Search results

On the ECML the approach to Kings Cross is downhill almost all the way from Potters Bar, 12 miles out, though drivers will usually take power on exiting the tunnels where the linespeed increases. The descent from Slochd Summit to Milburn Junction (on the approach to Inverness) is about 1250 feet...

Your opinions are valuable, and I wouldn't challenge your decision to follow that course of action, nor the possibility that you would succeed. BUT - Please be very careful before presenting this as advice which you propose that someone else follows, and in assessing the challenges that such a...

Negligible. Agree. Disagree. Exactly right. Please just accept the offer that is being put to you if you haven't already done so. As for letting this go to Court, it will be for no better reason that to play litigation roulette, you don't have a robust defence and the Company does have a...

Browning v Floyd and Reynolds v Beasley should be found in any law database such as Westlaw. Gillingham v Walker isn't easy to find on-line but will be in the Law Reports of any good law library and is referred to in text books - I gave the neutral citation numbers above, which should help.

The most fitting judgement in case law to illustrate that "paid his fare" means the fare for the journey being taken and not the same amount of money as the fare for the journey being taken can be found in Browning v Floyd (1946) KB 597. Arthur Floyd presented a ticket of the correct value...

To offer, and to agree an Out-of-Court settlement is not conflating any statutory powers. As Fare-Cop and others have said, it is a settlement which, by it's very nature, is quite apart from the legal system. It is an alternative. If you did decline that offer, and therefore found yourself...

I am at a loss to understand how the bench of a Magistrates Court could find themselves being concerned with that argument in the course of the three duties they are obliged to fulfill :- 1) To assess the evidence presented in order to determine whether or not the Offence as stated was...

Please don't. Not to the Act, nor (more significantly) to its subsequent case law. It won't be of the slightest benefit to you, nor to anyone else interested in the circumstances of your journey. I do hope you enjoy the rest of your time here.

Don't forget poor old IN29. It waited nearly an hour while 1S30 drew up alongside on the bridge, and then was promptly moved on to the only available platform in Newcastle, leaving 1N29 waiting with false information from control (told "you'll only be there 3 minutes"). 1N30 didn't wait any more...

Really? We don't. And I see no evidence of a Criminal Offence. Where do you get that from? And where do you get that from? Surely before posting advice to other passengers on here you have gained some understanding of railway passenger contract law? Isn't this the one point that the issue turns one?

That's right. There is not going to be any problem in removing the discount, as WallsendMag has also advised. That is also perfectly correct. I'm not sure that I can see the the point of this remark, which seems to me to be seizing the opportunity for an off-topic 'poke' at the rail industry...

Whether or not "something else happened on the day" or not (which you are probably not going to learn about until/if the matter proceeds to Court where the rules of 'disclosure' will assist you, or whether or not the Company acted in accordance with published policy, I have to advice you that...

A Licence can be given by anyone (including a corporate body, charity, gov't agency, etc) to anyone, which confers a 'right' or 'permission' to do something. I have lodgers in part of my home, and they are not tenants but I have given them a 'licence' to use the rooms to live there. The most...

I feel you have reinterpreted your question. I wasn't proposing Criminal proceedings following "a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's?". I was answering the "what exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected?" and where the only action you could see...

Well, options include a private Prosecution, just as such a prosecution is available to a railway company, regulator or other individual. Very wise words.

ATW will refer your correspondence to Transport Investigations (TI). I wonder if some clarification on process might be helpful here. It is true that different companies have different policies, but the process applicable to ATW is that :-Each incident is investigated and assessed by Transport...

Yes. You, or your solicitor, can speak with their solicitor just minutes before the case is called and still reach an agreement, though the most sensible 'last minute' is before the parties go into the courtroom at, say, just before 10am if it is listed to be heard in the morning, or just before...

Merseyrail have a good track record of successful prosecutions of this offence against passengers who put their feet on the seats. And they certainly are entitled to encforce their Byelaws, which is why you are being advised to pay the proposed settlement promptly.

That figure (as has already been explained) will consist of 1. the unpaid fare for the ticketless journey travelled, and 2. administrative costs in attempting to recover the unpaid fare from you. I can't see how you think it could be lessened. Any more discussion with the Company will only...

Surely? I can't think of a single offence with a high level of uncertainty. It makes me laugh that people think that there are so many laws that all the actions they dislike will be crimes. If there were so many laws, then I'm sure we'd be having much, much more to complain about! Anyway, it is...