Ticket on train confusion - penalty fare

[The exile]

That is not what "authority to travel" means. It has a specific meaning - you have either a valid ticket or authority to travel, not both. That is why having authority to travel from an authorised person is a defence to not having a valid ticket. They are separate things. You don't have both at the same time.

From NRCoT:



And Bylaw 18 defence:



"Authority to travel" is not just a piece of paper, although this is the easiest and most secure way of proving a passenger has it.

A guard who allows a passenger to board a train and travel to their destination without a ticket, as it was lost, has given authority to travel. A booking clerk who says a passenger can board a train at a station because his card machine is slow has given authority to travel. Most authorities to travel are verbal, in practice.

Authority to travel cannot be given retrospectively. This is a piece of mental gymnastics never before seen on the forum, concocted to avoid the quite simple fact that the passenger purchased and presented a valid ticket for their journey. It's still a Bylaw 18 offence; the train company could still have used that, but they didn't.

Bylaw 18 offences are complete the moment they happen. The defence cannot be applied retrospectively.

OK - permission, then. I have to obtain the railway’s permission to travel on one of their trains. 99% of the time this is done by purchasing a ticket (which is proof that I have obtained permission). There are times / places / circumstances where “the railway” has decided that I can obtain this permission retrospectively (ie after having boarded a train or even having arrived at my destination). In those cases the railway - or an official of the railway has retrospectively granted me permission to travel - including for that part of the journey for which, at the time of travel, I did not hold a valid ticket.
As an afterthought, would the wording “This ticket is invalid if any part of the journey commenced before the time of issue” clearly stated on all e-tickets etc. bexsufficient to plug the loophole? ( I appreciate there are people who think the loophole should be widened, not plugged…)

 

[LYradial]

I would simply argue that that when you are asked to show a ticket whilst on your journey you are being asked to show proof of of what you have done, not what you intend to do in the future.

 

[rs101]

The train selected when you purchase a 'walk-up' ticket is irrelevent. I purchased a ticket to travel between Stevenage and London last Sunday but travelled on a later train to the one I selected when I purchased it. That doesn't make the ticket invalid - if it did there would be all sorts of unintended consequences.

As I said upthread, the TOCs want a ticket purchased onboard via a smartphone after the train has departed to be invalid (and I understand why they want to do this and am supportive of that principle) but the current legislative position doesn't support this because it was written pre-smartphone era and doesn't consider this possibility.

The problem for the OP is that GTR are unlikely to just drop the case - if they did it would become a 'pay when challenged charter'. On the other hand if they fight the case in court they will probably win - eventually. But as we are seeing with the current Northern and Greater Anglia cases the wheels of justice move very slowly and its likely to be a bumpy road along the way.

As I said earlier the Byelaws, RoRA Act and Penalty Fares Regulations have rapidly become unfot for purpose in the era of purchasing tickets via smartphones. This urgently needs addressing.

It doesn't help the TOCs case when their own sites claim you can travel on any eligible train:-

And the popup when clicking on 'Anytime Day Single' says:-


Nothing there says it must be purchased before travel, if facilities exist. In fact, the booking line says "or purchased on the day of travel".

 

[AlterEgo]

As an afterthought, would the wording “This ticket is invalid if any part of the journey commenced before the time of issue” clearly stated on all e-tickets etc. bexsufficient to plug the loophole? ( I appreciate there are people who think the loophole should be widened, not plugged…)

I can’t see how that would be an issue, if the railway wanted this to be the case they could make it so.

 

[allypally]

As I said earlier the Byelaws, RoRA Act and Penalty Fares Regulations have rapidly become unfot for purpose in the era of purchasing tickets via smartphones. This urgently needs addressing.

Yes, and the issue here is that what was intended as a solely civil, more efficient route is being abused. Operators are issuing PFs when it benefits them because it's cheaper and easier to actually get money from most people, but then attempt to benefit from the threat of prosecution when the PF doesn't work in their favour. And it is working (at least it is on me!). But this is an unjust manipulation of the system.

It's like a trojan horse where the risk of prosecution comes out as a surprise, even to the contradiction of the original view of the PF system.

Operators can't have it both ways. They can't benefit from the flexibility of PFs (which essentially arises from the fact they are an extraordinary fare, not a fine) without the trade off of that they must be enforced as a civil debt, and then try and swap tracks and use the fear of criminal conviction to bully someone into paying as a last resort.

____
Merged question of 11 August.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

Does anyone know what to expect GTR's next steps to be if I don't pay on 15 August? Will they send an intention to prosecute with another settlement offer (higher amount?) or will an out of court settlement be taken off the table and they will just prosecute? How does it work?

 

[KirkstallOne]

I don’t think we see enough GTR cases to advise on what their next steps are likely to be. They may drop it, they may proceed to a prosecution, they may send further settlement offers.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t think we see enough GTR cases to advise on what their next steps are likely to be. They may drop it, they may proceed to a prosecution, they may send further settlement offers.

GTR almost always settle. There was one case where they didn’t but it seemed clear there were other factors at play that weren’t disclosed to the forum.

 

[KirkstallOne]

GTR almost always settle. There was one case where they didn’t but it seemed clear there were other factors at play that weren’t disclosed to the forum.

Yes, and they have offered to settle, but I don’t think we can sensibly advise on how they will proceed when several offers to settle are ignored?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, and they have offered to settle, but I don’t think we can sensibly advise on how they will proceed when several offers to settle are ignored?

I think in this case it is impossible to advise as they have no legal basis for a prosecution and are chancing their arm.

 

[philthetube]

Your letter should say.

Can I respectfully point out that I appealed against the penalty fare and an therefore immune from prosecution

a few identifying details are all that is required apart from that sentence.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Your letter should say.

Can I respectfully point out that I appealed against the penalty fare and an therefore immune from prosecution

a few identifying details are all that is required apart from that sentence.

It might also be worth pointing out the relevant part of the regulations.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Today’s ruling has been published and is actually highly relevant for your case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment.pdf

In particular this section:

Ancillary Issue
68. In addition to the issue ruled on above both prosecutors invited me to rule on the lawfulness of
prosecuting railway offences following an unsuccessful appeal of a penalty fare, it is not thought that
is the position with any of the above cases.
69. Both prosecutors provided written and oral submissions on the law, broadly agreeing the
position in law is as follows;
Regulation 11(3) contains a clear prohibition on the instigation of proceedings for Byelaw
offences, or offences contrary to section 5(3)(a) or (b) of the RRA after an appeal against a
penalty fare has been determined. The Railway Operator has the opportunity either within 21
days of receipt of the appeal or prior to determination of the appeal (whichever is the
shorter) to cancel the penalty fare and bring a prosecution. It is therefore not deprived of any
avenue otherwise open to it. It is simply given a time limit in which to make a decision about
which route to pursue. Having made a decision, deliberately, or by acquiescence, the
possibility of prosecution is brought to an end. There is nothing within the regulation to
suggest that the right to prosecute is resurrected after the penalty fare appeal process has
concluded. There are good reasons to prefer such an interpretation: first, appropriate use of
the State’s resources: an appeal process, with several levels, should not take place only then
to become redundant if a Rail Operator chooses to bring a prosecution, second, it is
undesirable to have an independent appeal process and criminal court effectively
determining the same substantive issues where they could reach different determinations,
third, finality, fourth, an individual appealing a penalty fare is required to set out their
grounds for doing so, and may make any representations they wish to: the effect is they may
both set out an evidential account, and self-incriminate – there would be unfairness if
criminal proceedings could follow that process.
It follows that any prosecution of a Byelaw offence, or section 5(3)(a) or (b) RRA offence,
following an unsuccessful appeal of a penalty fare was invalid.

 

[Lola1992]

I've been following this case with interest, although I haven't commented recently.

The issue for me is that the current legal framework around fare evasion and ticketless travel doesn't really work and urgently needs reform.

Is a ticket purchased onboard after the train has departed a valid ticket? If it's sold by a guard, for example on Northern service where tickets are often sold onboard, then the asnwer is undisputably yes.

But is an e-ticket purchased onboard by a passenger using a smartphone after the train has departed a valid ticket? The train companies certainly don't want it to be valid but the Railway Byelays and Regulation of the Railways Act don't make any differentiation between a ticket sold onboard after departure by a guard or one purchased after depatyure by a passenger using a smartphone.

I don't think anyone can argue with the principle that you must possess a valid ticket for your journey before boarding the train, if ticket issuing opportunities exist at the station where you start your journey. @allypally certainly passed opportunities to pay when boarding at Stevenage. But when challenged @allypally also presented a valid ticket for their journey.

We see loads of cases on here where people are penalised for purchasing tickets after the train has departed - I suspect many of them are members of the 'pay when challenged' brigade. The only way to resolve this issue is to reform the Byelaws/RoRA/Penalty Fare Regulations around ticketless travel and fare evasion.

 

[allypally]

Today’s ruling has been published and is actually highly relevant for your case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Railway-Ruling-Final-Judgment.pdf

In particular this section:

Shame the CM did not rule so nothing definitive. Even though the Operators agreed with the definition, GTR can just say 'well our Counsel take a different view'.

But the Judgement then says in para 70 that the issue is "Live" with the Courts service. What does this mean?

 

[KirkstallOne]

Shame the CM did not rule so nothing definitive. Even though the Operators agreed with the definition, GTR can just say 'well our Counsel take a different view'.

But the Judgement then says in para 70 that the issue is "Live" with the Courts service. What does this mean?

It means they are considering reopening examples of this that resulted in conviction (and presumably sending to a higher court that can give a definitive ruling?)

Feels like this is game over for GTR, would be brave for Mr 'Things you don't know' to take a different view to Brian O'Neill KC!

Have you contacted them with this information?

 

[furlong]

Putting aside the technicalities, there's a basic principle here.

Prior to the ticket inspection, the passenger had paid the correct fare for the journey.

A Penalty Fare is made up of two elements - a penalty (£50 or £100) plus the correct fare for the journey.

Given that the penalty element is specified separately from the fare, an interpretation of the regulations such that a passenger who has already paid their fare and presents a ticket to prove this still has to pay their fare a second time would be perverse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2024 ==

The regulations might have said that the £50/£100 penalty element can still be imposed if a valid ticket is presented that was only purchased after boarding (departure time with a short grace period) - but they do not. There is no legal basis for train companies to invent their own penalty where they think someone deserves one in a situation not covered by the existing rules.