Southern RPI check this morning

[GodAtum]

Was on a train into Victoria this morning when 3 RPis came to check 1st class tickets to my surprise. I was the only one with a valid ticket out of 6 people

They said they couldn't charge people so had to get everyone's details for Southern to mail them a penalty payment letter. Strange as I thought they could collect penalty fares?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Was this on a Southern service or on Thameslink/GN? If either of the latter, first class has been declassified during the 'morning peak' for a few weeks.

 

[GodAtum]

It was a Southern service.

 

[island]

There are several reasons why the officers might not have charged Penalty Fares, including:

• They may not have been in possession of cash float/card terminal
• They may not be Authorised Collectors
• They may have exercised their discretion, or been under instruction, to report the offending passengers for prosecution

 

[James Wake]

I'm sorry but this is only my opinion, I don't see the point of first class on Southern services, on the /1, /2 and /3 subclasses there is no difference in seats apart from the white headrest and the legroom in the first bays behind the cab is unsuitable for anyone over 6 foot tall (like me). This morning my train (that I got a seat on yesterday) had 12 people standing on departure from Three Bridges in the leading coach and I could see standees in the second coach too (yesterday there was 3 but still spare seats if they wanted them) and only 3 people sat in first class out of 10 seats. I've only seen one or two first class ticket check on Southern services that I have travelled on in the past month but never take any risks myself, regardless of my opinions on the matter.

 

[Merseysider]

I'm sorry but this is only my opinion, I don't see the point of first class on Southern services.

Quite.

 

[Mag_seven]

I don't see the point of first class on Southern services, on the /1, /2 and /3 subclasses there is no difference in seats apart from the white headrest and the legroom in the first bays behind the cab is unsuitable for anyone over 6 foot tall (like me).

I agree - but that will be no argument to present to an RPI!

 

[James Wake]

I agree - but that will be no argument to present to an RPI!

Hence why I said further down my post I do not take any risks and sit there when not entitled too despite my opinions. Thank you for agreeing about the legroom.

 

[Mag_seven]

Hence why I said further down my post I do not take any risks and sit there when not entitled too despite my opinions. Thank you for agreeing about the legroom.

It makes you wonder who on earth would pay extra just to get the same seat as you get in standard except that all you get extra is a seat with an antimacassar that says "First Class" on it!

 

[Tunnel Bore]

Come on, you must know why, its the availability of seats for those that can pay to guarantee (almost) a seat even if joining an already full-and-standing train. So it might be "the same seat" but the key point is that it isn't already occupied.

 

[Clip]

It makes you wonder who on earth would pay extra just to get the same seat as you get in standard except that all you get extra is a seat with an antimacassar that says "First Class" on it!

and it has been discussed for years and years on this forum and bears no relevance to the thread at hand

 

[swt_passenger]

Come on, you must know why, its the availability of seats for those that can pay to guarantee (almost) a seat even if joining an already full-and-standing train. So it might be "the same seat" but the key point is that it isn't already occupied.

People raise this point about SN 1st class every few months, I guess the latest contributors are pretending they haven’t seen any of the previous discussions.

 

[boxy321]

Shall I start a 'should first class be abolished?' thread?

 

[Merseysider]

Shall I start a 'should first class be abolished?' thread?

Please don’t, there’s about four hundred of them already!

 

[6Gman]

There are several reasons why the officers might not have charged Penalty Fares, including:

• They may not have been in possession of cash float/card terminal
• They may not be Authorised Collectors
• They may have exercised their discretion, or been under instruction, to report the offending passengers for prosecution

I thought PFs were for genuine errors rather than deliberate actions?

Sitting in First Class with a Standard Class ticket can rarely be an error

 

[najaB]

I thought PFs were for genuine errors rather than deliberate actions?

While they are generally used for mistakes, there is nothing in the Penalty Fares Rules which says that is the only circumstances under which they can be issued.

 

[furlong]

I thought PFs were for genuine errors rather than deliberate actions?

I don't know how you would define a "genuine error" but the underlying requirement for a Penalty Fare remains, as you would expect, one of "dishonesty". The system assumes that every honest passenger will take note of the clear warning posters and obtain their ticket before boarding the train. Ignoring the instructions is deemed sufficient to demonstrate that the passenger intended not to pay, but rather than prosecuting (based on this or any other evidence), the streamlined Penalty Fare system offers a quick and simple on-the-spot out-of-court alternative to the advantage of all parties involved. (If it were handled as a police matter, remember, a caution would have been available.) While the system does reverse the burden of proof, the passenger is not required to admit their guilt, the penalty is low and they avoid the risk of a criminal record.

 

[najaB]

While the system does reverse the burden of proof...

I'm not sure that it always does, given the strict liability nature of Byelaw offences.

 

[furlong]

I'm not sure that it always does, given the strict liability nature of Byelaw offences.

Well an argument in support of the validity of the reinstated financial penalty for the relevant byelaw is still rooted in dishonesty - no honest passenger would ignore an opportunity to pay their fare. (But I've still never really found a satisfactory answer to Huffam v. North Staffordshire Railway Co., QBD in 1894 where a byelaw conviction was quashed because of a missing intention to defraud required by RORA.).

 

[ag51ruk]

I thought PFs were for genuine errors rather than deliberate actions?

Sitting in First Class with a Standard Class ticket can rarely be an error

Travelling in First with a Standard ticket is one of the examples given on penalty fare notices of when a PF may be issued

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well an argument in support of the validity of the reinstated financial penalty for the relevant byelaw is still rooted in dishonesty - no honest passenger would ignore an opportunity to pay their fare. (But I've still never really found a satisfactory answer to Huffam v. North Staffordshire Railway Co., QBD in 1894 where a byelaw conviction was quashed because of a missing intention to defraud required by RORA.).

Do you have a transcript or other copy of said case? I cannot locate it on the internet.

 

[furlong]

Do you have a transcript or other copy of said case? I cannot locate it on the internet.

Not to hand, but do a search for the 1973 document "judicial control of delegated legislation" "alan wharam" (The Modern Law Review, Vol 36, p613) and question what new grounds the DfT found to disregard considerations such as these when approving the reinstatement of such a penalty into the railway byelaws around 10 years ago.

The railway cases were comparatively straightforward, and all turned on the question as to whether a by-law could create the offence of travelling without a ticket unless a fraudulent intention could be proved.
...
"It is unjust; because it makes no distinction between a man who has really perpetrated, or attempted to perpetrate, a fraud upon the company, and one who has by mere inadvertence lost his ticket after having paid his full fare; or from whom it has been stolen; or who has carelessly but innocently neglected to provide himself with one."

I mentioned the 1894 case as that came after RORA suggesting the same principles continued to apply whereas the comments quoted above were from an earlier judgement.

 

[furlong]

(I'd also suggest that Parliament's Penalty Fares legislation further undermines the validity of any byelaw that offers less protection to the honest passenger than that system does. I remain curious as to whether the DfT's recent changes to the Penalty Fares regulations amount to tacit preparation for a nationwide rollout of Penalty Fares which could now rapidly replace this byelaw if there were ever a successful challenge.)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

(I'd also suggest that Parliament's Penalty Fares legislation further undermines the validity of any byelaw that offers less protection to the honest passenger than that system does. I remain curious as to whether the DfT's recent changes to the Penalty Fares regulations amount to tacit preparation for a nationwide rollout of Penalty Fares which could now rapidly replace this byelaw if there were ever a successful challenge.)

Perhaps that would be an avenue for someone whose pockets are weighed down by an excess £100k or so to do a judicial review? Although Penalty Fares are not perfect, they are in many ways significantly preferable over Byelaw 18 prosecutions IMO. If the necessary trade-off for the repeal of Byelaw 18 is the nationwide rollout and enforcement of Penalty Fares I would accept that.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . I've still never really found a satisfactory answer to Huffam v. North Staffordshire Railway Co., QBD in 1894 where a byelaw conviction was quashed because of a missing intention to defraud required by RORA. . . .

The difficulty faced by Justices Matthews and Kennedy in Huffam was in the wording of Railway Byelaw No 2 as it was formulated at that time. It was the construction of the Byelaw which was found to be 'bad' on its face, and not the circumstances of the incident involving Huffam. His Offence was already captured by S.5(3) of the 1889 Act (the RoRA). It was not (and still is not) acceptable for a Court to uphold a Byelaw which imposes a penalty for an action which is already captured by Statute; nor to disregard the statutory offence and its penalty in favour of the Secondary Legislation (the Byelaw), when Evidence of an Offence is brought to Court.
Consider : "Parliament did not intend to make a Byelaw which alters the Statutory Offence" - Bentham v Hoyle (1878) 3 QBD 289

Do you have a transcript or other copy of said case? I cannot locate it on the internet.

It's Huffam v North Staffordshire Railway Co [1894] 2 QB 821 on 3rd August.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The difficulty faced by Justices Matthews and Kennedy in Huffam was in the wording of Railway Byelaw No 2 as it was formulated at that time. It was the construction of the Byelaw which was found to be 'bad' on its face, and not the circumstances of the incident involving Huffam. His Offence was already captured by S.5(3) of the 1889 Act (the RoRA). It was not (and still is not) acceptable for a Court to uphold a Byelaw which imposes a penalty for an action which is already captured by Statute; nor to disregard the statutory offence and its penalty in favour of the Secondary Legislation (the Byelaw), when Evidence of an Offence is brought to Court.
Consider : "Parliament did not intend to make a Byelaw which alters the Statutory Offence" - Bentham v Hoyle (1878) 3 QBD 289

It's Huffam v North Staffordshire Railway Co [1894] 2 QB 821 on 3rd August.

Thanks. Some would argue that Byelaw 18, as it stands, is therefore ultra vires - as not having a ticket where opportunities to buy existed is prima facie dishonest to a degree, and hence the Byelaw is really a carbon copy of S5(3) of RoRA.

I would of course be delighted if Byelaw 18 were found to be ultra vires, with the penalty for non-compliance being restored to its pre-2005 version - ejection from the railway. A declaration of ultra vires would presumably mean that all convictions under Byelaw 18 would be overturned, with fines and costs due to be returned. Would it also mean that TOCs who made settlements out of Court in relation to Byelaw 18 would have to refund the settlement? Some of the TOCs, e.g. FCC, are no longer trading!

In any case, I don't think it right to have a strict liability offence in relation to ticketing - as the overlap is significant with Penalty Fares. Penalty Fares should be used as a replacement for Byelaw 18, now that the new Penalty Fares Regulations mean that the DfT's approval is not required for new schemes to be introduced.

 

[najaB]

Some would argue that Byelaw 18, as it stands, is therefore ultra vires - as not having a ticket where opportunities to buy existed is prima facie dishonest to a degree, and hence the Byelaw is really a carbon copy of S5(3) of RoRA.

However, the Byelaws don't speak to intent, where the RoRA does.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

However, the Byelaws don't speak to intent, where the RoRA does.

Some argue that creating an offence in relation to ticketing implies a level of dishonesty.

 

[najaB]

Some argue that creating an offence in relation to ticketing implies a level of dishonesty.

If I don't see the ticket machine, am I showing dishonesty if I don't use it?

 

[Llanigraham]

Ignorance is no defence, therefore yes.