Arriva Trains Wales Fare Dodging Prosecution

[tiptoptaff]

Do you know that? The OP stated

To me, being met by a revenue check is ample opportunity, and it is likely the ticket office at Treforest was open. If the OP asked for a ticket to Swansea and was told it couldn't be sold, then he shouldn't delay himself at Cardiff to purchase a ticket. However there is no indication this is what happened, and the OP only asked for a ticket to Cardiff, and then boarded onwards with no valid ticket. That, to me, is intent to avoid a fare. They may not have left themselves reasonable time between trains at Cardiff to purchase in any case.

I really do not see how this is anything other than someone trying it on. Want to split? Fine. But do so. Don't short fare then claim you wanted to split.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The OP makes no mention of @not having time@ to buy a ticket at Cardiff just that he expected to buy one off the conductor of the train to Swansea.

 

[tiptoptaff]

The OP makes no mention of @not having time@ to buy a ticket at Cardiff just that he expected to buy one off the conductor of the train to Swansea.

And this, to me, choosing not to attempt to buy a ticket or tickets, at the first opportunity, in this case, the conductor on the Valleys service, is avoiding a fare. I do not see how it can be seen any other way. The full set of tickets was not declined to be sold, it was never asked for.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

But they had a ticket for the Treforrest to Cardiff portion of the journey, so it comes back to @furlong's question of if 'enter a train' means the first train or each train. If the former then a Byelaw 18 prosecution is impossible (since they were sold a ticket), if the latter then it's only Cardiff to Swansea that needs to be considered.

I don't see that the wording of Byelaw 18(1) (and whether or not "train" means the first train or each train) is particularly relevant - as Byelaw 18(3)mi) refers to the facilities available at the station where the passenger started their journey. Quite clearly, their journey was from Trefforest to Swansea and not from Cardiff, so it is the facilities at Trefforest that are relevant for any potential Byelaw 18(3)(i) defence.

But I think this particular point is not really relevant - as, from Gareth Marston's analysis, it seems impossible for the booking office not to have been scheduled to be open at the time the OP started their journey. There is of course the possibility the booking office was closed or unstaffed during a time where it was scheduled to have been open, but let's not consider that possibility unless the OP tells us that's what happened!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

And this, to me, choosing not to attempt to buy a ticket or tickets, at the first opportunity, in this case, the conductor on the Valleys service, is avoiding a fare. I do not see how it can be seen any other way. The full set of tickets was not declined to be sold, it was never asked for.

I can see the reason why some people have that view. Personally, if the passenger is going to a station that they know is barriered (and hence they know they will not be able to exit without paying there), I would find it difficult to establish intent. But none of us are the deciding Judge(s) in any Court case, so I think all that can be said is that it is arguable whether or not intent could be proven, and it is better to prepare for the putative situation where it can be proven.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I can see the reason why some people have that view. Personally, if the passenger is going to a station that they know is barriered (and hence they know they will not be able to exit without paying there), I would find it difficult to establish intent. But none of us are the deciding Judge(s) in any Court case, so I think all that can be said is that it is arguable whether or not intent could be proven, and it is better to prepare for the putative situation where it can be proven.

The OP state they've never travelled to Swansea by train before.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The OP state they've never travelled to Swansea by train before.

That does not mean they don't know it's barriered. I've never entered or exited at Swansea but I, too, know that it's barriered!

 

[Gareth Marston]

And this, to me, choosing not to attempt to buy a ticket or tickets, at the first opportunity, in this case, the conductor on the Valleys service, is avoiding a fare. I do not see how it can be seen any other way. The full set of tickets was not declined to be sold, it was never asked for.

There's several red flags here hence why the RPI took details rather than letting the OP buy a ticket. For me it's the number of opportunities not taken to get the correct ticket or tickets for the journey done that doesn't sit well. However I do see passengers do some odd stuff based on their misunderstandings of how the ticket system works and that includes purchasing splits mid journey.

 

[Dai Corner]

There's several red flags here hence why the RPI took details rather than letting the OP buy a ticket. For me it's the number of opportunities not taken to get the correct ticket or tickets for the journey done that doesn't sit well. However I do see passengers do some odd stuff based on their misunderstandings of how the ticket system works and that includes purchasing splits mid journey.

The OP appears to be a reasonably sophisticated rail user as he knew about splitting tickets at Cardiff to save money.

 

[najaB]

But I think this particular point is not really relevant...

I also agree it's not relevant, but because they were sold a ticket onboard the train to Cardiff, so any potential Byelaw 18 prosecution based on their boarding at Treforrest is nullified.

 

[tiptoptaff]

We can go around and around like this forever - I think what we really need is the OP to return and give us more info, be that the full details of their journey, times, what conversations they had with railstaff etc. or the letter from TfW once received. Don't think this is going to develop further until that point

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I agree; we have established that a Byelaw 18 prosecution is unlikely (though not necessarily impossible), and that, if anything, a RoRA prosecution is perhaps more likely. But it is possible that TfW will agree to an out of Court settlement.

 

[Kite159]

I agree; we have established that a Byelaw 18 prosecution is unlikely (though not necessarily impossible), and that, if anything, a RoRA prosecution is perhaps more likely. But it is possible that TfW will agree to an out of Court settlement.

Who knows what route TfW will go down as they are unknown.

Although an out of court settlement seems more likely as in general doesn't the TOC keep more of the money that way?

 

[furlong]

I agree; we have established that a Byelaw 18 prosecution is unlikely (though not necessarily impossible), and that, if anything, a RoRA prosecution is perhaps more likely. But it is possible that TfW will agree to an out of Court settlement.

(Who is "we" ? My comments on this thread should not be read as supporting that statement.)

 

[yorkie]

Who knows what route TfW will go down as they are unknown.

Although an out of court settlement seems more likely as in general doesn't the TOC keep more of the money that way?

Agreed on most of the above except I'm not sure of the value of trying to predict the likelihood of ATW/TfW's actions, other than to say that the following are possible:

• A Byelaw 18 prosecution - they'd be crazy to do this as I believe you have a valid defence, but I cannot think why they would do this as it really isn't the best legislation to use for the situation described. But none of us can rule it out!
  
• A Regulation of Railways Act prosecution - if they carry out this course of action, then you need to ensure you get proper legal representation to have any chance of avoiding a conviction.
  
• An out of court settlement - they may offer this, but if they don't, you can ask them if they will consider it. Such a settlement requires the agreement of both parties, and can be negotiated even on the day of the trial, but the sooner it is settled the better.

Some companies are more likely to settle than others but I am not sure about ATW/TfW.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Some companies are more likely to settle than others but I am not sure about ATW/TfW.

ATW used to usually offer a settlement, however they would periodically prosecute everyone to make an example of it - usually when they caught a large number of short fares and other fare issues during large events such as 6nation and autumn rugby series.

 

[Gareth Marston]

ATW used to usually offer a settlement, however they would periodically prosecute everyone to make an example of it - usually when they caught a large number of short fares and other fare issues during large events such as 6nation and autumn rugby series.

There last policy was zero tolerance on event days in Cardiff. Crowd management is a huge issue at Central not just because of the numbers involved but the physical station lay out. The last thing you want consuming staff time and causing delays is people prating about claiming they've got on at Pontypridd ( manned with barriers) when they've come from Treherbert or Bridgend when they got on in Llanelli. So they were happy for the message to get out. I don't think TfW will be much different on event days it causes a security concern and a Heath and safety concern.