Thameslink Single Justice Procedure Notice

[John Palmer]

The current Anytime fare for the 07:24 Alexandra Palace to Stevenage service is £15.70, as against the £15.10 fare alleged to have been avoided. I've no idea whether there has been a change in the fare since the date of the incident, but I would be surprised by the discovery that the fare for that journey on an off-peak carnet ticket was as little as £0.60. If the difference between the Anytime fare for the journey and the price paid by the OP for the off-peak ticket is less than £15.10 then, per NRCoT Condition 9.5, the OP should only have to pay that difference and there is a material error in the amount of compensation applied for in the SJPN. Therein lies the significance of the amount of the additional fare the RPO invited the OP to pay. I see no reason for the OP not to put these points – and in particular the apparent relevance of Condition 9.5 – to the TOC concerned, as I suspect that the letter in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute, with its offer to pay any excess properly due, has either gone astray or has so far been disregarded by the TOC concerned.

 

[Hadders]

I would not telephone GTR's Prosecutions Department. This sort of thing really needs to be done in writing so that there is an audit trail, and a telephone call does not provide this.

I would write to GTR Prosecutions Department and also send a copy to the court. You would need to indicate a Not Guilty plea. Send both letters by Signed For 1st Class Post so that you have proof that they have been received.

I would mention the following in your letter:

• That you replied to the initial letter sent by the Procesutions Department but that this reply appears to have been ignored
• Clarify that you held a correctly dated carnet ticket from London Terminals to Stevenage but that you started your journey from Alexandra Palace which is allowed
• Carnet off peak tickets are subject to restriction code CP, which has incoonsistent reading between the morning and evening restrictions, and does not mention Alexandra Palace at all You sought clarification from GTR on when an Off Peak ticket can be used and travelled in accordance with this advice
• That Section 5.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel states that an excess fare is payable if you travel on a time restricted ticket (such as off peak or super off peak) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling
• Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Off Peak and Super Off Peak tickets on the National Rail website, which is linked to from the Thameslink website (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46590.aspx) states that '7.1 If you wish to change your time of travel or class of the ticket, you can pay the difference between the cost of the ticket held and the cost of the ticket that is most appropriate for the journey you need to make'.
• That in the light of these points you cannot understand why they have chosen to prosecute you and request that they withdraw the summons
• Offer to pay the excess fare as this is still due

Feel free to post a draft of your letter in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I would not telephone GTR's Prosecutions Department. This sort of thing really needs to be done in writing so that there is an audit trail, and a telephone call does not provide this.

I would write to GTR Prosecutions Department and also send a copy to the court. You would need to indicate a Not Guilty plea. Send both letters by Signed For 1st Class Post so that you have proof that they have been received.

I would mention the following in your letter:

• That you replied to the initial letter sent by the Procesutions Department but that this reply appears to have been ignored
• Clarify that you held a correctly dated carnet ticket from London Terminals to Stevenage but that you started your journey from Alexandra Palace which is allowed
• Carnet off peak tickets are subject to restriction code CP, which has incoonsistent reading between the morning and evening restrictions, and does not mention Alexandra Palace at all You sought clarification from GTR on when an Off Peak ticket can be used and travelled in accordance with this advice
• That Section 5.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel states that an excess fare is payable if you travel on a time restricted ticket (such as off peak or super off peak) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling
• Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Off Peak and Super Off Peak tickets on the National Rail website, which is linked to from the Thameslink website (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46590.aspx) states that '7.1 If you wish to change your time of travel or class of the ticket, you can pay the difference between the cost of the ticket held and the cost of the ticket that is most appropriate for the journey you need to make'.
• That in the light of these points you cannot understand why they have chosen to prosecute you and request that they withdraw the summons
• Offer to pay the excess fare as this is still due

Feel free to post a draft of your letter in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it.

If you have a copy of the earlier reply that you sent, but which seems to have been ignored (the first bullet point above) it would probably be worth enclosing it with your response. It doesn’t prove that you sent it before (it’s not impossible to write a letter and put an earlier date on it) but it does suggest that you tried to respond at the right time.

 

[some bloke]

I'm not sure how the ticket - or the contract - was invalid. Did the Twitter team not clarify the offer of contractual terms to say the ticket was valid, and then Igor accepted those terms by buying/dating the ticket/boarding?

Should Igor write to the company and the court, saying something like this?



"I believe the Single Justice Procedure Notice should be withdrawn on the following grounds.

1. The pages headed "Charge Sheet" and "Statement of Facts" appear to me to supply a misleadingly incomplete description of the alleged offence. Even if this is not so, the prosecution case appears to be based on a fundamental factual error because I had already presented to the Thameslink officer on the train, and also sent to Thameslink, evidence that their Twitter team in effect gave permission to use the ticket in the way I did.

The description given of the offence gives the misleading impression that a person entering a train for the purpose of travel, without a valid ticket, thereby commits an offence. I would have expected an adequate description to contain words to the effect of "without permission from an authorised person", because otherwise someone might plead guilty on a false basis. Under Railway Byelaw 18(3), a person cannot be guilty of an offence under Byelaw 18(1) if "an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket".
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws

Further, National Rail Condition of Travel 6.1.2 (below) may reasonably be interpreted as saying that boarding a train is allowed even with an otherwise invalid ticket if an authorised person permits it by saying a particular type of ticket is valid for travel at such a time.

The incomplete description has already had a detrimental effect on me, because I naturally took Thameslink to have given an accurate description seeming to imply that according to the law I must be guilty. I am puzzled at the incomplete description, because the missing part was highly relevant to my case. I had already sent Thameslink evidence of an exchange with their Twitter team relating to the question of whether an authorised person had given me permission to travel. Byelaw 25 says who authorised persons are, and the Twitter team seems to count.


2. Thameslink appears to be attempting to obtain money which it is not owed, since the Charge Sheet wrongly claims that there was a "fare avoided" of around £15.

No fare was avoided if there was a valid contract for travel at that time, as a result of i) contractual terms being previously offered to me by the Thameslink Twitter team and then ii) acceptance by me of those terms through use of the ticket for travel.

Alternatively, if the ticket were invalid, National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5.3 would apply: it states "you will be charged the difference", which would be around £7. My correctly dated ticket, which Thameslink now claims was invalid for travel at that time of day, cost around £8. Thameslink seems now to be wrongly referring to a different, replacement ticket costing £15. The Conditions of Travel here form part of the contract created by purchase and use of a correctly dated ticket at the "wrong" time of day.

Below are excerpts from the current National Rail Conditions of Travel.

"6.1 You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless one of the following circumstances applies: ...
6.1.2 The station is staffed, and you are specifically permitted to board a train service by an authorised member of staff, or you have received a written notice or heard an audible announcement to this effect"

9.5 Where you...are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling...
9.5.3 ...you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/conditions-of-travel.aspx


3. If the above problems are the result of Thameslink not having received my letter of xx date (enclosed, with the transcript and screenshot of the Twitter exchange), then I likewise propose that the Single Justice Procedure be withdrawn and that Thameslink reconsider the matter."

 

[island]

What if Thameslink say the Twitter operator was not an "authorised person"?

 

[Titfield]

What if Thameslink say the Twitter operator was not an "authorised person"?

Go to Court, Plead Not Guilty and in court ask Thameslink to explain to the court how information given via Twitter, which the general public rely on and in the instant case the OP relied on, can possibly be construed in that way.

It is an absolute nonsense for Thameslink to argue that position (that Thameslink was not an authorised person). Any right minded Court would see that Thameslink can not adopt that position.

 

[Haywain]

Go to Court, Plead Not Guilty and in court ask Thameslink to explain to the court how information given via Twitter, which the general public rely on and in the instant case the OP relied on, can possibly be construed in that way.

It is an absolute nonsense for Thameslink to argue that position (that Thameslink was not an authorised person). Any right minded Court would see that Thameslink can not adopt that position.

You have a touching faith in the court system.

 

[island]

It is an absolute nonsense for Thameslink to argue that position (that Thameslink was not an authorised person). Any right minded Court would see that Thameslink can not adopt that position.

I think it is eminently possible that a court would accept a submission that a social media operator is not authorised to give customers permission to use an invalid ticket, and that such permission could only rightly be given by booking office or station staff.

You have a touching faith in the court system.

Indeed.

 

[John Palmer]

What if Thameslink say the Twitter operator was not an "authorised person"?

In this context, I would have thought that the more relevant element of Condition 6.1.2 is “or you have received a written notice ... to this effect”, which does not have to be issued by an “authorised member of staff”. More problematic are the words “specifically permitted”, which might well be construed to mean permission to board a specific train. The Twitter conversation in question seems to have taken place seven months earlier in July 2021, and I question whether it is a conversation capable of constituting permission to board a particular train at Alexandra Palace in mid-February 2022.


Taking the CP restriction as being potentially applicable to the OP's ticket, the ambiguities in its wording strike me as being more fertile ground for a challenge to the prosecution case that an off-peak ticket was invalid on that service, but I still see the prosecutor then falling back on the argument that the train involved was the 07:03 ex Moorgate, and as such subject to the CP restriction. Ultimately the argument that the CP restriction did not apply involves a conclusion that the ticket must be treated as valid and that no excess is payable.


The Twitter conversation is potentially relevant on the basis that it would be an abuse of process for a company to prosecute for boarding a train with an invalid ticket after having lulled the defendant into a false sense of security that such ticket was valid. Similarly, the terms of NRCoT 9.5 can be argued to be to a representation that train companies will cure a ticket's invalidity by reason of a time restriction with the charging of an excess, not by prosecution, as otherwise Condition 9.5 is pointless, and that in such a case prosecution is so unconscionable as to amount to abuse of process. These are not a straightforward arguments, but if put to the justices they would be bound to consider them and adjudicate upon them after receiving appropriate advice from their legal adviser.


Although a letter to the prosecutor has the advantage of leaving an audit trail, it also has the disadvantage that it may not elicit a reply within the period for response to the SJPN. If the prosecutor does not respond promptly with an unequivocal assurance that it will not be proceeding with the case the the OP will need to decide in good time whether to enter a not guilty plea.

 

[Titfield]

You have a touching faith in the court system.

I think it is eminently possible that a court would accept a submission that a social media operator is not authorised to give customers permission to use an invalid ticket, and that such permission could only rightly be given by booking office or station staff.

Indeed.

If you take the view that the Court would side with the Operator that the advice and information given by Thameslink via social media is not to be relied on as authorisation then you may as well plead guilty.

However this is a crucial point in the giving of information, advice and authorisation by a TOC.

If TOCs do not have to stand by information given by their staff through a social media channel then what is the point of TOCs allowing customers / passengers etc to message the operator? Whilst it could be argued that asking "any Tom Dick or Harry" on a station in a high viz jacket would not meet the standard of asking "an authorised person", asking a question to the Social media team could be deemed to meet the standard.

If the social media team are not authorised then is the Operators Call Centre? What is the difference? (and perhaps more crucially is that difference made clear to the customer?

How can a customer be satisfied that the information they have been given can be relied on?

 

[Hadders]

Discussion of whether a member of the TOC's twitter team is an authorised person is probably a topic best doen in a separate thread as we're at risk of going off topic.

The best course of action is for the OP to get GTR to withdraw the prosecution. If the matter does proceed to court then I am inclined to agree with @Haywain and I would strongly advise the OP to obtain legal representation.

 

[WesternLancer]

I would not telephone GTR's Prosecutions Department. This sort of thing really needs to be done in writing so that there is an audit trail, and a telephone call does not provide this.

I would write to GTR Prosecutions Department and also send a copy to the court. You would need to indicate a Not Guilty plea. Send both letters by Signed For 1st Class Post so that you have proof that they have been received.

I would mention the following in your letter:

• That you replied to the initial letter sent by the Procesutions Department but that this reply appears to have been ignored
• Clarify that you held a correctly dated carnet ticket from London Terminals to Stevenage but that you started your journey from Alexandra Palace which is allowed
• Carnet off peak tickets are subject to restriction code CP, which has incoonsistent reading between the morning and evening restrictions, and does not mention Alexandra Palace at all You sought clarification from GTR on when an Off Peak ticket can be used and travelled in accordance with this advice
• That Section 5.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel states that an excess fare is payable if you travel on a time restricted ticket (such as off peak or super off peak) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling
• Section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Off Peak and Super Off Peak tickets on the National Rail website, which is linked to from the Thameslink website (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46590.aspx) states that '7.1 If you wish to change your time of travel or class of the ticket, you can pay the difference between the cost of the ticket held and the cost of the ticket that is most appropriate for the journey you need to make'.
• That in the light of these points you cannot understand why they have chosen to prosecute you and request that they withdraw the summons
• Offer to pay the excess fare as this is still due

Feel free to post a draft of your letter in this thread and forum members will be happy to proof read it.

Seems v good advice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Apr 2022 ==

I'm not sure how the ticket - or the contract - was invalid. Did the Twitter team not clarify the offer of contractual terms to say the ticket was valid, and then Igor accepted those terms by buying/dating the ticket/boarding?

Should Igor write to the company and the court, saying something like this?



"I believe the Single Justice Procedure Notice should be withdrawn on the following grounds.

1. The pages headed "Charge Sheet" and "Statement of Facts" appear to me to supply a misleadingly incomplete description of the alleged offence. Even if this is not so, the prosecution case appears to be based on a fundamental factual error because I had already presented to the Thameslink officer on the train, and also sent to Thameslink, evidence that their Twitter team in effect gave permission to use the ticket in the way I did.

The description given of the offence gives the misleading impression that a person entering a train for the purpose of travel, without a valid ticket, thereby commits an offence. I would have expected an adequate description to contain words to the effect of "without permission from an authorised person", because otherwise someone might plead guilty on a false basis. Under Railway Byelaw 18(3), a person cannot be guilty of an offence under Byelaw 18(1) if "an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket".
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws

Further, National Rail Condition of Travel 6.1.2 (below) may reasonably be interpreted as saying that boarding a train is allowed even with an otherwise invalid ticket if an authorised person permits it by saying a particular type of ticket is valid for travel at such a time.

The incomplete description has already had a detrimental effect on me, because I naturally took Thameslink to have given an accurate description seeming to imply that according to the law I must be guilty. I am puzzled at the incomplete description, because the missing part was highly relevant to my case. I had already sent Thameslink evidence of an exchange with their Twitter team relating to the question of whether an authorised person had given me permission to travel. Byelaw 25 says who authorised persons are, and the Twitter team seems to count.


2. Thameslink appears to be attempting to obtain money which it is not owed, since the Charge Sheet wrongly claims that there was a "fare avoided" of around £15.

No fare was avoided if there was a valid contract for travel at that time, as a result of i) contractual terms being previously offered to me by the Thameslink Twitter team and then ii) acceptance by me of those terms through use of the ticket for travel.

Alternatively, if the ticket were invalid, National Rail Condition of Travel 9.5.3 would apply: it states "you will be charged the difference", which would be around £7. My correctly dated ticket, which Thameslink now claims was invalid for travel at that time of day, cost around £8. Thameslink seems now to be wrongly referring to a different, replacement ticket costing £15. The Conditions of Travel here form part of the contract created by purchase and use of a correctly dated ticket at the "wrong" time of day.

Below are excerpts from the current National Rail Conditions of Travel.

"6.1 You must hold a valid Ticket or authority to travel before you board a train where there was the opportunity to buy one unless one of the following circumstances applies: ...
6.1.2 The station is staffed, and you are specifically permitted to board a train service by an authorised member of staff, or you have received a written notice or heard an audible announcement to this effect"

9.5 Where you...are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an “off-peak” or “super-off-peak” Ticket) that is correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling...
9.5.3 ...you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/conditions-of-travel.aspx


3. If the above problems are the result of Thameslink not having received my letter of xx date (enclosed, with the transcript and screenshot of the Twitter exchange), then I likewise propose that the Single Justice Procedure be withdrawn and that Thameslink reconsider the matter."

Again, seems helpful to the OP.

 

[Igor29]

Hi All, I've managed to resolve this matter OOC on Tuesday by calling the phone number on the SJPN.

I wanted the thank all of you for the time you've taken, helping me understand my situation and the advice you've given me over what was to me the longest-long weekend ever! You really helped me through a difficult time.

Here's the details of what happened:

• The number I called was 03300956050
• Phone was answered within about 30 seconds.
• I was on the call for about 15 mins, start to finish just dealt with the one guy, who seemed really friendly.
• I explained receiving the Notice of intent to prosecute, my reply and my distress at receiving the SJPN.
  • I can't recall his answer to my asking if they received my reply.
  • He did explain that he was the person to review the case, as his colleague put it together - but why this review doesn't occur before sending out the letter baffles me.
• After explaining the situation and the incident, he offered that I pay the full single fare of £15.10 (no fine or any other extras)
  • I was able to do this over an online portal that he gave me the link to over the phone
  • Credentials are the Incident number and your last name
  • However, this portal is not available unless they unlock it
  • I downloaded the receipt, and screenshotted the portal and payment
  • I checked with him if that was it - he replied the case had now closed on their system.

Now this leaves a number of issues technically unanswered, I was so relieved - after struggling to sleep for 4 days - that this was so easily resolved that I didn't want to push it.

• I still don't know why they pursued this matter in this manner and so aggressively
• I tried arguing to only pay the difference between the ticket price I paid and the full fare
  • He said because I got in at Alexandra Palace not London Terminals it didn't count - I understand this is wrong on his part, but again I didn't want to push it.
• I don't know if they ever received my reply and why this wasn't taken into account.
• I am considering complaining to the Ombudsman and possibly other authorities about this situation

Please, let me know if you'd like any more detail, as I want to be as transparent as possible to anyone having to go through something similar in the future.

Thank you again all and I wish you a happy weekend

 

[Hadders]

This is a good outcome, thanks for letting us know.

It's a pity they've not let you pay the dofference in fare, starting at Alexandra Palace is perfectly permitted but given the sum involved and the wider circumstances I would not argue the point with them.

 

[Wethebest838]

You have a touching faith in the court system.

I’m sorry but this is the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this forum

 

[Wattk]

This should not have escalated in the first place if the RPO had told you the implication of "discuss my case with Thameslink" and got you to pay the difference. By choosing to discuss your case with Thameslink it can be implied that you refused to pay the difference and give the prosecution department cause to escalate. I can maybe understand it if that language was used to deescalte but if you were cooperative then this situation has just caused you a lot of unnecessary worry and problems

 

[jumble]

Hi All, I've managed to resolve this matter OOC on Tuesday by calling the phone number on the SJPN.

I wanted the thank all of you for the time you've taken, helping me understand my situation and the advice you've given me over what was to me the longest-long weekend ever! You really helped me through a difficult time.

Here's the details of what happened:

• The number I called was 03300956050
• Phone was answered within about 30 seconds.
• I was on the call for about 15 mins, start to finish just dealt with the one guy, who seemed really friendly.
• I explained receiving the Notice of intent to prosecute, my reply and my distress at receiving the SJPN.
  • I can't recall his answer to my asking if they received my reply.
  • He did explain that he was the person to review the case, as his colleague put it together - but why this review doesn't occur before sending out the letter baffles me.
• After explaining the situation and the incident, he offered that I pay the full single fare of £15.10 (no fine or any other extras)
  • I was able to do this over an online portal that he gave me the link to over the phone
  • Credentials are the Incident number and your last name
  • However, this portal is not available unless they unlock it
  • I downloaded the receipt, and screenshotted the portal and payment
  • I checked with him if that was it - he replied the case had now closed on their system.

Now this leaves a number of issues technically unanswered, I was so relieved - after struggling to sleep for 4 days - that this was so easily resolved that I didn't want to push it.

• I still don't know why they pursued this matter in this manner and so aggressively
• I tried arguing to only pay the difference between the ticket price I paid and the full fare
  • He said because I got in at Alexandra Palace not London Terminals it didn't count - I understand this is wrong on his part, but again I didn't want to push it.
• I don't know if they ever received my reply and why this wasn't taken into account.
• I am considering complaining to the Ombudsman and possibly other authorities about this situation

Please, let me know if you'd like any more detail, as I want to be as transparent as possible to anyone having to go through something similar in the future.

Thank you again all and I wish you a happy weekend

I am pleased you sorted this.
However I would like to point out that their website is crystal clear about validity

What are Carnet Train Tickets | How Much is a Carnet Ticket | Thameslink

Save 10% over the normal fare by buying a book of five or ten prepaid tickets for a regular Thameslink journey.

www.thameslinkrailway.com

Want to avoid the rush hour during the week? Our Off-Peak Carnet tickets are the perfect choice if you arrive into London after 10am, or if you’re heading out of the capital after 9.30am on weekdays. They’re also great if you plan to travel before 4.30pm and after 7.01pm, Monday to Friday.
I would send 1 moaning letter to customer services and then let this go personally