Search results

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...

The breach of ticket validity rules giving rise to this prosecution cannot be the use of an off-peak ticket on a train departing Welwyn Garden City before 09:52 since, as the Charge Sheet states, the interview with the RPO took place at Hatfield and before arrival at WGC. I don't find the rules...

Apropos the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations, a communication from the relevant appeals body to the effect that an appeal has not been upheld on the ground that signage forming the subject of the appeal was found to conform to the regulatory requirements must, I would have thought...

That is indeed another possible inference, though I would struggle equally hard to see how such an interpretation could be justified!

The thread from which this was split has now been locked. Whilst I am aware that it had become subject to repetition of previously expressed views, it did seem to me that the case raised wider issues that might be worth further exploration. In the other thread, it was apparent that the only...

infobleep, in your case it appears that the top-up failure occurred less than six months before your next attempt to touch in, and for this reason what MikeWh refers to as the 'kill record' was still available for immediate transmission to the validator via the FUL facility, and had yet to be...

The only ground on which GTR have indicated an intention to prosecute is 'failure to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person'. Since the OP produced the Oyster card to railway staff on his own initiative, the only question...

Thanks for confirming what I had belatedly discovered to be the basis on which the Oyster system works. Oyster's system design involves an implicit assumption that there will be cases in which a card will continue to function as a valid card for travel acceptance purposes until it receives the...

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/thameslink-notice-of-intention-to-prosecute.227135/ Apologies if I am betraying my ignorance of the way in which the Oyster system works, but I remain puzzled by the fact that a credit balance was still being attributed to the card...

I don't understand the basis on which it is asserted that the ticket has to be treated as having been invalid for travel throughout the various legs of the journey made. If the process to identify the card as one that had been cancelled was triggered by the touch in at Ferme Park Road but was...

NRCoT has nothing to say about a ticket being invalidated by reason of the service chosen not being an advertised service from the station at which it is boarded. Condition 13.1 states that “Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services” but goes on to provide that...

@thecatinthehat: until you post the details of your appeal against the penalty fare you have been asked to provide, nobody here can advise with any confidence whether the train company has acted wrongly by prosecuting you. That's fine if you want to rely instead upon advice from a solicitor...

For clarification, @clagmonster is referring to Regulation 11(3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018. Broadly I agree with what he says, but I note the following in the Statement of Facts: “... or has been informed by the independent appeal service that any appeal against the...

It occurs to me that the RPI's statement that no criminal proceedings would ensue may have encouraged a belief that no useful purpose would be served by preservation of the excess ticket then purchased. If GTR now allege that no such excess was paid then the failure to preserve that ticket is a...

Thanks for the responses to my two questions. These were premised upon the OP facing prosecution for a Byelaw 18(1) breach. Although the OP hasn't confirmed it, examination of the words printed on the reverse of the letter from GTR posted here suggest that this is what is in prospect...

Two questions: Are the requirements of a Byelaw 18(1) offence established by entering a train when in possession only of a time-restricted ticket which, by reason of that restriction, is not valid for travel on that train? If so, then to what extent does the obligatory charge of an...

I am surprised that GTR's letter as seen here contains no information whatsoever about the nature of the offence alleged, but I note from the image that it appears to bear additional text and the constituent companies' logos on the reverse. Does the reverse carry additional information about...

I read the emboldened passages in the OP as indicating that two distinct UPFNs were issued: Ladybank to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to London. Have I got that right?

DaveNewcastle, thank you for the thread references. I have been through them all, but none answer the question I posed. The 'Railway Byelaw 18' thread seemed most likely to do so – even included a reference to Sweet v Parsley – yet still failed to reveal either the statutory or case law...

Please re-read my post. I never suggested that mens rea was required to establish a strict liability offence, and that was not the basis on which I suggested a Bylaw 18 prosecution might be answered. Believe what you like, my advice to the OP stands that an honest and reasonable but mistaken...