costing you money then there's the incentive to update your TVMs. The unstaffed Metro here manages to accept cash at every machine, and not everywhere up here is a nice area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly. It barely matters what the rule is, it just needs to be VERY clear.

 

[jon0844]

I dislike using cash, but we're far from a cashless society and many people using cards may well be doing so on credit.

I know cash is a security risk at small, remote, stations, but can't they make sufficiently secure cash boxes? Perhaps mounted underground or something. In the case of overpayment, the machine could issue a change voucher (which would be preferable to a user than saying 'no change given' or even the bizarre situation where a machine wants exact money and won't even accept a voluntary overpayment).

Failing that, sites deemed high risk should be able to issue some form of permit (like the old days) and anyone asked for a ticket who can't produce one in lieu of a proper ticket is given an on-the-spot penalty.

The permit would identify all the necessary details to stop people trying things on.

Alternatively, you could look at how technology could help - such as a screen with a unique barcode that someone scans with their phone (or touches using NFC) to issue a virtual permit without any cash handling at all.

I know the railway just accepts it isn't worth bothering about these small stations, but that sends out the wrong message and only encourages people to become more brazen as time goes on.

 

[fowler9]

Right back on post 1 I was interested to read “Regardless of it seeming unfair as they sell tickets on the train (not that day though of course) and you can’t exit the station at the other end without paying, it just seems vastly disproportionate. People get fined less for GBH.”

Me and a mate were victims of GBH and the accused got 5 years each after pleading guilty. Now if this was a quote from the accused (It isn't clear) I don't think making up wild stories about what other criminals get away with does her any favours. It does look good in the press though, how hard done by she is, even though what she said was, from my experience, made up.

 

[soil]

Right back on post 1 I was interested to read “Regardless of it seeming unfair as they sell tickets on the train (not that day though of course) and you can’t exit the station at the other end without paying, it just seems vastly disproportionate. People get fined less for GBH.”

Me and a mate were victims of GBH and the accused got 5 years each after pleading guilty. Now if this was a quote from the accused (It isn't clear) I don't think making up wild stories about what other criminals get away with does her any favours. It does look good in the press though, how hard done by she is, even though what she said was, from my experience, made up.

5 years would be a serious charge.

There are certainly GBH charges that don't attract that kind of sentence.

http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/...sentence_for_inflicting_grievous_bodily_harm/

A MAN has been given an eight-month prison sentence suspended for two years after admitting inflicting grievous bodily harm on another man.

Craig Johnson, of Borsdane Avenue, Hindley, was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday, Thursday.

As well as being given a suspended prison sentence the 28-year-old was ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and adhere to a 35-day rehabilitation activity requirement

https://solihullobserver.co.uk/news/solihull-man-fined-for-single-punch-which-fractured-victims-jaw/

A Solihull carpenter who felled another young man with a single punch, fracturing his jaw, has been ordered to pay his victim £1,200 after he escaped being jailed.

Jake Darcy had pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ryan Keane, who Warwick Crown Court heard has been left with a metal plate in his jaw for the rest of his life.

Darcy (20) of Falstaff Road, Shirley, Solihull, was sentenced to 12 months in prison suspended for 12 months and was ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work and to pay compensation to Mr Keane at £100 a month.

http://www.banbridgeleader.co.uk/news/crime/punched-man-after-leaving-banbridge-bar-1-7816865

After leaving a bar in Banbridge a 41-year-old man punched another man in the face and fractured his cheek bone.

Simon McAtamney, Ashleigh Crescent, Lurgan, admitted unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on a man on September 2 last year.

He was fined £500 for the offence last Thursday at Banbridge Magistrates Court and ordered to pay the injured party £250 in compensation.

As well as imposing the fine and compensation the judge ordered McAtamney also to pay a £15 offender’s levy.

 

[sheff1]

ATW does seem to have difficulty in explaining its policy in a clear, unambiguous way.

For example, I was reading one of their posters the other week which said*:-

"If you haven't bought your ticket in advance or (my emphasis) there are no facilities to purchase at the station where you began the journey, only then should you buy a ticket on the train"

Now, that "or" could be interpreted as meaning that if either condition (not having bought in advance / no facilities at station) is met then on-board purchase is permitted. Shouldn't it say "and"? i.e. the passenger hasn't purchased in advance and there are no facilities at station then on-board purchase is indicated?

* The poster was in Welsh, but I believe the translation is accurate. Does anyone know what the English version says?

The English version says "or". As the use of "or" means either of the options can stand alone, ATW are clearly saying if you have not bought a ticket in advance then you should buy a ticket on the train.

 

[fowler9]

5 years would be a serious charge.

There are certainly GBH charges that don't attract that kind of sentence.

http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/...sentence_for_inflicting_grievous_bodily_harm/



https://solihullobserver.co.uk/news/solihull-man-fined-for-single-punch-which-fractured-victims-jaw/



http://www.banbridgeleader.co.uk/news/crime/punched-man-after-leaving-banbridge-bar-1-7816865

Cheers for the info mate. I got no money off anyone and didn't expect any, the guys who committed the crime got 5 years each but I doubt they served that (Not bothered). All such crimes must be very different. In our case an off duty police officer just happened to be living by where it happened. CID turned up sharpish and caught the 2 lads nearby and had to us pepper spray on them as they fought back. One of the lads out on bail did a runner to Ireland but was later caught. I had about 21 stitches in the back of my head and my mate was hard to recognise for a while.