Advance ticket confiscation

[najaB]

I don't think blame is relevant - it's whether there is reasonable doubt, and in my view there is.

There's only reasonable doubt if it's the responsibility of the guard to detect an invalid ticket rather than the responsibility of the passenger to present a valid one.

 

[yorkie]

It is clearly not fraud, the rail industry doesn't even consider this to be a "full fare" scenario!

 

[najaB]

It is clearly not fraud...

I agree there's no chance of fraud charges being raised in this case, but that doesn't negate the fact that - speaking in general - someone could obtain financial advantage by presenting an Advance ticket for a later train on one where it wasn't valid and for which they would have to instead pay for a more expensive fare.

 

[Cantab26]

I agree there's no chance of fraud charges being raised in this case, but that doesn't negate the fact that - speaking in general - someone could obtain financial advantage by presenting an Advance ticket for a later train on one where it wasn't valid and for which they would have to instead pay for a more expensive fare.

Precisely. The only conceivable circumstance in which a fraud prosecution might even be considered would be if the miscreant self-incriminates during questioning.

Even then, the Byelaws and RoRA are so much easier to use (since they are specifically designed to tackle fare evasion) that there is little point in going for anything else. A judge isn't exactly going to send Mrs Advance-on-the-wrong-train to gaol for ten years!

 

[Cantab26]

As a criminal prosecution is to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", that dichotomy would mean a fraud charge would fail, because the other explanation (error, or handing the ticket over for the guard, who is likely to notice, to decide what to do) is possible, therefore there is reasonable doubt.

That would be totally removed by pointing out its invalidity, but even without that there is still reasonable doubt that the intention is to defraud, rather than for the guard to offer leniency.

You are eliding the requisite elements of the offence.

The relevant intent is to secure a gain or cause a loss, not to 'defraud' (whatever that might mean). If a passenger hands over a ticket for inspection, the inference that he intends to secure a gain (by keeping what he already has, rather than having to pay for a ticket) is almost inexorable.

The main elements that are likely to cause a fraud prosecution to fail are:

• whether the act of handing over the ticket is an implied representation that the ticket is valid; and
• whether the passenger has acted dishonestly and, if so, whether he knew his behaviour was dishonest.

A genuine mistake is clearly not dishonest behaviour, but a jury might well consider that chancing it is objectively dishonest.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree there's no chance of fraud charges being raised in this case, but that doesn't negate the fact that - speaking in general - someone could obtain financial advantage by presenting an Advance ticket for a later train on one where it wasn't valid and for which they would have to instead pay for a more expensive fare.

The railway industry doesn't consider it fraudulent, any more than getting on a "peak train" (shorthand, I know it's the ticket not the train) with an off-peak ticket is fraudulent. And you don't even get a Penalty Fare for the latter.

The TPE guard was clearly just being an arse. IME most of them are pretty good, but there are a few of them who go out of their way to cause hassle, I've had the misfortune a few times (including fairly recently travelling on an Anytime ticket a day or two after the first date of validity). The solution was to allow her to pay the extra or pay to the next stop and return. I don't see what the point of being more aggressive is.

 

[yorkie]

... most of them are pretty good, but there are a few of them who go out of their way to cause hassle, ...

this is very true, and I know many others who would agree with this.

I can't understand why the company don't take appropriate action against that small minority who spoil it.

 

[philthetube]

Am I correct in thinking that you cannot start part way into a booked journey with an advance, if this is the case then the ticket has already been used for part of the journey and so is no longer valid for that part of it, and is therefore no use for anything?

 

[yorkie]

Am I correct in thinking that you cannot start part way into a booked journey with an advance, if this is the case then the ticket has already been used for part of the journey and so is no longer valid for that part of it, and is therefore no use for anything?

If the passenger is to remain on the train, then the correct action is to sell a few fare at the appropriate/discounted rate (not full fare).

As mentioned above a common sense approach may be to give the option of awaiting the correct train at an intermediate journey.

I don't see why purchasing a new Return fare to the next stop and then using the Advance from the origin location at the booked time wouldn't be an option, if that's what the customer wanted to do, and if the ticket inspector wasn't prepared to apply the common sense approach detailed in the Chester to Euston example.

It is not quite true that you 'cannot start part way into a booked journey with an advance'; it's not technically permitted but rail industry policy is to allow people to do this. However that isn't what's being discussed here, as the journey commenced at the origin station.

 

[TrainfanBen]

I pointed out to Yorkie in a PM that a Rora prosecution could fail on the basis that staff allowed continued travel on the ticket.
Intent can be shown both by staff and passengers and I think people forget that.

 

[34D]

I pointed out to Yorkie in a PM that a Rora prosecution could fail on the basis that staff allowed continued travel on the ticket.
Intent can be shown both by staff and passengers and I think people forget that.

Please explain your point sir. Do you mean it could regularise travel prior to detection.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I pointed out to Yorkie in a PM that a Rora prosecution could fail on the basis that staff allowed continued travel on the ticket.
Intent can be shown both by staff and passengers and I think people forget that.

The whole point of this thread appears to be that the Guard did NOT allow continued travel on the Advance ticket, but in fact, confiscated it.

It seems that the traveller was on an earlier train than that booked by them and they attempted to use a ticket, the T&Cs for use of which specifically make clear 'NOT VALID' on the train on which the lady was attempting to use it.

Whether or not the Guard dealt with this in a professional manner is the main question and from the OP's description, I think it could have been handled better.

If there was any argument, I think a better option would have been to accept the lady's offer of a full return fare for the Liverpool-Warrington journey and issue the ticket, then endorse the Advance ticket with 'refused travel on earlier train - date & time - Guard number & headcode, valid booked train only' and hand the Advance ticket back to her.

Seeing that she alighted at Warrington would be all that was necessary then.

Fraud is not a consideration, that is a much more serious charge and as others have pointed out, only a lesser charge could succeed, but if everything is as the OP posts, I cannot see why it would be necessary

 

[BluePenguin]

Looking at prices from Liverpool Lime Street, an anytime day single to Malton is only 80p more than the first advance. Why didn't the conduct just charge her the 80p difference in price? It sounds like someone was hungry for commission!

 

[TrainfanBen]

Giving this further thought;

The whole point of this thread appears to be that the Guard did NOT allow continued travel on the Advance ticket, but in fact, confiscated it.

I'm aware (See previous posts).

A specific factor in OP case seems to be that the passenger seems insistent on re-using the ticket, even though they've already travelled on it by this point..

Now I think about it, the passenger has clearly committed a byelaw offence of not producing a valid ticket.
Getting on the right train may have been an oversight. It may have been on purpose.

The guard has kept things simple by issuing a new ticket and ensuring that the passenger got off at the right place.

No loss to the TOC.
No overall gain to the passenger.

Looking at prices from Liverpool Lime Street, an anytime day single to Malton is only 80p more than the first advance. Why didn't the conduct just charge her the 80p difference in price? It sounds like someone was hungry for commission!

I don't see how boarding an earlier service (two hours) and excessing by 80p is fair, when legitimate changes to tickets in other situations can cost over £10+ difference in ticket price.

 

[yorkie]

A specific factor in OP case seems to be that the passenger seems insistent on re-using the ticket, even though they've already travelled on it by this point..

They wanted to buy a new ticket, leaving the Advance unused.

Now I think about it, the passenger has clearly committed a byelaw offence of not producing a valid ticket.

The correct action for a passenger who boards the wrong train on an Advance ticket is to charge a new ticket (or something more lenient than that, at staff discretion)

 

[Fare-Cop]

They wanted to buy a new ticket, leaving the Advance unused.

The fact is that you can see why the inspector did not consider the 'Advance unused'.

The lady had boarded at a station where all ticket selling facilities were available to her, but she did not present a valid ticket. Her journey had commenced and she did attempt to use an invalid ticket, therefore the ticket was, perhaps understandably, not considered unused by the inspector.

Section 5 of RoRA makes clear that 'if any person travels or attempts to travel without having previously paid their fare.....'

When on a train 'their' fare is the fare that is due for the journey actually being made by the traveller and the undiscounted walk-up fare can be levied.

The correct action for a passenger who boards the wrong train on an Advance ticket is to charge a new ticket (or something more lenient than that, at staff discretion)

Yes, the T&Cs make perfectly clear that if an advance ticket is not used in accordance with these conditions, no ticket is held an a new ticket must be bought although the action is not restricted to that sale 'or something more lenient' because, if the inspector genuinely believes that an attempt to use the ticket in a way that prejudices the rail company, i.e; avoiding the correct fare, or if a refusal to pay the fare arises, then a report might be made.

That said, I do think the matter could have been handled better than the OPs account.

I don't subscribe to the theory that a breach of the strict liability element of National Railway Byelaw 18.2 is evident.

That Byelaw does not state 'must show a valid ticket', it requires that the traveller must 'show a ticket for verification of validity.'

The traveller showed a ticket, verification confirmed it not to be valid for travel

 

[najaB]

I don't subscribe to the theory that a breach of the strict liability element of National Railway Byelaw 18.2 is evident.

That Byelaw does not state 'must show a valid ticket', it requires that the traveller must 'show a ticket for verification of validity.'

The traveller showed a ticket, verification confirmed it not to be valid for travel

However, as per another recent thread, I was told in no uncertain terms that holding an invalid ticket doesn't count where Byelaw 18.1 is concerned.

 

[Fare-Cop]

However, as per another recent thread, I was told in no uncertain terms that holding an invalid ticket doesn't count where Byelaw 18.1 is concerned.

Yes, holding a ticket that is not valid does not exempt a traveller from the strict liability requirement to pay their fare and to obtain a valid ticket before travelling from a station where the facilities exist at commencement of the journey.

That holds good and is relevant unless the inspector has a real belief that the traveller has made a genuine mistake, which is why I have said all along in this thread that I think it could have been handled better.

The point here of course is that the original post in this thread is by a third party observing some of an interaction in which they were not directly involved and so none of us know for sure whether there were any other details on that ticket that might have raised suspicions for the inspector. Speculation is best left alone.

I am not a fan of prosecuting Byelaw 18 offences just because we can, although there is nothing wrong with the principle legally, but if it isn't absolutely clear that there has been an attempt to 'obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception' there seems no reason why this particular case should be prosecuted and it certainly does not meet the threshold for considering attempted 'fraud'.

If the return fare to Warrington had been collected and the Advance ticket endorsed as I suggested at post #42 then the matter would have been dealt with.

The alternative, as correctly identified by Yorkie, would be to sell the lady a new ticket for her full intended journey

 

[Bookd]

From reading the comments on this and other threads it seems that some guards and RPIs are very knowledgeable about the rules and are determined to enforce the letter of the law (maybe the rules should be changed?) and forget that they are meant to be providing a service to the public.
If the original post is correct then why not smile, point out the passenger's error, and offer an excess to the anytime single fare, which a previous post states would have been 80p.
The passenger (customer) would have been happy, more likely to travel again, and would tell her friends of the good service received rather than being ripped off by the nasty railway.

 

[Fare-Cop]

From reading the comments on this and other threads it seems that some guards and RPIs are very knowledgeable about the rules and are determined to enforce the letter of the law.

I don't think it's a case of 'determined to enforce the letter of the law' at all. I think it's a case that guards/train managers/ inspectors are charged with doing a difficult job that includes ensuring that travellers have the CORRECT ticket and charging correct fares, or reporting offences as appropriate.

(maybe the rules should be changed?) ..

That seems to be the answer given far too often these days, people frequently display the... 'I want the benefit of the very substantially reduced ticket, but I'm not prepared to abide by the conditions that allow the reduction'....in other words; 'give me all the benefits, but the rules don't apply to me!!'

and forget that they are meant to be providing a service to the public..

Good customer service includes assisting re-education in a great many cases.

The 97% of the travelling public who do pay the correct fare and travel without problem frequently thank inspectors for making sure that others pay the correct fare and sometimes even write to us to express their appreciation too.

If the original post is correct then why not smile, point out the passenger's error, and offer an excess to the anytime single fare, which a previous post states would have been 80p..

Let's play Devils' Advocate then, the reason why this would not be the correct response is because IF the traveller was actually trying it on they would have learned nothing other than; if I try it on again, I'm likely to get away with it again.

Furthermore, if they had got away with it, that member staff was just saving up conflict for a colleague who might simply apply the rules on a subsequent occasion and the traveller object because of past experience.

The passenger (customer) would have been happy, more likely to travel again, and would tell her friends of the good service received rather than being ripped off by the nasty railway.

As Yorkie made perfectly clear in his post, the rules accepted by the traveller when they purchased the Advance ticket state that it can only be used on the booked train and if not, the correct remedy would be for staff to charge a new ticket.

The traveller (the law never refers to us as customers) would likely be happy to travel again, but would check their ticket more thoroughly in future and would be much less likely to try to 'rip-off the train operating company'.

I made clear earlier, I think that there was a degree of discretion that might have been applied in this case to achieve a better outcome, but none of us were either of the two people directly involved, so cannot be certain exactly what happened in the interaction

 

[yorkie]

From reading the comments on this and other threads it seems that some guards and RPIs are very knowledgeable about the rules and are determined to enforce the letter of the law (maybe the rules should be changed?) and forget that they are meant to be providing a service to the public.
If the original post is correct then why not smile, point out the passenger's error, and offer an excess to the anytime single fare, which a previous post states would have been 80p.
The passenger (customer) would have been happy, more likely to travel again, and would tell her friends of the good service received rather than being ripped off by the nasty railway.

The rules were changed to ensure only the appropriate (not full) fare is charged, but it could be argued they don't go far enough. But clearly there needs to be some deterrent. But that is a different debate (that has been held before) and isn't what this thread is about.

In any case, what makes this incident noteworthy is the allegation that the Guard refused to sell a ticket that would have enabled the passenger to travel on the booked train. Anyone with much knowledge of the situations seems to be unanimous in agreeing that does not appear to be correct or justified.

There will always be a small minority who don't enforce the rules correctly but instead make up their own rules and take an anti-passenger stance. The rail industry doesn't do enough to deal with the problem. On the other hand, there are a greater number who do exercise discretion.

Unfortunately, as it was a 3rd party witnessing it, there isn't full information regarding exactly what occurred and the incident may go unreported to TPE. So I don't think we can

 

[philthetube]

From reading the comments on this and other threads it seems that some guards and RPIs are very knowledgeable about the rules and are determined to enforce the letter of the law (maybe the rules should be changed?) and forget that they are meant to be providing a service to the public.
If the original post is correct then why not smile, point out the passenger's error, and offer an excess to the anytime single fare, which a previous post states would have been 80p.
The passenger (customer) would have been happy, more likely to travel again, and would tell her friends of the good service received rather than being ripped off by the nasty railway.

Being on a train 2 hours early is not an error, it is an attempt to get away with something.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being on a train 2 hours early is not an error, it is an attempt to get away with something.

It could be an error - for example reading 1330 as 3:30 or vice versa, or because of not understanding what an Advance ticket means. However, it is more likely it is an attempt to get away with it.

 

[island]

Indeed. A lot of things are possible as errors.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Being on a train 2 hours early is not an error, it is an attempt to get away with something.

Is it? Really?

IMO it's no different ethically to attempting to use an off peak ticket on a peak train. And the industry specifically don't even give a Penalty Fare for that.

 

[bb21]

Is it? Really?

IMO it's no different ethically to attempting to use an off peak ticket on a peak train. And the industry specifically don't even give a Penalty Fare for that.

Very different.

Off-Peak fares are not quota-controlled. Abusing Advance fares deprives other legitimate customers the chance to save money.

 

[yorkie]

It is considered a bit different; travelling on a time restricted ticket that isn't restricted to one particular train is an excess fare (up to the appropriate fare). Travelling on a ticket that is restricted to one particular train is a new ticket (at the appropriate fare).

Neither scenarios result in the full fare being charged, nor a Penalty Fare.

Travelling on the wrong train company (regardless of ticket type) is seen as more serious and can result in a full fare, or a Penalty Fare, where applicable.

Whether or not this is fair could be debated for eternity and we'd never get consensus.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Off-Peak fares are not quota-controlled. Abusing Advance fares deprives other legitimate customers the chance to save money.

True, but we were talking about "trying to get away with something", and talking of fraud.

I don't see the difference between trying it on on the wrong train with an advance ticket and trying it on with an off-peak ticket on a peak train.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

this is very true, and I know many others who would agree with this.

I can't understand why the company don't take appropriate action against that small minority who spoil it.

I don't use TPE much, but the other week i was travelling to Glasgow from Picc and missed my advance booked train by literally seconds due to a big queue at the TOD machine. Went to the TPE office on platform 10 and explained - the guy just cancelled the restriction on my ticket - suspect he didn't have to do this, the platform staff seemed to think I'd have to get another ticket - no odds to me as work were paying - but saved me having to use work (taxpayers) money to buy another ticket (and the hassle of trying to use my antiquated
work laptop to try and do this on the station!), so this was greatly appreciated. I have sent a letter to CS dept thanking them.

 

[philthetube]

I don't use TPE much, but the other week i was travelling to Glasgow from Picc and missed my advance booked train by literally seconds due to a big queue at the TOD machine. Went to the TPE office on platform 10 and explained - the guy just cancelled the restriction on my ticket - suspect he didn't have to do this, the platform staff seemed to think I'd have to get another ticket - no odds to me as work were paying - but saved me having to use work (taxpayers) money to buy another ticket (and the hassle of trying to use my antiquated
work laptop to try and do this on the station!), so this was greatly appreciated. I have sent a letter to CS dept thanking them.

This does make you wonder about how tax payers money is looked after if so someone missing a train is not bothered as the state will replace, no questions asked