Search results

Was still going at Stone Crossing well into privatisation until eventually being replaced by a chap with an Avantix for four hours on weekday mornings and a PERTIS machine for the rest. The latter since gave way to a card only TVM.

Whether you perceive it to be "fair" or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans I'm afraid. It's the law, it's been the law for 46 years, and if you think it should be changed you need to write to your MP.

This is, with due respect, a rather gullible inference. Yes, a signal will show on ticket gates when certain types of ticket or pass are used to pass through. It is possible, because... ...this isn't necessarily true. For example, between 0900-0929 on a weekday an old person's Freedom Pass...

- Process gets strung out long enough to foul the 6 month limit - on investigation of the report an evidential defect is found - Case goes to SJP and the SJPN gets returned undelivered due to false details - Ditto except the SJPN gets a response which convinces TfL that the offender gave false...

There doesn't need to be, because section 101 of the Magistrates Court Act provides for the burden of proving the exception, in this case that the machine is not working, to fall on the defendant.

Departing Copenhagen Kastrup airport this morning, I passed through passport control around 05:40. No EES booths in evidence, 2 e-gates for EU only (which I used), 1 desk for EU only and 1 desk for all passports. i estimated 200 in the queue for the latter. They were taking/checking fingerprints...

An ATM won't (or shouldn't) go out of service if one cassette is empty, if it only has £50s it will just give an error if you try to take out something not a multiple of £50, same story with £20s. Brentwood to Twyford day return is £58 for example.

There is nothing to stop them operating Promise to Pay or similar.

It's unlikely there's an entitlement to a refund in the scenario given, if the ticket was purchased after 1 April 2026 and the works were known about at the time of purchase.

Yes, if: it really is being dealt with by the BTP the crime being dealt with is only fare evasion or failure to give details there's nothing else more serious, such as assault Or disorderly conduct then the police, who unlike private prosecutors are obliged to apply a public interest test when...

I read elsewhere that they were going to set the anytime fare to be £10 (as off peak is now valid whenever), and use the existing NRCoT verbiage about selling anytime fares when someone doesn't buy before boarding.

Indeed, but in summary:

I would suggest you read the judgement of Sharp P in Ayinde v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383.

This risk is considerably overstated. There is virtually no profession from which a single conviction for a minor fare evasion offence will disqualify someone, as long as the offence is proactively declared and accountability taken for it. Using AI to produce pleadings etc. used in legal...

This seems certain to be cheaper than paying for accommodation in London or Reading, if the times work.

They could, and probably should, have dealt with this by way of a UPFN.

You should wait to hear from the train company, and post the letter here for advice, removing any personal information. Avanti can pursue unpaid fares on behalf of other train companies, so nothing turns on that.

The OP hasn't been on in over 2 months so it's very unlikely they'll be back. Please concentrate on seeking advice in your own thread.

It is important when you make statements like this to be clear that the statement is your opinion of how things should be, lest anyone reading be misled that it is in any way an expression of fact (which it is not).

If GWR were making a civil claim, then this would be true. But they aren't. The OP can choose to pay £113.80 or they can choose to go to magistrates court. Most people choose the former, because the court option if convicted is inevitably more expensive and will leave them with a criminal record.