It seems to be that the less you travel on a standard train ticket, the cheaper (see my posts about separating tickets elsewhere). On that basis, the Brighton > Z1-6 ticket should be offered, but only if the OP was stating exactly where they were going to.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Intention to prosecute letter
- Thread starter hannah123
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Z1-6 - £8.00, Z1-4 - £7.30, Z1-2 - £6.60. With railcard they all cost £5.30 unless you attach it to Oyster where the caps are £5.30/£4.80/£4.30.
There are plenty of Londoners who don't understand, let alone those from outside.
Some staff try to find out if there is intent by asking a question like "If the barriers had been open/I had not stopped you, would you have walked out without paying?" if they say yes, then they have incriminated themselves. If they then realise the question required a "no" answer rather than a "yes" answer, the RPI is likely then say it's too late to change it. This is then taken by TOCs to be an admission of guilt. Problem is in this case the RPI has allegedly asked a trick question in order to get the OP to incriminate themselves by allegedly using the word "fine" rather than "fare".
Unfortunately it will be the RPIs word against the OP. I would not automatically assume the RPI is right, because I know what some of them can be like. However I am not sure how a Court would see it. I don't have confidence that a Court will know that some RPIs can be, well, like the guy who has the vendetta against you....
There are some people who have a Basil Fawlty-style attitude and the archaic, biased laws allow them to get away with getting confused customers to incriminate themselves. Let's face it, someone is better off stealing from a shop than making some honest mistakes with train tickets.
The law should be changed.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Indeed. This is problem. It seems to me that this poster thought that it would be OK to buy their travelcard at Victoria as she had done many times before.
She hadn't attempted to jump the barrier but suddenly found herself in trouble for what appears to be an innocent mistake.
It is often the mixed messages that the railway gives out, For example at many stations that are unmanned passengers are able to buy on the train/at the other end.
You also have the fact that many passengers (not enthusiasts/rail staff that know the ins and outs of one of the most complicated ticketing systems in the world) know you can get through tickets. As an example a work colleague of mine was going from Wallasey to London. He didn't realise that you could get a through ticket as he thought he'd have to get a ticket for Merseyrail and one for Virgin. Many passengers are confused by this kind of thing.
Most on here are saying I've no sympathy but that's because they are versed in the system. Most are not.
I am surprised you could be tricked into admitting you wouldn't have bought a ticket if nobody had been there, as the OP presumably HAD to buy that ticket and would have bought that ticket at the ticket office or a TVM (making the last bit of the previous journey paid for).
If I was asked, clearly I wouldn't have said 'if you weren't here, I'd have got away with it' as that wouldn't be true! And if I've asked to buy a ticket at the gate, where's the intent? You've asked just as you have before.. how do you know/care that these people have a different uniform and name badge on?
Now, if I was going to Newcastle and then using the Metro, could I buy a ticket from Hatfield to cover me on this, or would I go and buy a ticket when I arrived at Newcastle? I'd almost certainly seek to buy the Metro ticket when I arrived and not necessarily think you could buy it from any station. Brighton is quite far away from London, even if it happens to be covered by two suburban operators - each with their own competing tickets.
If I was asked, clearly I wouldn't have said 'if you weren't here, I'd have got away with it' as that wouldn't be true! And if I've asked to buy a ticket at the gate, where's the intent? You've asked just as you have before.. how do you know/care that these people have a different uniform and name badge on?
Now, if I was going to Newcastle and then using the Metro, could I buy a ticket from Hatfield to cover me on this, or would I go and buy a ticket when I arrived at Newcastle? I'd almost certainly seek to buy the Metro ticket when I arrived and not necessarily think you could buy it from any station. Brighton is quite far away from London, even if it happens to be covered by two suburban operators - each with their own competing tickets.
Fair enough if she had bought a ticket to London Victoria (i.e. Terminals) and then a travelcard, but she bought to Clapham Jn and stayed on the train without a ticket.
Some might say 'well Clapham is in London', but so is Croydon so would the same argument be put forward if a ticket was bought to East Croydon and they stayed on the train to Victoria ?
There are a few things that seem odd, like never being offered a travelcard at Brighton and not seeing what I'd imagine would be posters offering such tickets (and other offers) or indeed hearing other people asking for a Travelcard - and seeing them on a machine one day (etc etc).
But if you had a ticket to London Terminals, you would have paid for part of the journey twice (and you'd not get that back if stopped by an RPI demanding to know why you paid twice!).
We have to take the OP as telling the truth, but there are some bits that don't quite add up. However, that's based on us knowing how it works. If you didn't, you wouldn't necessarily see this as wrong - as you buy a ticket that covers the zones and is valid for that whole day.
All that can be made perfectly clear is that FROM NOW ON, it's clear and the OP either needs to get implicit permission to travel like this again, in writing, or buy the correct ticket in the first place.
But if you had a ticket to London Terminals, you would have paid for part of the journey twice (and you'd not get that back if stopped by an RPI demanding to know why you paid twice!).
We have to take the OP as telling the truth, but there are some bits that don't quite add up. However, that's based on us knowing how it works. If you didn't, you wouldn't necessarily see this as wrong - as you buy a ticket that covers the zones and is valid for that whole day.
All that can be made perfectly clear is that FROM NOW ON, it's clear and the OP either needs to get implicit permission to travel like this again, in writing, or buy the correct ticket in the first place.
Because she has travelled past her destination station - however innocent her intentions. Or should the RPIs at Victoria accept the excuse from everyone turning up with a short ticket?
Well, that excuse should result in a fare being charged. In this case, a Penalty Fare. I think what surprises us is that a prosecution is proposed instead. However I think that is because the story is a bit bizarre and the RPI may simply not believe it. As I said before, the excuse about a "tube ticket" (Yes, we now realise it was a Travelcard) from a station where there are no tubes may have made the RPI simply not believe the story, or believe the OP was intending to be invalid between CLJ & VIC and then get a tube ticket for the rest. Which we have now established wasn't the case - but did the RPI establish that? Was the RPI as patient and understanding as us, or did the RPI try to trick the OP by asking questions designed to incriminate?
Yes the OP has made a mistake, and yes I find it a bit bizarre, and yes they were eligible for a Penalty Fare under the rules... but prosecution seems very harsh to me.
I agree. Penalty Fares are there for those who make innocent mistakes. The OP should have been charged a Penalty Fare in my view. Prosecution is incredibly harsh, especially as she actually asked to buy the correct ticket (albeit a bit late)!
I'm not sure I've heard of anyone being recommended for prosecution after a conversation which began "can I buy a ticket please?".
That said, Yorkie is probably right in assuming that the RPI became suspicious of such a complicated and bizarre story. It's taken me a while to make sense of it myself. Perhaps he thought the story was just bluster and lost patience...
Admitting that it wasn't the first time they had tried it probably didn't help either. I agree that a PF would be appropriate for a one-off mistake, but if it was explained to the RPI like it was here I could understand them thinking they had a serial fare avoider, despite the logic of the comparative fares.
No. She wanted to buy a Travelcard, which she called a 'tube ticket'. This would have been a valid combination, but costs more than a through Travelcard from Brighton.
Old Timer
Established Member
It did and probably still does happen occasionally.
if anything Southern has been doing well with her doing this - I have to imagine the ORCATS revenue share for a Brighton to Clapham Junction ticket is much more in Southern's favour than a Brighton to London Terminals or a Brighton to Zone 1-6 Travelcard.
of course, it makes perfect sense to prosecute your more profitable customers.
MarkyMarkD
Member
I'm sorry, but I can't see it the OP's way (or those who seem to be tending to support her).
If she didn't understand through ticketing, she would have bought a ticket from Brighton to Victoria.
Buying a ticket from Brighton to anywhere short of Victoria is obviously wrong and prosecution of someone who has been routinely buying the wrong ticket for 10 years seems eminently justifiable.
If she didn't understand through ticketing, she would have bought a ticket from Brighton to Victoria.
Buying a ticket from Brighton to anywhere short of Victoria is obviously wrong and prosecution of someone who has been routinely buying the wrong ticket for 10 years seems eminently justifiable.
so although its not what she was doing, she was trying to spend more money than what an over distance excess would of cost? So would An over distance excess not only cost her less, but covered the same journey also?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The travelcard covers travel for Clapham - Victoria,
Brighton- Victoria, then a travelcard would of cost more than a Brighton - Clapham plus Travelcard, yet both covers the whole journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The travelcard covers travel for Clapham - Victoria,
Brighton- Victoria, then a travelcard would of cost more than a Brighton - Clapham plus Travelcard, yet both covers the whole journey.
The letter says that the intention to prosecute for "not having a valid ticket in Victoria" which is true, I didn't. However we always intended to buy a Zones 1-2 travelcard, as I said, I was going to Picadilly so always needed this. Which would cover us in Victora from Clapham. I just didn't know that was a problem as I had never been told it was wrong before. The person I was with had the same ticket as me and also has received a letter. The inspector actually asked if we could pay any of the £20 fine there and then but neither of us had spare money (just enough for the travelcard (which I've only ever used on a tube so always just assumed it was a tube ticket)) so asked if he could just send us the fine to our flat - which he went on to confirm the address was correct over his radio. So we did expect a letter, but we only expected it to be a fine for £20, not an intention to prosecute!
Would this work in our favour at all if the girl at the excess fares booth confirmed we were offered to pay a penalty fare, didn't refuse but just asked if we could pay at a later date?
Thanks everyone for your advice so far.
Would this work in our favour at all if the girl at the excess fares booth confirmed we were offered to pay a penalty fare, didn't refuse but just asked if we could pay at a later date?
Thanks everyone for your advice so far.
Now this is where I think you are being inconsistent:
I'll leave others more knowledgeable than me to comment on your 'refusal' to pay the Penalty Fare offered to you (which you didn't mention in any detail originally; it would have helped the discussion to have known that!).
If you intend it to cover your train journey from Clapham to Victoria it can't, logically, be a tube ticket.
I'll leave others more knowledgeable than me to comment on your 'refusal' to pay the Penalty Fare offered to you (which you didn't mention in any detail originally; it would have helped the discussion to have known that!).
As far as I'm aware, you aren't obliged to pay a penalty fare on the spot. I don't see why the OP declining to pay there and then should then automatically result in prosecution. I suspect the only reason that prosecution has come about is because the OP mentioned having done the same thing before.
Ha, yes, I'm an idiot. I just meant didn't know you could use them on buses, I was just commenting on what others had implied in this thread.
I didn't refuse to pay it, I asked if he could send it to my flat as I didn't have the money that day. He asked then confirmed my address which is why this prosecution letter surprised me.
I didn't refuse to pay it, I asked if he could send it to my flat as I didn't have the money that day. He asked then confirmed my address which is why this prosecution letter surprised me.
When I mentioned doing the same thing before he just said it didn't matter others had allowed me to buy a travel card before, the rules say no so was going to issue me with a £20 fine. He didn't really listen to be honest so I'm not sure this is why it has resulted in a prosecution.
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
I think you are being a little pedantic here. She just said 'tube ticket' even though she realised it was valid from/to Clapham.
She didn't refuse to pay the fare she asked for the Penalty fare bill to be sent to her home. She was willing to pay it by the sounds of things.
IMHO she has made an innocent mistake and the only penalty should be the £20 penalty fare.
To many people a Travelcard is a 'tube ticket'! The OP has made an expensive mistake. As well as being liable for a Penalty Fare of £20, she has also been spending more than she need have,
As we all know, the prupose of Penatly Fares is no longer to act as a deterrent aginst fare evasion, it is now a means of raising revenue through penalising innocent and daft mistakes.
As we all know, the prupose of Penatly Fares is no longer to act as a deterrent aginst fare evasion, it is now a means of raising revenue through penalising innocent and daft mistakes.
This doesn't quite add up, but the £20 Penalty Fare is a fare, not a fine. Were you told it's a fine?
You will only be issued a fine if a court finds you guilty, in which case it'd be more than £20.
Yes, but people who call them tube tickets aren't normally using them from stations with no tubes for the past 10 years
If someone knows that they need that ticket for use on their train, it does seem a bit odd to not attempt to buy that ticket until you have already done part of the journey on that train, on a route that makes it very clear you must have a valid ticket before boarding. I reckon the RPI thought this story simply does not make sense.Indeed, PFs are intended for people who make mistakes and should not be issued to fare evaders, which is a "completely different matter" as documented here.
She believed she could only get a travelcard from within the "zones" reading previous posts. therefore waited till a ticket office when she got off the train at Victoria, rather than as soon as the train entered the travelcard zones!Yes, but people who call them tube tickets aren't normally using them from stations with no tubes for the past 10 years
[/URL].
- Status