'No Valid Ticket'

[Kazuma]

Hi,

I've received a letter for not paying a train ticket. It was a short fare (4 minutes, £2.50 for the ticket). When I got stopped by the revenue guy, I said I was running late for the train, which is not true.

In the letter, it says: "These considerations may include whether any charge should allege an offence against Railway Byelaws (2005) or, The Regulations of Railways Act 1889."

I'm a EU citizen, and absolutely don't get this circus, but that's beside the point. I want to pay and get this over with as soon as possible.

My question is: Should I write in my response that I was running late for a train? Will they check if that is actually true?

 

[furlong]

Nobody on here is going to recommend lying. If a lie is detected it makes everything worse. What will CCTV show?

Read the other threads on here and follow the normal formula - apologise, show you've learned your lesson and it won't happen again, offer to pay the outstanding fare due (if you didn't already) and their reasonable costs in dealing with your case. If they don't offer you a settlement straight away, don't give up but try again. Different train companies seem to handle this in different ways and sometimes it takes two or three attempts to persuade them - and even if it goes to court, you can still try to settle the matter with the prosecutor before your case is heard.

 

[NoOnesFool]

I'm a EU citizen, and absolutely don't get this circus,

What's not to get? You evaded the fare and broke the law, now you must face the consequences of breaking the law.

 

[30907]

Hi,
I've received a letter for not paying a train ticket. It was a short fare (4 minutes, £2.50 for the ticket).
My question is: Should I write in my response that I was running late for a train? Will they check if that is actually true?

1.When you say "short fare," I presume you mean "short journey."
On the UK railway "short fare" is a technical term. It means that you tried to pay for a short journey but had actually made a more expensive one. I don't think you meant that, so just don't use the words in your reply to make sure.

2. I doubt they will check to see what time you arrived at the station, and I don't think it will make any difference to what happens next.

 

[CC 72100]

Hi,

I've received a letter for not paying a train ticket. It was a short fare (4 minutes, £2.50 for the ticket). When I got stopped by the revenue guy, I said I was running late for the train, which is not true.

In the letter, it says: "These considerations may include whether any charge should allege an offence against Railway Byelaws (2005) or, The Regulations of Railways Act 1889."

I'm a EU citizen, and absolutely don't get this circus, but that's beside the point. I want to pay and get this over with as soon as possible.

My question is: Should I write in my response that I was running late for a train? Will they check if that is actually true?

Buy a ticket then.


On a serious note, considering that your lie would also result in the same course of actions against you, I don't see what there is to be gained by lying as it would only look worse when if it all unravelled.

 

[najaB]

When I got stopped by the revenue guy, I said I was running late for the train, which is not true.

Running late is not a valid defence so it really doesn't matter.

You are facing potential prosecution for boarding without a ticket. The only valid defence would be that there was no possible way to buy a ticket (no machine or rocket office) or that you were given permission to travel (either directly by a staff member or there was a sign).

 

[Welby]

I agree with all the responses. He/she deliberately avoided paying the fare, so pay the consequences.

 

[6Gman]

I'm a EU citizen, and absolutely don't get this circus, but that's beside the point. I want to pay and get this over with as soon as possible.

My question is: Should I write in my response that I was running late for a train? Will they check if that is actually true?

What do you mean by the expression "don't get this circus" ?

 

[Haywain]

I'm a EU citizen

As are most of us (for the time being, at least).

 

[bionic]

What do you mean by the expression "don't get this circus" ?

I took that to be in relation to the UK's ridiculous and unusual privately-operated franchise system, or perhaps the concept of penalty fares and their patchy and inconsistent coverage around the country. For example: travelling in suburban London without a ticket will get you a penalty fare but further out in the shires you can legitimately buy one on board from the guard. I'm not sure how ticketless travel is dealt with elsewhere in the EU, but generally they don't have lots of ever-changing franchises, all with different rules and conditions. Its confusing to many British citizens so I don't blame anyone from abroad for not understanding it!

*cue a line of responses pointing out that they do tend to have little signs about penalty fares in the UK and that some EU countries do have private railway operators.

 

[Hadders]

I took that to be in relation to the UK's ridiculous and unusual privately-operated franchise system, or perhaps the concept of penalty fares and their patchy and inconsistent coverage around the country. For example: travelling in suburban London without a ticket will get you a penalty fare but further out in the shires you can legitimately buy one on board from the guard. I'm not sure how ticketless travel is dealt with elsewhere in the EU, but generally they don't have lots of ever-changing franchises, all with different rules and conditions. Its confusing to many British citizens so I don't blame anyone from abroad for not understanding it!

*cue a line of responses pointing out that they do tend to have little signs about penalty fares in the UK and that some EU countries do have private railway operators.

Penalty fares were introduced by British Rail. There's certainly heavy enforcement of rail fares on the continent as well.

 

[bionic]

Penalty fares were introduced by British Rail. There's certainly heavy enforcement of rail fares on the continent as well.

Yes, but my point is if you get on a Southeastern train at Penge East without a ticket you'll get penalty fared... If you get on a train operated by the same firm at Beltring the guard will sell you one, no questions. It's not consistent and people unfamiliar with the railways could be forgiven for not realising the difference.

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure how ticketless travel is dealt with elsewhere in the EU, but generally they don't have lots of ever-changing franchises, all with different rules and conditions.

In any case, keeping to the principal of 'buy before you board' will keep you right - both here and on the Continent.

 

[Hadders]

Yes, but my point is if you get on a Southeastern train at Penge East without a ticket you'll get penalty fared... If you get on a train operated by the same firm at Beltring the guard will sell you one, no questions. It's not consistent and people unfamiliar with the railways could be forgiven for not realising the difference.

According to NRE there is a TVM at Beltring so you could expect a Penalty Fare if you board a train there without first purchasing a ticket.

I don’t have an issue with (very) minor stations not having a ticket machine and relying on a permit to travel (or promise to oay) system as long as it’s correctly and prominently signed. What shouldn’t happen is guards selling tickets to passengers who have not made use of the available ticketing facilities without any form of warning at all.

 

[simonw]

According to NRE there is a TVM at Beltring so you could expect a Penalty Fare if you board a train there without first purchasing a ticket.

I don’t have an issue with (very) minor stations not having a ticket machine and relying on a permit to travel (or promise to oay) system as long as it’s correctly and prominently signed. What shouldn’t happen is guards selling tickets to passengers who have not made use of the available ticketing facilities without any form of warning at all.

Thread drift i know but this happens regularly on my service into Waterloo.

 

[bionic]

According to NRE there is a TVM at Beltring so you could expect a Penalty Fare if you board a train there without first purchasing a ticket.

I don’t have an issue with (very) minor stations not having a ticket machine and relying on a permit to travel (or promise to oay) system as long as it’s correctly and prominently signed. What shouldn’t happen is guards selling tickets to passengers who have not made use of the available ticketing facilities without any form of warning at all.

With hindsight Beltring wasn't the best example as most guards on the Medway Valley aren't brave enough to check tickets at all! Although to be fair, most of the aggro is between Strood and Maidstone.

 

[island]

If you end up getting prosecuted and convicted this may adversely affect your application for settled status should you wish to stay in the UK after Brexit.

 

[najaB]

If you end up getting prosecuted and convicted this may adversely affect your application for settled status should you wish to stay in the UK after Brexit.

Doubt it. Even a RoRA conviction would be spent by the time the transitional arrangement comes to an end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure how ticketless travel is dealt with elsewhere in the EU, but generally they don't have lots of ever-changing franchises, all with different rules and conditions.

Give Switzerland a go. On regional services, buy before you board is absolute. If the TVM is out of order (rare but does happen!) and you can't do a mobile ticket for whatever reason, the station is de-facto closed.

On IC/IR/ICN services it's a bit different despite using the same "eye" symbol - on those trains you must buy before you board *but* there are some specific exceptions, I suspect including there being no working means of buying a ticket. This is different because every IC/IR/ICN train carries two guards who work together and issue Penalty Fares, unlike ours. The regional services are DOO with occasional inspections.

Notably, a mobile ticket is only valid if it was purchased before the time of departure - and yes, they do check. So not like here, where I've heard a LNR guard say to someone "I can't sell tickets today as the inspectors are out, but get a mobile ticket now and you'll be OK", which really damages the concept and turns mobile tickets into something rather like the old dodge of keeping a scratch off Merseytravel Saveaway in your pocket and scratching it off when an inspector boards, thereby avoiding a PF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doubt it. Even a RoRA conviction would be spent by the time the transitional arrangement comes to an end.

Wouldn't they use an enhanced DBS equivalent (spent status is ignored) for that kind of thing?

 

[najaB]

Wouldn't they use an enhanced DBS equivalent (spent status is ignored) for that kind of thing?

Not normally, no. That's the whole point of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act - one minor crime doesn't have an impact on the rest of the person's life. As I understand it, while the Home Office will be aware of spent convictions they can't, in themselves, be a factor in granting/denying settled status.

 

[rs101]

Not normally, no. That's the whole point of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act - one minor crime doesn't have an impact on the rest of the person's life. As I understand it, while the Home Office will be aware of spent convictions they can't, in themselves, be a factor in granting/denying settled status.

They're not supposed to, but recent reports confirmed they not only considered spent convictions, they also used the fact someone may have been arrested,but not charged, of even acquitted in court, to classify them as criminal types when considering Windrush mistakes.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&s...aw1eU4NslRrO4ykA4FNBmwrk&ust=1542552077541007

 

[najaB]

They're not supposed to, but recent reports confirmed they not only considered spent convictions, they also used the fact someone may have been arrested,but not charged, of even acquitted in court, to classify them as criminal types when considering Windrush mistakes.

One hopes that they've learned lessons from this scandal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're not supposed to, but recent reports confirmed they not only considered spent convictions, they also used the fact someone may have been arrested,but not charged, of even acquitted in court, to classify them as criminal types when considering Windrush mistakes.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiHtqa21NveAhXKx4UKHbBsAqcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/15/windrush-victims-classed-as-criminals-in-government-blunder&psig=AOvVaw1eU4NslRrO4ykA4FNBmwrk&ust=1542552077541007

Immigration law has a habit of doing that - the US certainly do! Which is a bit annoying for some, as in the US if you are "de-arrested" that means you weren't arrested, whereas in the UK there is no such concept so you can't answer "no" to "were you arrested..." even if you were released without charge.