Bad publicity for "the railway"...

[Tetchytyke]

The "public interest test" applies to CPS but not to private prosecutors.

It applies to all prosecutors.

It is in fact the "bad publicity test" as mentioned in post 58 that was applied.

It probably is.

However if a media article is enough to make you reconsider a criminal prosecution then you probably shouldn’t have brought that criminal prosecution in the first place.

It’s only “bad publicity” because of the circumstances.

 

[jumble]

If a media article is enough to make you reconsider a criminal prosecution then you probably shouldn’t have brought that criminal prosecution in the first place.

All too common alas as these matters usually only then come to the attention of someone who understands the concept of reputational damage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

All too common alas as these matters usually only then come to the attention of someone who understands the concept of reputational damage.

I think that the caving in under the merest hint of media scrutiny makes XC's decision to prosecute look even worse, to be quite honest.

On top of it being a bureaucratic nonsense, it now looks like it's a bureaucratic nonsense that will only be targeted against people who are unable to fight back.

If you're going to do something as unpleasantly and needlessly bone-headed as this, at least have the courage of your conviction (no pun intended) and stand by your decision to be unpleasantly and needlessly bone-headed.

After all, technically XC were in the right. She'd bought a ticket but she didn't have it with her. I'm sure the public will understand.

 

[island]

It applies to all prosecutors.

You are wrong.

"The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires the CPS and SFO to consider the two elements of the ‘Full Code Test’...The second element of the Full Code Test is a consideration as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute...There is currently no legal requirement for private prosecutors to satisfy these tests."

Oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system consultation

www.gov.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

You are wrong.

Without wishing to get too bogged down, the link you've provided shows just what a mess the law around private prosecutions is.

As you say, private prosecutors are not bound by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and it is this Code which sets out the formal evidential and public interest tests.

However private prosecutors are still bound by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 which includes some public interest and evidential considerations.

So we're both sort of right here. I'm right in that they should. You're right in that they often don't and, as they're not subject to the formal Code, there's no comeback if they don't.

The current situation is that they're supposed to consider the public interest in bringing a prosecution but there is no meaningful sanction if they don't. So the TOCs don't. As the government notes, "where this separation [between prosecutor and victim] is not observed, there are risks that the prosecutor brings a case without meeting the evidential and/or public interest test, and instead because it is in the organisation’s interests to do so."

As always, why do something that will take time and cost money if there's no sanction for not doing it?

I'm not a solicitor, I'm not an expert, and I defer to the advice of people who are solicitors or barristers. I do, however, hold the same professional qualification that the TOC prosecution staff also seemingly hold and use. And my training for that qualification was that I should follow the Code even though, technically, there are no consequences if I don't.

Personally, I'd make it so that all private prosecutions have to be signed off by a senior Crown Prosecutor, and that by itself would put a stop to all this nonsense in a flash.

 

[Turtle]

Well, she presumably failed to read and understand the booking T&C’s and confirmation email before travelling (and likely paid unnecessary booking fees too). She then presumably failed to read and deal with correspondence before it went to court. Then, after all this, trotted off to The Guardian (aka the teachers bible) to play the victim card.

You might be interested to know that this story has now spread to the definitely not the teacher's friend, the Mail.

 

[jupiter]

…

Another possibility could be for the payment for TOD to only be deducted when the tickets are collected.

A small problem then:

What I’m going to do next time I fly back into Gatwick is get an advance for every single train back home throughout the rest of the day after arrival and then pick up the most appropriate depending on when I pop out of baggage reclaim and leave the rest (not charged) to expire.

 

[Andover]

Do you know this for a fact, or is this your assumption, a cheap jibe against revenue protection and white middle aged males in general?

Unlike other tests mentioned here, the attitude test doesn't actually exist. So how would one know?

 

[Adam Williams]

Because TfL, they don't have barcode scanners, so on-board crews using paper roll tickets (such as ours) cannot print Cross-London/Zone tickets (heck, we can't sell them either (well, we *can*, as a ToD ironically))

I (partially) blame DfT for this. For reasons I never really understood, replacing on-board mTIS that printed CCST with those that print PRT apparently counts towards "smart ticketing" targets, despite still being printed on dead trees. A more sensible smart ticketing measure would've been the number of flows/ticket types enabled for E-Ticket fulfilment and anomalies fixed within the Retail Control System (RCS).

But yeah, when it comes to barcode ticketing, London continues to present a problem. It's a problem that probably ought to have been solved before aggressively pursuing a no-magstripe policy for on-board staff. Or at the very least, buy kit that can issue both and fallback to CCST when required.

DfT - Department for Transport
CCST - credit card sized ticket, with magstripe
PRT - paper roll tickets
mTIS - mobile ticket issuing system

 

[island]

Didn't know that about smart ticketing. I thought it was all to do with the fact that the printers and ticket stock were multiple times more expensive.

 

[philthetube]

• How far should retailers go with warnings in this area now that E-Tickets are in the high-eighty %s? Here's one experiment that never got rolled out further than one site. It must manually be dismissed before proceeding through checkout. Is it a help or a hindrance?

View attachment 176057

It would be fine as long as it was a clickable, "don's show this again one'.

I have never seen revenue work a train where passengers were unable to get through to their seats

 

[BRX]

It's completely understandable for people to make this mistake now.

They might well have only ever travelled on a route with e-tickets. Then they go through the same routine as they usually do on a booking site, purchase a ticket and simply assume the ticket will work like all other rail tickets they've ever purchased online.

 

[fandroid]

A small problem then:

What I’m going to do next time I fly back into Gatwick is get an advance for every single train back home throughout the rest of the day after arrival and then pick up the most appropriate depending on when I pop out of baggage reclaim and leave the rest (not charged) to expire.

Why is that problem? The journey taken would be paid for. No staff time was wasted in doing this, so there's no direct cost to retailer. It does exploit the Advance ticket system, but not in any way more than split ticketing exploits the huge variety of ticket prices available for similar journeys.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why is that problem? The journey taken would be paid for. No staff time was wasted in doing this, so there's no direct cost to retailer. It does exploit the Advance ticket system, but not in any way more than split ticketing exploits the huge variety of ticket prices available for similar journeys.

It’s a problem for the industry in that quota gets eaten up and never paid for, of course. That’s why almost no transport operator which yield manages does this; it wastes a whole load of capacity. It’s actually one of the wackiest and least likely ideas ever posted on the forum, just buy 1000 advances and get charged for one. Buy every single advance in fact, why not.

 

[dcbwhaley]

That's a fantastically ridiculous excuse, in that once on the XC train she was never going to validly go through London with the same ticket, so didn't need anything more than an authorised scrap of paper from the RPO. It's another example of the railway being so bound up by its own queer sets of rules that it can't just do the basic customer service stuff.

Normal people think, quite rightly, that once they've made a payment, and got a receipt to prove it, they're entitled to the service that they've contracted for. The last thing in their minds would be that they'd get taken to court on what is, fundamentally, a minor technicality

It is really Alice in Wonderland that having paid for a service and having a receipt for that payment one can be prosecuted for using that service. I can yhink of no other circumstances where that applies.

 

[methecooldude]

It is really Alice in Wonderland that having paid for a service and having a receipt for that payment one can be prosecuted for using that service. I can yhink of no other circumstances where that applies.

Okay, so someone buys a ticket to collect at station, they have used mobile payment or PayPal so it's set to "Any Card" collection. They then give that code to their friend who travels on it. They then try and travel on just the collection code... that's why a receipt and the code is not enough...

 

[Kite159]

Okay, so someone buys a ticket to collect at station, they have used mobile payment or PayPal so it's set to "Any Card" collection. They then give that code to their friend who travels on it. They then try and travel on just the collection code... that's why a receipt and the code is not enough...

Which has probably happened in the past with someone trying to game the system by buying one ticket instead of two. Print off the ticket for their partner then try and travel on just the collection code in the hope the guard doesn't have the ability to look it up (to see it's already been collected).

Also as some retailers automatically issue refunds for uncollected tickets, if going between unbarriered stations* to buy a ticket for collection but not collect it, in the hope the guard doesn't print it off for them. That way it will automatically get refunded or they can claim 'didn't travel init'.

(* Or even to a barriered station knowing the agency gateline staff will probably give them access to collect the ticket)

 

[AlterEgo]

Which has probably happened in the past with someone trying to game the system by buying one ticket instead of two. Print off the ticket for their partner then try and travel on just the collection code in the hope the guard doesn't have the ability to look it up (to see it's already been collected).

Also as some retailers automatically issue refunds for uncollected tickets, if going between unbarriered stations* to buy a ticket for collection but not collect it, in the hope the guard doesn't print it off for them. That way it will automatically get refunded or they can claim 'didn't travel init'.

(* Or even to a barriered station knowing the agency gateline staff will probably give them access to collect the ticket)

There is a well-known and almost undetectable method of fraud open to passengers who fulfil paper tickets in a certain way from some online retailers, rendering them able to end up with two tickets instead of one. I won’t post it here because it would be irresponsible.

 

[Turtle]

There is a well-known and almost undetectable method of fraud open to passengers who fulfil paper tickets in a certain way from some online retailers, rendering them able to end up with two tickets instead of one. I won’t post it here because it would be irresponsible.

I think we're drifting away from the core subject here into the "what if" scenarios.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think we're drifting away from the core subject here into the "what if" scenarios.

Not at all. The railway is rightly concerned about people travelling with a receipt and no ticket. I’m not going to post how people do this type of fraud.

 

[shredder1]

There is another part to this, if she had bought a ticket, and had a reservation (even if not printed out), what sort of RPI fines a 7 month pregnant person, and leaves them on the floor, rather than asking the Train manager to take her to the seat with the reservation.

Something is seriously wrong with empathy levels of the crew here.

I was thinking the same thing, amazing

 

[Turtle]

Not at all. The railway is rightly concerned about people travelling with a receipt and no ticket. I’m not going to post how people do this type of fraud.

I wholeheartedly agree but the original situation being discussed was not fraud but a traveller who had handed over the correct payment but had fallen foul of the railways' labyrinthine regulations.

 

[methecooldude]

I wholeheartedly agree but the original situation being discussed was not fraud but a traveller who had handed over the correct payment but had fallen foul of the railways' labyrinthine regulations.

When a ticket inspector arrived to check her ticket, Mumba showed her what she thought was her ticket on the Trainline app but was told it was not valid as she needed to have it printed out. “I showed her my ticket on the app and she told me it wasn’t valid. I have used the app for over a decade and have never been asked to do this,”

That's exactly what the traveller did... essentially tried to travel on what is, in essence, a receipt

 

[AlterEgo]

I wholeheartedly agree but the original situation being discussed was not fraud but a traveller who had handed over the correct payment but had fallen foul of the railways' labyrinthine regulations.

But that is exactly how a traveller will present themselves having done this sort of ruse. Having proof of payment but no ticket is problematic for staff to deal with, because having demonstrated merely *paying* for *a* ticket is, unfortunately, irrelevant. That’s what happened here.

I still wouldn’t have written this traveller up, but posters who seem to think holding a ticket is less relevant to having merely demonstrated paying for one are in for a big shock.

 

[island]

I wholeheartedly agree but the original situation being discussed was not fraud but a traveller who had handed over the correct payment but had fallen foul of the railways' labyrinthine regulations.

There is nothing "labyrinthine" about the simple statement, given in the purchase process and on the emailed receipt, that a printed ticket is to be collected before travel. You are making this out to be far more complicated than it actually is.

 

[Snow1964]

There is nothing "labyrinthine" about the simple statement, given in the purchase process and on the emailed receipt, that a printed ticket is to be collected before travel. You are making this out to be far more complicated than it actually is.

But the railway then bent these rules by allowing a traveller without collecting to enter and start a journey at a barriered station thus implying collecting was optional.

If a member of staff allowed her through the barriers without collecting the ticket, why doesn't that count as permission given from railway staff. That's why it is not clear cut and labyrinthine.

I am in the camp of if you want to enforce rules, then should be all the stages, not inconsistent actions.

 

[island]

But the railway then bent these rules by allowing a traveller without collecting to enter and start a journey at a barriered station thus implying collecting was optional.

If a member of staff allowed her through the barriers without collecting the ticket, why doesn't that count as permission given from railway staff.

We don't know that that happened.

 

[jon0844]

Unlike other tests mentioned here, the attitude test doesn't actually exist. So how would one know?

Of course it does. I suspect everyone uses this with any number of interactions with people on a regular basis. Indeed, it's far better to react to how someone talks or acts than make a judgement on a stereotyped/preconceived view of any particular race, age group, gender etc.

 

[Tetragon213]

Of course it does. I suspect everyone uses this with any number of interactions with people on a regular basis. Indeed, it's far better to react to how someone talks or acts than make a judgement on a stereotyped/preconceived view of any particular race, age group, gender etc.

Having seen the behaviour of XC guards in the past in my regrettably extensive experience travelling with them for work, it seems that anyone with a dark or "foreign" appearance, or looks somewhat young (and therefore can't be anything other than a good-for-nothing teenager up to no good), automatically "fails" the attitude test.

I remember seeing a middle-aged gentleman being gently told he was on the wrong train for his ticket, and despite arguing a tiny bit, he got away no problems; he was even allowed to continue on to New Street. The 20-ish year old guy next to me? Nope, thrown off the train at Gloucester after being threatened with every railway byelaw under the sun.

As for me, he took a solid minute inspecting every last inch of my CCST ticket, as if he was intent on finding some sign it was a counterfeit, as clearly someone like me couldn't possibly have such an expensive ticket.

Noticed distinctly suspicious and/or disbelieving tones levelled towards passengers who were either very young, or appeared "foreign" one way or another, quite consistently on other days.

Maybe just a few rotten guards who happened to run that route like clockwork, but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, months after the incidents.

 

[AlterEgo]

Of course it does. I suspect everyone uses this with any number of interactions with people on a regular basis. Indeed, it's far better to react to how someone talks or acts than make a judgement on a stereotyped/preconceived view of any particular race, age group, gender etc.

There’s a lot of conscious and unconscious bias around though.