Carnet Ticket Validation

[disgruntled]

I have been using Carnet tickets on FCC for over a year. They have been a very good development for me as I travel into London 2 or 3 times a week and it isnt economic to buy a season ticket.

I generally write in fountain pen, which is the only pen I carry with me and found out very early on that if you wrote in this ink on the front of the ticket, the shiny surface didnt retain the ink.

I checked the terms and conditions on the ticket and National Rail and FCC web sites and it clearly stated that "the ticket had to be validated" before you travel. No mention that it was only valid if dated in the small box on the front of the ticket.

I therefore validate the ticket on the back and have done for over a year without any problems. My ticket has been checked numerous times on the train and at both ends of my journey. No problems and no adverse comments from FCC staff.

Last week I arrived at Kings Cross and as usual the barrier wasn't taking Carnet tickets.

The ticket inspector then told me that the ticket was not valid and had to be written on the front, in the box only!

I tried to explain that it was validated on the back (but still the ticket in my book) and I'd be doing this for over a year without any previous problem.

He refused to accept it and I now have a letter from the Prosecutions Department, to which I have just replied.

Has anyone else had the same problem, and can anyone help. This is both unfair, unclear in the terms and conditions, and not consistent in the way the staff are dealing with it.

I was not trying to avoid paying, or avoiding the fare. By validating on the reverse of the ticket its clearly dated and cannnot be used again anyway.

HELP

 

[island]

Well, I can see people trying to abuse the system by writing the date on the back and then reusing it writing a later date on the front.

I don't think anything in the NRCoC covers this, but I think the best you're going to get from FCC is "we'll let you off this time" and a strong warning that you should go and buy a pen that will write the date on the front.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Well, I can see people trying to abuse the system by writing the date on the back and then reusing it writing a later date on the front.

I don't think anything in the NRCoC covers this, but I think the best you're going to get from FCC is "we'll let you off this time" and a strong warning that you should go and buy a pen that will write the date on the front.

It strikes me that they don't have a leg to stand on. For a start, they have no evidence of your travelling with intent to avoid payment - you had a ticket and handed it over when asked, Second, picking up the point you made about the conditions simply saying it had to be validated but giving no further information, it is rather hard for them to claim the ticket wasn't valid (because you hadn't validated it) when they haven't actually explained what 'validated' means in the first place!

If they do indeed send you a 'we'll let you off' letter I'd be tempted to point out that they weren't letting you off because you hadn't done anything wrong in the first place - but maybe it's better to let the by-then sleeping dogs lie..

You would like to think the staff had better things to do - someone who has shelled out for a load of tickets has clearly some commitment to paying their fare!

 

[north]

I use the FCC carnet tickets regularly and am looking at one right now.

I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

It says VERY clearly on the front "ENTER DATE ON USE" next to three boxes with headers of "DD", "MON" and "YY".

You say you use these regularly and yet have failed to purchase a 19p bic biro in order to validate the carnet ticket as is clearly stated.

Never thought I'd say this but.... I'm with FCC

 

[MichaelAMW]

I use the FCC carnet tickets regularly and am looking at one right now.

I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

It says VERY clearly on the front "ENTER DATE ON USE" next to three boxes with headers of "DD", "MON" and "YY".

You say you use these regularly and yet have failed to purchase a 19p bic biro in order to validate the carnet ticket as is clearly stated.

Never thought I'd say this but.... I'm with FCC

Sound like I need to eat my words...!

 

[RPI]

It strikes me that they don't have a leg to stand on. For a start, they have no evidence of your travelling with intent to avoid payment - you had a ticket and handed it over when asked, Second, picking up the point you made about the conditions simply saying it had to be validated but giving no further information, it is rather hard for them to claim the ticket wasn't valid (because you hadn't validated it) when they haven't actually explained what 'validated' means in the first place!

If they do indeed send you a 'we'll let you off' letter I'd be tempted to point out that they weren't letting you off because you hadn't done anything wrong in the first place - but maybe it's better to let the by-then sleeping dogs lie..

You would like to think the staff had better things to do - someone who has shelled out for a load of tickets has clearly some commitment to paying their fare!

Byelaw 18 i'm afraid, see seperate thread about strict liability offences, the ticket wasn't "valid" therefore the OP "did enter a train for the purpouse of travelling without a valid ticket", if they've already written to you with a verification letter then I advise that you write back to them saying how sorry you are etc and that it's the first (I presume) and last time you will ever make such a mistake and offer to pay them the fare plus any admin costs that they have incurred, they may be lenient and let you settle out of court but they dont have to, FCC are pretty strict on things like that and they have you bang to rights.

 

[yorkie]

He refused to accept it and I now have a letter from the Prosecutions Department, to which I have just replied.

Get legal advice.

But can you tell us what you are being prosecuted for exactly? This is extremely important.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Byelaw 18 i'm afraid, see seperate thread about strict liability offences, the ticket wasn't "valid" therefore the OP "did enter a train for the purpouse of travelling without a valid ticket", if they've already written to you with a verification letter then I advise that you write back to them saying how sorry you are etc and that it's the first (I presume) and last time you will ever make such a mistake and offer to pay them the fare plus any admin costs that they have incurred, they may be lenient and let you settle out of court but they dont have to, FCC are pretty strict on things like that and they have you bang to rights.

You appear to be stating this as fact, but I think that more information is needed before such sweeping statements can be made. The DfT themselves deny that passengers can be prosecuted in this way, stating "Before penalty fares were introduced, the only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889." I know you disagree with the DfT but you have so far presented no evidence previously, and I see no sign of any evidence this time around either. Is your employer acting legally? Perhaps you can give me their contact details so I can ask them, as until I see evidence I am very suspicious about this.

 

[Failed Unit]

I use the FCC carnet tickets regularly and am looking at one right now.

I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

It says VERY clearly on the front "ENTER DATE ON USE" next to three boxes with headers of "DD", "MON" and "YY".

You say you use these regularly and yet have failed to purchase a 19p bic biro in order to validate the carnet ticket as is clearly stated.

Never thought I'd say this but.... I'm with FCC

Biro's don't always work on the things. At times you almost have to engrave the damn things. I use them in Scotland and as soon as the damn things are replaced by smartcards the better for both the user and TOC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just thinking about the OP. How can anyone say they were avoiding paying the fare. They could not have reused the ticket anyway as the barrier would have retained. In Scotland people try to travel between a station with barriers and one without and reuse in the opposite direct. This is easy to detect as when they arrive back to the barrier it is rejected. It they try to go via the manual bit that is normally a sign of something dodgy. I think FCC are very harsh condidering how difficult the things are to write on. Wouldn't like to test it in court but the tickets are not really suitable for the average persons pen. Before the thermal tickets came along which was when the t&c set for these they were fine.

 

[island]

I echo Yorkie's request for what exactly they're threatening to prosecute for, because I rather doubt a Regulation of Railways Act prosecution would succeed (as they may find it difficult to prove intent to avoid payment).

 

[disgruntled]

The details of the alleged offence state

"18(2)failing to hand over a valid rail ticket for inspection"

I didnt mention it in my previous post, but I have a ticket which I used on 14th December 2010, which again I validated on the reverse.

This was checked on the train by an RPI, who accepted it and stamped it three times.

As I said previously my ticket validated in this way has been checked and accepted on many occassions by RPI's. At Hitchin station, and Kings Cross and on the train.

On each occasion I have pointed out that it has been validated on the reverse. On some occasions when I had it over face up they immediately begin to say "this isnt validated", but as I turn it over they say "fine", and either take the ticket or stamp it.

It's all very well quoting a byelaw, but the ticket refers you to the terms and conditions on the web sites. This I checked before validating on the reverse. No where does it state it must be validated on the reverse.

The terms state;

"Passengers MUST validate the ticket using permanent ink before boarding the train".

Surely the ticket includes the whole thing and not just the front??

This is clearly how most RPI's interpret it as they have accepted this when I have presented my ticket for inspection.

I have not tried to avoid paying as I have written on the ticket, making it impossible to use again with a different date. It went through the automatic barrier at Hitchin when I started my journey, so presumbly it wont go through another one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just one other thought.

Although I have gone through Kings Cross many times I cant remember any occasions where the barriers have taken the Carnet card.

Are the deliberatly set up like this?

On the question of legal advice, can you recommend a specialist solicitor.

Thanks

 

[FGWman]

The details of the alleged offence state
I have not tried to avoid paying as I have written on the ticket, making it impossible to use again with a different date. It went through the automatic barrier at Hitchin when I started my journey, so presumbly it wont go through another one.

Whats to stop you using it again the next day by writing the date on the front. If any RPI looked at it why would they look at the back ? Even if they a date written on the back would not mean anything.

I am not saying you do do this only that you could.

 

[Failed Unit]

No if it has gone through Hitchin it will not go through again other than at you destination. This prevents you getting off at finsbury park and getting the tube then returning on the same ticket (as the date is still correct).

They can program them to reject cardnets. The have done this in Glasgow before. It is Scotrails most abused ticket, but as I said the smartcards in Scotland will make it better for everyone!

 

[disgruntled]

Well if it has gone through the Hitchin barrier, surely they can check this to show its only been used once?

 

[Failed Unit]

Well if it has gone through the Hitchin barrier, surely they can check this to show its only been used once?

Not sure how clever the gates are. Yes the can see it has gone through but not sure if the can tell what day. Again Scotrail have problems with people following others through the gates at the terminal to reuse the ticket.

 

[barrykas]

Not sure how clever the gates are. Yes the can see it has gone through but not sure if the can tell what day. Again Scotrail have problems with people following others through the gates at the terminal to reuse the ticket.

The date, time (to within five minutes) and station a ticket last went through a barrier at are all encoded on the magstripe.

HTH,

Barry

 

[Failed Unit]

The date, time (to within five minutes) and station a ticket last went through a barrier at are all encoded on the magstripe.

HTH,

Barry

Thanks, do you know if gaurds can read this?

 

[RPI]

Get legal advice.

But can you tell us what you are being prosecuted for exactly? This is extremely important.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You appear to be stating this as fact, but I think that more information is needed before such sweeping statements can be made. The DfT themselves deny that passengers can be prosecuted in this way, stating "Before penalty fares were introduced, the only way to deter people from travelling without a ticket was to prosecute them under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889." I know you disagree with the DfT but you have so far presented no evidence previously, and I see no sign of any evidence this time around either. Is your employer acting legally? Perhaps you can give me their contact details so I can ask them, as until I see evidence I am very suspicious about this.

It could be either 18(1) or 18(2), why dont you go on to the DFT's website and flippin read the byelaws that are there in black and white! I'm not going to go through this debate again as it's all been said before on the other thread, what "eveidence" are you on about? Byelaws are bayelaws and are used a hell of a lot, take my advice or dont take it, you may also wish to vist the consumer action group website where there are loads of stories to do with this in theire forum. to the OP, I would advise you visit that website too as there are lots of rail proffessionals including prosecutors who advise on there.

 

[cuccir]

Yes, i think getting in touch with a passenger's or consumer's group is a good idea. Perhaps also write to a local and or national paper and tell them that fcc intend to prosecute you for writing on the wrong part of a ticket!

 

[CarterUSM]

Thanks, do you know if gaurds can read this?

The avantix can read the magnetic strip, a bit hit and miss sometimes, but I've used it successfully before, with worn railcards and yes, flexi's!

 

[Failed Unit]

It does strike me as an odd one to prosecute to be honest as the intent part is not going to be proved. Surely the RPI picked up more blatant cases that day. Law likes to use the reasonable person as an precedence. If the pen you have with you can't write on a thermal ticket is it unreasonable to write on the back? Would FCC prefer an illegible smudge in the correct place or a something readable on the back or both.

First group know tickets are hard to write on hence why the give Scotrail gaurds and RPI pens capable of writing on them and not biro's which can't (or fountain pens)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It does strike me as an odd one to prosecute to be honest as the intent part is not going to be proved. Surely the RPI picked up more blatant cases that day. Law likes to use the reasonable person as an precedence. If the pen you have with you can't write on a thermal ticket is it unreasonable to write on the back? Would FCC prefer an illegible smudge in the correct place or a something readable on the back or both.

First group know tickets are hard to write on hence why the give Scotrail gaurds and RPI pens capable of writing on them and not biro's which can't (or fountain pens)

Strict Liability and the reasonable person test you describe exists only in Civil Law.

 

[Failed Unit]

The avantix can read the magnetic strip, a bit hit and miss sometimes, but I've used it successfully before, with worn railcards and yes, flexi's!

That is reassuring to know. I bet you have caught a few people out that way!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Strict Liability and the reasonable person test you describe exists only in Civil Law.

Fair enough.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That is reassuring to know. I bet you have caught a few people out that way!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Fair enough.

Unless we're talking about criminal negligence in which case the reasonable person would exist in Criminal Law... But we're not, so I won't over complicate things.

 

[nedchester]

It does strike me as an odd one to prosecute to be honest as the intent part is not going to be proved. Surely the RPI picked up more blatant cases that day. Law likes to use the reasonable person as an precedence. If the pen you have with you can't write on a thermal ticket is it unreasonable to write on the back? Would FCC prefer an illegible smudge in the correct place or a something readable on the back or both.

First group know tickets are hard to write on hence why the give Scotrail gaurds and RPI pens capable of writing on them and not biro's which can't (or fountain pens)

Well exactly. I really cannot see FCC winning this one.

 

[disgruntled]

Thanks for all your commnets. Please keep them coming.

I'd like to ask RPI a specific question if I may.

"Why did one RPI for FCC accept my validation on the back of the ticket (as I say I have this ticket which is dated 14th December and has been stamped by an on train RPI), and yet another RPI for the same company has not?"

Do the RPI's not know the regulations on what is validation?

 

[ess]

i used to use carnet tickets sometimes. i had to carry a cd-r pen just to enter the date. i always thought it to be really stupid that a biro didn't work - you simply can't write on the tickets

 

[Wolfie]

I would write to FCC's MD explaining that you have adopted this policy before because of the company are using ticket stock which many pens cannot write on the front of, that while the ticket appears to show that writing should be on the front the associated rules do not specifically say so and that this practice has been accepted by many of the company's employees - something you can prove - send a copy of the other ticket but not the original as may may need it for later steps! - and that reluctantly, if the company continues with its actions you will have no choice but to go to both your member of Parliament and the media - I would suggest you specifically cite the Daily Mail and the London Standard. If there are two groups company bosses who rely on public subsidies hate poking into their affairs it is MPs and the media, particularly media outlets which they know can do their public image MASSIVE damage.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, also ensure that if you do go to the media you do so BEFORE any court date. After a massive public outcry it would be a brave prosecutor who decided that to continue with a prosecution would be in the public interest, particularly given that he/she would themselves then be directly in the media firing line! I don't imagine the bench would be too keen on that attention either!

(Spot 30 years of Whitehall experience coming out here......!)

 

[LexyBoy]

I can see how this could be seen as attempted fare evasion, since a ticket marked on the back could be re-used by dating the front next time.

However, disgruntled's experience with FCC staff is pretty shocking - how can their judgement vary so much that one thinks everything is fine whilst another files an intent to prosecute?

 

[disgruntled]

Wolfie

Thanks. The response to the intended prosecution went in last week.

I did put a call in to Customer Relations immediately this happened and explained the situation and asked that someone write to me about the issue. they said I should have reply within 5 working days, but they are behind because of the snow and Christmas.

I'll chase them later this week, but start drafting the letter in the meantime.

Cheers

 

[b0b]

However, disgruntled's experience with FCC staff is pretty shocking - how can their judgement vary so much that one thinks everything is fine whilst another files an intent to prosecute?

One has a quota to make, the other has made their quota and can't be bothered to deal with it? who knows.