5 penalty fares in 2 weeks... please help!!

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on that, not being a lawyer, but I think it's dubious as to it being relevant or not, because as I say, they aren't actually part of the deal.

 

[John @ home]

I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on that, not being a lawyer, but I think it's dubious as to it being relevant or not, because as I say, they aren't actually part of the deal.

My position is that any document which a passenger can rely on in making a decision to buy a ticket is relevant. Examples are this case and the Northern Rail rover and ranger leaflets which in some instances contradict the maps on the National Rail site.

In both cases the information is likely to be admitted by the Court as relevant evidence. When both sides have presented all their relevant evidence, the Court will consider the matter and make a decision.

Saying that something is likely to be admitted as relevant evidence makes no prediction about what that decision will be.

 

[LexyBoy]

(sorry for late reply)

They are not "ticketless", at the worst they are "overdistance" (travelling beyond validity). If reason is given as no ticket held then I am fairly confident that the Penalty Fare appeal should be successful on those grounds (although I am not an expert in that respect).

OK - that makes sense, but wouldn't "overdistance" still garner a PF? As in your earlier post you stated that "Travelling beyond validity" was an option for the PF? It would certainly show more eagerness than capability if five different RPIs ticked the wrong box!

Allegedly Off Route is clearly most appropriate as there is a dispute regarding the routeing, some sources state this is a valid route, and one of those sources are specified in the contract as being definitive.

Agree with this, though if the staff weren't sure surely they should check rather than 'allege' the passenger is off-route

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My position is that any document which a passenger can rely on in making a decision to buy a ticket is relevant. Examples are this case and the Northern Rail rover and ranger leaflets which in some instances contradict the maps on the National Rail site.

In both cases the information is likely to be admitted by the Court as relevant evidence. When both sides have presented all their relevant evidence, the Court will consider the matter and make a decision.

Saying that something is likely to be admitted as relevant evidence makes no prediction about what that decision will be.

I confirm that the supplimentary information (such as maps, itineries suggested by the journey planner etc) all fall within the scope of admissable evidence, and easily do so.

Perhaps more to the point is the questions arising from an apparent conflict of information (or suggested or implied information) between different documents/sources. This is likely to be a matter of contention in any legal dispute, and will doubltess lead to a throrough analysis of the precise wording in the specific case concerned as well as applicable (and less applicable) case law, but one factor which would weigh very heavily in favour of accepting the journey planners, maps and other secondary sources of information would be the TOC's action on being informed of the anomaly:
If the TOC was informed of an anomaly and took reasonable steps to correct it, then we should assume that it was an error or omission that has been corrected. (The passenger may still argue that the erroneous information applied in their favour).
But if the TOC was informed of an anomaly (which gave the traveller broader permissions) and took no action to remove the anomaly within a reasonable time, then we should assume that the TOC was content for that broader permission to apply. Perhaps we MUST assume that. (The passenger would therefore have succeeded in showing that they had travelled with a valid ticket).

Using this test, the action or inaction of the TOC would help a Court to understand how to apply a condition which is defined in 2 inconsistent but not wholly contradictory ways.
Difficulties would of course follow if the TOC had taken some action but it was not substantial (such as replying to a query denying the validity of a route but not changing their publicised information).

It appears to me that it would be relatively easy to show that there are many anomalies in Railway publications (though this is not the question we're considering) what might be more troublesome is to show that a specific anomaly has been brought to the attention of a responsible officer of the TOC on one or more occassions and they have allowed that anomaly to remain. But if that could be demonstrated evidentially, then I'm tempted to guess that the passenger would have the benefit from a legal judgement.