Arriva Wales Prosecution "travel on a train without a valid ticket"

[bob123456]

Hi all! Thanks in advance for any help - i'll try to keep the below brief..

Travelling with 3 friends from Taffs Well to Cardiff Central for the rugby. Did not purchase a ticket at Taffs well despite pre purchase facilities (rushing to catch train). Got into Cardiff Central and a friend joined the queue to purchase all our tickets on our behalf. This friend wrongly and accidentally stated we had come from Cathays (his normal station, and a short journey). I never knowingly claimed or tried to claim a short fair.

Letter 1: They are considering if i have breached byelwaws. I have 21 days to respond.
I respond stating the case that I have not knowingly claimed a short fare.

Letter 2: Alleged to have breached bylaw 18 (2005) and have 14 days to respond before a summons is made
I respond, again pleading the case that I have literally only made the mistake of asking a friend to purchase my ticket on my behalf, and have had no intention to avoid a fare.
Interestingly, of the four of us, one has already been offered an administrative settlement (at the first round of letters, and the others are waiting to hear back from their first response).

Letter 3: They have noted my comments but following reassessment find no reason not to proceed and so "an application for the issue of a Summons may now be made"

I hope you agree that court doesn't "seem fair" in this instance - I'd be happy to pay an administrative settlement. But not quite sure where to go from here - I play on calling them up tomorrow morning to verbally plead the case.

Would this be a RORA conviction?!

Massive thanks to anyone who can suggest next steps to avoid court

 

[najaB]

The mistake, if anything, was in your 'Letter 1' - knowingly or not you were effectively part of a conspiracy to short fare.

 

[bob123456]

The mistake, if anything, was in your 'Letter 1' - knowingly or not you were effectively part of a conspiracy to short fare.

Hm, true. But the Aviva Wales policy states proecution is avoided unless there is 1. fraud 2. giving false personal details 3. knowingly claiming a shot fare 4. repeat offender.

Also extremely confused as to why one of my friends has been offered a settlement, despite the exact same behaviour as me, and I am in the thick of it.

Any suggestions?

 

[island]

Claiming a short fare (contrary to section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889] is not what you’re being accused of. You committed a criminal offence (under section 18 of the Railway Byelaws) as soon as you chose to get on the train without a ticket at a station with ticketing facilities, and this is what you’re being prosecuted for. The fact that you replied saying you didn’t ask for a short fare is probably being read by ATW or their agents as obfuscating or ignoring the issue.

 

[bob123456]

Claiming a short fare (contrary to section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889] is not what you’re being accused of. You committed a criminal offence (under section 18 of the Railway Byelaws) as soon as you chose to get on the train without a ticket at a station with ticketing facilities, and this is what you’re being prosecuted for. The fact that you replied saying you didn’t ask for a short fare is probably being read by ATW or their agents as obfuscating or ignoring the issue.

That makes some sense. But surely not worth going to court over?

 

[mikeg]

Yes in their eyes it is worth going to court over. The chance it without a ticket brigade cost the railway at least as much as the dodge the fare deliberately crew. However they may be persuaded otherwise if you offer to cover their costs together with the full fare due. Arriva trains Wales are one of the harder companies to settle with but it has been done before. The ball is however in their court and if they wish to make an example of you they are free to.

 

[Puffing Devil]

That makes some sense. But surely not worth going to court over?

Unfortunately, people have gone to court for a lot less.

 

[island]

It wouldn’t be likely to go to court if you had engaged constructively with the process from the beginning, but through whatever misunderstanding, you didn’t.

 

[Master29]

Unfortunately, you are in an area of the country where they are quite hot on far evasion so I would take what is happening quite seriously. They can and may take you to court. Have a look at some of the threads concerning ATW in the South Wales area.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Arrival until fairly recently might have wanted to avoid any potentially negative publicity in South Wales courts. However the situation is now different and they may not give a damn........

 

[ainsworth74]

Hm, true. But the Aviva Wales policy states proecution is avoided unless there is 1. fraud 2. giving false personal details 3. knowingly claiming a shot fare 4. repeat offender.

That's not actually what the policy says:

Once a full response has been received the case will be reviewed. All cases will be assessed on their own merit. There are three possible outcomes from any case:

• Ceasing of Proceedings
• Administrative Settlement
• Prosecution

Customers can make genuine mistakes. If this is the first time a customer has been identified within this process they should not normally be taken to prosecution and may be offered an administrative settlement. The exception to this is if there is an attempted fraud or other aggravating circumstance.

Prosecution will be the last course of action. There are some areas where prosecution is unavoidable:

• Fraud
• Giving false personal details
• Knowingly claiming a short journey
• Repeat offender e.g. Travelling without a ticket on more than one occasion

Link

To me that policy is quite clear that once they get the response from the passenger they have three options. Dropping it, going for an administrative settlement or prosecution. And, all three are most certainly still on the table at that point.

Now, they go on to say that a first time offender would normally avoid prosecution but they by no means say that a first time offender will avoid prosecution. They also go on to say that there are four circumstances where a prosecution is unavoidable. By my reading that is not the only four circumstances just four where they always will prosecute simply four where they always will. But they are well within their rights to prosecute in other circumstances.

The policy to my mind does not say what you think it does.

So, with the above in mind, the issue becomes that you have committed an offence. From the letter it sounds like the short faring issue is by the by and they may well have accepted your version of events as they aren't using the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5 which contains a provision relating to short faring but instead they're using the Railway Byelaws 2005 specifically Byelaw 18:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, 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.

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

(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; or
(ii) there was a notice at the station where he began his journey permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket; or
(iii) an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.​

​

Now, you're problem is that Taffs Well, as you note in your opening post, has ticket issuing facilities. So the defence offered by (3) (i) does not apply. Neither it would seem would those offered by (3) (ii) and (iii).

And when it comes to Byelaw 18 that's pretty much all she wrote! It's a strict liability matter (similar to speeding offences on the roads). Did you have a valid ticket? No. Did any of the circumstances in (3) apply? No. In which case the offence is complete and highly likely to succeed at trial. As a positive Byelaw prosecution are non-recordable offences but still likely to be costly.

That all being said it is certainly still possible that Arriva may be willing to settle out of court for the fare due and a sum towards the costs they've incurred. But there is certainly nothing compelling them to do so.